A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

[robrecht]

It is not a matter of not quoting you correctly In referring to these popes and or other theologians you have failed to provide direct citations of what they said to support your assertions, which is SOP for Twebb discussions. I am familiar with some of these sources and there statements on these matters, and believe you are over stating the interpretations of what they mean. That is why I want to see their words in citations to support your assertions.

Still waiting

You must first let me know exactly what you think is an overstatement on my part. It is not clear to me that you even understand my point.

[robrecht]

I answered the question in the previous post! Please respond to that!

"ALL humanity is descendent from an earlier Adam as I originally stated when humanity first became human, probably ~100.000 to 200.000 years ago, or possibly older. The misunderstanding is it has been a long time since I read or studied the different sources concerning what Baha'u'llah wrote concerning Adam. Thanks to your request I made an effort to go back and read these sources. There have been other Adams and cycles of Revelation throughout human history. As I said before, I never have been particularly concerned with this aspect of ancient history of religion. Your efforts to pressure me to look back over the scripture, particularly that of Baha'u'llah was helpful in correcting any misinformation as to what the Baha'i writings stated concerning Adam. I am more concerned with the spiritual world today. Yes, the Adam and Eve of ~6000 years ago was the first revelation of the 'Prophetic Cycle' that is the source of Revelation for all of humanity that culminated with the Revelation of the Bab.

I do believe that the descendants of Adam and Eve moved throughout the world over the past ~6,000 years as the lineage of Revelation in all cultures Revealing the spiritual knowledge and prophecies of 'Prophetic Cycle.' The descendants of Adam are in all these cultures. This is an interpretation on my part."

To add I believe all humanity has a genetic relationship to the Adam and Eve of ~6,000 years ago as their descendants moved throughout the world in the 'Prophetic Cycle' as a part of the Revelation of God to all humanity. All the people of the world also are descendant and related to all the previous Adams of previous cycles of humanity. This is somewhat confirmed in the science of the evolution of humanity, as waves of migrations out of Africa that are hybrids and genetically related to the previous migrations. There was a 'First Adam' sometime in the distant past when humanity first became human in Africa, and yes all of humanity would be related and descendant from this 'First Adam,' as described in the writings of Baha'u'llah as many cycles of Revelation, each beginning with it's own 'Adam.' This use of the title 'Adam' represents the 'symbolic name,' not the real name of the first Revealer of God's word for each cycle.

Your additions come closer to what I understand to be a more direct answer to my specific question. Let me know if I am stating your position correctly. You believe that all modern humans are genetically related to the historical Adam and Eve that lived approximately 6,000 years ago but not necessarily directly descended from this particular couple. Is that correct?

[shunyadragon]

Your additions come closer to what I understand to be a more direct answer to my specific question. Let me know if I am stating your position correctly. You believe that all modern humans are genetically related to the historical Adam and Eve that lived approximately 6,000 years ago but not necessarily directly descended from this particular couple. Is that correct?

All modern humans are genetically to Adam and Eve ~ 6,000 years ago, and ultimately descended from an even more ancient Adam when humans first became human ~100,000-~200,000 or more years ago.

[shunyadragon]

You must first let me know exactly what you think is an overstatement on my part. It is not clear to me that you even understand my point.

Your overstatement that the 'original authors/editors' of Genesis are known and their intended interpretations can be known today.

[shunyadragon]

So it seems you do not disagree with my point here after all.


It seems you're not really understanding about how scholarship works in these matters. I have not made any outrageous claims. It is standard fare for historico-critical exegetical scholars to discuss and try to understand what is the probable intent of the original authors as well as that of later redactors and editors of a text in their multiple historical contexts. There is no single citation that can be given to provide evidence for this scholarly methodology. It is an long-standing and ongoing scholarly discussion that has been going on for over a century. Claus Westermann's 3-volume commentary is a good introduction to this discussion insofar as he provides a rather good summary of the history of this discussion as part of his own explication. If you are willing to discuss the Hebrew text, I will support my own view, which is not that unusual, but it is nonetheless my own presentation of the evidence of the text, which I have presented here before. My own view is that at least one/some of the authors/redactors/editors of the current Hebrew text of Genesis did not consider Adam to be a single historical individual, which is my own belief as well, but I acknowledge that some parts of the text also do treat him as a single historical individual. I personally do not. Westermann's commentary is rather dated, but my observations also hold up in the application of more recent poetic narrative exegetical methodologies that Westermann was not able to summarize at that time.

Your upping the fog index here. Your original claim was that the 'original authors/editors' can be known, and their intended interpretations can be known.

[robrecht]

Your upping the fog index here. Your original claim was that the 'original authors/editors' can be known, and their intended interpretations can be known.

No, you are misquoting, misremembering, or misinterpreting what I have said. From the start, I have said that it is my preference to focus on the most likely or probable intent of the original authors' of texts in question rather than merely arriving at an interpretation that does not happen to contradict modern scientific theories (66) and I immediately clarified for you that this is referring to
the opinions of modern exegetical scholars (71). When you failed to respond, I next mentioned 'my reading' of Genesis, which includes the view that at least one/some of the original authors did not consider Adam and Eve to have been historical persons (171) and again clarified for you that the language of original authors is not a matter of specific historical knowledge but rather a matter of scholarly study and discussion (167, 173). You preferred to avoid the discussion of scholarly opinion and debate and instead wanted to focus on your polemic about the problems of traditional Christianity (176).

[robrecht]

All modern humans are genetically to Adam and Eve ~ 6,000 years ago, and ultimately descended from an even more ancient Adam when humans first became human ~100,000-~200,000 or more years ago.

[shunyadragon]

[shunyadragon]

No, you are misquoting, misremembering, or misinterpreting what I have said. From the start, I have said that it is my preference to focus on the most likely or probable intent of the original authors' of texts in question rather than merely arriving at an interpretation that does not happen to contradict modern scientific theories (66) and I immediately clarified for you that this is referring to the opinions of modern exegetical scholars (71). When you failed to respond, I next mentioned 'my reading' of Genesis, which includes the view that at least one/some of the original authors did not consider Adam and Eve to have been historical persons (171) and again clarified for you that the language of original authors is not a matter of specific historical knowledge but rather a matter of scholarly study and discussion (167, 173). <snipe>.

The highlighted is over stating references to supporting your arguments. I am still waiting for the actual citations and quotes from Claus Westermann, the popes and theologians you mentioned that support your case. The popes and recent theologians should be easy to get actual quotes that support you case.

Still waiting . . .

quoting you specifically:

"Yes, it was my point. My reading of Genesis is that at least one/some of the original authors did not consider Adam and Eve to have been historical persons, . . ."

Who specifically were one/some of the 'original authors' of Genesis that did not consider Adam and Eve as historical persons?" What specific ancient reference backs up this claim.

[robrecht]

The highlighted is over stating references to supporting your arguments. I am still waiting for the actual citations and quotes from Claus Westermann, the popes and theologians you mentioned that support your case. The popes and recent theologians should be easy to get actual quotes that support you case.

Still waiting . . .

quoting you specifically:

"Yes, it was my point. My reading of Genesis is that at least one/some of the original authors did not consider Adam and Eve to have been historical persons, . . ."

Who specifically were one/some of the 'original authors' of Genesis that did not consider Adam and Eve as historical persons?" What specific ancient reference backs up this claim.

You are still misunderstanding. I promised no references, either ancient or from Claus Westermann or anyone else, to support 'my reading' of the text of Genesis. I referred you to Claus Westermann merely as a good introduction to the scholarly discussion of the original authors. I also said that if I recall correctly he may also have a similar view to my own and that you might discover that if you do check out his work. As I've said at least a couple of times, I do not require references to support my reading other than the Hebrew text itself. My reading stands or falls merely on an understanding of the Hebrew text itself. So, if you like, we can go directly to the Hebrew text.

With respect to the early fathers, popes, cardinals, and recent theologians, this does not relate to the exegesis of the Hebrew text of Genesis, but rather, as I said very explicitly (187), to the primacy of the Incarnation alternative to the traditional felix culpa Augustinian theology of Adam's original sin being the cause and reason for the incarnation as necessary for redemption. This alternative school of theology directly negates the most important theological presupposition of the way in which Original Sin has generally been understood in the West and laid the groundwork for a more evolutionary vision of creation, redemption and the incarnation.

[robrecht]

That I tried to get into in post #30

And it is a very good post. (I finally got around to reading it.)

[robrecht]

that was transmitted by inheritance from Adam to his posteritywww.bahai.org/library) classifies this text of 'Abdu'l-Baha among the "Authoritative Writings and Guidance." Is this perhaps a point of disagreement among Baha'i, with some accepting (some of) the writings of 'Adu'l-Baha as authoritative, while others do not accept (some of) his writings as authoritative?

[shunyadragon]

No, you are misquoting, misremembering, or misinterpreting what I have said. From the start, I have said that it is my preference to focus on the most likely or probable intent of the original authors' of texts in question rather than merely arriving at an interpretation that does not happen to contradict modern scientific theories (66) and I immediately clarified for you that this is referring to
the opinions of modern exegetical scholars (71). When you failed to respond, I next mentioned 'my reading' of Genesis, which includes the view that at least one/some of the original authors did not consider Adam and Eve to have been historical persons (171) and again clarified for you that the language of original authors is not a matter of specific historical knowledge but rather a matter of scholarly study and discussion (167, 173). You preferred to avoid the discussion of scholarly opinion and debate and instead wanted to focus on your polemic about the problems of traditional Christianity (176).

I do not believe I have misquoting, misremembering, or misinterpreting what you said. This post is very revealing in many ways. My conclusion is you have been referring to your 'own reading' and understanding of Genesis without outside sources to support your view. OK, I cannot really debate or dialogue beyond that. Your read of your 'own reading' is all there is without other sources I can relate to.

The only thing I can do is describe my view through the Baha'i Faith with references from Baha'u'llah and Abdul'baha, and to a certain limited extent my own interpretation. If nothing else you have stimulated me to go back and take a closer look at Baha'i scripture to get a more coherent meaning from the different sources.

[robrecht]

I do not believe I have misquoting, misremembering, or misinterpreting what you said.

Obviously, you have been.

This post is very revealing in many ways. My conclusion is you have been referring to your 'own reading' and understanding of Genesis without outside sources to support your view. OK, I cannot really debate or dialogue beyond that. Your read of your 'own reading' is all there is without other sources I can relate to.

There is no reason why you cannot carry on a dialogue (and perhaps even learn) about the meaning of the Hebrew text of Genesis.

The only thing I can do is describe my view through the Baha'i Faith with references from Baha'u'llah and Abdul'baha, and to a certain limited extent my own interpretation. If nothing else you have stimulated me to go back and take a closer look at Baha'i scripture to get a more coherent meaning from the different sources.

It is good that you want to gain a more coherent interpretation of the Baha'i scriptures and faith, but I see no reason why you cannot also gain a more coherent interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures.

[shunyadragon]

that was transmitted by inheritance from Adam to his posteritywww.bahai.org/library) classifies this text of 'Abdu'l-Baha among the "Authoritative Writings and Guidance." Is this perhaps a point of disagreement among Baha'i, with some accepting (some of) the writings of 'Adu'l-Baha as authoritative, while others do not accept (some of) his writings as authoritative?

Your reading tunnel vision into one quote, and then citing Abdul'baha in another where he states that his interpretation IS ONE OF MANY. Bad on your part. Your ignoring the fact that the other citations make it clear that humanity is descendant from many Adams.

Yes Abdul' baha was the official exemplar of Baha'u'llah and "Authorative Writings and Guidance," but your choosing to selectively ignore the fact that Abdul'baha's writings also contain commentary and interpretations that are not absolute. You have chosen to ignore my other references as to what is infallible absolutely authoritive and do not change. and the foundation principles concerning science and religion.

It is not a matter of selecting some writings as authoritative and some not when clearly, some are commentary and interpretation, and the basic Baha'i principles rule as the guide to understanding. Unlike in archaic Dogma and Doctrine based on ancient Canaanite and pre-Babylonian myths ruling traditional Christianity. Example, many if not most Christians believe the Bible is a literal unhanging infallible God inspired document. the Baha'i Faith acknowledges a changing and evolving body of knowledge, including the interpretation of Baha'i scripture. The difference is abundantly clear.

Your selective dance agenda attacking the Baha'i Faith is overwhelmingly obvious 'living in a glass house and throwing stones.'

I have posted these references several times and you continue to choose to ignore them. Your clearly ignoring the fact that the Baha'i Faith believes that ALL religions are an evolving body of spiritual and physical knowledge that changes over time including the Baha'i dispensation.

This unique foundation principle is described in the following by Abdul'baha. One question that is answered here specifically is; 'When are the Baha'i Writings literal and do not change, and how are the commentary about our physical existence in the writings considered. The moral laws of the Baha'i writings are immutable and will not change.

"Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism."

Paris Talks, Pages 141-146: gr16

It is the moral teaching that are immutable and absolute.

Harmony of Science and Religion

Another cause of dissension and disagreement is the fact that religion has been pronounced at variance with science. Between scientists and the followers of religion there has always been controversy and strife for the reason that the latter have proclaimed religion superior in authority to science and considered scientific announcement opposed to the teachings of religion. Baha'u'llah declared that religion is in complete harmony with science and reason. If religious belief and doctrine is at variance with reason, it proceeds from the limited mind of man and not from God; therefore, it is unworthy of belief and not deserving of attention; the heart finds no rest in it, and real faith is impossible. How can man believe that which he knows to be opposed to reason? Is this possible? Can the heart accept that which reason denies? Reason is the first faculty of man, and the religion of God is in harmony with it. Baha'u'llah has removed this form of dissension and discord from among mankind and reconciled science . . .

The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Pages 228-235: gr9

Among other principles of Baha'u'llah's teachings was the harmony of science and religion. Religion must stand the analysis of reason. It must agree with scientific fact and proof so that science will sanction religion and religion fortify science. Both are indissolubly welded and joined in reality. If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination. . .

The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Pages 172-176: gr9