The Universal Moral Law & Devolution since the Fall

In that case, why believe the author of Genesis?Why is Paul not believable but the author of Genesis is?I suggest you give up on the Bible altogether, and join me.

You don't seem to mind putting yourself above scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc. why is it big deal when others do it with your mythology?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

You should know better than that.If you want to know Hemingway, do you read Hemingway or do you rely on other people's commentaries on Hemingway?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Thanks to Faith for providing the Scripture quote. Verse 17 settles it as far as Paul's thoughts are concerned.'Death' is a metaphor. It represents a spiritual, not physical, situation. Everyone knows that physical death is endured by Christians and non-Christians alike. No one is exempt. So Paul cannot be talking about physical death. Just as Christians are not being promised they will live forever on this earth, neither are we being informed that Adam would have lived forever on this earth.The contrast drawn between 'death' and 'life' in this passage is spiritual. Paul is discussing the consequences of, and remedy for, human disobedience that began ('entered the world') with Adam. He uses the words 'life' and 'death' to describe metaphysical, not physical, realities.

death reigned = immorality, disobedience, condemnation, hopelessness, Sheol/Hell

​

life will reign = morality, obedience, justification, hope, Heaven

It's interesting too that Paul avoids the present tense. He places death in the past, life in the future. What about the present? We are to understand, apparently, that the two realms co-exist for now.But every reader knows that for the present--Paul's and ours--physical death continues unabated. Every living thing endures it. Choosing 'life in Christ' doesn't get one out of it. Physical death is an appointment all keep, whatever choices they make.So again--obviously--physical death is not the subject Paul has in mind. On that matter there's no contrast for him to draw. Under Adam people die and under Christ people die. The only contrast to be drawn is moral or spiritual.The words 'death' and 'life' here describe metaphysical, not physical, situations..Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Well, this thread is supposed to be about how Biblical creationism derives the idea of genetic devolution from scripture, but I guess we're going to spend part of it arguing about all the other ways of interpreting scripture first. Um, it's ABOUT Christians and non-Christians alike. It's about the entire human race. No one is exempt. We all go back to Adam. It's explaining how death happened in the first place and continues to happen to all of us. Um, how are you getting this "thus"? By interpreting it as only referring to Christians? Without the slightest justification. You are getting all this out of the one word "reigned" in that one sentence? Taking it out of the context in which terms of origin such as "death entered" "came upon" and "were made sinners" should define it? I must admire the creative twistedness of the effort. And your clue to this is... what? "...reigned?" What? All that ingenuity just to reduce something gloriously transcendant to something dull, pedestrian, bo-o-o-o-o-rrrring. So we have, basically, a fake "death" and a fake "life," both reduced to metaphors in keeping with the nonphysical terms "disobedience, condemnation, hopelessness" and so on, as if their mere association in one sentence requires this? What? He places the ORIGIN of death in the past, the ENTRANCE of death -- if you read the whole thing in context instead of making some special separate idea out of "reigned." He places true life in the future, eternal life, the life Adam lost at the Fall, places it in the future when it will be fully restored. {edit: All of us in this life, this earthly life, are not alive but dead, according to scripture -- "dead in trespasses and sins." When Paul asks rhetorically
"who will deliver me from this body of death?" it's not just a metaphor. Regeneration in Christ means restoration to REAL life, true life, eternal life, spiritual life, along with the incorruptible body at the resurrection.} No, the life that is to be restored is spiritual life, eternal life, and a new resurrected incorruptible body will be part of it, a body that first will pass through physical death. Paul does talk about the body being raised incorruptible in another part of scripture. If you read this out of context you will miss the meaning of that too. Only if you completely ignore the context, ignore other passages of scripture that contradict it, and make it up out of whole cloth.And again, all that cognitive exertion to what end? Turning a prince into a frog or something like that.Bo-o-o-o-o-o-r-r-r-r-ing. No wonder you guys aren't interested in Christianity. You don't understand it. Because you refuse to believe it really means what it says. You drag it down to dull plodding earthbound death-ridden "reality." But scripture says those who won't believe consider it foolishness. Funny though how hard you have to work to turn it into something dull and trivial.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is very strange to read a professed Christian pronouncing spiritual matters dull, trivial and boring. I respectfully suggest that, if you really do feel this way, it is you who fail to understand Christianity.For Paul, the spiritual world was the most real world there is. How often does he talk about 'flesh' and 'spirit' in opposition? In posing that duality it's never hard to tell which side Paul is on. For him matters of the 'spirit' are not only interesting, but vital.It is irrational in the extreme to slam Paul's discussion of spiritual matters for being 'earthbound.' You'd be on more logical ground if you criticized it, as some do, for not being earthbound enough.It is 'earthbound' rather to make a habit of thinking, apart from all considerations of what a text means to tell you, that no message matters unless it can be pressed into service defending a pseudoscientific point about super-genomes, biological devolution, or flood deposits. That's earthbound.In matters of flesh and spirit, Paul sided with spirit.Faith tells us she finds matters of the spirit dull, trivial and boring. Faith likes flesh.Who knew?
.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

You interpret Paul out of context and impose your own prejudice on him, as I showed. I notice you don't bother to answer my charge of fakery, legerdemain with words.There is nothing spiritual about a metaphorical "life" and "death." You are treating spirituality as unreal, as a mere mental state, word games, but Christianity is about Reality, and Spiritual Reality is Real. Real life, real death, and a life and a death even beyond the life and death we think is real.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

mjf writes: What most confuses me about this entire controversy is: If god didn't want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge (FOTOK), why did he put the tree in the garden of Eden? After all, god had created the entire earth and presumably knew where all the continents and stuff were, so why didn't he put the damn tree in Bangcock, or Brisbane, or Brooklyn? Third Line Literalists (these are bible literalists that just read every third line of the scriptures) might argue that god specifically put the tree in sight of Adam and Eve to test their obedience to him. But if they read the other two lines they can see that this can't be true. For example, if this were correct, then the snake would have been acting as god's agent in the test, sort of his hunched-back lab assistant Igor, and would have been rewarded for doing his job, not punished. Perhaps you can clarify this for me. It just seems that the god that you and Faith are trying to foist on the world gets more lovable with every post.Regards, AnInGe---------------------------All of Noah's grandchildren married their first cousins. Might explain a lot about the human condition.

It is only through metaphors that spiritual realities can be discussed at all. On the contrary: I said plainly that in Paul's writings, spiritual things are the most real things there are. Next to this he attaches little importance to the physical.You are supplying the trivializations. Not me. You have finally said something Paul would agree with. My point exactly.When Paul uses the words 'life' and 'death' to describe contrasting spiritual states, he is discussing something that matters more to him than the physical life and death that provided him with the words.Do you always take it as a putdown when someone suggests the presence of metaphor? Does a metaphor always mean a 'word game' to you--something unreal, unimportant, uninteresting, untrue?This is a prejudice I would expect a literalist to hold. But it represents an inaccurate and very unhealthy way to think of metaphors.A metaphor is a means of expressing something, just as a literal statement is. Truth can be expressed either way.Your relationship with the Bible will take a healthier turn the day you give both metaphorical and literal means of expression their proper levels of respect. Each are valid ways to communicate. Each are ways to say something true.It's fine to say 'The Lord guides me, protects me, and cares for me.' But nothing is lost, nothing at all, if one says instead: 'The Lord is my shepherd.'.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

If the fall cannot be factually established or agreed upon then of course it is a poor foundation for a scientific hypothesis.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

What are you suggesting about the author of Genesis?

That the authors of Genesis were authors just like any other author.That Paul's interpretation of Genesis was no more valid than anybody else's interpretation.That Paul is less "believable" on Genesis than the authors of Genesis.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

care to quote?

And that is what I believe we are doing. For there to some Biblical Fall, then there should be some indication of it in the Bible. We know that you have quoted Paul as asserting that, but as has been shown, Paul is either misrepresenting what Genesis says, or refering to some other scripture that was floating around at the time.To support the idea that there has been some devolution since the Fall, you first need to show that there was a Fall, and second show that there was some higher evolved critter than exists now. Those are the things that we are still waiting on.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

First off, let me say that I don't claim to know all the answers; That's important to realize and I think it's the major cause of the disagreement between "literalists" and those who aren't.What I mean is this. People forget that the Bible is a book that should be read as a book. (i'm not denying or affirming Christian doctrine of divine inspiration, by the way)
What I mean is that, like any other book, the Bible was written in a human language, subject to confines of grammar and context.Therefore, when the Bible says that there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden with Adam, That's what the Bible says; It doesn't make it true, or false. It's merely what the Bible says, and to claim otherwise is to deny reality.I have been fascinated by the fact that many people play loose and free with the Bible in a manner they never would with any other book. When Homer relates his history of Troy, we do not speculate that Troy was a metaphorical city or some other mystical interpretation. We read Homer's story as he wrote it.The same applies to the Bible. I don't claim to understand everything about the Genesis account. And i'm not sure I can answer you in regard to why there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil. But the Bible says there was. It's dishonest to claim that the Bible says otherwise. You don't have to believe the Bible. You may think the Bible is incorrect. But not understanding the reason for something does not give you carte blanche to disregard the clear message of the text.To answer your question, I do believe that God put the Tree (of knowledge of good and evil) in Eden to test Adam and Eve's obedience. Many people here have raised the issue of moral agency. If God desired to create moral agents (those who have the ability to choose moral right or wrong) why then could he not test their loyalty via the tree? Scripture is plain that God allows us to be tempted. As far as the serpent, having fallen himself, his loyalty was anywhere but to God; consequently, he desires that others reject God as he did. Being in direct rebellion to God, he was justly punished, not rewarded...