Adam And Eve, Noah And The Origion Of Man

[Whifflingpin]

"sin has degraded our genetic material"
"the book that God left us in order that we understand some fundamental things about Him."

Ah, so instead of evolution imroving the species, do you see it as slowly degrading the species?
And, presumably, early man was still near enough perfection to understand the fundamental things about God, but, when mankind had degraded enough, God saw the need to make man literate, and (over a period of a couple of thousand years) to write him a book.

It makes sense, of a sort,

[Redzeppelin]

"sin has degraded our genetic material"
"the book that God left us in order that we understand some fundamental things about Him."

Ah, so instead of evolution imroving the species, do you see it as slowly degrading the species?
And, presumably, early man was still near enough perfection to understand the fundamental things about God, but, when mankind had degraded enough, God saw the need to make man literate, and (over a period of a couple of thousand years) to write him a book.

It makes sense, of a sort,

You have conflated two things together: genetic degradation and literacy. Two different things, totally. The presence of sin in this world is working to destroy it - on human and enviromental levels as well. The fact that God inspired a written document to give humanity a picture of Himself is an entirely different issue than what sin has done genetically to us - despite your attempt to attach them to each other and try and make God look stupid.

[Whifflingpin]

Red, you have conflated two things together: your arguments and God. I would never try to make God look stupid.

[Redzeppelin]

Red, you have conflated two things together: your arguments and God. I would never try to make God look stupid.

Your understatement is excellent. It's so good that I almost missed the insult. Bravo, my friend.

[PrinceMyshkin]

In a way I do believe we have "de-evolved." Sin - that which is opposite of God's character, destroys what it comes into contact with. I believe that Adam and Eve's sin not only affected their spiritual existence, but their physical existence as well - not only would they now be subject to death and not only would their will no longer control their bodies, but they would suffer the effects of sin even to the genetic level. It's silly to assume that Adam and Eve weren't built like we are - Christianity does not teach that Adam and Eve were some kind of alien-type of creatures; they were human beings - but the only "pure" human beings that ever existed - at least for a while. Once they gave in to temptation, their bodies began to degrade. Remember that the Bible tells us that people used to live for hundreds of years - why wouldn't a purer genetic makeup also coincide with this phenomena?

In other words, those who interpreted the Bible over the years were impefect in their understanding or their moral character? Unless you bring in again the concept of God's spirit guiding them? In which case why not guide them away from sin? Ah, but that's where Satan comes in, isn't it?

Why should I assume that God built creatures with inherent flaws in them?

Then why did he not create them with the capacity to resist or see through the subtle seduction of Satan in the Garden?

God does not create that which deforms naturally; He creates that which is perfect in all ways; the entrance of sin into this world changed reality - all the way down to a genetic level in my opinion. This is where it gets difficult - non-believers simply see "sin" as bad choices or behavior; the Christian sees it as something that destroys all that it touches - like a cancer. God didn't "make exceptions" - His creation got "altered" by the entrance of sin into the world. When we sin and turn from God, we essentially turn towards "death" - not instant death, mind you, but a slow-motion death at all levels: physical, emotional, spiritual.

But this is your closed system mode of argument again. God, being God, must do thus and thus. On the other hand God - and his purposes or ways of working - are unknowable. So you 'know' him when you approve of what he does; but call either upon Satan or on God's unknowability when confronted with such things as smallpox, malaria, AIDs, genocide or internecine warfare.

Perhaps - but it's still a matter of editing the Bible (a divinely inspired document) in favor of Naturalism (a human-oriented way of seeing reality).

A) We have way but the Bible's own assertions that it is "divinely inspired" and b) it has been composed of so many different versions and translations (and mis- or approximate translations), omissions and later additions, that we cannot know how closely what we now have comes to the original.

No - sin has degraded our genetic material. Perfection was destroyed the second Adam and Eve chose serving their own wills instead of God's.

If indeed genetics works at all this way then, given the parade of sinners throughout the Bible, we have badly degenerated material - believer and non-believer alike - today.

But the believer bases his assumptions on what the Bible says - the book that God left us in order that we understand some fundamental things about Him.

Why would God leave us a book that required or was susceptible to such diverse theological interpretations?

I make my assumptions based on a firm belief that God is who He claims to be: an omniscinet, omnipotent, omnipresent being. Follow me for a second: if God is all these things - then why wouldn't I trust Him - even in the face of that which appears to contradict Him? This discussion comes down to authority and where you place it: I place my authority in God; you place yours in humanity: fine - but humanity can never be as smart as God; as such, I think it the height of arrogance for us to think that we've unraveled the universe with our 5 senses.

That can hardly be anywhere near as arogant as to claim to know the existence and nature of God from nothing but some imperfectly transmitted texts codified by mortals supposedly guided by the spirit of the God whose existence is known only from those ancient texts.

That's how we Christians feel about non-believers.

This is a response to my Lilliput analogy, a response pretty much on the level of Nyah-nyah, I'm rubber and you're glue...

[MaryLupin]

In a way I do believe we have "de-evolved." Sin - that which is opposite of God's character, destroys what it comes into contact with. I believe that Adam and Eve's sin not only affected their spiritual existence, but their physical existence as well - not only would they now be subject to death and not only would their will no longer control their bodies, but they would suffer the effects of sin even to the genetic level. It's silly to assume that Adam and Eve weren't built like we are - Christianity does not teach that Adam and Eve were some kind of alien-type of creatures; they were human beings - but the only "pure" human beings that ever existed - at least for a while. Once they gave in to temptation, their bodies began to degrade. Remember that the Bible tells us that people used to live for hundreds of years - why wouldn't a purer genetic makeup also coincide with this phenomena?

So you will use the authority vested in science as an explanation of your own point of view (i.e. you resort to the study of genes) but without actually understanding or accepting the science behind it (I know this because if you understood the science of genetics you would never have postulated a "pure" human being). Isn't that a bit like saying one is a Christian but refusing to accept the Christ as one's savior?

Red, can't you see what you are being driven to say in order to justify what cannot be justified? You have a faith. That's fine. But it is just that, a faith. It simply is not amenable to the rules of science and logic and ultimately, to effectively use evidence such as genes, archeology, geology etc, it must be used from the foundation up. Otherwise it is as if you are just throwing the scientific words around hoping some of their authority will stick.

[Redzeppelin]

In other words, those who interpreted the Bible over the years were impefect in their understanding or their moral character? Unless you bring in again the concept of God's spirit guiding them? In which case why not guide them away from sin? Ah, but that's where Satan comes in, isn't it?

You're partially correct: the Holy Spirit is what guides us into understanding of both the Bible and God (John 14.26). God does try to lead us away from sin - but He cannot force us against our will: if we're determined to sin, He allows it (because He gave us a free will).

Then why did he not create them with the capacity to resist or see through the subtle seduction of Satan in the Garden?

They had the capacity to resist and "see through" Satan's ploy. They chose not to. Sin involves a conscious act of the will to violate God's law. They knew what they were doing. The allowed Satan to bring doubt into their minds about the character of God. Same thing he's still doing, by the way.

But this is your closed system mode of argument again. God, being God, must do thus and thus. On the other hand God - and his purposes or ways of working - are unknowable. So you 'know' him when you approve of what he does; but call either upon Satan or on God's unknowability when confronted with such things as smallpox, malaria, AIDs, genocide or internecine warfare.

The "unknowability" comes in terms of why God does what He does. I don't know why He does what He does or allows - and other times I make assumptions based upon the clues the Bible gives me - which is a process that all of us engage in throughout our day: we make inferences based upon the evidence in front of us; sometimes we're right; other times we're wrong - and that because we rarely have all the facts at hand.

A) We have way but the Bible's own assertions that it is "divinely inspired" and b) it has been composed of so many different versions and translations (and mis- or approximate translations), omissions and later additions, that we cannot know how closely what we now have comes to the original.

Biblical scholars using textual criticism have confirmed that the New Testament has a 99.5% reliability among all original language manuscripts (approximately 5000 of these) - the highest of any ancient text.

If indeed genetics works at all this way then, given the parade of sinners throughout the Bible, we have badly degenerated material - believer and non-believer alike - today.

You better believe it.

Why would God leave us a book that required or was susceptible to such diverse theological interpretations?

Because language is a flexible thing and He never intended His words to bring us into understanding by themselves - the Holy Spirit must guide us or we will misinterpret the Bible terribly.

That can hardly be anywhere near as arogant as to claim to know the existence and nature of God from nothing but some imperfectly transmitted texts codified by mortals supposedly guided by the spirit of the God whose existence is known only from those ancient texts.

This argument assumes the the Being capable of speaking reality into existence had to helplessly look on while His words were mangled. I think God is capable of protecting His truth.

This is a response to my Lilliput analogy, a response pretty much on the level of Nyah-nyah, I'm rubber and you're glue...

No - I'm trying to point out that the idea that someone is shackled by an ideology that won't let them think for themselves is not unique to atheists. Christians see the following of Naturalism in much the same terms.

[MaryLupin]

One comment about evolution...evolution does not either improve or degenerate a species. These are moral words and have no place describing the function of adaptation. A species (including the human one) adapts to changing environmental conditions and lives or it doesn't adapt and dies. Over time, the various changes demanded of a species by its environment cause "genetic drift" and ultimately speciation.

Rabbi Hillel is said to have said "He who refuses to learn deserves extinction." That is all evolution is...a body learning to live within both its limits and accepting the greater power of the world in which it is immersed.

If we are going to use scientific ideas and terms could we please accept Hillel's observation and learn to use the terms correctly?

[Redzeppelin]

So you will use the authority vested in science as an explanation of your own point of view (i.e. you resort to the study of genes) but without actually understanding or accepting the science behind it (I know this because if you understood the science of genetics you would never have postulated a "pure" human being). Isn't that a bit like saying one is a Christian but refusing to accept the Christ as one's savior?

Here we go again: your suggestion about the impossibility of what I'm suggesting is simply another way of you saying "God isn't real." My response is simply another way of saying "Yes He is." I do not need to understand the science of genetics to believe that a Divine Being does not create flawed creations. If you don't accept the existence of God with the characteristics the Bible attributes to Him, then of course everything I'm saying sounds silly. I get that.

You'll notice that I'm not really saying anything about how genes work - I'm simply suggesting that the restriction against incest for genetic reasons did not originally apply to the early beings God created - their genes were still "new" enough to where such things were not a concern; good grief, why would God program humanity one way and then give them the option to increase their numbers by a method that would surely have killed them off? That is illogical (unless He knew that His original "programming" would hold only for so long before the integrity of the system became contaminated too much to allow the practice to continue - hence the restriction listed in Leviticus).

Red, can't you see what you are being driven to say in order to justify what cannot be justified? You have a faith. That's fine. But it is just that, a faith. It simply is not amenable to the rules of science and logic and ultimately, to effectively use evidence such as genes, archeology, geology etc, it must be used from the foundation up. Otherwise it is as if you are just throwing the scientific words around hoping some of their authority will stick.

I am driven to say what I say because I believe God is who He claims to be - PERIOD. And by the way, in terms of your admonishment about the sciences - have you consulted the title of this thread lately? It's in a RELIGIOUS TEXTS forum - so I'm not required to obey your rules of Naturalism. If you wish to discuss science, go ahead - but science is an insufficient tool for analyzing God. I'm not asking you to take my words as authoritative - I'm answering your points in terms of Christian theology. You should expect such in a forum of this type, with a topic such as this.

[MaryLupin]

I'm answering your points in terms of Christian theology. You should expect such in a forum of this type, with a topic such as this.

I have no problem with your recourse to Christian theology. I have a problem with your recourse to science as a kind of anecdotal evidence without the respect to at least use the terms correctly. I don't agree with much of what theology says but I never make recourse to theological terms and concepts (such as baptism, exegesis, covenant, hermeneutics, transubstantiation and eucharist) without at least understanding what they mean and upon what assumptions they are founded. Otherwise I could simply say (using an old saw as an example) that Christianity is a cannibalistic faith and use the "evidence" that they drink blood and eat bodies. It might be technically true (if you accept that the wafer and wine change into the body and blood of Christ) but misses the whole point of the concept of transubstantiation and the eucharist. All such an ignorant use of these concepts shows is just that ignorance. Your misuse of the concepts of science show the same thing.

As to the last sentence I quoted...a forum of what type? I suspect there are a number of Christian people who can use scientific terminology with comprehensive understanding and respect and still understand and respect their own theology. What I am asking of you is that if you expect others to respect your greater knowledge of theological argument, then you should, in return, respect someone else's greater knowledge of scientific argument. If you use science incorrectly, surely you expect to be corrected? Just as I, if I used the concept of transubstantiation as "proof" of cannibalism would expect to be corrected.

[PrinceMyshkin]

You'll notice that I'm not really saying anything about how genes work - I'm simply suggesting that the restriction against incest for genetic reasons did not originally apply to the early beings God created - their genes were still "new" enough to where such things were not a concern

In other words you ARE saying something about genetics, i.e. about 'new' genes operating differently from those that have been passed around some.

good grief, why would God program humanity one way and then give them the option to increase their numbers by a method that would surely have killed them off?

Why indeed? Why would God do or not do innumerable things that, by your frequent assertions elsewhere, are not within our scope or right to know?

I am driven to say what I say because I believe God is who He claims to be - PERIOD. And by the way, in terms of your admonishment about the sciences - have you consulted the title of this thread lately? It's in a RELIGIOUS TEXTS forum - so I'm not required to obey your rules of Naturalism.

As I read her posts Mary HAS been dealing with incongruities or improbabilities in the creation myth. But if you understand religion to exclude inconvenient truths, then perhaps you ought to say so (or have aleady done that).

[MaryLupin]

And by the way, in terms of your admonishment about the sciences - have you consulted the title of this thread lately? It's in a RELIGIOUS TEXTS forum - so I'm not required to obey your rules of Naturalism.

Elsewhere you have stated that science is something that is a just a belief...that is founded on unprovable assumptions and inherently unprovable, or at least in the areas where science refutes assumptions and beliefs important to the current interpretation of the sacred. Wouldn't that make (by these terms) science ultimately an act of faith? As such it then classifies as a source of religious texts. Not that I am claiming this. I am just using your own assessment of science as "faith" based...not faith in god, of course, but faith nonetheless. So if it is just an act of faith, then it has a place here. If it is not, then it has a claim on empirical truth and can be used as evidence to refute empirical claims made on behalf of another system of thought.

Either way, science has something to say about "Adam and Eve, Noah and the Origin of Man."

[Redzeppelin]

I have no problem with your recourse to Christian theology. I have a problem with your recourse to science as a kind of anecdotal evidence without the respect to at least use the terms correctly. I don't agree with much of what theology says but I never make recourse to theological terms and concepts (such as baptism, exegesis, covenant, hermeneutics, transubstantiation and eucharist) without at least understanding what they mean and upon what assumptions they are founded. Otherwise I could simply say (using an old saw as an example) that Christianity is a cannibalistic faith and use the "evidence" that they drink blood and eat bodies. It might be technically true (if you accept that the wafer and wine change into the body and blood of Christ) but misses the whole point of the concept of transubstantiation and the eucharist. All such an ignorant use of these concepts shows is just that ignorance. Your misuse of the concepts of science show the same thing.

As to the last sentence I quoted...a forum of what type? I suspect there are a number of Christian people who can use scientific terminology with comprehensive understanding and respect and still understand and respect their own theology. What I am asking of you is that if you expect others to respect your greater knowledge of theological argument, then you should, in return, respect someone else's greater knowledge of scientific argument. If you use science incorrectly, surely you expect to be corrected? Just as I, if I used the concept of transubstantiation as "proof" of cannibalism would expect to be corrected.

Why don't you help me understand where it is exactly that I used terminology or ideas "incorrectly"? Please help me see where I demonstrated a misunderstanding of scientific knowledge, please. Thank you.

[Redzeppelin]

In other words you ARE saying something about genetics, i.e. about 'new' genes operating differently from those that have been passed around some.

I'm suggesting that the original human beings' bodies may have operated a bit differently due to the nature of their original construction - a construction that sin had only just begun to degrade. You and Mary both make the assumption that incest MUST logically result in malformations because that's what happens now. How can you know that perhaps - in the very beginning, things were different? Good grief: when it comes to Evolution, non-believers will accept any number of implausible things, but a suggestion of a genetically pure couple is unheard of? What?

Why indeed? Why would God do or not do innumerable things that, by your frequent assertions elsewhere, are not within our scope or right to know?

But you didn't answer my question, and it deserves to be answered: why would God design us genetically to not breed with close relatives and then give our first parents no other options by which to continue to perpetuate the race? Is it that you cannot answer, or will not?

As I read her posts Mary HAS been dealing with incongruities or improbabilities in the creation myth. But if you understand religion to exclude inconvenient truths, then perhaps you ought to say so (or have aleady done that).

Next.

Elsewhere you have stated that science is something that is a just a belief...that is founded on unprovable assumptions and inherently unprovable, or at least in the areas where science refutes assumptions and beliefs important to the current interpretation of the sacred. Wouldn't that make (by these terms) science ultimately an act of faith?

Close; not quite. I have never said science=faith. I have made the claim that the believing in evolution (which is unprovable, like God) requires a certain amount of faith; likewise, I have indicated that science functions on some presuppositions (i.e. Naturalism and materialism) and that part of its "evidence" consists of observations subjected to interpretive machinery which influences how the data is ultimately evaluated. When you tell me that life began billions of years ago by random chance, well - that seems to require a significant leap of faith - because fossils et al do not prove that.

As such it then classifies as a source of religious texts. Not that I am claiming this. I am just using your own assessment of science as "faith" based...not faith in god, of course, but faith nonetheless. So if it is just an act of faith, then it has a place here. If it is not, then it has a claim on empirical truth and can be used as evidence to refute empirical claims made on behalf of another system of thought.

Clever - but you know I was not telling you that science had no place here - I was confronting your attitude that theology wasn't good "science." Science requires its own brand of faith (in human reason and its observational skills to unravel reality) as well as its unproven assumptions (God isn't real).

Either way, science has something to say about "Adam and Eve, Noah and the Origin of Man."

I assume it does and that that is why you're here.

[MaryLupin]

Why don't you help me understand where it is exactly that I used terminology or ideas "incorrectly"? Please help me see where I demonstrated a misunderstanding of scientific knowledge, please. Thank you.

What you said: "In a way I do believe we have "de-evolved." Sin - that which is opposite of God's character, destroys what it comes into contact with. I believe that Adam and Eve's sin not only affected their spiritual existence, but their physical existence as well - not only would they now be subject to death and not only would their will no longer control their bodies, but they would suffer the effects of sin even to the genetic level. It's silly to assume that Adam and Eve weren't built like we are - Christianity does not teach that Adam and Eve were some kind of alien-type of creatures; they were human beings - but the only "pure" human beings that ever existed - at least for a while. Once they gave in to temptation, their bodies began to degrade. Remember that the Bible tells us that people used to live for hundreds of years - why wouldn't a purer genetic makeup also coincide with this phenomena?"

This the most recent. Devolution is a concept that implies directionality in adaptive change. It is the mixing of the notion of teleology with the concepts of adaptive change. This mistake is commonly made by those espousing forms of "social darwinism." Evolution (in all its changes) does not have a direction. It is change contingent upon the particulars of an organism as it copes with the conditions of its environment. Evolution as a concept cannot contain the notion of "progress" or "degradation."

Secondly, purity in genetics is something used to discuss cross-breeding between varieties of genetic types. So for example, if you cross green bean type A and green bean type B you get a cross-breed or an "impure" example of type A and type B. If, however, the cross get stabilzed so that the new type breeds true then it is no longer an impure type A or B. With respect to human beings, impurity is not applicable. This is because we are genetically incredibly homogeneous across the spectrum (due to our extreme newness as a species), despite the variations in our phenotype. That is, we don't actually have biological races, although of course we do have social races. Purity as applied to human genetics is another example of the mixing of human notions of directionality in history and ideas of progress with what is an amoral (not immoral but amoral) function of genetics and biology. What results is often horrific, for example, eugenics and notions of "pure blood" obligations to the "race."

Finally, perfection has no place in the discussion either of phenotype or genotype. Perfection implies a transcendent standard to which the material expression can be measured. It doesn't matter whether the transcendent ideal is Plato's or Christianity's, neither have anything to do with what science measures against (repeatable experiment and predictive ability).

You can say, if you like, that Adam and Eve existed and were perfect and that we exist and are not perfect. But this has absolutely nothing to do with genes or evolution. Your only recourse is to theology. You (and those with whom you debate) must simply accept the facticity of your joint assumptions.