Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[Deamiter]

@ the OP, original sin wasn't proposed until Augustine and many Christian denominations don't support the doctrine. It might be instructive to learn about why major groups of Christians would reject such a concept before using it in a logical argument for the existance of Adam.

And no, evolution doesn't teach that and many Christian evolutionists do think that Adam existed.

But we've been over that -- we're having a conversation and it's been rather productive so I see no reason to have a review party!

 

[hsilgne]

@ the OP, original sin wasn't proposed until Augustine and many Christian denominations don't support the doctrine. It might be instructive to learn about why major groups of Christians would reject such a concept before using it in a logical argument for the existance of Adam.

I am Catholic. Therefore, ICYDK, this is not an option for me. And for the record, I wasn't arguing with anyone.

And no, evolution doesn't teach that and many Christian evolutionists do think that Adam existed.

But we've been over that -- we're having a conversation and it's been rather productive so I see no reason to have a review party!

Okee Dokee...

Blessings

 

[withreason]

if you mean pseudogenes there are tens of thousands of them.

http://www.pseudogene.org/

you can look at their datasets at:
http://www.pseudogene.org/cgi-bin/s...=&operator0=&searchValue0=&sort=0&output=html

or you can go to an easy to use gene database and search for pseudogenes like:
http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP...dogene+&field=all&ncbi_tax_id=0&organism_syn=

or you can search for a particular protein, say the alpha chain in hemoglobin and get all the known pseudogenes of it:
http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/121571.html

in any case, if by the terms:
dormant
-you do mean pseudogene, there are lots of them. in all creatures. that is the point of the student lab i linked to above. showing the similiarities between exon 10 of the GULOP.

Thank you very much! that is what I am trying to find
KUDOS

 

[Fortuna]

I think that this is the basics of it. If Adam really didn't exist that we don't know that man actually sinned. Then there is no need for grace and no need for God.

We forget that Genesis records that man was formed from the dust, not evolved from some other species.

My 2 cents! Through research that I have done, Adam existed far earlier than is mentioned in the bible. At least this is how I see it.
Genesis closely resembles certain creation myth of the Egyptians, myth that preceded Christianity by thousands of years. There is the Creator God and God's crew (gods and goddesses or angels) that helped in the creation of the world. There is Khnum the god who created man from (dust), actually mud from the Nile on his potter's wheel.
There are many similarities in the creation stories, however, there are none between the bible and Egyptian myth concerning Adam per se.
There is, however, the story of Set killing his brother Osiris. This is kind of a Cain and Abel story but I think it significantly captures the fall of man as described in the bible. There are stories of man disobeying God and God's daughter, Sekhmet taking revenge through pestilence, plague and other disasters.
Anyway, the story of Genesis has been around long before Christianity, therefore, I would go with the theory that Adam (Hebrew for man) is analgous to all of mankind.
If we take a look at the Hebrew writings of the OT, we can also find other area that they borrowed from.

This, of course, only strengthens my faith that what is said in the bible is true through parable or actual history in some parts. I don't think it is one or the other. Parables also may be based on history that was made long before it was put down in writing in the bible.
Oral tradition of the Hebrews is very strict and there most likely would not have been too many errors committed in oral translation. People had to memorize a great many things as they, of course, did not have pen and paper handy at all times.

I believe that science and the bible, if interpreted correctly can walk arm in arm in harmony with the truth.
Our faith is the most important thing. Science, however, often leaves out the most important ingredient in its research and that is the God, God that can make anything possible. I believe what the bible tells me even though science says it is impossible. I have seen many impossible things (miracles) happen in my lifetime, why not in bible history.

Blessings, Fortuna

 

[Deamiter]

Fortuna, I agree in large part except for with the following:

Oral tradition of the Hebrews is very strict and there most likely would not have been too many errors committed in oral translation.

We have no record in any form of the strictness of the Hebrew oral tradition prior to Moses. It is very true that the Hebrews were very strict about their scriptures in and prior to Jesus' time, but there is simply no basis for the assumption that the accounts of Adam persisted unchanged for decades or centuries before they were written down in Genesis.

Oral traditions worldwide have been shown through linguistic analysis to change very quickly in terms of generations (though not on a year-to-year basis). It is not uncommon for oral storytelling traditions to require that an apprentice memorize the stories perfectly, but it is equally not uncommon (or forbidden) for a master storyteller to embelish and change the story.

 

[shernren]

Genesis closely resembles certain creation myth of the Egyptians, myth that preceded Christianity by thousands of years. There is the Creator God and God's crew (gods and goddesses or angels) that helped in the creation of the world.

But look carefully at Genesis: do you see any crew of gods and goddesses mucking around? Nope, we see God alone as Creator and the universe obeying His every command. Now there's a bit of theological sophistry. I'm not denying that Genesis is similar to other pagan myths, but it's the differences that are crucial.

 

[Deamiter]

But look carefully at Genesis: do you see any crew of gods and goddesses mucking around? Nope, we see God alone as Creator and the universe obeying His every command. Now there's a bit of theological sophistry. I'm not denying that Genesis is similar to other pagan myths, but it's the differences that are crucial.

Oh definitely! Even better, if you go through the creation story in Genesis with a list of Egyptian (or Assyrian... whatever) gods you'll find that the Genesis account has the Hebrew God creating just about every one of those!

As my theology professor put it, "A Hebrew guy could go up to an Egyptian guy and say, 'Hey, you know that sun god you worship over there? Yeah, my God MADE your god!'"

And to be honest, the average Hebrew person probably thought that multiple gods existed though they were commanded to only worship theirs. Evidence of this is quite abundant in the Bible with God commanding that we worship no other gods and being described as a jealous God. Today we only BELIEVE in one God so we often reinterpret the scriptures, but if you look at how easily the Hebrew people turned to worshipping a golden calf when their spiritual leader was off talking to God, it's pretty clear that they had no concept of only one god EXISTING.

Given the cultural context, the Genesis creation account is extremely powerful as the Hebrew people would have read it and thought how YHWH created each and every God -- to them, YHWH was not the ONLY god, but he was certainly the first and most powerful (and rather jealous about who his followers worshipped)!

 

[japhy]

But look carefully at Genesis: do you see any crew of gods and goddesses mucking around? Nope, we see God alone as Creator and the universe obeying His every command. Now there's a bit of theological sophistry. I'm not denying that Genesis is similar to other pagan myths, but it's the differences that are crucial.

But why did the ancient authors of Genesis use the plural Elohim? Did the authors know God was a triune God, or is it an artifact of the story's origin in some other multiple-god religion? If they knew God was three Persons in one, why did the later Hebrews fight that concept? And if it was an artifact, how did the Hebrews explain it in relation to having no God other than Yahweh -- that is, how could the Hebrews believe it as Scripture when it was counter to the covenant with the One True God? Did God create lesser "gods"? Are the others present at Genesis angels?

 

[Fortuna]

Shernren--But look carefully at Genesis: do you see any crew of gods and goddesses mucking around? Nope, we see God alone as Creator and the universe obeying His every command.

LOL, I like the way you put that, "mucking around". Anyhow, here is a bible quote that has me stumped:
Genesis 1:26--"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Ya think there might have been an angel or two helpin' out here? What or who do you think the "us" and "we" are?

Shernren-Now there's a bit of theological sophistry. I'm not denying that Genesis is similar to other pagan myths, but it's the differences that are crucial.

What do you see as those crucial differences? Take for instance the creation myths of the Ancient Egyptians because I am not conversant with many others, if you wouldn't mind. Blessings, Fortuna [/quote]

 

[Fortuna]

Oh definitely! Even better, if you go through the creation story in Genesis with a list of Egyptian (or Assyrian... whatever) gods you'll find that the Genesis account has the Hebrew God creating just about every one of those!

As my theology professor put it, "A Hebrew guy could go up to an Egyptian guy and say, 'Hey, you know that sun god you worship over there? Yeah, my God MADE your god!'"

And to be honest, the average Hebrew person probably thought that multiple gods existed though they were commanded to only worship theirs. Evidence of this is quite abundant in the Bible with God commanding that we worship no other gods and being described as a jealous God. Today we only BELIEVE in one God so we often reinterpret the scriptures, but if you look at how easily the Hebrew people turned to worshipping a golden calf when their spiritual leader was off talking to God, it's pretty clear that they had no concept of only one god EXISTING.

Given the cultural context, the Genesis creation account is extremely powerful as the Hebrew people would have read it and thought how YHWH created each and every God -- to them, YHWH was not the ONLY god, but he was certainly the first and most powerful (and rather jealous about who his followers worshipped)!

Great post! This is very interesting. As I understand it, Moses received YHWH from the Midianite tribe who had no image of God. They were a simple people (shepherds) without the means to create images as other tribes had done, therefore, Moses kept YHWH without image.
And, Numbers 21:9--But, God commanded --"So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole, And if the serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live."
Of course, after this, things got a bit out of hand with worshiping idols and God became angry with Israel. People were not to worship the idol, but to look upon it for healing. The people also started to worship Baal and "yoked themselves" to Baal, a pagan god.

IMHO, YHWH was always YHWH possibly even by another name even before the Hebrews. God has always been God and always the Creator God. I think that God created the other gods. Who are these gods? Whoever they are, they are not to be worshiped.
By the way, the sun god of the Egyptians was the creator god who created the world much as described in Genesis.

Moses was an Egyptian for all intents and purposes. He lived with and most likely worshiped as the AE did.
I think the Egyptians almost "got it" when Akhenaten commanded the worship of one god. Akhenaten saw that there was one god and others were superfluous and not really gods but part of the One God. He was too radical in implementing this and his people rebeled.

If I understand correctly, it was not until the Coptic Christians came into Egypt that they were able to garner Christian converts and slowly ease out the old ways by compromise. Angels replaced gods and goddesses. Even the buildings of Coptic churches were very similar to the temples of the AE.

There are accounts of early Coptic priests writing "spells" or prayers for people just as the AE priests did. Incense and sacrifices were offered as it was with the Hebrews. Only by the New Covenant were we told by Jesus that our most important sacrifice is to obey God's laws. Slowly, I believe the Coptic church phased out most of the erroneous beliefs of the new congregations until we have the churches as they are today. Without these compromises, people would probably not converted.

Of course, this is only my opinion from my research.
Blessings, Fortuna

 

[Assyrian]

I thought Coptic meant Egyptian, both words coming to us through the Greek Aiguptios. Coptic Christians didn't come to Egypt. They were Egyptian.

 

[shernren]

But why did the ancient authors of Genesis use the plural Elohim? Did the authors know God was a triune God, or is it an artifact of the story's origin in some other multiple-god religion? If they knew God was three Persons in one, why did the later Hebrews fight that concept? And if it was an artifact, how did the Hebrews explain it in relation to having no God other than Yahweh -- that is, how could the Hebrews believe it as Scripture when it was counter to the covenant with the One True God? Did God create lesser "gods"? Are the others present at Genesis angels?

In the matter of exactly why "elohim" is there in Genesis 1 I defer to the people who actually know how to do critical analysis of such things. I don't. But Genesis 1's "elohim" certainly goes well enough with John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Doesn't it?

Shernren--But look carefully at Genesis: do you see any crew of gods and goddesses mucking around? Nope, we see God alone as Creator and the universe obeying His every command.

LOL, I like the way you put that, "mucking around". Anyhow, here is a bible quote that has me stumped:
Genesis 1:26--"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Ya think there might have been an angel or two helpin' out here? What or who do you think the "us" and "we" are?

I think it makes sense to say that the "us" and "we" there are the persons of the Trinity. After all, if God is a community within Himself, it makes sense that when He spoke of "us" making man in "our" image, He may well have been conveying His desire that man would be in community with Him and with each other, in the same way that the Persons of the Trinity are in community with each other.

Shernren-Now there's a bit of theological sophistry. I'm not denying that Genesis is similar to other pagan myths, but it's the differences that are crucial.

What do you see as those crucial differences? Take for instance the creation myths of the Ancient Egyptians because I am not conversant with many others, if you wouldn't mind. Blessings, Fortuna

I'm not really conversant with the Ancient Egyptian myths, but I think Deamiter made a good point. In the Ancient Near East (ANE) world, many of the gods they worshiped were nature or fertility gods of one kind or another. They were always thought of as connected to certain natural objects: e.g. sun god, moon god, sacred calf, astrology (indirectly worshiping the stars). In Genesis 1, all these things are demoted to the status of "created". None of them created anything, or did anything noteworthy in Genesis 1 other than to obey God. I remember one book pointing out that the stars, which were important to other religions, only gets a tiny cameo in Genesis 1 - "He also created the stars", not even a verse on its own!

To me Genesis 1 represents the point at which any form of monotheistic religion must start: God as Creator, and the universe as something created which does not deserve to be worshiped. Genesis 1 would have reminded the Jews that, as Deamiter said, all those things people around them were bowing to were all created by God.

That's one major insight I see in Genesis and it is my favorite one. =)

 

[japhy]

In the matter of exactly why "elohim" is there in Genesis 1 I defer to the people who actually know how to do critical analysis of such things. I don't. But Genesis 1's "elohim" certainly goes well enough with John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Doesn't it?

Yes, I agree it makes sense from a Christian viewpoint where Scripture has been opened to us by Christ -- there's plenty in Scripture that we recognize as pointing to Christ now. But that doesn't explain how the ancient tribes of Israel rationalized the language of Genesis. (And yes, I know you said you defer to the authorities on the matter.)

 

[Assyrian]

I do like the way the shema, Deut 6:4, says
Hear Israel, YHWH your gods is one YHWH.

A later Jewish take on the creation has Wisdom working alongside the Lord, Prov 8, probably a personification, but interpreted as the person of Christ in John's logos.

 

[BoaBreedingChristian]

@ OP

Very simple:

The Bible says death came by man and that everything was "perfect" prior.

Evolutionary theory says death came before man.

The only way to reconcile the above fact is to twist the text under the "parables and symbology" defense.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The Bible says death came by man and that everything was "perfect" prior.

where does the Bible say that everything was "perfect"?

good and very good are not the same thing as perfect.
good is suitable, useful, complete. perfect is without flaw or error.
they are NOT the same thing. not by a long shot.

where does it say that animal death was caused by Adam's sin?

Very simple:

and just as simply wrong.

 

[japhy]

@ OP

Very simple:

The Bible says death came by man and that everything was "perfect" prior.

Evolutionary theory says death came before man.

The only way to reconcile the above fact is to twist the text under the "parables and symbology" defense.

But Genesis records that God placed not only the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden, but the Tree of Life as well. He did not forbid Adam and Eve from partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Life until after they had already partaken of the Tree of Knowledge. If eating the fruit of the Tree of Life gives one everlasting life (as Genesis 3:22 implies), it stands to reason that Adam and Eve could have eaten its fruit and lived forever even before they had transgressed against God.

 

[BoaBreedingChristian]

The Bible says death came by man and that everything was "perfect" prior.

where does the Bible say that everything was "perfect"?

good and very good are not the same thing as perfect.
good is suitable, useful, complete. perfect is without flaw or error.
they are NOT the same thing. not by a long shot.

where does it say that animal death was caused by Adam's sin?

Very simple:

and just as simply wrong.

I am under the impression that the arguement can be easily made that the hebrew in Genesis 1:25 could be rendered as "perfect". I'm not going to pretend to have the capacity to make the arguement either way. Your point has inspired me to look deeply into the matter however, and I thank you for that. Regardless, millions of death, disease, and suffering doesnt seem "good" in any sense. The later references to (paraphrasing) "death via sin" and "sin entered in by one man" in Romans, align perfectly.

 

[Deamiter]

I am under the impression that the arguement can be easily made that the hebrew in Genesis 1:25 could be rendered as "perfect". I'm not going to pretend to have the capacity to make the arguement either way. Your point has inspired me to look deeply into the matter however, and I thank you for that. Regardless, millions of death, disease, and suffering doesnt seem "good" in any sense. The later references to (paraphrasing) "death via sin" and "sin entered in by one man" in Romans, align perfectly.

If you honestly think the Bible supports the view that death and suffering is "not good" you should read through Job -- specifically around chapter 39 where God gives evidence of his greatness through eagles who rip flesh and lions who hunt for prey.

In our culture, death is sterilized and all but absent from our daily lives. We send our old and sick to die in hospitles and hospices. In the ancient near east, death was everywhere -- they hunted their own food, did not have reliable treatments for sicknesses and would routinely see each other die.

We now see death as an abomination -- something to fight against and put off as long as possible, but that's not at all a Biblical view! God personally takes credit for creating predators that "rip flesh" and feast on each other because there truly is as much beauty in God's predators as there is in the rest of creation.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I am under the impression that the arguement can be easily made that the hebrew in Genesis 1:25 could be rendered as "perfect".

the Hebrew for perfect is:
tamiym
see: http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Gen&chapter=6&verse=9&strongs=08549&page=

the Hebrew: tov doesn't carry any of the connotation of perfect in English. it means complete, mature, suitable.

Regardless, millions of death, disease, and suffering doesnt seem "good" in any sense.

afaik, the death of anything but humans has no ethical or moral relevance in the OT except as it relates to people. your favorite pet dying has moral significance only in relationship to you. in itself, the death is without any ethical meaning or content.

Your point has inspired me to look deeply into the matter however, and I thank you for that.

this point, AIG's "no death before the fall" is such a common cry on these boards that i've attempted to put an answer down at:
http://dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/deathfall.html

i'm not actively working on it now, but i will collect good links if i come across them. so post your links here or start another thread on the topic.