Interpret Genesis 1 to make sense

[seanD]

Yes... a popular book just came out largely dealing with that issue (The Evolution of Adam by Peter Enns).

Without knowing what his argument is, the only way one could reconcile evolution of lower primates and Paul's argument is to claim that Paul was wrong either in how he interpreted death as described in Genesis or Genesis as a whole. The only other argument would be that Paul knew Genesis was allegory and was thus expounding on that allegory. The latter is highly unlikely. There would have been no reason for an ancient not believe Genesis was true history, as there was no other explanation they had for the origin of man.

[whag]

C.S. Lewis, for one, didn't believe a literal Eden was essential. He did, however, believe in a concrete course of events at some point in time that represented a fall.

http://biologos.org/blog/surprised-b...mere-depravity

I wonder why Lewis protracts the fall. Presumably, it's too acknowledge a first set of human beings doesn't seem realistic, but then he says Eden was real:

He straddled the line between myth and history unnecessarily. There are many problems with believing human beings were especially protected initially--the least of which being that labor is natural. We have always labored, especially in taking down big beasts. The Edenic view has just as many problems as the First Couple view.

[robrecht]

Without knowing what his argument is, the only way one could reconcile evolution of lower primates and Paul's argument is to claim that Paul was wrong either in how he interpreted death as described in Genesis or Genesis as a whole. The only other argument would be that Paul knew Genesis was allegory and was thus expounding on that allegory. The latter is highly unlikely. There would have been no reason for an ancient not believe Genesis was true history, as there was no other explanation they had for the origin of man.

Assuming Paul or other ancients read Genesis 1-3 in Hebrew, they would have good reason to suspect that elements were intended as an imaginative and symbolic story, and we see lots of very creative midrash upon this text by the ancient rabbis.

[seanD]

Assuming Paul or other ancients read Genesis 1-3 in Hebrew, they would have good reason to suspect that elements were intended as an imaginative and symbolic story, and we see lots of very creative midrash upon this text by the ancient rabbis.

Even so, I still don't see how the argument can be made that Paul didn't really think it was history if he had no other alternative explanation for the origin of man. Secondly, his argument wasn't being made to Jews familiar with midrash, but Greeks that were familiar with philosophies that repudiated physical mortal bodies, and it was in the context of a real historical event, the resurrection of Christ. He was using Adam's fall to support the necessity of a real physical event, the resurrection of Christ.

[Scrawly]

Without knowing what his argument is, the only way one could reconcile evolution of lower primates and Paul's argument is to claim that Paul was wrong either in how he interpreted death as described in Genesis or Genesis as a whole. The only other argument would be that Paul knew Genesis was allegory and was thus expounding on that allegory. The latter is highly unlikely. There would have been no reason for an ancient not believe Genesis was true history, as there was no other explanation they had for the origin of man.

But didn't God accommodate His revelation to a people with a comparatively primitive worldview? Don't you think its probable - highly likely even - that Paul thought the earth was flat and held to a 3-tiered view of the cosmos as well?

[seanD]

But didn't God accommodate His revelation to a people with a comparatively primitive worldview? Don't you think its probable - highly likely even - that Paul thought the earth was flat and held to a 3-tiered view of the cosmos as well?

I don't really know what Paul thought about the earth, as there is no indication in his letters about the subject. But had Paul based his theology on that notion, then I would also consider it a problem, though it would be a far greater problem.

[whag]

There is something in the Bible requiring that a man be H.Sap? But the oldest known anatomically modern human fossils date back more than 160 000 - 200 000 years.

Wine doesn't go back to 50,000 BC.

What is needed to fit well enough is a cataclysmic event with associated flooding that came close to wiping out all humanity. If it was more or less localised, it would necessarily have occurred prior to dispersion of humans over any particularly wide area. 50 000 years ago, humans began to disperse, prior to 60 000 years ago, humans ranged a small area a little ways south of the mouth of the red sea. Around 59-60 000 years ago, humanity came close to being wiped out.

Yes, by a volcano, not a flood. Also, neanderthals and cromags were already in Europe 150,000 years ago, which means they had already dispersed and were safe from being killed by a local flood occurring thousands of miles away.

Nothing better can be provided with the data currently available.

Nothing better can be provided because we have the data showing your hypothesis is implausible. Wine wasn't invented 50,000 years ago, and the humanoid creatures you suggest Noah was (cromags, neanderthals) were already far away from the Red Sea 150,000 years ago.

[robrecht]

Even so, I still don't see how the argument can be made that Paul didn't really think it was history if he had no other alternative explanation for the origin of man. Secondly, his argument wasn't being made to Jews familiar with midrash, but Greeks that were familiar with philosophies that repudiated physical mortal bodies, and it was in the context of a real historical event, the resurrection of Christ. He was using Adam's fall to support the necessity of a real physical event, the resurrection of Christ.

Can you spell out exactly what you think the logical flow of his argument was and how it necessarily depended upon a non-midrashic understanding of Genesis 1-3?

I think Paul uses midrash rather frequently even when he is addressing predominantly Gentile audiences, including the Corinthians (eg, 1 Cor 9,8-12 qal wa homer twice; 1 Cor 10,1-5; 2 Cor 3,6-18 qal wa homer 2 Cor 4,3-6 2 Cor 11,1-5.13-14 2 Cor 12,2-4). Specifically, in 1 Cor 15, we see Paul's use of figurative language relating to the clothing of Adam. At the time of resurrection we will be 'clothed with incorruptibility' (ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν 1 Cor 15,53-54) similar to the midrashic theme of Adam's ‘garment of immortality’ (ἔνδυμα τῆς ἀθανασίας) that was originally his prior to the Fall (Hist Rech 12,3).

It seems to me this is figurative, not necessarily literal, language, 'though I do not think there can be any kind of proof of this reading of Paul.

[seanD]

Can you spell out exactly what you think the logical flow of his argument was and how it necessarily depended upon a non-midrashic understanding of Genesis 1-3?

I think Paul uses midrash rather frequently even when he is addressing predominantly Gentile audiences, including the Corinthians (eg, 1 Cor 9,8-12 qal wa homer twice; 1 Cor 10,1-5; 2 Cor 3,6-18 qal wa homer 2 Cor 4,3-6 2 Cor 11,1-5.13-14 2 Cor 12,2-4). Specifically, in 1 Cor 15, we see Paul's use of figurative language relating to the clothing of Adam. At the time of resurrection we will be 'clothed with incorruptibility' (ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν 1 Cor 15,53-54) similar to the midrashic theme of Adam's ‘garment of immortality’ (ἔνδυμα τῆς ἀθανασίας) that was originally his prior to the Fall (Hist Rech 12,3).

It seems to me this is figurative, not necessarily literal, language, 'though I do not think there can be any kind of proof of this reading of Paul.

I have no problem with figurative language, but I don't see how this relates to what Paul believed about the origins of man, unless you're argument is that Paul didn't really believe this would be an actual future event. He was using colorful language in the example you gave to describe our transformation from mortal to immortal at the resurrection, but I'm sure Paul believed this would be an actual future occurrence to our physical bodies, just like he believed Adam was a historical figure from which death came, which necessitated the resurrection.

[tabibito]

Noah was a neanderthal?

To which I commented that the Bible did not require that Noah be H. Sap Sap. Then again, it is kind of hard to understand why you would have made that comment when H Sap Sap has been around for (more or less confirmed, and roughly) 200 000 years with indicators that 250 000+ years is not impossible.

your hypothesis is implausible.

When did I advance any hypothesis?

If there was a Noah at all

I stated that sort of hypothesis would be necessary.

[robrecht]

I have no problem with figurative language, but I don't see how this relates to what Paul believed about the origins of man, unless you[']re argument is that Paul didn't really believe this would be an actual future event. He was using colorful language in the example you gave to describe our transformation from mortal to immortal at the resurrection, but I'm sure Paul believed this would be an actual future occurrence to our physical bodies, just like he believed Adam was a historical figure from which death came, which necessitated the resurrection.

No, of course I am not arguing that Paul did not believe that there would not be a future resurrection, but elements of the future were certainly beyond his ability to describe and he freely acknowledged this. Assuming Paul read Hebrew, he would have considered Adam (old and new) more than just a historical figure, indeed a representational corporate figure, necessarily described with figurative and poetic language that in the Hebrew and Aramaic traditions was highly malleable. In midrash, one could stretch the texts, events and persons to suit the message, sometimes in ways that were directly contrary to each other, but the truth was somehow greater than any single literal reading among many others. Their sense of history and the multiple elastic traditions of interpretation were very creative and very different from what we mean by history today. To what extent they might have also had something resembling a modern view of history alongside their midrashic traditions, we cannot really say, but I would not necessarily read that sense of history into Paul's language here.

[whag]

To which I commented that the Bible did not require that Noah be H. Sap Sap. Then again, it is kind of hard to understand why you would have made that comment when H Sap Sap has been around for (more or less confirmed, and roughly) 200 000 years with indicators that 250 000+ years is not impossible.

Right, and like I said, homo sapiens were already in Europe...meaning they were dispersed at least 100,000 years before you said the flood would have occured. So what's the flood for?

When did I advance any hypothesis? I stated that sort of hypothesis would be necessary.

If the flood was local 50,000 years ago, it couldn't have wiped out humanity. Humanity wasn't concentrated in one geography. It's a wonky hypothesis.

[Truthseeker]

It's true, the truth is always greater than any statement advanced as a statement of truth. Thank you, robrecht http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post72755

[KingsGambit]

What does Enns say about it?

As a stepping point, he points out that Paul, like other Jews of his day, did not feel bound to what we would consider modern uses of the Old Testament when making references/allusions but rather used what we might term creative interpretation. (This is less controversial.) He then argues that "the authors of Scripture are not inspired by God to speak from a safe distance from their culture. Rather, God works in and through writers from within their time and place in human history" and that his use of the Old Testament is first and foremost theological as a vessel to convey the truth about Jesus.

[tabibito]

Note: Artifactual evidence indicates that modern humans were in Europe by at least 40,000 and possibly as
early as 46,000 years ago. Dating of the earliest modern human fossils in Asia is less secure, but it is likely
that they were present there by at least 60,000 years ago and possibly 100,000 years ago.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

Given that the site information was updated after Nov 21 2013, I will assume that your information about h. sap. sap. presence in Europe more than 50 000 years ago is incorrect. However, H Sap Sap presence in Asia more than 60 000 years ago would quite naturally force any possibility of a Noah to a time earlier than 60 000 years ago - or whatever time frame might eventually be established as showing a presence in Asia.

Again, there are factors critical to any possibility of *a* Noah existing. Given that no geological record of a world encompassing flood exists, it would necessarily be a local (but reasonably extensive) flood - or natural disaster accompanied by flooding. (Off shore volcano + tsunami + nasty hurricane or such would more than adequately fit the bill.)
The event would need to have come close to wiping out all of h. sap. sap.
That means it would necessarily have occurred prior to any large scale dispersion.

If that can be shown from the geological record not to be possible, Noah becomes an outright myth, rather than a possibly embellished historical record.

Aside from wanting to know the reasonableness of possibilities, I really don't have an axe to grind when it comes to Biblical inerrancy ... (well, except that the "Bible has no errors" story got blown out of the water long since and is therefore something of an embarrassment.)