Is evolution theory compatible with Genesis.

[Cappadocious]

well, Cain was banished to an area called Nod which is east of Eden, if you were wondering about the world that fell with them. so Eden was still seen, even after they were kicked out. God told Adam he would til the earth, but it was the earth outside of the Garden that he tilled.

The Scriptures give no account of Eden becoming unseen at any point in time.

And that doesn't really have to do with "the world falling with them". No such thing is stated or implied in Cain's banishment.

That would really be a stretch of the original Genesis account.

as far as Creation being a paradise as well, God created it and called it good

There is a difference between good and perfect/mature/complete.

Regarding "death" referring to anything discorporating for any reason (Is eating a fruit death? A seed? What about death of the passions?) I think that's a protestant or, perhaps, even a pagan idea. We Christians have to draw a distinction between human death/spiritual death and its effect on creation versus the natural dis-corporation of other composed things.

Animal death is mentioned as a gift from God in the Psalms (see Psalm 103), so it is possible that non-human predatory behavior is good in some sense or in some context. We know from the Apostle that humans, at least, can give glory to God through the action of consuming animals.

tsunamis, black holes, lava spills, etc

Well, let's be fair to our fellow created things.

It's possible that there is a place for black holes, tsunamis, and lava spills to give glory to God in the Coming Age. We just don't know!

 

[jckstraw72]

Where does it talk about that in Genesis?

well we know that death is our enemy -- this is why Christ defeated it on the Cross for all of creation - for all of creation was groaning in anticipation of its redemption. So when God said that all of creation was good then we know it didn't have death in it, otherwise He could not have called it good. And the reason Adam had to be banished from Paradise was because he was now fallen and could not remain there in the Garden, with the Tree of Life, which had not fallen. All the elements are there - the Fathers lay it all out for us, trusting that the events truly happened as described (and several Fathers actually went to Paradise, or had vision of Creation and so they know the events happened as described).

 

[Cappadocious]

well we know that death is our enemy -- this is why Christ defeated it on the Cross for all of creation - for all of creation was groaning in anticipation of its redemption. So when God said that all of creation was good then we know it didn't have death in it, otherwise He could not have called it good.

I agree. But like I said earlier, we have to parse out what you mean by death.

And the reason Adam had to be banished from Paradise was because he was now fallen and could not remain there in the Garden, with the Tree of Life, which had not fallen.

Ah, but you still seem to be expressing the non-literal belief in the pre-fallen existence in the garden as reflective of the world outside of the garden.

And you can't come to that conclusion without some genre confusion and manipulation of the original text of Genesis; at least, not that I've seen.

several Fathers actually went to Paradise, or had vision of Creation and so they know the events happened as described.

That's not how visions work in Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

[jckstraw72]

ok, well, all i can do is encourage you to read the Fathers on Genesis. There is a great amount of material from them.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Scriptures give no account of Eden becoming unseen at any point in time.

no, but history does, because two of the rivers still exist, and Eden is nowhere to be found.

And that doesn't really have to do with "the world falling with them". No such thing is stated or implied in Cain's banishment.

That would really be a stretch of the original Genesis account.

never said Cain's banishment has anything to do with it

There is a difference between good and perfect/mature/complete.

Regarding "death" referring to anything discorporating for any reason (Is eating a fruit death? A seed? What about death of the passions?) I think that's a protestant or, perhaps, even a pagan idea. We Christians have to draw a distinction between human death/spiritual death and its effect on creation versus the natural dis-corporation of other composed things.

Animal death is mentioned as a gift from God in the Psalms (see Psalm 103), so it is possible that non-human predatory behavior is good in some sense or in some context. We know from the Apostle that humans, at least, can give glory to God through the action of consuming animals.

well, the seeds and plants is only if the human digestive tract worked the same way it does today, and that seeds in the Garden were the same. if not, you are applying the fallen way things happen to life in a glorified state. man also was not permitted to eat meat until after the Flood.

you are correct. the origin of the physical death and decay of the universe, is in the spiritual death of man. it is man's rebellion that corrupted everything, because he is the microcosm.

and that Psalm does not apply to a pre fallen state, where man did not consume meat.

It's possible that there is a place for black holes, tsunamis, and lava spills to give glory to God in the Coming Age. We just don't know!

well they are, they just won't be destructive and destroying anything because all things will be restored to the pre fallen state.

 

[Cappadocious]

no, but history does, because two of the rivers still exist, and Eden is nowhere to be found.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

never said Cain's banishment has anything to do with it

I was referring to: "well, Cain was banished to an area called Nod which is east of Eden, if you were wondering about the world that fell with them."

well, the seeds and plants is only if the human digestive tract worked the same way it does today

I think it's rather odd to suggest that plants and seeds used to pass through the human tract without dis-corporation.

life in a glorified state.

Man was innocent and un-fallen but not glorified. Glorification only comes with the new Adam.

man also was not permitted to eat meat until after the Flood.

That is an interesting claim I've often seen, based upon the meat preparation laws after the Flood. I concede that it's not without merit but I haven't done that much investigation into that particular topic.

you are correct. the origin of the physical death and decay of the universe, is in the spiritual death of man. it is man's rebellion that corrupted everything, because he is the microcosm.

I think there is a place for decay (in the technical sense), not corruption, but decay, perhaps.

and that Psalm does not apply to a pre fallen state, where man did not consume meat.

But we're never going to be in that state again. That state passed away with old Adam. We'll have the un-falleness, sure, but we look to the New Adam for what glorified humanity will look like, not Genesis. We don't do the Roman Catholic practice of trying to divine the way the Coming Age will be by examining the "pre-fall life".

 

[Cappadocious]

ok, well, all i can do is encourage you to read the Fathers on Genesis. There is a great amount of material from them.

I have read (including some of what St. John Chrysostom has to say).

But when I read the Fathers I also look at how they gathered their thoughts and came to the conclusions they did. And for some reason, you don't find St. John and St. Basil saying things like "God revealed to me in a vision what it was like in the Garden" or, "I saw all of the days of creation in a moment in time". Rather, they use the Scriptures, the world as they understood it from a physical perspective, their reason, ancient extra-biblical traditions, their conscience, and the Holy Spirit all together to form their conclusions.

Not once do St. John or St. Basil say, "just read Irenaeus" or "just read Justin Martyr" as a catch-all conversation stopper when it comes to theological discussion.

 

[jckstraw72]

it wasnt mean to be a conversation stopper -- you're free to continue. that was me saying im not interested in going any further.

 

[Cappadocious]

it wasnt mean to be a conversation stopper -- you're free to continue. that was me saying im not interested in going any further.

Alright.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Perhaps, perhaps not.

it names the Tirgis and the Euphrates as two of the rivers, yet Eden is not where they meet.

I was referring to: "well, Cain was banished to an area called Nod which is east of Eden, if you were wondering about the world that fell with them."

after the Fall, Eden could still be seen even from our fallen world, because they knew the land Nod was east of it.

I think it's rather odd to suggest that plants and seeds used to pass through the human tract without dis-corporation.

only because you apply our fallen nature to what we were.

Man was innocent and un-fallen but not glorified. Glorification only comes with the new Adam.

right, sorry for the improper word use. I think you get my meaning. man was still in a state of total dispassion, life, joy, etc, that was lost with the Fall, that the new Adam and the True Adam restored.

I think there is a place for decay (in the technical sense), not corruption, but decay, perhaps.

well, I guess if you want to think that a rotting deer corpse on the side of a road is a part of God's good creation, then I guess that would fit. personally, I don't see it though.

But we're never going to be in that state again. That state passed away with old Adam. We'll have the un-falleness, sure, but we look to the New Adam for what glorified humanity will look like, not Genesis. We don't do the Roman Catholic practice of trying to divine the way the Coming Age will be by examining the "pre-fall life".

you're right in that the new state we will be in will be far greater than the one before. and I am not saying anything about the coming Age, just that the Psalm reference you made did not apply. plus it's in Genesis, as stated before, that man did not consume meat until after the Flood.

 

[Cappadocious]

only because you apply our fallen nature to what we were.

Well, then you could just say anything. "Pigs dug truffles for the other animals in Eden, you didn't think of it because you are applying the forms of fallen nature."

well, I guess if you want to think that a rotting deer corpse on the side of a road is a part of God's good creation, then I guess that would fit. personally, I don't see it though.

Perhaps sanctified bacteria will behave in a much more dignified way.

you're right in that the new state we will be in will be far greater than the one before. and I am not saying anything about the coming Age, just that the Psalm reference you made did not apply. plus it's in Genesis, as stated before, that man did not consume meat until after the Flood.

Maybe.

We get laws for food, and talk about it, after the flood. That may or may not mean that there was no eating of meat before the flood.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, then you could just say anything. "Pigs dug truffles for the other animals in Eden, you didn't think of it because you are applying the forms of fallen nature."

well, I am sure that if you could find some patristic witness that supports that claim, that would be one thing. there are many Fathers who say, I think St John Chrysostom being one of them, that since life came from God, the eating in the Garden was part of that communion with Him. it was not for nuitritional needs.

there is no need to get silly.

Perhaps sanctified bacteria will behave in a much more dignified way.

of course they would, because they would be unfallen and incorrupt as well.

We get laws for food, and talk about it, after the flood. That may or may not mean that there was no eating of meat before the flood.

for one, if that were the case, we should check out what the Fathers and monastics have to say. personally, and maybe you have read something else, but they overwhelmingly have said that man was vegetarian until the Flood, where God actually says He gives us every moving thing as He gave us the herbs from what I have seen.

 

[mathetes123]

We get laws for food, and talk about it, after the flood. That may or may not mean that there was no eating of meat before the flood.

Before the Flood:

Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

After the flood:

Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

 

[mathetes123]

It treats the Garden of Eden as an allegory for the world before the Fall, instead of an actual Garden containing paradise. Instead of Adam and Eve being expelled from the unfallen Garden into the world outside, they are expelled from the unfallen world in general. That doesn't seem literal to me.

At what point in the geneology from the first Adam to the last Adam (Jesus) did an allegorical figure beget an historical figure?

 

[Cappadocious]

At what point in the geneology from the first Adam to the last Adam (Jesus) did an allegorical figure beget an historical figure?

I was referring to another person's approach, not my own.

 

[Cappadocious]

I think St John Chrysostom being one of them, that since life came from God, the eating in the Garden was part of that communion with Him. it was not for nuitritional needs.

Be that as it may, the eating is still eating, in which the fruit is masticated and incorporated into the metabolism of the eater.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Be that as it may, the eating is still eating, in which the fruit is masticated and incorporated into the metabolism of the eater.

only if you apply our fallen way of digestion into the Garden, which many Fathers (Fr Seraphim Rose quotes a ton in his book on Genesis) say did not happen.

this really won't go anywhere by you pointing out some factoid about modern biology, and then applying it to the Garden. like I said earlier, you won't convince me.

 

[Cappadocious]

only if you apply our fallen way of digestion into the Garden, which many Fathers (Fr Seraphim Rose quotes a ton in his book on Genesis) say did not happen.

Fr. Seraphim says that fruits weren't digested in Eden in such a way as to process them?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Fr. Seraphim says that fruits weren't digested in Eden in such a way as to process them?

most Fathers say that, because there was no decay in the Garden, and no breaking down of anything. corruption, of everything, came when man sinned. so they ate the fruit and nuts as a part of their communion with God, but there was no acidic digestion, no nutrients or anything along those lines. how this worked exactly we won't know until the Second Coming.

even modern saints like St Nektarios of Aegina and St John Maximovitch have espoused this.

and I gotta agree with jckstraw, this convo is not going anywhere

 

[Cappadocious]

most Fathers say that, because there was no decay in the Garden, and no breaking down of anything. corruption, of everything, came when man sinned. so they ate the fruit and nuts as a part of their communion with God, but there was no acidic digestion...

Do you have any quotes for this you could post? That's amazing.