What did the church fathers believe concerning Genesis?

[Adam]

I believe there was a literal "Adam". WHEN he was is the main question. Possibly HOW MANY there were is a conceivable side-issue. I stand with one.

[GakuseiDon]

seanD already pointed out that Paul regarded Adam as a literal figure. All this harping on YEC as anachronism misses the point of Jesus being a second Adam, which really makes no sense in a figurative context where no single Adam existed.

Why doesn't it make sense? For example: Cannot one be a 'second Moses' even if the first was just a literary figure? Jesus was a second Adam figure to Paul because, as Paul explains, all Christians are descended from him spiritually. What does it matter whether a single Adam existed historically?

We came from much richer, more complicated story than the one Jesus and Paul were enculturated to believe.

What is that richer story? What makes it richer?

[shunyadragon]

Why doesn't it make sense? For example: Cannot one be a 'second Moses' even if the first was just a literary figure? Jesus was a second Adam figure to Paul because, as Paul explains, all Christians are descended from him spiritually. What does it matter whether a single Adam existed historically?

To the Ontological Naturalist it would not matter whether a literal Adam exists or not. The existence of a real Adam is a theological question, and not verifiable by objective evidence. Some like Robrecht believe that 'Adam' was not a real historical figure. The Baha'i Faith teaches that there were many Adams and many cycles of Revelation throughout the history of humanity going back possible more than a million years. The word 'Adam' is a descriptive word of the 'first human' and not likely the actual name. The present cycle of Revelation is described as the 'prophetic cycle,' and Adam is the first to receive the Revelation from God. The 'prophetic cycle is charactorized by the evolution of written scripture, and a highly advanced civilization. This cycle, ended in 1844, and is described as preparing humanity for the next cycle which we are in now, and began with the Revelation of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. The Bab is essentially the 'Adam' of this cycle.

What is that richer story? What makes it richer?

Even as a Theist I believe the natural explanation is far more richer and real than the simplistic ancient mythical story of Genesis. The Theistic difference of my view is from the Baha'i perspective where science reveals the Creative process of God in real objective terms.

[shunyadragon]

Bringing this thread to the fore for element771

[robrecht]

To the Ontological Naturalist it would not matter whether a literal Adam exists or not. The existence of a real Adam is a theological question, and not verifiable by objective evidence. Some like Robrecht believe that 'Adam' was not a real historical figure. The Baha'i Faith teaches that there were many Adams and many cycles of Revelation throughout the history of humanity going back possible more than a million years. The word 'Adam' is a descriptive word of the 'first human' and not likely the actual name. The present cycle of Revelation is described as the 'prophetic cycle,' and Adam is the first to receive the Revelation from God. The 'prophetic cycle is charactorized by the evolution of written scripture, and a highly advanced civilization. This cycle, ended in 1844, and is described as preparing humanity for the next cycle which we are in now, and began with the Revelation of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. The Bab is essentially the 'Adam' of this cycle.

Even as a Theist I believe the natural explanation is far more richer and real than the simplistic ancient mythical story of Genesis. The Theistic difference of my view is from the Baha'i perspective where science reveals the Creative process of God in real objective terms.

What revelation, according to the Baha'I faith, dId Adam and Eve receive some 6,000 years ago? How was it transmitted to subsequent generations?

[shunyadragon]

What revelation, according to the Baha'I faith, dId Adam and Eve receive some 6,000 years ago? How was it transmitted to subsequent generations?

In the Baha'i Faith the Revelation of Adam began the Adamic cycle and reafirmation of Monotheism rejecting the polytheism of most people at the time. How was the Revelation transmitted? 6000 thousand years ago is not that long, and rudimentary writing and communications was known, and trade was more than regional from British Isles through Europe to the South China Sea even bore this in the Neolithic.

It has been clear from the beginning that we disagree concerning Adam and the Baha'i view of the cyclic Revelation throughout the history of humanity with other cycles and 'Adams.' Adam in this context is not necessarily a name, but the title of the first Revelation of a cycle. We can go over all the old posts and discussions, but to me it is like living Ground hog Day every time you pop out of the hole in the ground.

[whag]

Why doesn't it make sense? For example: Cannot one be a 'second Moses' even if the first was just a literary figure?

If the initial belief is that Moses was a literal (not literary) figure, that's when it loses sense. At least conceptually. For me.

Jesus was a second Adam figure to Paul because, as Paul explains, all Christians are descended from him spiritually. What does it matter whether a single Adam existed historically?

I think it matters because it would give insight into human nature better than "a being named Satan tempted man and a curse was introduced." The virus analogy sounds hokey whereas biology and prehistory are plenty more illuminating with regard to human nature.

What is that richer story? What makes it richer?

The story of how prehistoric people occupied the ANE with animistic beliefs. How that evolved into different interrelated religions and beliefs, eventually into a qualified monotheism consisting of three persons representing one deity. If you need me to further explain the richness of that compared to what they were taught, I can. I'm responding to this post just now seeing it, so I don't know if you're interested. Sorry for lateness of reply.

[Jedidiah]

I consider the belief that Creation took place in 6 days or 6,000 years (2 Peter 3:8) to be literal Creation accounts.

I assume you know that the day is also compared to the length of a watch in the night which would be 4 or 12 hours depending. You also know, I assume, that there were three "literal" meanings for the word yawm or day. Limiting "literal" to 14 hours is simply ignorant.

[shunyadragon]

I assume you know that the day is also compared to the length of a watch in the night which would be 4 or 12 hours depending. You also know, I assume, that there were three "literal" meanings for the word yawm or day. Limiting "literal" to 14 hours is simply ignorant.

It was understood in almost all ancient cultures the day was form sunset or sunrise one day to sunset or sunrise on the next day, roughly 24 hours.

[Jedidiah]

It was understood in almost all ancient cultures the day was form sunset or sunrise one day to sunset or sunrise on the next day, roughly 24 hours.

[shunyadragon]

The day has different meanings in the English, and of course in the Bible, so what?

Nonetheless; It was understood in almost all ancient cultures the day was form sunset or sunrise one day to sunset or sunrise on the next day, roughly 24 hours.

[robrecht]

In the Baha'i Faith the Revelation of Adam began the Adamic cycle and reafirmation of Monotheism rejecting the polytheism of most people at the time. How was the Revelation transmitted? 6000 thousand years ago is not that long, and rudimentary writing and communications was known, and trade was more than regional from British Isles through Europe to the South China Sea even bore this in the Neolithic.

It has been clear from the beginning that we disagree concerning Adam and the Baha'i view of the cyclic Revelation throughout the history of humanity with other cycles and 'Adams.' Adam in this context is not necessarily a name, but the title of the first Revelation of a cycle. We can go over all the old posts and discussions, but to me it is like living Ground hog Day every time you pop out of the hole in the ground.

What evidence do you have that Adam and Eve were monotheists? Are you relying on an historicist reading of Genesis and the Qur'an for this view? By the way, this is the very first time I have ever discussed Adam and Eve's monotheism with you.

[shunyadragon]

What evidence do you have that Adam and Eve were monotheists? Are you relying on an historicist reading of Genesis and the Qur'an for this view? By the way, this is the very first time I have ever discussed Adam and Eve's monotheism with you.

Evidence, you have to be kidding!?!?!? There are beliefs grounded in Revelation not evidence. The belief that Adam is the first the first Revelation beginning of the Adamic cycle is based on the Torah, Qur'an and Baha'i scripture. God would not teach polytheism. The polytheism of the Torah is a corruption of Revelation,like the Trinity in Christianity.

[robrecht]

Evidence, you have to be kidding!?!?!? There are beliefs grounded in Revelation not evidence. The belief that Adam is the first the first Revelation beginning of the Adamic cycle is based on the Torah, Qur'an and Baha'i scripture. Gd would not teach polytheism. The polytheism of the Torah is a corruption of Revelation,like the Trinity in Christianity.

Not kidding. Either it is based on historical evidence of some kind or it is, ultimately, an historicist reading of Genesis or the Qur'an. Do all Baha'is maintain an historicist understanding of Adam & Eve's monotheism some 6,000 years ago, in accord with Baha'i scripture?

[shunyadragon]

Not kidding. Either it is based on historical evidence of some kind or it is, ultimately, an historicist reading of Genesis or the Qur'an. Do all Baha'is maintain an historicist understanding of Adam & Eve's monotheism some 6,000 years ago, in accord with Baha'i scripture?

Actually no, the belief in Revelation from the perspective of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is not necessarily based on evidence. Your seeking a false humanist rational and logical justification of Revelation based on 'evidence?'. If I was going down that road I would be a strong agnostic/atheist, because if all the 'evidence' of the history of humanity is taken into consideration claims of the existence of God and Revelation are illusive unfounded claims grounded simply on the natural humanist evolution of culture and society of humanity.