7/21/2022 0 Comments Evolution v. genesisMichael: Evolution is the belief millions of years of death of animals can give man physical life. Christianity is the belief that the RESURRECTION of one sinless man was enough to give us eternal life. Evolution is nothing more than a death cult from Satan to deceive you into believing that the wages of sin is not death, and y’all have been wilfully deceived and fooled from the oldest trick in the book! Jack: Gonna respectfully disagree on this one. I think, when the Bible is properly understood in its Ancient Near Eastern and literary context, there is no conflict between it and any modern theory of human origins. I love and revere the Bible and have dedicated my life to studying it, and, whilst I understand the apparent conflict, there is no true contradiction. I'd recommend John Walton’s "Lost World" book series as well as, "Death in the Garden," a dissertation by Joshua John Van Ee. Skunk: did not God say He created the world in six days? And also that is the reason why God says in six days you shall work but on the seventh day you shall rest? Jack:
Oh, I think the days are literal. The question for me is how one translates Genesis 1:1 and what ברא means. If I'm right about those two things, there no conflict between Evolition and Genesis 1. Skunk: Does not evolutionary theory say men evolved from animals through millions of years and through deaths of many before Adam? Jack: Yup Skunk: and does not the Bible say death came through sin? Jack: Sure, but how? Is that teaching that's thats where death originated? Not necessarily. In fact, that statement seems compatible with a few models of understanding Genesis. I think humanity was doomed to die because of Adam. Skunk: are you saying existence of death in the world is not necessarily due to sin and was part of God’s sinless world before the sin of Adam? Jack: Theres nothing in the words used in Genesis that states otherwise. טוב certainly doesn't, and the terms used in the dominion mandate (רדה and כבש) imply that there was at least animal death before the fall. Every other instance where these terms are used in the Hebrew Bible, death seems implied. Skunk: How about the words used in Genesis to define the penalty of eating the fruit of tree of knowledge of good and evil? Did God not say that you will surely die if you eat the fruit? Does it make sense to you that God would warn them of this dire consequence of disobedience if death was part of God's sinless world? Jack: Sure, he gave that command to Adam, and it came true. But Adam, I think, is only immortal because of his access to the tree of life (the life-giving presence of God). He receives the consequence of death when he is expelled from the garden which is why God expells him in the first place. Skunk: so in your perspective, Adam was in constant state of decay before his disobedience, and his immortality was only contingent on eating the fruit of the tree of life constantly. Why does God say then the tree of life will make Adam live forever in Genesis 3:22? Jack: I wouldn't call it a constant state of decay. He was being sustained by the tree of life which *is* the presence of God. If Adam continually abided in the garden with the tree, he would have lived forever. Skunk: Is that what God's commentary in Genesis 3:22 is in regard to the tree of life, that Adam would live forever if he merely stayed close to the tree? Jack: Not exactly, but I think the Garden of Eden is supposed to be a sort of Holy of Holies for the created Earth. The tree language here needs to be compared with how the tabernacle is layed out in light of the Garden of Eden. The menorah in the tabernacle represents the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Ark of the Covenant is the tree of life. The tree language also harkens back to the world tree motif in Ancient Near Eastern religion. So, when I look at this passage, I see the trees as symbolic of whatever the choice was Adam made to be expelled from the garden on cultural and textual precedent. Whatever it was specifically, it is represented here by Adam choosing to be the determiner of good and evil for himself. Skunk: so you don't even think that it was a literal tree that according to Genesis 3:22, he would have to "stretch out his hand, and take," and "eat"? Jack: I think this is a literal event being described in archetypal language you can find in the rest of the Ancient Near East. There may have been a literal tree, but im not certain, and, even if there was, it's still the presence of God that's giving the life. Skunk: Again, to try your perspective, Adam was in constant state of dying even before his act of disobedience of taking the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and his immortality was only contingent on being in the garden. So it’s not true that through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin? Jack: Of course, if it in Scripture it is true. The question is what does it mean and how many models of origins is it compatible with. Death is a certainty because of sin. Is this verse saying that all death is a result of sin in totality? I'm not so sure. Skunk: I think there is a simpler explanation. You doubt the clear testimony of Scripture when Romans 5:12 says death is the wages of sin, and sin entered through the disobedience of Adam. You doubt the clear testimony of the historical account of Genesis 1 and 2 of God's creation of the universe in distinct stages, and that God created land creatures and separately created man as His image-bearer on the same day that has a clear "evening and morning" pattern of a normal day. You disregard how God spells death as the consequence of disobedience when He commands Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But to justify your doubt, you end up reading into the words "good," "subdue," "rule," and whatever else to justify ubiquitous animal deaths caused by Adam despite the fact that God clearly said He gave vegetation and fruit for food for all land creatures. I think you know you have no biblical basis to insert the evolutionary perspective. What I'm not sure about is the reason for your doubting. Jack: Okay, lots there to interact with. I'll try and be succinct if I can be. I agree with Romans 3 and 5:12. New Testament scholars like N.T. Wright and others have no problem working evolutionary theory in with what the text says here. We all agree that death is the consequence of Adam's sin, the question is how and if the answer to that question contradicts any modern theory of origins. I agree that the seven days are literal and represent stages. The key point of contention between you and me on Genesis 1 is whether or not בראשית implies and absolute beginning point and what it means to ברא create something in an ancient Near Eastern context. If you want me to be succinct in regards to the language used w/ Adam, I'll go into more detail here. I'll be relying on a doctoral dissertation i read a few days ago for some of this information. The specific Hebrew phrase used is מות תמות. This is an explicit mention of death, but what kind of death? Is this the kind of death we actually see play out for Adam in Genesis 5? Scholarly opinion is divided here, and this is one aspect of the text of Genesis 2 I don't have a firm opinion on. What I will say is that there are two readings more plausible than "Adam was made immortal and will lose that if he violates the command" interpretation. First, Adam is said to be made (יצר) from dust (עפר). The way these terms are used in other parts of the Bible denote we're more than likely speaking of archetypal qualities, dust more than likely denoting that the man was made mortal. If you want references, I'll give them at request. With that in mind, the passage about the consequences from the tree can mean a few things. The two I find most likely are as follows. First, the specific syntax of the verse is used in the Pentateuch for executions. On this reading, God is threatening immediate death against Adam that he doesn't receive in Genesis 3, instead receiving mercy and dying natural death in Genesis 5. Second, the syntax could be construed as Adam being doomed to die, that death will be certain for him once Adam eats from the tree. On this reading, the consequence does come in Genesis 3 due to Adam being expelled from the presence of God found in the tree of life. This is the one I'm partial to, personally. The verse certainly doesn't claim that Adam was innately immortal prior to his fall. As far as reading something into ambiguous terms... I'm sorry, but those terms are what they are and imply what they imply. There is no contradiction between God telling us to כשב and רדה the animals for humans own purposes and giving us vegetation in addition to it (btw, jf this verse supports original vegetarianism, how exactly do you subdue and rule birds and fish peacefully?). As for secretly knowing that I don't have a basis for my interpretation... uh... no. I will say I'm trying to be more aware of how Hesiod and Ovid have informed Biblical Interpretation. The idea of an original paradise where nothing died seems to me to be a primarily hellenistic idea, one the Bible doesn't seem to share... at least, not in the same way. It views the primeval state similarly to its neighbors in the ANE, we just misread it with Western eyes. Sorry that was so long, brother. Tried to be both succinct and thorough, and I'm not sure I succeeded in either 😅 Skunk: short or long answer is equally fine as long as you are able to defend biblically your particular position. It sounds to me the reason for your doubts is due to your association to some scholarly/intellectual body. But being familiar with the scholarly environment, you of all people know that not all scholars are honest scholars, but some are, to use a biblical designation, wolves. I sense your doubts as arising not from the ambiguity of Scripture, but from desire to accommodate an unbiblical idea but you are confronted with a contradictory testimony from Scripture which you will have to refuse in order to accommodate. Simply put, it sounds like you are doing eisegesis. As a rule, in a public discourse with any particular individual, I do not accept references to other theologians as if they are any authority at all. I simply ask the individual to defend their position from their own biblical convictions. If they cannot, no reference to other theologians will help at all defend their position. You say you agree with Romans 5:12. Then this is what you says you believe. So you believe death entered into the world. How? Through sin. Where did the sin come from? Through one man Adam. This is only one of many passages that testify that death is the result of sin, as you know. But you are not affirming Romans 5:12: the passages that talk about death as a result of sin must be interpreted in light of "modern theory of origins." Obviously, if you want to say deaths existed before the sin of Adam, you are denying this passage, and ultimately confusing the work of Christ who came to save us from sin and the penalty of sin. You say you believe in the 6 literal days of creation during which light, the celestial bodies, all the living creatures, were created. And again, you want to somehow fit in millions of years of evolutionary theory into Genesis 1 and 2 like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It is an impossibility. I see no issue in seeing Adam being made from dust and being made sinless and having no process of decay and death within him before the fall. Again, if you are trying to accommodate the false scholarship of unbelieving wolves in sheep's clothing, of course you will end up making an out-in-left-field correlation between the passage that says Adam's being made out of dust and the claim that that must mean that Adam is susceptible to dying. I think it is clear what God meant when He said "You will surely die." It means disobedience will cause death, i.e. separation from the life of God, resulting in immediate process of physical death. Every sons of Adam today are dying. But not only that, Adam suffered spiritual death, which also is testified to when Paul says in Ephesians 2 that unbelievers are dead in sin, i.e. unable to respond to God in loving fellowship. Adam later demonstrates his deadness by his inability to repent and confess his sin even when confronted by God. And left in their own natural state, man will suffer the ultimate separation from God which is called the second death described as the lake of fire in Revelation 20. I believe this is the death that is in view here. Take a look at the truly ugly nature of death and how it is a direct consequence to violating God's holy nature. You still think death existed prior to sin? As for the dominion mandate given to man in Genesis 1:28, I believe this to be a privilege that is in force before as well as after the fall, by virtue of man being made in the image of God and the special privilege that man has to represent God. I do not read any bloody violence or tyrannical brutality that you seem to associate with the Hebrew words in Genesis 1, nor can you defend such association in other instances where the words are used. It simply means that man are given the authority over the animal kingdom to rule over it and cultivate it well for God's honour. The idea that the perfect Paradise where there is no death is a Hellenistic mythology is an unfair dismissal of all the biblical arguments for the perfect Paradise, and an unfair characterization of the truth of Scripture. Don't throw the baby out with bathwater. Jack: I'll list the problems I have w/ your comment in order of what I find most important. 1) So, on the seven days, I've stated multiple times in this thread that I take them to be literal and the question is what it means to ברא something in Genesis 1 and the Hebrew Bible. You are assuming that it means to materially manufacture something or bring something out of nothing, and I'm contending that said assumption is unfounded. Since we're allowing for longer posts, I'll be more thorough here and provide some cross references. In Isaiah 43:1, it refers to Israel (as a national body of people) as God's creation. In Isaiah 57:19, it refers to God creating praise on the lips of people. In Isaiah 65:18, it refers to God creating Jerusalem as a place for rejoicing. In Psalm 51:10, it refers to making a clean heart in someone. In these instances, ברא cannot mean to materially manufacture out of nothing because these things already exist. Each of these is better read as assigning a new purpose or function to an already materially existant thing. All other instances of ברא (including those in Genesis 1-2) can be read this way and still make sense. I'm not saying it cannot mean material creation out of nothing; however, as exegetes, we must look at the totality of the term and how it's used in the rest of the Bible. Further, this reading of ברא fits well with the creation stories from other religions around this time period. The function of the gods in Canaanite, Mesopotamia, and Egypt was not to materially bring the universe into existence but to ordain the functionality of the universe as king of the cosmos. That's what Marduk does at the end of the Enuma Elish, for example. Re has a similar function in Egypt. This is because, in the ancient Near East, what it meant to exist was intimately tied to functionality. If you did not inhabit a role in an ordered system, even if you materially existed, you were not considered was existing in the ANE mindset. That all changed with Plato and Aristotle, and the New Testament (being written after an intense amount of hellenization) reflects this shift in thinking. That's why John 1 and Colossians 1 both affirm creatio ex nihilo, even though Genesis isn't addressing that topic. So the seven days are literal, they're just not discussing creation in the way we think of it in light of hellenization. The text of Genesis 1 reflects this understanding itself: light is named by its function, day, the sun and moon are classified by their ability to keep time and years, mankind images God, etc. This isn't talking about when these things came to be materially- this is discussing the king of the cosmos ordaining the functions of the formerly chaotic universe. 2) You also didn't answer the question I asked about the translation of Genesis 1:1. If בראשית is definite (read barashit), then you may have a point of absolute beginning here. However, I'm inclined (for textual and comparative cultural reasons) to take this as indefinite (read bərashit). Taken this way, v1 becomes a dependent clause on v2. "When God created the heavens and the earth..." and then goes on to describe the state of the world before God began to create. There are syntactical parallels in the rest of the Hebrew Bible that fit with this understanding, and it fits with the typical ANE formula for creation stories seen in other texts. Genesis 2:4 is actually a very close parallel for this sort of syntactical structure. If this is correct, there is an indefinite period of chaos prior to the seven day creation implicit in Genesis 1. The Aramaic Targums and Syriac Peshita share this indefinite understanding of the text, though the Spetuagint does not. 3) As for the dominion mandate in 1:28, let me provide some parallels so that you can see exactly what I'm taking about. First, כבש. In Numbers 32:22-29 and Joshua 18:1 it's used in the context of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. In 2 Samuel 8:11, it's used in reference to David's conquests. In Jeremiah 34:11-16, it's used of bringing someone into slavery. Micah 7:18 has God subduing the iniquities of Israel. Zechariah 9:15 has it paired with trampling. In Eshter 7:8, it's used to imply sexual assult. In Nehemiah 5:5, it is once again used to refer to slavery. In 1 Chronicles 22:18 and 2 Chronicles 28:10, it's again used in reference to conquering territory. There is no instance of this term were violence is not implied! If 1:28 is nonviolent, it would be the only instance of a nonviolent usage of this term in the entire Bible! Now, רדה. Leviticus 25:43-53, 26:17 uses it to reference oppression. Numbers 24:19 uses it to reference a king who will take dominion. In 1 Kings 4:24, 5:16, and 9:23, it's used in reference to Solomons rule over the builders, the one that caused the 10 Northern tribes to rebel. In Isaiah 14:2-6 its used, again, of harsh and unjust rule. In Isaiah 41:2, it references another bloody conquest. Jeremiah 5:31 uses it to describe the rule of unjust priests. Ezekiel 29:15 and 34:4 both use it to describe perceived unjust dominion. Joel 3:13 uses it of treading something down. Psalm 49:14 uses it to describe the justs eventual conquest of the unjust (sending them to Sheol). Psalm 68:27, 72:8, and 110:2 all describe the eventual conquest and dominion of a tribe or king. Lamentations 1:13 uses it to describe the Babylonian conquest of Israel. Nehemiah 9:28 uses it in reference to God's judgement over Israel in delivering them to their enemies. Pretty much every instance of this term, too, involves harsh rule and conquest. 1:28 would again be an outlier if we take it in the way you're suggesting. Both of these terms, at the very least, imply violence in every other place they are used. 4) As for מות ימות, I do not think you have adequately addressed the textual issues I raised in the prior comment. I happen to agree with you that death here means that Adam will certainly die, but how and by what means is the question. Adam being יצר from עפר is significant because it's used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to signify mortality (Psalm 103:13). Job 10:9 even states that Job himself is made from עפר directly by God, and יצר is likewise used in Isaiah 43:1 of God's forming of Israel, something that already materially exists. Therefore, when we ask what it means for Adam to מות ימות, we cannot immediately conclude that this implies an original immorality, especially if the rest of the text implies that Adam's immorality is contingent on eating from the tree of life (I.E., abiding in the presence of God). I understand your interpretation, but it doesn't fit with the idiom of the text of Genesis 2. 5) Naming N.T. Wright on the fly was a little bit of a cop out on my part. I'll admit that. I'm far more comfortable in Hebrew and the Tanakh than I am with the New Testament. The majority of my undergraduate and graduate training is in Biblical Hebrew, so that's where I tend to camp out. I have some Greek, but it isn't great. I'll do my best with my limited training to address your reading of Romans here. Romans 5:12 states that sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, which spread to all men because all sinned. What kind of death is Paul referring to here? I think the text gives us a few clues (in my untrained opinion) that this text is, too, compatible with my view of Genesis/ Origins. First, there is a good chance this text is discussing spiritual death and not somatic death. It states that sin cannot be counted where there is no law (5:13), and it contrasts this death later in with Justification, not bodily ressurection (5:15-17). 5:18 even states it as condemnation. Further, the text makes the claim that death reigned from Adam until Moses (5:14). One could easily take that as saying that deaths reign ceased when Moses came with the Torah, though this aspect of the text is debated. Still, even if I am wrong on this, there is a plausible reading here that still fits with my position. Death as a penalty of sin came into the world at Adam's transgression (5:12-13), even if there was already natural death as implied by the text of Genesis 1. Adam's job as High Priest of creation was to spread the Garden of Eden (the covenant presence of God) to the rest of creation and thus bring eternal life. When he failed at that, humanity was doomed to die because Adam, the one in charge of bringing life to them, failed because of sin. I'll have to do more reading on this particular text, as it is the hardest one for me to answer. However, I think these two readings at least plausibly fit. 6) Lastly, and I do not think you mean any disrespect, but please stop trying to Psychoanalyze me. I came to this conclusion about the text long before I studied evolutionary theory. The scholars I consult on these issues all affirm the Biblical gospel and all hold the Scriptures to be inerrant. Their voices got me through the fairly unbelieving institution I was taught at for my undergraduate degree. I am not attempting to fit any theory of origins into the text: I am attempting to read an ancient Near Eastern document written by Iron Age Israelites in the context most appropriate. It is an inspired, God Breathed, and Inerrant document, but it has a historical and cultural context. I do not "doubt" the text. I am trying to be sensitive to its authors context and mindset as best as I am personally able. Right hand to God, that is it. Our dialogue will be far more fruitful, I think, if we both approached each other as people of good faith trying to understand the text as best we can. Approaching it as you have so far comes off as condescending, as if you already know better than I do, which I do not think is very productive. Skunk: I am sorry if I came across as condescending. I do appreciate your interactions. You are one of the more interesting and coherent people I ever encountered on Facebook. My responses to your arguments are soon to follow. 4) and 5) Again, I find Romans 5:12 to be one of many clear verses for sufficient explanation for the how and by what means Adam and anyone suffers death. In the entire Bible, death occurs only due to sin against God. Again, there are two categories according to the Bible: physical and spiritual (and the eternal death which is a permanent extension of the spiritual death). You insist on the word “dust” as symbolic of mortality, and you quote post-fall usages to the same word. While the study of the occurrences of a word throughout Scripture is a valuable one, to help us understand its meaning in a particular context, in this case, you are allowing for ambiguity in Genesis 1 where there is no room for it, because, again, the Bible in Romans 5 and elsewhere in Scripture is crystal clear in its testimony of sin causing the death of man. So simply because God molded man out of the ground material does not mean he was subject to decay and death to begin with, which is the result of the fall according to the Scripture. If you deny this, again, you would have to explain how the utterly terrifying nature of death, either physical and spiritual, could exist before the fall. If you say there exists some novel category of death that is not the result of sin, then you have stepped outside the clear bounds of Scripture. 1) and 2) Yes. The word “create” in Genesis 1:1 does not necessarily mean to “create out of nothing.” The same word is used later in 1:28 to describe creating man in His own image, and 2:7 says God “molded” Adam from pre-existing ground material. Yes, these two words are not contradictory, as it is true that man or any other created thing did not exist before God created him, and at the same time, God created man and every created thing by using the pre-existing material. Yes, Genesis 1:1 can be legitimately read, “When God began to create the heavens and earth-“ which would make 1:2 to signify pre-existing material universe, yet still devoid of any life, from which God works. Yes, this means 1:1 is not an absolute beginning of the existence of the material universe. At the same time, not in any contradictory way, NT writers testify to God’s creation of all material ex nihilo as you mentioned: John 1:3, Col 1:16. Yes, understanding the original text, even understanding the polemical nature of the words in view of surrounding contemporary idolatrous cultures, and studying its occurrences should all shed light on the nuance of its meaning, and this approach should be beneficial to better understand God’s word. Yet after all this rigorous study, I believe it offers very little value to an average Christian reading Genesis, and the fact of its little value can be proven by the Christian’s response, “So what?” It does not change in any fundamental way the Genesis account of the origin. So what if Paul was trying to reach the Greek audience and was using the terms that they would understand to say that unlike the pantheon of gods there is only one Creator who created everything? So what if Moses was trying to speak the vernacular of the pagan religions in order to, again, show that Yahweh alone is the true Creator of the entire universe? Genesis 1 and 2 still makes no room for any evolutionary theory, which is a directly contradictory perspective. To say that the mankind and animal kingdom existed for millions of years prior to God’s six literal day of creation/differentiation of a sinless, undecaying universe (unlike now as Romans 8:21 says) before the light, sun and moon, vegetation, all the creatures were formed, is not only a pure speculation, but simply impossible. 3) Again, understanding the original language should be beneficial to better understand any passage, and NOT at the expense of relinquishing any clear testimony of Scripture which is corroborated in multiple places. Always, always, always, the obscure passages should be interpreted in light of the clearer passages. And the clearer passages emphatically speak to the un-cursed universe where there is no sin and death. To suggest that there is bloody violence before the fall simply by pointing at the occurrences of the words in different contexts is a weak argument. At any rate, the word for “subdue” is used repeatedly to speak of making into a civilized place a piece of land which is an inanimate object, which most likely requires waging war post-fall. There is no sense of brutality or violence against animals here. And while the word for “dominate” does refer to man’s relationship to the animal kingdom, it is not necessarily a mandate for bloody violence or struggle against a hostile animal kingdom. It simply conveys the idea of authority and the right to govern as God’s steward, friendly or otherwise. Leviticus 25:53 certainly hints that there is a way to “dominate” a Hebrew slave without harshness. Jack: Okay, so on 1 and 2, I appreciate your acknowledgment of all of the various ingredients that went into Genesis 1 reading like it does. The word for "create" in Genesis 1 has, at the very least, a variant definition. Genesis 1:1 can be read a particular way that implies an indefinite period of time before the creation week (I'd look at Jeremiah 4 for a very powerful example of these terms used in a way I find fairly advantageous to my position). These are very important areas of agreement. I say this because I don't think you've fully acknowledged the implications of these concessions. Let me explain what I mean: my claim is not simply that ברא sometimes doesn't mean to materially create, but that there is NO place where that definition is ever clearly seen. Each instance of the term for create can be read as assigning something a function within an ordered system, meaning that "creating" in Genesis 1 is about the assignment of functions to things which already materially exist (but wouldn't be considered existent in the ANE). If I am right in defining ברא in this way, what changed about light, for example, on day 1 wasn't light's material existence but its role in the cosmos as day. I'd say that this has huge implications for how we read Genesis 1! If it isn't talking about material creation at all, then the seven days (by themselves at least) are not at all contradictory to evolutionary theory because Genesis 1 is about a completely different subject! As for Romans 8:21, again, New Testament isn't my area, so I'll try my best here! Again, this verse can be seen from a number of different perspectives. There's nothing in this verse that says creations decay was due to sin, and, even if it was because of sin, nothing which states how it being "subject to decay" is the result of sin. I keep harping on the "how" because I believe that to be an important question in this entire conversation. It could very well be (consistent with the text of Genesis 1) that Adam's mission to spread the presence of God to the rest of the world was the way the Earth could be free of decay. When Adam failed, Earth was, again, subject to such decay without hope of rescue. That, too, is consistent with the text. I harp on this simply to note that Romans doesn't appear to have a particular scheme of how much of this happened defined. It's underdetermined, and it isn't up to us to fill in the gaps with much certainty. On 3) Okay, but who decides which passages are the clear ones? We today in the 21st Century without a knowledge of Hebrew Idiom? Given the almost exclusive violent nature of the terms in Hebrew, I'd say that came off pretty clear to most Iron Age Israelites! I don't think Leviticus 25 really helps you here, as this slavery still included beatings and thrashing (Ex 20-21). That personally makes me uncomfortable, but it is what it is. Since that was your only citation as to define this term, even if I were to give that to you, every other instance of this term implies the allowance of violence. I will again pose this question to you: how exactly does one subdue and rule fish and birds if not for their meat? 5) I also want to challenge your hermeneutic here for a moment. You stated that insights gained from an understanding of the original language cannot come, "...at the expense of relinquishing the clear testimony of Scripture." I don't want to assume, and you're fully free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you're also lumping in specialized cultural and historical knowledge with that given your comments on 1 & 2. Again, if I'm mistaken, feel free to correct me! I will recant! This seems to be a form of the Doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture, that scripture is clear and easy to understand. The problem is that this doctrine (as it was first articulated by the 16th century reformers) only applied to the gospel itself. Luther himself produced a commentary on Genesis because, in his words, no one had yet treated Genesis with adequate enough skill. The creators of the doctrine you seem to be invoking to challenge my hermeneutic never stated that scripture in total is perfectly clear but that the gospel is clearly articulated within scripture. I can think of multiple examples of when specialized knowledge of Hebrew or Canaanite religion or Mesopotamian Legal Theory are vital to understand a particular biblical text! So, i suppose that's a more fundamental hermeneutical difference between us if I have understood you correctly. So, on 4 and 5, I've contended a few times now that death is present right in Genesis 1 (which has death before sin necessarily), the Hebrew Idiom is almost exclusively used to talk about mortality, and that Romans 5 underdetermines the means by which these things occurred and the nature of death discussed. You didn't address any of my actual reasons for getting that from Romans. I really have enjoyed talking with you, don't get me wrong, but we're going in circles now 😅. I feel like we'd have a really good time discussing this in person over some drinks, but, as it stands now, I don't know if there's much more either of us can really say. You were a worthy opponent! Hope we can talk again, but this will be the last pass from me. We come from different hermeneutical worlds, I think, out of a zeal to guard and protect the same gospel. I'd gladly link arms with you to do so! Skunk: I appreciate our discourse, because we both acknowledge the only ground on which we can fight for the true knowledge of the truth is the Scripture, and hence it is the only legitimate battleground. I suppose both of us have exhausted our arsenals at this point, and we should call an armistice to let the dust clear (yet realizing that the war for the truth of the Genesis account does not end until the end of history). But you have made some arguments here, which warrant a counter-response. I don’t know, after all our discourse, why you are now arguing against the axiom of the perspicuity of Scripture, and about the basic principle of hermeneutic (i.e. using clearer passages to shed light on the more obscure). Maybe I’m misunderstanding. If the Scripture is not able to be clearly understood to begin with, then engaging in this debate in order to better understand the Genesis account was a meaningless endeavour. Yes, there are more difficult passages, but I think you would agree that nobody has the permission to speculate beyond what is written and in direct contradiction to the clearer passages of Scripture, especially when it comes to speculating about the book of Torah which lays the foundation for understanding the rest of Scripture, most importantly, the gospel. We see clearly how our understanding of the Genesis account directly impacts our understanding of Christ’s work in Romans 5. I value in-depth study, as necessary, of the historical context including the contemporary religious vernaculars of the neighbouring cults, precisely because I believe the text can be understood. If you are suggesting that Genesis 1 and 2 can never be clearly understood and thus has room to be compatible with the evolutionary model of origins, I entirely reject that notion for the reasons I presented in this thread, and I contend that that is not exegesis. As for Jeremiah 4, Jeremiah is speaking of the aftermath of judgment on Israel using Genesis 1:2 imagery. Upon a closer look, you will find that it is rather advantageous to the position that there was no life and no semblance of any life-sustaining environment prior to God’s six days of creation (not seven). I already granted that the word “create” does not necessarily mean “ex nihilo.” The materials might have already been present when God starts His six days. Again, an average Christian like myself asks: “So what?” God is still responsible for creating all pre-existing materials (John 1, Col 1, as we both agree), and bringing into existence all the things in six days which were not existent before. An average Christian can read the intimate details of God sculpting man from the ground (Not from a pre-existing primeval living creature, as the evolutionary model suggests) and breathing the “breath of life” and how man then becomes a living soul. Also, in the six days, God clearly creates (not merely assigns a new purpose) all the other “living souls” in Genesis 2:19 out of the ground, not from pre-existing animal kingdom. The texts in Genesis 1 and 2 do not allow for any existence of life or even an environment hospital for life prior to God’s work of creation. In regard to the two words in the dominion mandate that is the argument for bloody violence before the fall, you say the one quote from Leviticus 25:53 is not enough. But that one quote is enough to show you that drawing your conclusion purely based on the other references of the same word — unfairly, I might add, as they are in different context (post-fall) — can be easily be shut down by one reference of the same word that suggests non-violence. I also object to the relevance of your mischaracterization of general practice of slavery in Israel to my immediate text that clearly shows a non-violent treatment of a slave. That is a good question. The answer is that men would rule over the animal kingdom in a way that is markedly different from the way that God commanded Noah to do in Genesis 9:1-3, which is the same dominion mandate with one difference: what they are allowed to eat. As for the way of your reading the passages in Romans 5, you still simply have zero support for the idea of a category of death that is not the consequence of Adam’s sin. But it is all too evident, by the way you are handling the verses in Romans 5, that you have not formulated a clear argument as to why you think the Scripture says the physical death is not necessarily due to Adam’s sin. Remember, you have hinted that you believe (correct me if I’m wrong) at least in the perspicuity of Scripture when it comes to the gospel. You are in the zone of the gospel in Romans 5. You do not want to mischaracterize and unfairly speculate about the nature of death, because death is directly impacted by the work of Christ. I have enjoyed your interactions. If you want to discuss more, let me know. I obviously failed to persuade you that the evolutionary model of origins is a metastasizing pathogen on the sterile field of Scripture, but I believe you have failed to defend the credibility of the evolutionary theory from any biblical text.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
CategoriesAll Discourse Doctrines Gospel Humour NT Commentaries OT Commentaries Tactical Life Date
August 2023
|