Chrstianity and Science - how?

[hedrick]

A just so story hardly explains original sin. Genesis is historical narrative.

Neither does a literal reading of Genesis. The story shows that we are fundamentally not capable of being sinless. Even when put in a perfect environment, we sinned the first time we were tempted. The story doesn't say where this weakness came from. It just illustrates it.

Fortunately Paul's understanding of Christ doesn't depends upon this. he's making an analogy. As sin entered through one man, so did salvation. It was a great comparison, but nothing in his theology of Christ depends upon it. I don't think it's clear whether Paul was simply wrong about Adam or he was using a well-known story for comparison. I suspect he was wrong, but I don't insist on it.

 

[paul becke]

The quote at the bottom of your posts says it well, "The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer." Doctrine could be likened to boxing God with subjective knowledge in the appearance of wisdom masquerading as objective truth. But anyways, my point is simply that the intention of the bible is not to create a neat little package of objective facts about God and reality, but to bring us into relationship with Him.

And an excellent point you make there, if I may interject. The unaided, analytical, worldly intelligence is not apt for understanding spiritual matters or learning. And it is absolutely pivotal that it is not about facts but about a relationship.

 

[paul becke]

Maybe doctrinal positions are not as important as we think, perhaps relationship with God is the intention.

Mark doesn't see that that is the point of Jesus' refusal to explain the Eucharistic sacrifice of his body and blood. He was testing their relationship with him : did they have enough faith in him to give him a 'pass', for the time being, on what they couldn't understand, 'put it on the back-burner' believing he would make it clearer to them some time in the future ; but confident, like those who continued to follow him, on the basis of what he had already demonstrated to them ? Evidently they did not have that degree of faith in the authority of his teaching. None so blind....

 

[mark kennedy]

My approach to theology is Scripture is foundational, doctrine is vital and simplicity is the prize. Paul goes on for five chapters discussing the revelation of the atoning sacrifice of the cross, wherein the revelation of the righteousness of God is by grace through faith. In chapter 4 two examples if being justified are explained, specifically Abraham and David. There is no more reason to supose Adam in Romans 5 is figurative then there is Abraham or David.

Neither does a literal reading of Genesis. The story shows that we are fundamentally not capable of being sinless. Even when put in a perfect environment, we sinned the first time we were tempted. The story doesn't say where this weakness came from. It just illustrates it.

The trouble with that line of interpretation is your saying its figurative. The difference between John 6 and Genesis 3 is that Jesus gives you the basis for a comparison, Moses doesnt. In the immediate context Jesus is talking about the Manna in the wilderness and the bread they had just eaten, then he says I am the bread of life. Its pretty obvious he did not think he was a loaf of bread. The qualifying literary feature is a 'like', 'as' or rhe equivolent in the immediate context. Genesis one through three has virtually none with the exception of names.

Fortunately Paul's understanding of Christ doesn't depends upon this. he's making an analogy. As sin entered through one man, so did salvation. It was a great comparison, but nothing in his theology of Christ depends upon it. I don't

think it's clear whether Paul was simply wrong about Adam or he was using a well-known story for comparison. I suspect he was wrong, but I don't insist on it.

Adam is used eight times in the New Testament, every time as the first parent of humanity. Luke's genealogy ends with Adam, son of God indicating he had no earthly parents but created. More then four hundred times in the Old Testament Adam is used synonomously with humanity, just like the nation of Israel gets its its name from their father, Jacob aka Israel.

 

[hedrick]

The trouble with that line of interpretation is your saying its figurative. The difference between John 6 and Genesis 3 is that Jesus gives you the basis for a comparison, Moses doesnt. In the immediate context Jesus is talking about the Manna in the wilderness and the bread they had just eaten, then he says I am the bread of life. Its pretty obvious he did not think he was a loaf of bread. The qualifying literary feature is a 'like', 'as' or rhe equivolent in the immediate context. Genesis one through three has virtually none with the exception of names.

That's not quite my point.

Rom 5:12 starts "just as sin came into the world through one man..." He never quite completes that, but it's clear that he's saying just as sin came into the world from one man ... so salvation came through one man. He then speaks of Adam as a type of Jesus.

My point isn't that Paul considers Adam symbolic. Although it's possible, he may well take the story to be historical. But he's using it as an analogy. The "like" that you were asking for is there, as "just as" and "type of." There's not a causal connection. It's not that salvation comes through one man because death came through one man. Rather, it's a comparison, just as death from one man, salvation from one man. It's a nice parallel, and it makes God's plan look very symmetrical, but one doesn't actually depend upon the other. Salvation could come from one man even if sin came from a whole collection of people, or something else entirely.

Indeed to make the parallel work, Paul already has to adjust the story slightly. Sin actually came from Adam and Eve jointly, and if you had to choose one, the author of 1 Tim would choose Eve. But Paul (or the interpretative tradition he's using) presumably doesn't want to call Jesus the new Eve. This doesn't bother me, since I see it as a literary device.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's not quite my point.

Rom 5:12 starts "just as sin came into the world through one man..." He never quite completes that, but it's clear that he's saying just as sin came into the world from one man ... so salvation came through one man. He then speaks of Adam as a type of Jesus.

My point isn't that Paul considers Adam symbolic.

This isn't symbolism, it's typology. The same kind of comparisons are made between Christ and Moses, the High Priest and Abraham. None of these comparisons take on the dimension of a figure of speech.

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).
​

In that context Adam can be no more figurative the Christ. What's more every mention of Adam in the New Testament clearly indicates Adam is the literal first parent of humanity:

Adam = "the red earth", the first man, the parent of the whole human family (Outline of Biblical Usage):​

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, G76 which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Rom 5:14)

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Cor. 15:22)

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1Cor. 15:45)

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (1Tim. 2:13)

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1Tim. 2:14)

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (Jude 1:14)
​

There is no hint of a symbolic Adam in any of those verses.

Although it's possible, he may well take the story to be historical. But he's using it as an analogy. The "like" that you were asking for is there, as "just as" and "type of." There's not a causal connection. It's not that salvation comes through one man because death came through one man.

Hang on, it's not that salvation came through one man and death came thorough one man, even though Paul says that literally and repeatedly...

Rather, it's a comparison, just as death from one man, salvation from one man. It's a nice parallel, and it makes God's plan look very symmetrical, but one doesn't actually depend upon the other. Salvation could come from one man even if sin came from a whole collection of people, or something else entirely.

No where will you get a collection of people or something else entirely. That's not a figurative interpretation your allegorizing.

Indeed to make the parallel work, Paul already has to adjust the story slightly. Sin actually came from Adam and Eve jointly, and if you had to choose one, the author of 1 Tim would choose Eve. But Paul (or the interpretative tradition he's using) presumably doesn't want to call Jesus the new Eve. This doesn't bother me, since I see it as a literary device.

Eve came from Adam so she is technically and literally from Adam just as we all are. I see the literary features and they give every indication of a literal historical narrative and there is nothing indicating figurative language, in the Old or New Testament.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[paul becke]

Symbolism is a facet of typology, Mark, just as 'personification' is a personalised symbol of an abstract quality, for example, although typology, is clearly more than symbolic, both the type and the template being persons.

 

[mark kennedy]

Symbolism is a facet of typology, Mark, just as 'personification' is a personalised symbol of an abstract quality, for example, although typology, is clearly more than symbolic, both the type and the template being persons.

Indeed typology has as its basis a comparison, it is never the less two real persons like Christ and Moses. When we are talking about a type comparable to Christ we only have to discern where they are the same and how they are different.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[hedrick]

There's not a causal connection. It's not that salvation comes through one man because death came through one man.

Hang on, it's not that salvation came through one man and death came thorough one man, even though Paul says that literally and repeatedly...

Not my point. Paul says that salvation came through one and death through one. Those are two facts. Putting them together makes an esthetically satisfying picture. But there's not a causal connection, and he doesn't make one. He doesn't argue -- and I don't see how one could -- that salvation could only come from one person if death came from one person. If he wrong about Adam that doesn't mean that salvation didn't come from Christ.

Particularly since Eve was involved as well. You say that because Eve came from Adam, she's somehow the same. But we all came from Adam (mythologically speaking). So we could all be responsible for sin.

There's just not any kind of real dependence upon the Adam myth in Christ's accomplishment. Correlation is not causality. You're reaching for something that isn't there.

 

[mark kennedy]

Not my point. Paul says that salvation came through one and death through one. Those are two facts. Putting them together makes an esthetically satisfying picture. But there's not a causal connection, and he doesn't make one. He doesn't argue -- and I don't see how one could -- that salvation could only come from one person if death came from one person. If he wrong about Adam that doesn't mean that salvation didn't come from Christ.

Paul isn't the only one who considers Adam the first parent of humanity. Luke ends his genealogy describing Adam as, son of God', indicating he was created not begotten. In the Old Testament Adam's name to speak of humanity just as Jacob and Israel are used tho describe the nation, named for their first parent.

Particularly since Eve was involved as well. You say that because Eve came from Adam, she's somehow the same. But we all came from Adam (mythologically speaking). So we could all be responsible for sin.

That's not a biblical option, in Adam all sinned just as in Abraham Levi paid a tithe to Melkezidek and in Christ we are the righteousness of God in Christ. Adam can no more be a myth then Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph. There is nothing in the literary features to suggest that. Especially given the New Testament witness regarding Adam.

There's just not any kind of real dependence upon the Adam myth in Christ's accomplishment. You're reaching for something that isn't there.

I don't think so, in fact I know better. Calling creation or original sin a myth is to allegorize Scripture which is neither exposition nor interpretation, it's rationalization pure and simple.

 

[paul becke]

Not my point. Paul says that salvation came through one and death through one. Those are two facts. Putting them together makes an esthetically satisfying picture. But there's not a causal connection, and he doesn't make one. He doesn't argue -- and I don't see how one could -- that salvation could only come from one person if death came from one person. If he wrong about Adam that doesn't mean that salvation didn't come from Christ.

Particularly since Eve was involved as well. You say that because Eve came from Adam, she's somehow the same. But we all came from Adam (mythologically speaking). So we could all be responsible for sin.

There's just not any kind of real dependence upon the Adam myth in Christ's accomplishment. Correlation is not causality. You're reaching for something that isn't there.

The best explanation I've encountered is that the 'legacy' of sinfulness bequeathed to us by our parents, is like a physical disease that is passed on from one or both parents to their children. Of ourselves, we are powerless to avoid the sinfulness we increasingly acquire as we get older, without God's saving intervention.

It seems interesting to me that we are not created by our parents, but begotten - and that as, currently, the latest generation of a long line going back as far as our first parents, Adam and Eve ; and hence the spiritual inheritance we receive together with our incarnation as human beings.

 

[paul becke]

Well, I'm not privy to God's resources, Mark, just the end products.

 

[hedrick]

I don't think so, in fact I know better. Calling creation or original sin a myth is to allegorize Scripture which is neither exposition nor interpretation, it's rationalization pure and simple.

I'm actually not allegorizing it. I don't consider most stories in Genesis to be allegory. That's why I used the word myth. Did the final editor of Genesis know it wasn't historically accurate? I'd only be guessing. Certainly there's no reason to think that Paul did. I've often thought that whoever combined Gen 1 with 2-3 might well have noticed that they couldn't both be historically accurate. But maybe that's attributing more critical consciousness to someone a few centuries before Christ than is realistic.

Real allegory is fairly uncommon in the Bible. The stories in Genesis are important, because they were used by the Biblical writers to help understand their relationship to God. But that doesn't make them allegory.

I admit my approach is becoming more hard-line. In a world where we have leaders that deny the role of CO2 in global warming, and believe many other falsehoods, I'm becoming less tolerant of people who choose to opt out of the results of critical thought. We've spent centuries trying to build approaches that minimize the effect of our preconceptions and biases. While they are far from perfect, we don't get to just ignore them because we don't want to accept the results.

 

[JackRT]

The best explanation I've encountered is that the 'legacy' of sinfulness bequeathed to us by our parents, is like a physical disease that is passed on from one or both parents to their children.

Humanity evolved over hundreds of thousands of years in a very dangerous world in which survival of self and of kin was the very highest priority. This shaped both our physical evolution but also our psychological evolution. This selfish survival instinct might almost be called the "selfish gene". This is our legacy, our "original sin" if you wish. Saint Augustine thought that it was passed through the male "seed".

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm actually not allegorizing it. I don't consider most stories in Genesis to be allegory. That's why I used the word myth. Did the final editor of Genesis know it wasn't historically accurate? I'd only be guessing. Certainly there's no reason to think that Paul did. I've often thought that whoever combined Gen 1 with 2-3 might well have noticed that they couldn't both be historically accurate. But maybe that's attributing more critical consciousness to someone a few centuries before Christ than is realistic.

Real allegory is fairly uncommon in the Bible. The stories in Genesis are important, because they were used by the Biblical writers to help understand their relationship to God. But that doesn't make them allegory.

I admit my approach is becoming more hard-line. In a world where we have leaders that deny the role of CO2 in global warming, and believe many other falsehoods, I'm becoming less tolerant of people who choose to opt out of the results of critical thought. We've spent centuries trying to build approaches that minimize the effect of our preconceptions and biases. While they are far from perfect, we don't get to just ignore them because we don't want to accept the results.

When there is no figurative language you are left with allegory or historical narrative and the is no Hebrew equivolant to pagan mythology. Moses was a Levite and the priesthood compiled the Pentatauch before the children of Israel crossed Jorden and after Sinai. There was no such thing as an editor, Moses over saw the Pentatauch and if it had an editor it was Moses.

The Old Testament like the New Testament is founded on five historical narratives. Your right, there is very little allegory but to take historical narrative figuratively is to allegorize the text.

 

[hedrick]

The Old Testament like the New Testament is founded on five historical narratives. Your right, there is very little allegory but to take historical narrative figuratively is to allegorize the text.

Typology is not allegory. Here's an example using that approach for Tolkien's work: https://mereorthodoxy.com/a-distant-glorious-echo-tolkien-and-typology/. The type needn't be historical.

Again, I think Paul took Adam as historical, but the typology doesn't depend upon that.

Jesus' parables are not historical, but mostly are not allegories either. The better mythology or even just fiction isn't allegory either, but can deal with reality.

 

[mark kennedy]

Typology is not allegory. Here's an example using that approach for Tolkien's work: https://mereorthodoxy.com/a-distant-glorious-echo-tolkien-and-typology/. The type needn't be historical.

I know the difference. JRR Tolkien once role CS Lewis that his stories and the Bible were both myth, but the Bible is a true myth. In other words a myth that actually happened.

Again, I think Paul took Adam as historical, but the typology doesn't depend upon that.

It's not an isolated text, this one transcends Scripture.

Jesus' parables are not historical, but mostly are not allegories either. The better mythology or even just fiction isn't allegory either, but can deal with reality.

Jesus parables have a 'like' or 'as' and a direct comparison in the immediate context.

 

[paul becke]

Humanity evolved over hundreds of thousands of years in a very dangerous world in which survival of self and of kin was the very highest priority. This shaped both our physical evolution but also our psychological evolution. This selfish survival instinct might almost be called the "selfish gene". This is our legacy, our "original sin" if you wish. Saint Augustine thought that it was passed through the male "seed".

Evolution is nonsense. It's a big con. If you want to read up about it, let me know.

 

[JackRT]

Evolution is nonsense. It's a big con. If you want to read up about it, let me know.

I am a mature Christian but I am also a retired scientist, mathematician and educator. I am not interested in conspiracy theories.

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution is nonsense. It's a big con. If you want to read up about it, let me know.

No it's not, it's a natural phenomenon. It's the only way to explain how a boat load of mammals, reptiles and birds grow to be 2 to 60 million species world wide. The difference between that and universal common descent is the former has a genetic basis while the later is pure naturalistic assumption. Creationism and Darwinism differ only with regard to a time line and the first cause at the point of origin. It's called the law of biogenesis, life comes from life, no exceptions.