Creation of Eve (TE conundrum)

California Tim said:

Either the author intended it to be literal or not.

Click to expand...

Why would you assume that? An ANE author would not, in many cases, draw that distinction or consider that it was important.

This is imposing your world view on somebody else.

But in stating your position, you seem not to understand the points that have been made during our discussions. Not that you have understood them, but just don't agree with them, but that you actually haven't understood them. Believe me, I know EXACTLY where you are coming from, that is not a problem at all. But your own comments expose your lack of understanding of what we have been saying.

First, I don't think that Genesis 1 is just poetic language. There is a big difference between a prose story using figurative language and poetry. Yes, the latter may use poetic language, and the more used, the more likely a figurative presentation is being given, but they are not the same.

Second, as we have explained in great detail elsewhere, the detailed nature of the text is just the type of language that would be used in a figuratively told story as well as in an historical account, so the existence of such language does not argue in favor of the "obviousness" of literal history at all. It is the poet discribing the tree analogy I have mentioned elsewhere. He would describe the tree in great detail and in a very literal style, but all the while the tree is being used figuratively for a family, or city, etc. He would never give any explicit statement that it is meant to be read figuratively. And, if someone was not careful, he could, indeed, think the poet was just writing about a tree.

Third, a later reference to a figurative story would be made exactly as it was made by Jesus and Paul, so that is no evidence either. If they understood it to be figurative and not literal history, they STILL would have said it exactly as they did.

The genealogies don't tell us anything conclusive on this for reasons stated elsewhere.

The phrase "after its kind" does not in any way preclude evolutionary development. Why would it. Under evolution, we expect all species to produce after their own kind.

So, rather than just restate all the points that you think support your position, all of which we have answered, why not address those responses instead.

As against a literal reading, we have the contradictions which would exist if it was meant to be read literally, the mythic and epic styles, as well as the extra-biblical information.

And, of course, the flood does NOT explain the fossil record, but is in fact, utterly disproved by the fossil record, as well as a dozen other proofs. These have all been set out in great detail, but no YEC has been able to address them. But that is better for the Creation and Evolution forum.

California Tim said:

I really thought I answered it already in a dozen different ways. I even gave a bullet list of reasons (albiet a very short one). Here's a brief recap:

The style of the writing is narrative history and NOT poetic.

Click to expand...

In Genesis 2, it is not poetic. But it is not narrative history either. It is classical folk mythology. And no, that does NOT mean it is not true.

The style of Genesis 1 and 2, when looked at through the eyes of form criticism, historical criticism, and source criticism, consistantly points to it being a story--not literal, but a story--designed to show THAT God created--powerfully, and without the help of other gods, without the need for some precreative or sexual action or union (unlike other gods), and that as such, He is more powerful than the other "gods" of those people who lived near and around the ancient Israelites. It was not then, nor is it now, intended to teach us HOW God created. It IS in the literary style and the study of ANE writings that it is determined that this was not historical writing

by the way, addressing the OP, the very notion of using that as a supposed stumbing block is nearly histerical, as it is the biggest stumbling block to literalists. You cannot heal the rifts between the sequence of events in Genesis 1 and the sequence of events in Genesis 2 WITHOUT adding to (e.g., interpreting, exegeting, etc) the scriptures. They are in stark conflict with one another. The literalist must move from direct "plain" reading to one of massaging the text to make it come together. While this massaging is not in and of itself a problem, it certainly is for one who condemns others for interpreting different from themselves as they claim to just read it as it is.

It says in Genesis 1 that God made humanity together; both male and female.

What then is the difference between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

Genesis 1 refers to how He views humanity. Genesis 2 shows how humanity viewed humanity historically in most places unfortunately for thousands of years, even unto today.

Secondly, as Herev points out, Jewish religious writing often uses a literary technique known as a midrash. Midrashes are basically stories that hint back to other stories to teach a moral or religious truth. In todays uses, it fits the definition of a myth, which also a legendary or fictional story that teaches a moral or religious truth.

We also have to view the Jewish midrash process as one that began before the text of Genesis was written down, and that continued long after. The story we have right now is a snapshot in the middle of that process, and it is very likely much of the early midrash became part of the text when it was compiled and written in its current form. The midrash that we know of after the text was "accepted" includes a LOT of additional stories and details about creation.

California Tim said:

Mythology is by definition fiction. Just what is it you say it is then?

Click to expand...

And fiction can convey a message, often better than non-fiction can.

California Tim said:

I am fully aware of why you believe what you believe. I simply believe it is in error - or at best a "short-armed" attempt at catching the point. In fact it has become ever poplular in this age to discredit any literal reading of major supernatural accounts including this one.

Click to expand...

ok

So what you are saying is NOTHING new.

Click to expand...

that is exactly one of the arguments we TE's have been making. It's not new--it's not even new with evolution. I wasn't trying to be original

In fact it's not even surprising,

Click to expand...

not much here ever is

although I still am challenged when trying to understand how you reconcile the literalness of Adam and Eve (or do you) in a purported mythological tale designed to give us a nice cozy overview of our Creator and His relationship to us.

Click to expand...

I actually do beleive in a literal Adam and Eve, though not many TE's do. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans-the first from the long development of humanity that could fathom a God. I believe they were plucked up from existence with all of the rest of creation and placed in a special place God made just for them--called the Garden of Eden...and so on...

So in the essence of preserving the intent of this thread, do you or do you not believe Eve was a literal woman?

Click to expand...

Yes

Further do you believe the order of creation as depicted in the "story"?

Click to expand...

Which order, Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?

California Tim said:

Now theres' a stretch. You claim I have a problem because what you see as a problem (a contradiction) is easily explained in a literal sense. So before I even get to answer you, you debunk my answer by way of association of interpretation. What's the point in making the point then? If I understand you, your point seems to be that contradictions can only be resolved by dismissing the context as allegorical rather than by reason and logic.

Click to expand...

I would love to respond to this, but I have no idea what the point is of the point to the point of the intent of the point of the post?

Could you just restate the question--and I'll do my best to answer it

California Tim said:

Mythology is by definition fiction. Just what is it you say it is then?

Click to expand...

Ah, I see the problem. You are viewing "myth" the same way you would modern fiction, as something "not true". That does explain a lot. OK, let me see if I can explain this (and if anyone can do a better job, feel free). Myth is not just a set of fictional stories told for entertainment purposes. It is a literary methodology for presenting great truths in a vehicle that best conveys the messages intended. There is nothing "untrue" about them, according to the reader, or the person who wrote the text down or, in the case of Genesis 1 and 2, God who inspired them. They are just not meant to be read as history. If they were meant to be read as the equivalent of historical accounts, but were not historically accurate, then this could be called historical fiction, or just made up stories about the past. This is NOT what myth is at all.

Myth is truth in the sense that it TRULY and inerrantly conveys the message the author wants to convey. So, if God wants to convey the message that HE created the universe and everything in it (one of the many truths contained in Genesis 1 and 2), He could either present a scientific and historical account of that process OR He could tell a figurative story about that process in powerful and evocative language which conveys every truth He intends in a way that hits to our very soul and induces belief that THAT TRUTH is, indeed, true. This has nothing at all to do with historical accuracy. It has to do with presentation of Truths in a manner that such truths were conveyed during that time, and for thousands of years afterward. In fact, until just the last couple hundred years.

Of course, a failure, or refusal, to learn this tradition and accept the texts in the literary and cultural contexts within which they were written (which I think God expects us to do) will result in an attempt to read the text as we would read a modern text, with clear problems.

There is a very good quote from C.S. Lewis on this point I will track down. Not surprisingly, he says it a lot better than I do.

Edit to add to respond to this:

"I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAY ---- I SIMPLY DISAGREE!! ARE YOU READING ME? OVER."

But the problem is that in your responses, you are saying things in a manner that indicate you don't realize what we are saying at all. You are stating our beliefs in a way that is entirely NOT what we believe, which means you must be mistaken about what we believe.

Continued from above, here is the quote I mentioned from C.S. Lewis. I have not yet heard a fundamentalist response to this:

I have been suspected of being what is called a Fundamentalist. That is because I never regard any narrative as unhistorical simply on the ground that it includes the miraculous. Some people find the miraculous so hard to believe that they cannot imagine any reason for my acceptance of it other than a prior belief that every sentence of the Old Testament has historical or scientific truth. But this I do not hold, any more than St. Jerome did when he said that Moses described Creation "after the manner of a popular poet" (as we should say, mythically) or than Calvin did when he doubted whether the story of Job were history or fiction. The real reason why I can accept as historical a story in which a miracle occurs is that I have never found any philosophical grounds for the universal negative proposition that miracles do not happen. I have to decide on quite other grounds (if I decide at all) whether a given narrative is historical or not. The Book of Job appears to me unhistorical because it begins about a man quite unconnected with all history or even legend, with no genealogy, living in a country of which the Bible elsewhere has hardly anything to say; because, in fact, the author quite obviously writes as a story-teller not as a chronicler.

I have therefore no difficulty in accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical. We must of course be quite clear what "derived from" means. Stories do not reproduce their species like mice. They are told by men. Each re-teller either repeats exactly what his predecessor had told him or else changes it. He may change it unknowingly or deliberately. If he changes it deliberately, his invention, his sense of form, his ethics, his ideas of what is fit, or edifying, or merely interesting, all come in. If unknowingly, then his unconscious (which is so largely responsible for our forgettings) has been at work. Thus at every step in what is called--a little misleadingly--the "evolution" of a story, a man, all he is and all his attitudes, are involved. An no good work is done anywhere without aid from the Father of Lights. When a series of such retellings turns a creation story which at first had almost no religious or metaphysical significance into a story which achieves the idea of true Creation and of a transcendent Creator (as Genesis does), then nothing will make me believe that some of the re-tellers, or some one of them, has not been guided by God.

Thus something originally merely natural--the kind of myth that is found amongst most nations--will have been raised by God above itself, qualified by Him and compelled by Him to serve purposes which of itself would not have served. Generalising this, I take it that the whole Old Testament consists of the same sort of material as any other literature--chronicle (some of it obviously pretty accurate), poems, moral and political diatribes, romances, and what not; but all taken into the service of Gods word. Not all, I suppose, in the same way. There are prophets who write with the clearest awareness that Divine compulsion is upon them. There are chroniclers whose intention may have been merely to record. There are poets like those in the Song of Songs who probably never dreamed of any but a secular and natural purpose in what they composed. There is (and it is not less important) the work first of the Jewish and then of the Christian Church in preserving and canonising just these books. There is the work of redactors and editors in modifying them. On all of these I suppose a Divine pressure; of which not by any means all need have been conscious.

The human qualities of the raw materials show through. Naivet, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not "the Word of God" in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God; and we (under grace, with attention to tradition and to interpreters wiser than ourselves, and with the use of such intelligence and learning as we may have) receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone or temper and so learning its overall message.

To a human mind this working-up (in a sense imperfectly), this sublimation (incomplete) of human material, seems, not doubt, an untidy and leaky vehicle. We might have expected, we may think we should have preferred, an unrefracted light giving us ultimate truth in systematic form--something we could have tabulated and memorised and relied on like the multiplication table. One can respect, and at moments envy, both the Fundamentalists view of the Bible and the Roman Catholics view of the Church. But there is one argument which we should beware of using for either position: God must have done what is best, this is best, therefore God has done this. For we are mortals and do not know what is best for us, and it is dangerous to prescribe what God must have done--especially when we cannot, for the life of us, see that He has after all done it.

We may observe that the teaching of Our Lord Himself, in which there is no imperfection, is not given us in that cut-and-dried, fool-proof, systematic fashion we might have expected or desired. He wrote no book. We have only reported sayings, most of them uttered in answer to questions, shaped in some degree by their context. And when we have collected them all we cannot reduce them to a system. He preaches but He does not lecture. He uses paradox, proverb, exaggeration, parable, irony; even (I mean no irreverence) the "wise-crack". He utters maxims which, like popular proverbs, if rigorously taken, may seem to contradict one another. His teaching therefore cannot be grasped by the intellect alone, cannot be "got up" as if it were a "subject". If we try to do that with it, we shall find Him the most elusive of teachers. He hardly ever gave a straight answer to a straight question. He will not be, in the way we want, "pinned down". The attempt is (again, I mean no irreverence) like trying to bottle a sunbeam.

Tim, if the Bible must be a literal and non-contradictory document...

Which way did Judas die? There are two versions given, which is the true one and which should be removed as a lie?

Which liniage of Jesus is correct? Which is a lie? Remember neither of the ones in the NT match up fully with the linages in the OT. So which one do we toss out so there will be no contradictions?

California Tim said:

Actually I was having a little unadultered fun at your expense. I intended to have fun over the fun of the fun you were funning me with. Sorry.

Actually, to be simple: I do appreciate the opportunity to offer a personal point of view without having it dismissed beforehand as you did in your reply. that was the point. If you don't want a counter-argument offered - just say so and it will be honored on my part.

Click to expand...

I just don't know what you mean, so let's start over

California Tim said:

One of the scriptural evidences of the literal reading of the Genesis account for me has centered on the literalness of the man Adam. I suppose that any TE'ist with an allegorical position must disagree. In fact if Adam was literally the first man, the allegorical reading runs into a roadblock when the creation of Eve enters the scene. Here's the chronological conundrum for TE'ists:

(Gen 2:7) God creates man

(Gen 2:8) God creates the garden and places the man in Eden
(Gen 2:15) Man is given responsibility in Eden to tend and keep it while avoiding one specific tree's fruit
(Gen 2:18a) God declares "It's not good for man to be alone."
(Gen 2:18b) God brings all animals to Adam for naming - Adam names all of them
(Gen 2:18c) Adam is as yet alone (no female human companion)
(Gen 2:21-23) Eve is created as a helpmate for Adam and together constitute the first family (marriage).
​

Now the question I have to ask is why this story is told the way it is - if not literal? According to it, whether you read it literally or figuratively, Eve is created AFTER all the animals are named by Adam. This indicates that all other species except humans, had females and males for reproduction, but at the time they were named, Adam was still alone - the only human alive. The story goes on to clarify that Eve was created out of Adam. This precludes the idea (even figuratively) that Eve was spawned by some closely related hominids at the appropriate time. If Eve was a sub-creation so to speak of Adam (bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh), and he was the first man alone, then how could theisitic evolution reconcile with this account - even figuratively. What could the whole passage have possibly been written to convey except confusion - unless meant to be accepted literally?

Click to expand...

Unlike many TE's I have a need for historicity in the Scriptural account, more historicity than the mere bald fact of creation. Why don't you take a look at how I handle this problem as a TE. It isn't pretty, but it works. The following is from http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm


"The origin of man.

This is the tricky place. Everybody says that it is impossible to account for the origin of Adam and Eve by means of evolution and yet still have the Biblical account be true (Wells, 1961, p. 777; Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 473; Davidheiser, 1969, p. 168-169). An example is Lane (1994, p. 20) who says: "Special creationists in contrast, point out that the general theory of evolution is incompatible with Biblical Christianity, a view shared by many atheistic and agnostic evolutionists."

This is false. Christians have not put enough effort into solving this problem. Here is what the evidence says.

The apes have 48 chromosomes; we have 46 (Johanson and Edey, p. 138, 275). If we arose from the apes,(as I believe we did) there must have been a chromosomal fusion (there are also other differences like inversions of certain segments etc). The data clearly shows that it man's chromosome 2 is the combination of two ape chromosomes. The banding in chromosome 2 are identical to the banding in 2 ape chromosomes. ( Yunis and Prakash, 1982, p. 1526)

The biggest piece of evidence in my mind connecting us to the apes is a) the extreme similarity in DNA (99%) and b) the existence of pseudogene insertions at the same locations in man, chimp, gorilla and orangutan. (Max, 1986, p.42; 1990, p. 48) A pseudogene is a BROKEN gene which is found in a part of the genome far removed from its normal position. The pseudogene has lost the control information which informs the cellular machinery how to make the protein and thus it does nothing. Since the pseudogene does not perform any useful function it can not be claimed to be the result of design. Designers do not design broken parts! Thus the pseudogene is an error in DNA copying. As noted above, this same error has been found at the same location in the four species listed above. What are the odds of this happening by chance? About the same as this: Let 4 different people go to four different towns with the instructions to type a copy of Gibbon's _Decline and Fall_. Sometime during the typing each of the 4 are to stop, randomly select one paragraph from somewhere else in the book and insert the paragraph where they stopped. They then continue typing the rest of the book. Do you believe that the 4 people would not only choose the same paragraph, but also choose the same spot to insert it into their copy? If you believe this, then you can believe that the pseudogene was produced by pure chance. To believe this is pure lunacy. Thus the pseudogene requires that the humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutan be related. Any Biblical interpretation which expects to survive the scrutiny of modern science needs to handle this piece of data. Currently no conservative view of the Bible addresses this problem.

Biblically, it states that God made man from the dust of the ground, that He breathed the breath of life into the man, and that the man was alone--no Eve. This would appear to contradict evolution. God is also described as being actively and supernaturally involved in the creation of man. And that man's spirit is somehow different from that of the animals. Is there a way to put all this together? I believe there is.

Assume that God was ready to create a being who was "made in His image". During this time, there was among the physical ancestor of man a very rare mutation -- a chromosomal fusion. But this error was almost always fatal. God took one of these creatures, a still born, fixed him, and blew his breath into him. Why do I have God make Adam in this fashion? Because of what God said when Adam sinned. If you remember the verse Genesis 3:19 God said, "for dust you are and to dust you shall return." A dead body is "dust." Adam came from dust and to dust he now will return.

Those who will object that a dead body is not "dust" should consider this. If you say that 'dust" must be DUST, then why does God call the living Adam 'dust'? Genesis 3:19 states, "...for dust you are and to dust you will return." (NIV) When that was spoken Adam was a living being and so the dust does not mean dirt! And one can not ignore the fact that when Adam died he would become a corpse(i.e. a return to dust).

Thus Adam was created from the product of a chromosomal fusion. This allows us to explain the existence of the pseudogene; something no other Biblical interpretation which believes in a specially created Adam can explain. But Adam was alone. He had not evolved in the normal fashion and so there was no population of creatures like him with whom he could mate. He also could not talk. Adam's physical parent could not talk and so he could not learn from them. God taught Adam to speak. That is what God was doing when he brought all the animals to Adam.

In this scenario, it is not necessary for Adam to have been created as a full grown individual. The language lessons may have lasted years before Adam finally realized that he needed a mate. At that time, God created Eve in the fashion described.

This is the only way that I have found to be able to retain a historical view of Genesis and still account for the biological evidence which indicates genetic connection with the non-human primates. While this view is very different, it does not violate anything that the Bible states. For those who prefer some form of divine intervention in the creation of man, this is the basis upon which this view should be judged. But additionally, this does not violate any scientific data either; something Christians ought to be interested in."