Why does creation/evolution matter?

[Speedwell]

I would interpret Genesis 2:7 as not only the gift of life, but Adam's reception of the Holy Spirit (per Genesis 1:27 & John 20:22). From your evolutionary view, what was the first creation to receive the Holy Spirit?

The "evolutionary view" does not address the question.

 

[Resha Caner]

The "evolutionary view" does not address the question.

I think it impinges on the question, but I'll rephrase it if you wish. In your opinion, what was the first creation to receive the Holy Spirit?

 

[Speedwell]

I think it impinges on the question, but I'll rephrase it if you wish. In your opinion, what was the first creation to receive the Holy Spirit?

Homo Sapiens--but that is not an "evolutionary view" it is a religious one.

 

[Resha Caner]

I will try and explain this as briefly as I am able.

I think you're nit-picking semantics to make it come out the way you want. Regardless, what you said doesn't address my objections. I'll point you back to post #39.

 

[Resha Caner]

Homo Sapiens--but that is not an "evolutionary view" it is a religious one.

Do you know the name of this first Homo sapiens?

 

[Speedwell]

Do you know the name of this first Homo sapiens?

No, and neither did the author(s) of the Garden story, apparently--which is why he was given the name Adam, a nice bit of Hebrew wordplay.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, and neither did the author(s) of the Garden story, apparently--which is why they gave him the name Adam, a nice bit of Hebrew wordplay.

Uh huh. In the same way that James wasn't really an apostle, but just an allegorical supplanter. Anyway, you're obviously taking Genesis as allegorical, which was the difference between us that I pointed out many posts ago, so I won't belabor it.

I'll just note then, this means the parents of this Homo sapiens - though nearly identical in genetic makeup and therefore sentient - aware they would die, able to call out to God for rescue - were left to die with no hope of a future life. They just ceased to exist. Further, they lived as imperfect beings who made mistakes and suffered - committed injustices and endured injustices with no final resolution. In other words, they lived in a sinful state, but God offered them no rescue from that sinful state.

 

[Dirk1540]

I've not yet met a theistic evolutionist that doesn't, in some way, reduce Genesis to allegory. There is, additionally, a whole host of issues regarding sin, death, and the emergence of the soul.

Ok I definitely get the first sentence. By differences on how they view sin, death, and emergence of the soul are you just referring to the time prior to Adam & Eve?

EDIT...strange that I posted this 1 minute after you answered it lol, before I saw it.

 

[Jamsie]

I think you're nit-picking semantics to make it come out the way you want. Regardless, what you said doesn't address my objections. I'll point you back to post #39.

Please explain how "And God said, Let the Land produce..." is semantic "nit picking"? I would further ask how Gen. 1:27 and Gen 2:7 fit?

 

[Speedwell]

Uh huh. In the same way that James wasn't really an apostle, but just an allegorical supplanter. Anyway, you're obviously taking Genesis as allegorical, which was the difference between us that I pointed out many posts ago, so I won't belabor it.

In the first place, saying that "Genesis" is "allegorical" is a grotesque oversimplification. Genesis is a complex work presenting us with a wide variety of literary genres. It has always been my understanding that the Garden story, for example, is an etiology rather than an allegory. Secondly, what that has to do with what the Bible says about the Apostle James is beyond me.

I'll just note then, this means the parents of this Homo sapiens - though nearly identical in genetic makeup and therefore sentient - aware they would die, able to call out to God for rescue - were left to die with no hope of a future life. They just ceased to exist. Further, they lived as imperfect beings who made mistakes and suffered - committed injustices and endured injustices with no final resolution. In other words, they lived in a sinful state, but God offered them no rescue from that sinful state.

Certainly that is not my opinion. The emergence of self-aware intelligence is not something that evolutionary biologists have any convincing explanation for, and it may well be due to some event or cause which has little to do with biological evolution.

 

[Resha Caner]

Secondly, what that has to do with what the Bible says about the Apostle James is beyond me.

All names originate from some meaning. James means "supplanter" just as Adam means "earth". It's no accident Adam was given the name he was, but this is not proof that it was mere allegory just as it is not proof that referring to James in the NT was reference to an allegorical supplanter.

Certainly that is not my opinion.

Then tell me what your opinion is. To claim that per evolution we know the first Homo sapiens had parents and then deny we can say anything about those parents appears to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[Papias]

a whole host of issues regarding sin, death, .....

Are you saying there was no death before the fall?

Papias

 

[Dirk1540]

I'll just note then, this means the parents of this Homo sapiens - though nearly identical in genetic makeup and therefore sentient - aware they would die, able to call out to God for rescue - were left to die with no hope of a future life. They just ceased to exist. Further, they lived as imperfect beings who made mistakes and suffered - committed injustices and endured injustices with no final resolution. In other words, they lived in a sinful state, but God offered them no rescue from that sinful state.

Adam's parents were in a sense animals, they would have the same fate and existence of other animals that are not made in the image of God. Jesus said that I could raise up believers out of these stones, why not the ability to implant God consciousness into a previously non-God conscious homo sapien?

At first a major sticking point for me was weak, slow, fragile homo sapiens surviving in the wild without the creative intelligence that is needed for our survival. But now I'm reconsidering how the environment could have been suited for our survival back then.

 

[Speedwell]

All names originate from some meaning. James means "supplanter" just as Adam means "earth". It's no accident Adam was given the name he was, but this is not proof that it was mere allegory just as it is not proof that referring to James in the NT was reference to an allegorical supplanter.

Not a problem. Just as the Garden story can be read as an etiology--for which the name of the first man is merely one indication of many--The accounts of James cannot.
In any case, the works which comprise the NT were written many centuries later than the works of the OT, by different authors writing in different languages to satisfy a different literary agenda. Why doubts about the literal historicity of Adam have anything at all to do with the literal historicity of James is, as I said, a mystery to me. What is "mere" about an "allegory" anyway? The authority of scripture depends on its divine provenance, not on its adherence to any particular literary genre.

Then tell me what your opinion is. To claim that per evolution we know the first Homo sapiens had parents and then deny we can say anything about those parents appears to be intellectually dishonest.

We can say something about the physical bodies Adam's "parents" but at the present time science can say little or nothing about what kind of intelligence they had, nor give us a reason for any change. Why is that intellectually dishonest?

 

[hedrick]

I wish I could say it doesn't matter, but it does. For at least two reasons.

Rejecting evolution normally happens because someone believes in a fairly literal version of inerrancy. That belief affects more than just creation. It has theological consequences all over the place.

There are people who accept evolution but still accept most of the theology of creation. E.g. for a while Catholics were allowed to accept evolution but still had to believe in a literal Adam and Eve and Fall. (I don't think that's the case now.) But if you fully accept the scientific account of origins, it's not compatible with death being a consequence of sin. That affects a lot of people's theology, though oddly enough, Calvin suggested an interpretation that doesn't have that problem. I would argue that the evolutionary view also blurs the definition of sin, because it suggests that people learn through experience, in which case mistakes -- including moral ones -- are an inherent part of life. It's consistent with Jesus' emphasis on intention and fruitfulness, rather than moral perfection, but a lot of Christian theology sees God as requiring moral perfection.

 

[Dirk1540]

But if you fully accept the scientific account of origins, it's not compatible with death being a consequence of sin. That affects a lot of people's theology

But even if you believe that homo sapiens were formed off to the side from the dirt, evolution still shows us that no death is an impossibility. So even an old Earth creationist must still except non-human death before humans came around, right?

It seems that only YEC can only cling to no pre-human death. I don't think we can hold our breath at scientific evidence, scientific evidence should help us with our theology, we're using the evidence of God's universe to aid us in honing our theology understanding.

 

[Resha Caner]

Are you saying there was no death before the fall?

No.

 

[Resha Caner]

Adam's parents were in a sense animals ...

I don't see any Biblical support for such an idea, so this seems nothing more than speculation.

 

[Dirk1540]

I don't see any Biblical support for such an idea, so this seems nothing more than speculation.

When the Bible doesn't address something speculation is all we have. The genre of early Genesis is among the hardest to figure out, and among the most disputed even among Hebrew experts.

 

[Resha Caner]

We can say something about the physical bodies Adam's "parents" but at the present time science can say little or nothing about what kind of intelligence they had, nor give us a reason for any change. Why is that intellectually dishonest?

My impression is that research into animal intelligence is quite extensive, including research regarding species of the distant past. But maybe that's a question for our biologists ... if they're listening.