The historicity of Adam

[AndrewEOC]

Also, it was never Bouteneff's intent to prove that Adam did not exist, but to argue that historicity in itself is of secondary importance. He specifically states in his closing that "the point is not, then, whether the fathers took the seven "days" or Adam to be historical. For the fathers, as for us, the historicity question has much more to do with how narrative, and scriptural narrative especially, works to convey its message."

 

[jckstraw72]

well, i don't own the book, so now all I have is my notes. I have marked down that he draws a false divide concerning Adam on p. 25

 

[AndrewEOC]

Just a heads up- I will be undergoing a huge change in my life in the next couple of days, and as a result will not have time to post here. Please keep me in your prayers as I meet this change and please understand I will hardly have the opportunity to keep posting here at the same rate, if at all. This does not mean I am purposefully ignoring any response to what I've posted. Thanks!

 

[jckstraw72]

no worries - real life is more important than this forum! Lord have mercy!

 

[rusmeister]

Just a heads up- I will be undergoing a huge change in my life in the next couple of days, and as a result will not have time to post here. Please keep me in your prayers as I meet this change and please understand I will hardly have the opportunity to keep posting here at the same rate, if at all. This does not mean I am purposefully ignoring any response to what I've posted. Thanks!

 

[MKJ]

Also, it was never Bouteneff's intent to prove that Adam did not exist, but to argue that historicity in itself is of secondary importance. He specifically states in his closing that "the point is not, then, whether the fathers took the seven "days" or Adam to be historical. For the fathers, as for us, the historicity question has much more to do with how narrative, and scriptural narrative especially, works to convey its message."

I may not be saying the same thing here at all, but I do think it is important to point out that to say that something is allegorical does not mean that it can have no historical elements.

Allegories often have historical, real people in them, or historical events. They just aren't presented in the same way a straight history would be.

Even something that is largely historically structured can be cleaned up or made more understandable or have elements added in order to make the meaning clearer.

There is no necessary requirement to read any text as wholly literary or wholly historical.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Here is quote from someone on another forum on this issue. I thought he phrased it better than I could hope to:

yeah, I have heard that before, but Wisdom of Solomon says that God did not create any death. and the whole quote is hinged upon the idea that death was there from the beginning, I have yet to read any saint, a part from St Athanasius, who says that death was around from the beginning. if death for animals was part of the creation from the beginning, then only humans and NOT creation should be glorified at the end, because creation never fell.

and Lord have mercy on you!

 

[rusmeister]

Just to clarify, a scientific theory isn't just a hypothesis.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. The latter has the fortunate status of being undeniable whereas the former requires years of study in order to understand it adequately.

Regardless of where everyone ends up, I recommend they learn about evolution from the experts rather than monks who may not have ever picked up a science textbook.

Having a longer and better-said post wiped out, and having lost my time on this one...
The problem is that you treat scientific theory as inerrant fact, and take no acount of the philosophy governing the scientists - and your own thought. Just because we have come to the Church does not mean that everything is now in order in our personal philosophy - though the Church can help over time if we let it.
So instead of my words, try this:

The Revival of Philosophy – Why?

Every man has one of two things. Including scientists.

 

[rusmeister]

If a person can be named "Adam", have icons, and the Church teaches us to venerate them, (and the Holy Forefathers are treated as equal to the saints), then talking as if the person might not have existed is just plain stupid. It makes a monkey out of anyone who has him as their patron saint.
The Church makes this clear. These sophisticated ideas are sophisticated nonsense, full of sophistry that amounts to the unwitting worship of a human (and fallible) discipline, holding it higher than the authority and teachings of the Church.
At a certain point, I am going to emulate St Nicholas as best I can and punch the heretics in the nose.

 

[MKJ]

Having a longer and better-said post wiped out, and having lost my time on this one...
The problem is that you treat scientific theory as inerrant fact, and take no acount of the philosophy governing the scientists - and your own thought. Just because we have come to the Church does not mean that everything is now in order in our personal philosophy - though the Church can help over time if we let it.
So instead of my words, try this:

The Revival of Philosophy – Why?

Every man has one of two things. Including scientists.

Um - where did you get that he said it was inerrant fact? Or that he does not think that scientists have a philosophical underpinning to their thinking? I am pretty much 99% confident that neither of those things are true.

 

[rusmeister]

MK, honestly, my interest in arguing with you is not high - you are not Orthodox. Not accepting the authority of the Orthodox Church undercuts a lot of potential common ground.

But I'll say that I did not SAY he or anyone "said" theory is inerrant fact. I say they TREAT it as such.
And I DO think that almost nobody thinks about the philosophical underpinnings of the scientists, the assumptions they - and evidently you - want us to accept without question.

I do not challenge science on scientific grounds - my challenge is on philosophical grounds. What is the nature of man, his purpose in life, and how do we divine truth? Scientific rationalism is overwhelmingly the basis for evolutionary theory, and it is un-Orthodox. It leaps from observations about the world we see now to cosmic interpretations and conclusions based on bankrupt philosophy, and then (in "theistic evolution") tries to connect that to Christian theology.

Have you read GKC's essay on it? Do you not see its applicability in our time?

 

[buzuxi02]

I may not be saying the same thing here at all, but I do think it is important to point out that to say that something is allegorical does not mean that it can have no historical elements.

Allegories often have historical, real people in them, or historical events. They just aren't presented in the same way a straight history would be.

Even something that is largely historically structured can be cleaned up or made more understandable or have elements added in order to make the meaning clearer.

There is no necessary requirement to read any text as wholly literary or wholly historical.

This is usually how I see it. I do see allegory in the creation story but its also meant to convey a historical reality.

Surely I open my OSB and the comments for Genesis 1.1-3 is primarily given an allegoric interpretation. That the first day (Sunday) is the Eternal Day (aka 8th day) and is a revelation more about the Triune God than the actual creation. It even mimics John 1.1-4

I also don't find it plausible that on the 6th day, the day God created man and where he named the various things, and within that 24 hour period he formed the female, then a few hours later they were deceived by the serpent and eventually cast out. It seems these events would require a longer duration than a mere 24 hours. Its also more plausible that the Sabbath Day God rested denotes more than just a 24 hour temporary break, Christ on the cross said "It is finished" late on Friday on the very Eve of the Sabbath, (was this some extension of the creation?) of course his rest in the tomb was a literal 24 hours, resurrecting early on the 8th day.

But theres obviously a historical context in Genesis. The geneology of Christ dating back to Adam, the whole thing about Christ coming in the flesh to put an end to death. The Fathers interpretation that physical death is a vehicle for mercy as it puts an end to sin. That humans lived a long time but God eventually capped the age at 120, and chronologically in scripture it was not abrupt but a gradual decline taking decades and centuries.

In my earlier post I called it a lie to say that a literal interpretation of Genesis began with Augustine. I find it disingenuous, in fact I would assume it more plausible that the western church would give more of an allegoric interpretation simply based on terminology. The western church refers to the fall of man as original sin while we in the east call it Ancestral sin. Meaning we historically view the fall as deriving directly from our ancestors.

 

[Protoevangel]

These sophisticated ideas are sophisticated nonsense, full of sophistry that amounts to the unwitting worship of a human (and fallible) discipline, holding it higher than the authority and teachings of the Church.

This. Just this.

 

[jimkhong]

No way Adam didnt exist, he was so real as you and me, with a heart, limbs, lungs, eyes etc.

and belly-button?

 

[truthseeker32]

The problem is that you treat scientific theory as inerrant fact, and take no acount of the philosophy governing the scientists - and your own thought.

It would be more accurate to say I treat evolution as a highly likely probablility. That being said, I am highly critical of certain types of evolutionary theories, and I am a huge critic of the philosophies, or lack thereof, that govern people in various fields, be they social sciences, physical sciences, or humanities. I studied the philosophy of science extensively during my time as an undergraduate. One of my best friends is a die-hard, sola scriptura young-earth creationist and I have had the pleasure of debating this issue and reading several books he has given me on the matter. I can provide this list as you wish. In the end I remain convinced that an evolutionary theory of some sort best explains thing like the hominid fossil record, why human beings have useless body parts, or why humans still carry the DNA for tails or why whales carry DNA for legs. These are just a few of many examples I could offer. I actually think evolution is is a beautiful, macro-level representation of what every one of us undergoes from conception to maturity.

Do I agree with everything the scientific community promotes pertaining to evolution? Absolutely not. However, I also don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I accept probable truths where I find them. If my belief in what I see to be a very probable explanation leads some to think I shouldn't be Orthodox they are welcome to their opinion, but I have been told by priests, bishops, metropolitans, and monks in the Orthodox faith that it is perfectly acceptable to believe in theistic evolution.

 

[AndrewEOC]

If my belief in what I see to be a very probable explanation leads some to think I shouldn't be Orthodox they are welcome to their opinion, but I have been told by priests, bishops, metropolitans, and monks in the Orthodox faith that it is perfectly acceptable to believe in theistic evolution.

I would go with what they tell you over what you hear from anonymous laypeople on Internet forums!

 

[jckstraw72]

Do I agree with everything the scientific community promotes pertaining to evolution? Absolutely not. However, I also don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I accept probable truths where I find them. If my belief in what I see to be a very probable explanation leads some to think I shouldn't be Orthodox they are welcome to their opinion, but I have been told by priests, bishops, metropolitans, and monks in the Orthodox faith that it is perfectly acceptable to believe in theistic evolution.

i don't understand why it always has to come to this in these threads. who ever suggested that you should not become Orthodox? i've seen no one say any such thing. although this thread has been amicable, it's generally the Creationists who are far more scorned than the evolutionists.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would go with what they tell you over what you hear from anonymous laypeople on Internet forums!

no one here is saying that a belief in evolution bars entry to the Church, those of us that are Creationists are just explaining why we think what we do based on evidence we have seen. no one is questioning someone's devotion, piety, love for God, knowledge of the Fathers and Scriptures, etc because they believe in evolution.

 

[AndrewEOC]

i don't understand why it always has to come to this in these threads. who ever suggested that you should not become Orthodox? i've seen no one say any such thing. although this thread has been amicable, it's generally the Creationists who are far more scorned than the evolutionists.

I think the problem is posting things like "why an Orthodox Christian cannot be an evolutionist," equating evolution to black cat superstitions, saying they will follow St. Nicholas and punch you in the nose for being a heretic, etc. that might lead a person into thinking they are not welcome in the Church if they believe in theistic evolution.

 

[AndrewEOC]

no one here is saying that a belief in evolution bars entry to the Church, those of us that are Creationists are just explaining why we think what we do based on evidence we have seen. no one is questioning someone's devotion, piety, love for God, knowledge of the Fathers and Scriptures, etc because they believe in evolution.

Yet in fact it was earlier alleged that Orthodox evolutionists most often believe as they do because of ignorance of the Fathers.