Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[simpleas]

That is correct when we examine the devastating action of Adam.

The logic of this thread is directed to the sole existence of Adam and his spouse as the first parents of humankind. We need to remind ourselves that Adam had received Original Holiness and Justice for all human nature, including all his descendants. Adam’s disobedience wounded human nature so that his discendants would be born in a state of deprivation of Original Holiness and Justice.

The freedom to seek God is an essential part of the first human’s nature. We did not lose that important freedom. Even if Adam had done the right thing, we would still have to face Satan’s temptations. We would still have to obey God. When I am in the mood to slap Adam upside the head, I try to remember that because of Adam’s existence I have the opporuntiy for joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision. If Adam never existed, then I would be some archaic fossil without a speck of hope for joy eternal.

Yes, but if Adam had done the right thing we would not have been born deprived of O.H and O.J, born into loving and knowing God as part of our nature, rather than a constant fight of doing Good or Evil. Then being able to make a choice.

I would say being givin the opportunity of eternal joy came from Jesus rather than Adam. Yes a first human male and female needed to create more humans, but Jesus teaches us how we can be in the spirit, and at the moment I am investigating what eternal joy really means.

Thanks for your conversation

 

[grannymh]

Another view of Adam and logic.

Adam, himself, had the gift of logic. Having a fully-complete human nature, Adam possessed the tools of reason – self-reflection, abstract concepts, analytical thought, creative imagination, and logical evaluation. He knew that he was vastly different from other highly sentient species. While the first three chapters of Genesis are not a science textbook; yet, in Genesis 2: 20, Adam knew a biology basic of propagation. Or maybe he was simply a keen observer of nature. Yet, a primary principle of the scientific method is to observe without prejudice.

What I am wondering is – Could Adam, with his rational talents, figure out that it he and his spouse Eve would be the sole founders of humanity? What would give him a clue? Genesis 3: 9 which follows from Genesis 2: 15-17? Or maybe other verses? Could the author of the first three chapters of Genesis have known that the special Garden had a population of two?

 

[simpleas]

Another view of Adam and logic.

Adam, himself, had the gift of logic. Having a fully-complete human nature, Adam possessed the tools of reason – self-reflection, abstract concepts, analytical thought, creative imagination, and logical evaluation. He knew that he was vastly different from other highly sentient species. While the first three chapters of Genesis are not a science textbook; yet, in Genesis 2: 20, Adam knew a biology basic of propagation. Or maybe he was simply a keen observer of nature. Yet, a primary principle of the scientific method is to observe without prejudice.

What I am wondering is – Could Adam, with his rational talents, figure out that it he and his spouse Eve would be the sole founders of humanity? What would give him a clue? Genesis 3: 9 which follows from Genesis 2: 15-17? Or maybe other verses? Could the author of the first three chapters of Genesis have known that the special Garden had a population of two?

What connection do you see in Gen 3 :9 and Gen 2: 15-17 that would give them a clue that they were the sole founders? The warning about dying? And then the realisation of death after they had eaten?

What is probably most obvious, but I’ll ramble anyway, would be Gen 1 :28-29. The command/invitation to be fruitful and multiply. Here the words are said, so maybe that was all the clue that was needed.
I like how God says be masters of the world, to me he is talking to both, rather than one, so Adam and Eve had equal intitlement and responsiblity for the world and themself, and of course their children.

 

[Beircheart]

A philosophical approach to a current science theory.
youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg

Some interesting information about the real Adam and his real spouse Eve.

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

drbonnette.com/

amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette

Very interesting links. Unfortunately, they hing on the following, “a correct understanding of the scientific (inductive) method reveals that it cannot ever logically exclude the possibility of two sole founders of humanity.” from the Dennis Bonnette link. The unfortunate bit is that the converse is true as well, that being the scientific method cannot ever exclude the possibility of polygeneic foundations of humanity either. Nor can it prove the monogeneic, two parent, theory.

I am not advocating for or against Adam and Eve here. In the absence of definitive evidence, we must make a choice, even if it is to decide the topic is a tremendously important issue we just can’t bring ourselves to care about. However, I do admit to a certain level of frustration when very prejudiced criticism is made of science for promoting an unprovable theory as fact all the while promoting our own just as unprovable theory as fact.

This strikes at the heart of my earlier comment, why do people get so bent out of shape when they are forced to admit they don’t know? And, where does that leave both sides if the truth is ever undeniably proven. If, say, it comes to light that Adam and Eve are undeniable real, do scientists suddenly take up theology? If it comes to be proven Adam and Eve can’t possibly have existed, do all Christians become atheists? If not, then does it really matter?

 

[grannymh]

Very interesting links. Unfortunately, they hing on the following, “a correct understanding of the scientific (inductive) method reveals that it cannot ever logically exclude the possibility of two sole founders of humanity.” from the Dennis Bonnette link. The unfortunate bit is that the converse is true as well, that being the scientific method cannot ever exclude the possibility of polygeneic foundations of humanity either. Nor can it prove the monogeneic, two parent, theory.

Thank you for addressing this important point.

Here is the entire paragraph which explains why the scientific method cannot exclude Adam and Eve as the two, real, sole, founders of humankind. Link to article “Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?” crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist
“Third, a correct understanding of the scientific (inductive) method reveals that it cannot ever logically exclude the possibility of two sole founders of humanity. Natural scientific studies employ the inductive method of reasoning. Empirically observed data is employed to form testable hypotheses. Molecular biologists use computer models in an attempt to validate such hypotheses and reach conclusions about genetic conditions in early primate populations. In this process, some researchers have committed the logically invalid move of inferring from particular data to the universally negative claim that a literal Adam and Eve is impossible. Such methodology produces, at best, solely probable conclusions, based on available evidence and the assumptions used to evaluate the data. There is the inherent possibility that an unknown factor will alter the conclusion, similarly as was the unexpected discovery of black swans in Australia, when the whole world “knew” all swans were white.”

What is happening in science is that wonderful paleoantropologists are on their hands and knees going through layers of soil searching for fossils which will be the “empirically observed data” mentioned in the above paragraph. It is now possible to examine preserved, noncontamidated DNA. This adds more data to the genetic picture. The genetic milestone is the 1995 research paper by Francisco J. Ayala referenced later in the article.

The real issues revolve around the methods and material sections in the numerous papers on archaic beings. These sections serve as the evidence for a paper’s conclusion. The conclusion must be warranted by the material evidence and the methodology used to analyze the evidence. In his 1995 paper, Dr. Ayala refers to one of the methods which scientists use when filling in the gaps of information about archaic fossils.

In “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins” published in Science, December 22, 1995, section: “Experimental Simulated Populations,” Dr. Ayala comments on the basic coalescence theory which "draws inferences about past events on the basis of observations about current polymorphisms (materials). These inferences can be tested by computer experiments … " What “inferences” and “experiments” indicate is that in order to validate an initial hypothesis (a tentative explanation), some assumptions can be made. Practically, assumptions can be either valid, close to being valid, or not valid at all.

“Universally negative claim” means that all bases are covered going thousands of years backwards on a large planet. As long as not everything has been materially considered, the presented evidence does not warrant an universal negative conclusion. For example, no Adam and Eve.

In the section “Population Bottlenecks,” Dr. Ayala states: “Neither the mtDNA resuslts nor the ZFY results lead to the conclsuion that narrow population bottlenecks consisting of one or very few couples have occurred in human ancestral history.” This is an universal negative, absolutely no Adam and Eve possibility, which is not warranted by the presented evidence of methods and limited materials.

In Dr. Bonnette’s paragraph which begins: “Fourth**,** specific scientific arguments against Adam and Eve have proven not as forceful as many presently believe (Gauger 2012).” and followoing paragraphs, Dr. Bonnette refers to research by other published scientists. What this scientific information tells us is that there is more to consider, that is, beyond the methods and materials sections of Dr. Ayala’s 1995 bombshell.

Hopefully, the above adequately explains the meaning of “a correct understanding of the scientific (inductive) method reveals that it cannot ever logically exclude the possibility of two sole founders of humanity.” It is a lot to take in; thus, I will do my best to answer difficulties.

My response to the following comment from post 717 would be a whole new ball game.
“The unfortunate bit is that the converse is true as well, that being the scientific method cannot ever exclude the possibility of polygeneic foundations of humanity either. Nor can it prove the monogeneic, two parent, theory.”

The current Science of Human Evolution is not the easiest thing to understand. Let’s pause here for questions…and let my cranky brain take a break.

 

[grannymh]

Very interesting links. Unfortunately, they hing on the following, “a correct understanding of the scientific (inductive) method reveals that it cannot ever logically exclude the possibility of two sole founders of humanity.” from the Dennis Bonnette link. The unfortunate bit is that the converse is true as well, that being the scientific method cannot ever exclude the possibility of polygeneic foundations of humanity either. Nor can it prove the monogeneic, two parent, theory.

I am not advocating for or against Adam and Eve here. In the absence of definitive evidence, we must make a choice, even if it is to decide the topic is a tremendously important issue we just can’t bring ourselves to care about. However, I do admit to a certain level of frustration when very prejudiced criticism is made of science for promoting an unprovable theory as fact all the while promoting our own just as unprovable theory as fact.

This strikes at the heart of my earlier comment, why do people get so bent out of shape when they are forced to admit they don’t know? And, where does that leave both sides if the truth is ever undeniably proven. If, say, it comes to light that Adam and Eve are undeniable real, do scientists suddenly take up theology? If it comes to be proven Adam and Eve can’t possibly have existed, do all Christians become atheists? If not, then does it really matter?

My apology if I am wrong in my observations. Please correct me.

What I am observing is a questioning about science per se. How does science work in the real world? How does science work at the dawn of human history when Catholicism maintains that a population of two, lovingly known as Adam and Eve, began the human species.

My first reply in post 718 descibed the basic procedure of science which is to gather material evidence and analyze it according to a particular method. Regarding the beginning of humankind, the evidence itself does not supply a definitive conclusion because the presented evidence does not cover all possibilities from all sections of earth. Thus, the conclusion is “probable.” That does not rule out the possibility of two first human parents.

Here is another valuable point from Beircheart, post 717.
“I am not advocating for or against Adam and Eve here. In the absence of definitive evidence, we must make a choice, even if it is to decide the topic is a tremendously important issue we just can’t bring ourselves to care about.”

I know people who really are not interested in the science aspects of Adam because they are totally comfortable with the Catholic doctrines about human origin, human nature, and Original Sin. Divine Revelation trumps. Still, the question remains what does one do about Adam in the absence of definitive evidence. One can simply choose the real possibility of Adam which is evinced by the rational abilities of the first human described in the first three chapters of Genesis. The logic of Adam’s human nature itself does support the fact of an extant ancient species founded by a population of two.

Please note that just because the author of the first three chapters of Genesis is not a Ph.D. scientist, that does not mean that he is blind in one eye and cannot see with the other eye.

Here is one of the interesting points from Simpleas, post 716. "I like how God says be masters of the world, … " (Genesis 1: 28-29)

 

[Beircheart]

My apology if I am wrong in my observations. Please correct me.

What I am observing is a questioning about science per se. How does science work in the real world? How does science work at the dawn of human history when Catholicism maintains that a population of two, lovingly known as Adam and Eve, began the human species.

I like to pretend I have a good handle on how science works. The real question is not how does science work at the dawn of human history so much as it is how does the body of knowledge about those early years, derived from investigative science, exist in a non-conflicting harmony with Church teaching? I truly take to heart the pronouncement that both must be in harmony in order for the truth to be known. If that harmony is absent, BOTH sides need to work to reconcile the difference in full humility.

My first reply in post 718 described the basic procedure of science which is to gather material evidence and analyze it according to a particular method. Regarding the beginning of humankind, the evidence itself does not supply a definitive conclusion because the presented evidence does not cover all possibilities from all sections of earth. Thus, the conclusion is “probable.” That does not rule out the possibility of two first human parents.

Absolutely true. However, science is generally self directed in that it goes where the evidence leads. So, while errors in methodology and speculation (which should be kept at a minimum by both scientists and theologians) are unavoidable, the adage is true, where there is smoke there is fire. The “probable” scientific conclusion typically tends to be the accurate conclusion leaving only degrees of variability in the minutia, not the larger concept.

Here is another valuable point from Beircheart, post 717.
“I am not advocating for or against Adam and Eve here. In the absence of definitive evidence, we must make a choice, even if it is to decide the topic is a tremendously important issue we just can’t bring ourselves to care about.”

I know people who really are not interested in the science aspects of Adam because they are totally comfortable with the Catholic doctrines about human origin, human nature, and Original Sin. Divine Revelation trumps. Still, the question remains what does one do about Adam in the absence of definitive evidence. One can simply choose the real possibility of Adam which is evinced by the rational abilities of the first human described in the first three chapters of Genesis. The logic of Adam’s human nature itself does support the fact of an extant ancient species founded by a population of two.

The only logic I know regarding human nature is that human nature is illogical. What can you do?

I, myself, am interested in the origin of our species because it simply is a fascinating study. Regardless of what ultimately emerges as truth, I personally won’t be too troubled faithfully because, as one whose starting point was definitely a life of sin, my path to God was Him calling me through the Holy Spirit. It was top down in that it started with God and lead to the Church, then doctrine, then the catechism. I do ponder the potential devastation bottom up Christians may face. If God is supported by all the above mentioned institutions, what happens if any one of them should somehow fail?

As for “Divine Revelation trumps,” that simply is not true any more. As I understand it, one of the motivations for V2 was the realization that society in general was becoming increasingly better educated. The Church wanted an approach that interacted with lay-minds much better prepared to receive a deeper and more sophisticated relationship with her.

The down side to a more astute laity is this “Revealed Truth” necessarily must be accompanied by some darned good bridges to investigative truth because we, the faithful, have a foot in both worlds deeper than we ever had before. As I said previously, in order for there to be truth, faith and science must coexist in harmony. If they don’t there is error and both sides need set aside their partisanship, if you will, and humbly work together to weed out whatever it is that is in error.

Please note that just because the author of the first three chapters of Genesis is not a Ph.D. scientist, that does not mean that he is blind in one eye and cannot see with the other eye.

Certainly true, but… To suggest that minus the benefit of the few thousands of years of scientific, philosophic, theological, and ethical progress we currently enjoy those authors were just as prepared to explain the origin of all creation as they would have been with it, is a pretty absurd notion. You might as well try to explain quantum theory to the most primitive and isolated tribe remaining on this planet or the color yellow to someone blind from birth. Both are so far removed from personal experience that it is an impossible task. It is an interesting question: if Genesis were being written in the present, would the “story” change to better convey the theological message? In light of that, is it not better to look at the theological truths found in Genesis rather than getting caught up in their wrappings?

 

[simpleas]

Very interesting links. Unfortunately, they hing on the following, “a correct understanding of the scientific (inductive) method reveals that it cannot ever logically exclude the possibility of two sole founders of humanity.” from the Dennis Bonnette link. The unfortunate bit is that the converse is true as well, that being the scientific method cannot ever exclude the possibility of polygeneic foundations of humanity either. Nor can it prove the monogeneic, two parent, theory.

I am not advocating for or against Adam and Eve here. In the absence of definitive evidence, we must make a choice, even if it is to decide the topic is a tremendously important issue we just can’t bring ourselves to care about. However, I do admit to a certain level of frustration when very prejudiced criticism is made of science for promoting an unprovable theory as fact all the while promoting our own just as unprovable theory as fact.

This strikes at the heart of my earlier comment, why do people get so bent out of shape when they are forced to admit they don’t know? And, where does that leave both sides if the truth is ever undeniably proven. If, say, it comes to light that Adam and Eve are undeniable real, do scientists suddenly take up theology? If it comes to be proven Adam and Eve can’t possibly have existed, do all Christians become atheists? If not, then does it really matter?

I’d say no scientists probably wouldn’t take up theology, because they still would need faith in a creator (God) and Original sin (in the Christian sense). Many people believe in a creator or creators, but do not believe there was a fall.

Some Christians don’t believe in an actual man and women made separate from all the other creatures, some believe we came out of the sea, became human through evolution, aquirred a conscience, and needed to be taught how to live as human and divine…(given a soul at some point…)or something like that…So they wouldn’t become atheists I don’t think.

Just my rambles…

 

[grannymh]

I like to pretend I have a good handle on how science works. The real question is not how does science work at the dawn of human history so much as it is how does the body of knowledge about those early years, derived from investigative science, exist in a non-conflicting harmony with Church teaching? I truly take to heart the pronouncement that both must be in harmony in order for the truth to be known. If that harmony is absent, BOTH sides need to work to reconcile the difference in full humility.

Absolutely true. However, science is generally self directed in that it goes where the evidence leads. So, while errors in methodology and speculation (which should be kept at a minimum by both scientists and theologians) are unavoidable, the adage is true, where there is smoke there is fire. The “probable” scientific conclusion typically tends to be the accurate conclusion leaving only degrees of variability in the minutia, not the larger concept.

The only logic I know regarding human nature is that human nature is illogical. What can you do?

I, myself, am interested in the origin of our species because it simply is a fascinating study. Regardless of what ultimately emerges as truth, I personally won’t be too troubled faithfully because, as one whose starting point was definitely a life of sin, my path to God was Him calling me through the Holy Spirit. It was top down in that it started with God and lead to the Church, then doctrine, then the catechism. I do ponder the potential devastation bottom up Christians may face. If God is supported by all the above mentioned institutions, what happens if any one of them should somehow fail?

As for “Divine Revelation trumps,” that simply is not true any more. As I understand it, one of the motivations for V2 was the realization that society in general was becoming increasingly better educated. The Church wanted an approach that interacted with lay-minds much better prepared to receive a deeper and more sophisticated relationship with her.

The down side to a more astute laity is this “Revealed Truth” necessarily must be accompanied by some darned good bridges to investigative truth because we, the faithful, have a foot in both worlds deeper than we ever had before. As I said previously, in order for there to be truth, faith and science must coexist in harmony. If they don’t there is error and both sides need set aside their partisanship, if you will, and humbly work together to weed out whatever it is that is in error.

Certainly true, but… To suggest that minus the benefit of the few thousands of years of scientific, philosophic, theological, and ethical progress we currently enjoy those authors were just as prepared to explain the origin of all creation as they would have been with it, is a pretty absurd notion. You might as well try to explain quantum theory to the most primitive and isolated tribe remaining on this planet or the color yellow to someone blind from birth. Both are so far removed from personal experience that it is an impossible task. It is an interesting question: if Genesis were being written in the present, would the “story” change to better convey the theological message? In light of that, is it not better to look at the theological truths found in Genesis rather than getting caught up in their wrappings?

How do I respond to thee? Let me count the ways.

As a start, I relate to your sentence. “I, myself, am interested in the origin of our species because it simply is a fascinating study.”

When I became a member of CAF – because I could not figure out how to exit when Google dropped me in the middle of a thread – I was shocked to find out that Adam and Eve did not exist. In addition, I was out of the intellectual loop. Fortunately, my intense curiosity (including both theology and science ) is my saving grace.

For example, my curiosity led to the essential qualifications (attributed to St.Thomas Aquinas) which have to be in place “in order for there to be truth, faith and science must coexist in harmony.” The current scientific (inductive) method has been in place since the dawn of human history; because fascination, even in tiny things, is inherent in human nature and in most non-human creatures. The method itself was not recognized as such until the time of Sir Francis Bacon in England, Galileo Galilei in Italy, and Tycho Brahe in Denmark. And until the time of granny.

Seriously, you have raised a number of points which are new to me. On the other hand, I find that many Catholics are surpised both by Catholic theology and the indications of the current science of human evolution which directly oppose some Catholic doctrines.

Because of the variety of points, do you have a preference where we start? On my part, I will do my best to set aside my partisanship, but I do not guarentee total success.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

As a cradle Catholic, I take exception to the premise that ‘Cradle Catholics cannot think’.

I would agree that a significant number are not that good at it, but then that goes for all others. It is called, ‘the human condition’.

According to others, I have been blessed with a powerful and questing mind. I question and test everything I feel or experience - urgent reflex excepted, until afterwards.

I have certainly gone through my own ‘dark night(s) of the soul’ and experienced a good kicking by life, but I feel I am better for it.

Within Mother Church we have the Divine, the Spiritual and the Human, and it is my own contention that it is in the human element we can find problems from time-to-time. I pray for the ability to always be able to discern human error, and the humility to approach/confront it in the correct manner.

grannymh - If you approach/research the question of science and ‘evolution’ and Genesis and the book of Job in the correct way, you will find that evolution is not the all encompassing thing that many atheists claim. Indeed as scientific knowledge progresses such a stance appears evermore problematic.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Mount Carmel:

Within Mother Church we have the Divine, the Spiritual and the Human, and it is my own contention that it is in the human element we can find problems from time-to-time. I pray for the ability to always be able to discern human error, and the humility to approach/confront it in the correct manner.

Good Evening Mount Carmel: It is a uniquely Christian syntax applied as an overlay to the world around us that gives rise to the idea that Divine, Spiritual and Human are separate things. This is what causes us to be troubled and to have ideas such as the human part being problematic or as being in error or flawed in some way. The main error in being human is that we have ideas like these. We are spiritual, we are divine and we are part of the world around us, not separate from any of it. Problematic or flawed is only problematic or flawed against a backdrop of expectation coupled with a culturally developed context of what is normal. And these expectations and contexts are only creations of the mind - they are not how things really are. The way things really are is that they simply are. Take them as they come without culturally developed ideas about them, and we become untroubled like other animals and certain other cultures. Looking at it from this viewpoint, the fall of man is not tied to some primordial transgression, but is simply a phenomena born of the act of having ideas about being fallen and adopting them as part of our being. It’s a choice most people never understand they are making.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Richca]

From Mount Carmel:

Good Evening Mount Carmel: It is a uniquely Christian syntax applied as an overlay to the world around us that gives rise to the idea that Divine, Spiritual and Human are separate things. This is what causes us to be troubled and to have ideas such as the human part being problematic or as being in error or flawed in some way. The main error in being human is that we have ideas like these. We are spiritual, we are divine and we are part of the world around us, not separate from any of it. Problematic or flawed is only problematic or flawed against a backdrop of expectation coupled with a culturally developed context of what is normal. And these expectations and contexts are only creations of the mind - they are not how things really are. The way things really are is that they simply are. Take them as they come without culturally developed ideas about them, and we become untroubled like other animals and certain other cultures. Looking at it from this viewpoint, the fall of man is not tied to some primordial transgression, but is simply a phenomena born of the act of having ideas about being fallen and adopting them as part of our being. It’s a choice most people never understand they are making.

All the best,
Gary

The fall of our first parents, Adam and Eve, is recorded history and a divinely revealed truth. Were you around at the time of Adam and Eve to know that they did not transgress a divine commandment? Your viewpoint here is nothing but a product of your own imagination.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The fall of our first parents, Adam and Eve, is recorded history and a divinely revealed truth. Were you around at the time of Adam and Eve to know that they did not transgress a divine commandment? Your viewpoint here is nothing but a product of your own imagination.

Good Evening Richa and thank you for the reply. The fall of Adam and Eve is not an established historical fact. It is in fact a story that was written about 700 to 900 hundred years before Christ by the elders (often referred to as the “Priestly Writers”) of an iron age culture in exile. That is the history in it. From there, what we accept as fact with regard to what we believe is largely a matter of exposure and upbringing, as well as institutional and cultural reinforcement. It is what causes you and I to believe one thing, a Jew to believe another, a Muslim to believe another thing, and a Hindu to believe yet another thing still. All claim and genuinely believe that their holy scriptures are divinely revealed.

I am offering the idea that true divine revelation is your own experience of the world around you, and if you see the divine in it, that will be your experience of the divine. Your experience is the only experience you will ever have. If we trade it for what someone else has written, then it gives rise to the question of what it is we ever actually experienced of any of it. As for my viewpoint being a product of my imagination, well my imagination and my viewpoints are the only ones I have, and therefore are the only ones I can share.

All the best,
Gary

 

[grannymh]

We are spiritual, we are divine and we are part of the world around us, not separate from any of it.

. The fall of Adam and Eve is not an established historical fact. It is in fact a story that was written about 700 to 900 hundred years before Christ by the elders (often referred to as the “Priestly Writers”) of an iron age culture in exile. That is the history in it.

It is the middle of the night … before I head back to bed …

I am familiar with the theory expressed above. Tonight, I see the purpose of Adam and Eve in relationship to that theory that we are spiritual, we are divine and we are part of the world around us, not separate from it. Occasionally, I suggest that readers take a look at the dramatic shift between Genesis 1: 25 and Genesis 1: 26. Even if the first chapter of Genesis is only a made-up story – even in fiction, readers look for deeper meanings.

I am very interested in your reaction, as a reader, to Genesis 1: 25 and Genesis 1:26

:yawn:

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

It is the middle of the night … before I head back to bed …

I am familiar with the theory expressed above. Tonight, I see the purpose of Adam and Eve in relationship to that theory that we are spiritual, we are divine and we are part of the world around us, not separate from it. Occasionally, I suggest that readers take a look at the dramatic shift between Genesis 1: 25 and Genesis 1: 26. Even if the first chapter of Genesis is only a made-up story – even in fiction, readers look for deeper meanings.

I am very interested in your reaction, as a reader, to Genesis 1: 25 and Genesis 1:26

:yawn:

Good Morning Granny: I think I see the connection you’re pointing to. If we are in the image of God, then we would be spiritual and divine. If I’m reading it right, you make a very good point.

All the best,
Gary

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning Granny: I think I see the connection you’re pointing to. If we are in the image of God, then we would be spiritual and divine. If I’m reading it right, you make a very good point.

All the best,
Gary

You are reading it right that we are spiritual beings. And that is the best point for me.

Does the shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1-26 give you the impression of a chasm?

As for being divine, there is the technicality of our material body which tends to decompose in stages. Teeth and hair come to mind. Our physcial anatomy does not meet the qualifications for being a Pure Spirit like God. The best we can do is to share in God’s life which is not a bad deal since that includes joy eternal when our blood and guts stop working.

 

[simpleas]

Another view of Adam and logic.

Adam, himself, had the gift of logic. Having a fully-complete human nature, Adam possessed the tools of reason – self-reflection, abstract concepts, analytical thought, creative imagination, and logical evaluation. He knew that he was vastly different from other highly sentient species. While the first three chapters of Genesis are not a science textbook; yet, in Genesis 2: 20, Adam knew a biology basic of propagation. Or maybe he was simply a keen observer of nature. Yet, a primary principle of the scientific method is to observe without prejudice.

What I am wondering is – Could Adam, with his rational talents, figure out that it he and his spouse Eve would be the sole founders of humanity? What would give him a clue? Genesis 3: 9 which follows from Genesis 2: 15-17? Or maybe other verses? Could the author of the first three chapters of Genesis have known that the special Garden had a population of two?

From Above :

*What I am wondering is – Could Adam, with his rational talents, figure out that it he and his spouse Eve would be the sole founders of humanity? *

This question made me think if they did or did not know, would that have made any difference to the choice that was made to disobey God. As I can’t see the logic in creating disorder *if known *about into the human nature.

*What would give him a clue? Genesis 3: 9 which follows from Genesis 2: 15-17? *

Still unsure what the connection in these two verses are…

Or maybe other verses?

For me, Gen 1 : 28 What I was thinking was there need not have been a clue as such, more of a natural instinct? Along with Gods word…The word was there from the beginning, I think it’s considered that God spoke the world into creation, so the natural progress would be in the two first people, sort of like the animals in a way and the life of the world too (plants, bugs, etc)
I don’t want it to sound like a robotic mechanical sort of way! It’s the word that is spoken at creation of all living beings, in that they need not have thought about it, they would have just naturally multiplied through the word of God.

Anything?

 

[fhansen]

From Above :

*What I am wondering is – Could Adam, with his rational talents, figure out that it he and his spouse Eve would be the sole founders of humanity? *

This question made me think if they did or did not know, would that have made any difference to the choice that was made to disobey God. As I can’t see the logic in creating disorder *if known *about into the human nature.

But I wonder if it makes any difference. Should Adam have sinned if he’d known about the disorder that would result just within his *own *nature? And he was warned…

 

[simpleas]

But I wonder if it makes any difference. Should Adam have sinned if he’d known about the disorder that would result just within his *own *nature? And he was warned…

I can only think of putting oneself into Adam and Eve’s “shoes”. If you know that your action would cause a great deal of suffering to your children, and you have no fallen nature to begin with, would you want to create disorder in yourself, knowing it will be passed onto your children.

Adam and Eve needed only to obey one command, if like Grannymh says they had all those talents, less a fallen nature, they still believed they would be better off disordered and die.

 

[simpleas]

You are reading it right that we are spiritual beings. And that is the best point for me.

Does the shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1-26 give you the impression of a chasm?

As for being divine, there is the technicality of our material body which tends to decompose in stages. Teeth and hair come to mind. Our physcial anatomy does not meet the qualifications for being a Pure Spirit like God. The best we can do is to share in God’s life which is not a bad deal since that includes joy eternal when our blood and guts stop working.

Divine means having the nature of or being God.

We are made in the likeness of God, made in the image of God.

Jesus said we are Gods. (unless he was just talking to the people of that time)

It seems strange to say we are divine, or Gods, yet we believe we are in Gods image, we will die, but God placed his spirit within us, and that can never die.

Just my thoughts.