Sin and Theistic Evolution

[Romanseight2005]

I don't see the problem. Sin isn't a historical event or a genetic condition. It's something we all commit because we're all human and live in a human society where we all rub each other up the wrong way. I don't see why there has to be some historical figure to do the first sin.

So what do you make then of Adam? Do you see him metaphorically, and if so, what is the metaphor?

 

[gluadys]

I have to admit that this does not add up to me. There is no indication in scripture that there was any death at all until Adam and Eve sinned.

There is indication of vegetative death, since vegetation was used as food. There is no explicit indication of animal death but nothing to suggest that animal death did not occur either.

In fact it makes a huge deal of the fact that sin caused death. Without sin there would be no death.

For humans, yes. Because humans are aware of their mortality. Unlike animals we know we will die. So death is a big deal for humans.

Why would animals kill(innocently)

Let's not misapply human emotions about death to animals. In other passages of scripture God glories in his creation of predators. We don't know that animal death has the moral implications of human death. We do know that only humans are subject to spiritual death.

Your understanding of what animals do is based on what we currently see animals do, but scripture states that the ground was cursed at the fall of man. We see a change occurring that would very likely affect all of nature.

The only scripture that suggests an effect through all nature is the passage in Romans that speaks of "bondage to decay". I can't see that has anything to do with whether or not animals died before the fall.

Why would death be such a huge deal for humans, yet already happening to everyone else.

Because we are human with the intellectual and emotional capacity to contemplate our own mortality and because for us, death implies spiritual as well as physical death--eternal separation from our creator. Death IS a much bigger deal for humans than for other animals.

Furthermore, wouldn't death already be part of the natural state of man if what they came from was already part of a life and death cycle?

Yes, indeed. If not, why was the Tree of Life needed in the garden?

But before the law was given, people were already dying because of sin. That verse must not be taken out of context,

It's not. Paul makes the same point, that death reigned from Adam to Moses before the law was given right in that same passage. Yet he also says that it was the law that made sin known.

So what do you make then of Adam? Do you see him metaphorically, and if so, what is the metaphor?

Are you aware that in the Hebrew the word "adam" is never used as a name? "Adam" in the sense of a personal name appears only in the New Testament and then only in contexts where its application to one historic individual is controversial.

"ha-adam" the actual Hebrew term used in Genesis means simply "the man" (or "the human" as in Gen. 1 it is applied to females as well) and can be used either of an individual or generically for humankind. The personification of all humanity as one individual is a figure of speech called "metonymy" where a part stands for the whole.

 

[Romanseight2005]

There is indication of vegetative death, since vegetation was used as food. There is no explicit indication of animal death but nothing to suggest that animal death did not occur either.



For humans, yes. Because humans are aware of their mortality. Unlike animals we know we will die. So death is a big deal for humans.



Let's not misapply human emotions about death to animals. In other passages of scripture God glories in his creation of predators. We don't know that animal death has the moral implications of human death. We do know that only humans are subject to spiritual death.




The only scripture that suggests an effect through all nature is the passage in Romans that speaks of "bondage to decay". I can't see that has anything to do with whether or not animals died before the fall.



Because we are human with the intellectual and emotional capacity to contemplate our own mortality and because for us, death implies spiritual as well as physical death--eternal separation from our creator. Death IS a much bigger deal for humans than for other animals.



Yes, indeed. If not, why was the Tree of Life needed in the garden?



It's not. Paul makes the same point, that death reigned from Adam to Moses before the law was given right in that same passage. Yet he also says that it was the law that made sin known.



Are you aware that in the Hebrew the word "adam" is never used as a name? "Adam" in the sense of a personal name appears only in the New Testament and then only in contexts where its application to one historic individual is controversial.

"ha-adam" the actual Hebrew term used in Genesis means simply "the man" (or "the human" as in Gen. 1 it is applied to females as well) and can be used either of an individual or generically for humankind. The personification of all humanity as one individual is a figure of speech called "metonymy" where a part stands for the whole.

Thank you for responding to my questions. When you responded to my question about death already being apart of the cycle from which Adam evolved from, you said something about needing the tree of life. Were you implying that Adam was already going to die, and that sin wasn't necessary for his physical death?

 

[metherion]

While I'm not Gluadys, I would like to try and field this question.

Yes, I do think Adam was going to physically die. However, with a pure and innocent heart wrt God and what God wants, his spirit would probably have never left God's side. Maybe God would have even reincarnated him, who knows? But there would have been no chance of his spirit being separated from God ever, as ours will be if we don't accept Him. It probably wouldn't have been scary or dangerous, as the 'other side' would be right there in front of him: God. But after sin came into the world, the possibility of not being with God came into being, and thus true death, the death talked about by God.

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

Were you implying that Adam was already going to die, and that sin wasn't necessary for his physical death?

Quite likely. Gen. 3:22 implies that Adam could have lived forever even after the fall, as long as he could reach the fruit of the Tree of Life. I take that to mean that the Tree of Life was also necessary to eternal life before the fall. Note that the Tree of Life also appears in the new Jerusalem in Revelation.

As Metherion says, it is separation from God i.e. spiritual death, that is true death, the kind that inspires terror. And this comes through sin. That is why Paul says that the sting of death is sin. Without sin, natural death is not a terrible threat since it does not separate us from God. With sin, death is a terrible enemy from which we need to be delivered.

 

[gluadys]

Speaking of natural death, I recently came across this site on natural funerals.

http://www.naturalburial.coop/canada/

Maybe you all are too young to give this topic much attention yet, but I thought it worth a look see.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The concept of original sin and evolution are not incompatible by my and others reasoning. There was a recent article in the National Catholic Reporter on this very subject. Basically it argues that sin is a necessary element of evolution. When the first man harmed or by inaction let another be harmed in order to secure more of something for himself, sin entered the world. You can read it in full at my blog http://iowamusings.blogspot.com in the Oct. archives. I believe the title is Original sin and Evolution or the reverse.

 

[Jase]

Quite likely. Gen. 3:22 implies that Adam could have lived forever even after the fall, as long as he could reach the fruit of the Tree of Life. I take that to mean that the Tree of Life was also necessary to eternal life before the fall. Note that the Tree of Life also appears in the new Jerusalem in Revelation.

I completely agree with your points, but thought I'd clarify that had Adam not fallen, he wouldn't have likely died, since he then would have been able to eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal. There certainly, afaik, isn't any indication that he wouldn't have eaten from the Tree of Life if he didn't fall.

So while he had the potential to die prior to the fall, he would not have actualized death if he didn't fall. If that makes sense.

 

[gluadys]

I completely agree with your points, but thought I'd clarify that had Adam not fallen, he wouldn't have likely died, since he then would have been able to eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal. There certainly, afaik, isn't any indication that he wouldn't have eaten from the Tree of Life if he didn't fall.

So while he had the potential to die prior to the fall, he would not have actualized death if he didn't fall. If that makes sense.

Yes, agreed. That's how I see it.

Of course, I also see it as a story. not as history.

 

[artybloke]

So what do you make then of Adam? Do you see him metaphorically, and if so, what is the metaphor?

It's a story. Adam is a representative of the whole human race, and I see the word "ha-adam" as being rather similar to the way people used to talk of "hands", as in "deck-hands" or "mill-hands," where the word "hand" represents the whole man. I can't remember if the technical term for that is synecdoche or litotes, but it's something like. Adam represents the whole of humanity rather as "hand" represents the whole of humanity.

 

[Jase]

It's a story. Adam is a representative of the whole human race, and I see the word "ha-adam" as being rather similar to the way people used to talk of "hands", as in "deck-hands" or "mill-hands," where the word "hand" represents the whole man. I can't remember if the technical term for that is synecdoche or litotes, but it's something like. Adam represents the whole of humanity rather as "hand" represents the whole of humanity.

Which makes sense, since adam in Hebrew literally means mankind.

 

[Romanseight2005]

It's a story. Adam is a representative of the whole human race, and I see the word "ha-adam" as being rather similar to the way people used to talk of "hands", as in "deck-hands" or "mill-hands," where the word "hand" represents the whole man. I can't remember if the technical term for that is synecdoche or litotes, but it's something like. Adam represents the whole of humanity rather as "hand" represents the whole of humanity.

So do you mean that what Genesis describes of Adam and Eve in Eden is some path that each of us takes?

 

[shernren]

So do you mean that what Genesis describes of Adam and Eve in Eden is some path that each of us takes?

That's one possible way to look at it, yes.

Another way to look at the Adam and Eve story is to look at it as a retelling of an actual, historical event that took place within the first-ever human community that introduced sin into their lives, from which it has been perpetuated to all humanity today. It denotes the event, without delivering every detail of it.

 

[gluadys]

So do you mean that what Genesis describes of Adam and Eve in Eden is some path that each of us takes?

That is what makes sense to me. In a real sense each and every one of us is Adam and each and every one of us recapitulates the fall in our own life.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I can't remember if the technical term for that is synecdoche or litotes, but it's something like.

Synechdoche is one term. Another related term is metonymy -- replacing one entity for another.

Litotes is emphasis by negation. Example from a search: "It was no small problem."

You were right with synechdoche, I think.

 

[artybloke]

Thanks, Tinker. Nice to know someone knows their rhetorical devices.

 

[Assyrian]

Speaking of natural death, I recently came across this site on natural funerals.

http://www.naturalburial.coop/canada/

Maybe you all are too young to give this topic much attention yet, but I thought it worth a look see.

A nice idea, but they need to change their web address from Natural burial coop. If I am in Canada, remind me not to buy any eggs from them.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thanks, Tinker. Nice to know someone knows their rhetorical devices.

Heh. I knows google.