I disagree - at least in the sense you seem to be using the term. So let's continue to flesh this out.
1. Why? Why can people sin but not (other) animals? Animals can be disobedient. Why is our disobedience sin, but not theirs?
To whom are animals disobedient? It seems to me the only animals who can be disobedient are those who are kept by humans as pets or performers and who displease their trainers. But are animals in their natural state disobedient to God? Not that I know of.
Even human-owned/trained animals, while they may be disobedient in our eyes, don't necessarily have a moral sense of doing wrong because it is wrong. They have enough memory to understand that some behaviours are rewarded with affection and treats and others are punished. So I expect that in some sense they can figure out "I better not do X, because I will be punished if I do." But do they ever get to the point of understanding "I better not do X because it is wrong."
Humans do get to that point. That is why the idea of sin pertains to humans but not to animal behaviour.
2. Will the exact instance of my dog (Rosie) here on Earth be present in Heaven?
My answer is no. I believe I've asked you this before, and your answer was something like, "Probably not." Not as definite as I would like, but I can't ask for more than honesty.
I wouldn't be so sure. I think you are right when we are looking at animals in their natural state. I think there will be deer in the forest, fish in the rivers, but not specific individual deer or fish of the present time. But with pets, we have personalized them. We have made them part of the family. If my grandson asks me "Will Mr. Brown (dog) and Reaver (cat) be with me in heaven--I could not say "Certainly not." Maybe they will be. Maybe the saying is right "All dogs go to heaven". I can't be sure of a positive answer either but I am hopeful that all that we love will be with us in the new creation. That would certainly include pets.
So, the "new" creation means a creation that is not fallen. It doesn't mean a creation whose soul/spirit has been saved.
To me it means a creation that has been redeemed from its fallenness. It means a creation from which the burden of evil has been lifted so that it can appear anew in its full glory. It seems to me this is what Paul is getting at in Romans. Note that while he says that while creation was subjected to futility by the will of God, it was subjected "in hope". What is the hope of creation? To be set free of the bondage of decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Creation waits eagerly, Paul says, for the revealing of the children of God, the sign that her days of labour are nearly ended and she is ready to give birth to her redeemed self.
To "save" my 1989 Taurus would mean restoring it (the same instantiation) to mint condition.
Yes, that is kind of the way I see it. Only it will be even better than mint condition.
Saving people and making a new creation for them to live in are two very, very, very different things.
To some extent I am following John Polkinghorne here. He points out that when God first created it was creation ex nihilo (from nothing). How could it be otherwise when there had been nothing else. But, he believes the new creation will be a creation ex vetere (out of the old); it will be purged of all that makes creation fallen and subject to futility, but it will also preserve all that is beautiful and marvellous and awesome and it will perfect creation in a glory surpassing the original.
That makes sense to me. For example, Paul tells us that in the resurrection, our new bodies will be related to our current bodies in something like the way a plant is related to the seed from which it grew. I think we all expect to have memories of life in this creation, of the places and people we love(d)--and maybe pets, and to be able to renew relations with them in this new environment. Why should we not say the same for the whole creation as well--it is no more identical with this creation than our immortal bodies are identical to these mortal bodies--yet it has a mysterious connection with what went before. In a new creation, God does not have to begin ex nihilo. He can bring all that is good and wholesome from this creation into a new creation that is like yet wonderfully better than what we now know.
It's like saying the reason I eat toast is to force my wife to go to the store to buy butter.
So, you don't think Adam refers to a specific, real person. Given the genealogies, that is a problem. At some point (without indicating it) God switched from genealogy as analogy (or general reference) to genealogy as history? Why? When there are so many simple phrases that could have been used to indicate that switch.
You mean Israelite history keepers did. It was pretty common in many cultures. Indicating a switch from legendary to historical persons was not part of the way to write such genealogies. The point was to say so-and-so was the offspring of a great legendary hero or a god and not a common man. The intention was to provide a seamless connection between recent history and ancient legend. So, no indication of a switch.
Further, you are assuming a procreation (of Adam) that is not stated. So, my interpretation is to take the text as it is. Your interpretation adds procreation and an unmentioned switch from analogy to history. I prefer the interpretations that don't add to what the text says.
Well, I wouldn't think of adding those things to the text. Adding to the text is disrespectful and spoils the story. But since humanity does have an evolutionary history, the first humans were conceived and born like any others since. So, if Adam is a human person, he had parents.
However when one is writing in a time when this history is unknown, one has to start the story somewhere and many creation stories begin with the direct creation of one individual or one people. The bible has a bit of both. In Genesis 1:27-28 and again in 6:7 the creation of 'ha-adam' is the creation of a people, but in Genesis 2:7 it is the creation of one man.
Because I don't have any expertise in the field to help me evaluate the evidence.
I'll not claim the evidence definitvely points at Joseph & Moses, but it fits really, really well. Isn't this the type of stuff you look at? Extra-Biblical evidence for origins - extra-biblical evidence for history?
It is the kind of thing one looks for to confirm such history as is mentioned in the bible. But there are too many ifs here. I couldn't say they don't refer to Joseph & Moses, but neither are there sufficient grounds to say they do. At least not without an expert review of the possibilities. Is Imhotep Joseph or Joseph Imhotep i.e. which name is original? Did the Egyptians borrow the story from the Hebrews or vice versa--or did both rewrite a common ANE legend independently of each other?
No. The issues you raise demand that approach. None of what I'm talking about would be necessary if people took the Word for what it says. It is others who are bringing external scholarly approaches to the Bible to defend their position. I'm saying the simple story that greets one upon the first reading is the story.
I quite agree that the simple story that greets one upon the first reading is
the story.
But the rest is not so simple. What do you mean "if people took the Word for what it says". I am guessing that one thing you mean is that the story is not just a story but a description of actual events in which actual people with historic existence participated as it is set out in the story.
Why do you assume the Word must be speaking in terms appropriate to history rather than in terms appropriate to literature? What makes this taking "the Word for what it says"?
Are you saying God couldn't do those things?
No, I am not. I am saying that in a literal sense God did not do those things. Those elements of the story are indications that it is a symbolic story. That said, it is still a real story, for it is symbolic of genuine realities. It is a story of profound truth.
I hate to say it, but most TEs don't give the impression they believe in creation. Rather, they seem to be appropriating the word "creation" to the TE view. If you change what the words in the creed mean, anyone can agree with it.
Obviously, one has to clarify what is meant by "believe in creation". But I say again, if by "believe in creation" you mean "believe the creation accounts in the bible are literal descriptions of actual historical events" then the issue is not creation.
We have no disagreement on what the text says. We have no disagreement that it presents God as our creator and creator of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible. And we both believe that. But we identify the genre of the text differently, partly because of how we understand a text to be "true". And that makes it an issue of hermeneutics or appropriate interpretation.
If we're talking about creation, then creation is the issue. And I've explained why. Because my theology does not separate the human soul/spirit from the special creation of humans - a creation that is distinct from the creation of other animals. Until you explain that, creation will remain the issue ... well, let me clarify. You've given me a very high level glimpse of what you think, but that glimpse doesn't seem coherent and doesn't seem to fit Genesis without unfounded additions.
How is the creation of humanity distinct from that of other animals? I am genuinely curious here. Are you suggesting all the other animals were created en masse? Or was each type of animal created separately from the others? I have always assumed the latter, i.e. that God created deer separately from creating bears separately from creating spiders and so on. But I don't see the text taking either position. But going on my assumption, there is nothing especially distinct about how humanity was created. Distinction pertains more to the type of animal humanity is, our characteristics and to our role within the created order
In Genesis 2, after creating Adam from the ground, God goes on to create all the other animals from the ground as well. The only one who can claim a distinct creation here is Eve.
