The Fall of Adam

[harvey1]

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned– for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come." (Romans 5:12-14)

Assuming the age of the earth is older than 10,000 years, please tell me the meaning of this scripture since it says that 'death' came into the world by sin. How can death come by sin if dying of animal life and other hominids came prior to when Adam would have lived (i.e., as a conscious intelligent modern human).

[gluadys]

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned– for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come." (Romans 5:12-14)

Assuming the age of the earth is older than 10,000 years, please tell me the meaning of this scripture since it says that 'death' came into the world by sin. How can death come by sin if dying of animal life and other hominids came prior to when Adam would have lived (i.e., as a conscious intelligent modern human).

Depends on what kind of death you are talking about doesn't it?

Paul was clearly referring to a kind of death that did not occur until there was sin.

Take it from there.

[harvey1]

Depends on what kind of death you are talking about doesn't it? Paul was clearly referring to a kind of death that did not occur until there was sin. Take it from there.

The problem with this view is that Paul also says in Romans 8:20-23

"For the creation (nature) was subjected to [a]frailty (to futility, condemned to frustration), not because of some intentional fault on its part, but by the will of Him Who so subjected it--[yet] with the hope. That nature (creation) itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and corruption [and gain an entrance] into the glorious freedom of God's children. We know that the whole creation [of irrational creatures] has been moaning together in the pains of labor until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves too, who have and enjoy the firstfruits of the [Holy] Spirit [a foretaste of the blissful things to come] groan inwardly as we wait for the redemption of our bodies [from sensuality and the grave, which will reveal] our adoption (our manifestation as God's sons)."

This, I think, is a reference to (there's even a side Bible reference to this scripture):

"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." (Gen. 3:17-19)

In my view, it's clear that the early Christian writers saw the sin of Adam as it is pretty much stated in Genesis. In fact, here's scriptures which affirms the belief in the creation timeline:

"For since [it was] through a man that death [came into the world, it is] also through a Man that the resurrection of the dead [has come]." (I Cor. 15:21)

"Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’" (Mark 10:5-6)

"But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ." (II Cor. 11:3)

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve" (I Tim. 2:13)

"And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." (I Tim. 2:14)

Evolutionary theory, of course, doesn't hold that men and women were created in the beginning, nor does it hold to much of the chronology of Gen.2-3.

[gluadys]

In my view, it's clear that the early Christian writers saw the sin of Adam as it is pretty much stated in Genesis.

Of course they did. They had no alternatives except the various stories from pagan mythology which they had already rejected.

The question is: would they have continued to uphold the Genesis account if they knew what we know today? In the case of one early Christian, the answer is a definite "No".

One of the great Christian theologians of the early church was Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (North Africa). One of his numerous books was called "On the literal reading of Genesis" and it was devoted to all the reasons why Christians ought NOT to read Genesis as a literal, historical record. He did not include evolution as one of those reasons, for he knew nothing about it. But he did use the scientific knowledge of his day to show that a literal reading of Genesis did not accord with what was known of the reality of creation. And he concluded that a literal reading had to be a wrong reading.

Evolutionary theory, of course, doesn't hold that men and women were created in the beginning, nor does it hold to much of the chronology of Gen.2-3.

No, and not to the chronology of Gen. 1 either.
And this leaves two options for the Christian.

1. Ignore the scientific world-view altogether and read Genesis as a straightforward historical record.

A consequence of this option is that it implies that the physical world is not real. Our senses are not connecting with a real world at all, but with some kind of an illusion. Now there is nothing illogical about this conclusion. It is the same conclusion Plato came to. It is the basis of Hindu/Buddhist theology and all theologies which stress detaching oneself from the world of the senses in order to connect with real reality. It is a philosophical position taken by European idealist philosophers.

However, my perspective is that it is not viable as an orthodox Christian belief.

2. Take the scientific world-view seriously and develop a theology (including a theology of biblical interpretation) which eliminates apparent contradictions between science and the scriptures.

This position is consistent with historic Christian orthodoxy which affirms that:

a) God really did create a physical world, not an illusory virtual world.

b) Our sense impressions are real impressions of that real world. While it is true that our senses can sometimes err, by and large they are reliable guides to the reality of the natural world. We can reduce the possibilities of error by re-checking our observations with those of others until we are in agreement as to what we are observing.

c) Our capacity to think logically and rationally about our observations and infer from them the way nature works is an expression of the image of God in us. Again, it is not foolproof, but it is a more reliable guide than subjective intuition, especially when checked against the thinking of other people, in order to eliminate logical fallacies.

Unless b) and c) are true, Paul's assertion that creation itself bears witness to God so that no one is without excuse before God's judgment is meaningless. If creation is not real, or if our mind and our senses cannot actually comprehend the reality of creation, there is no way creation can be a witness to those who have never heard the word of God preached.

So when the disciplined study of creation we call science yields information about creation that does not fit with the supposed chronologies of Genesis, it is time to follow the advice of Augustine and not get tied up in a literal interpretation of those passages of scripture.

[harvey1]

Unless b) and c) are true, Paul's assertion that creation itself bears witness to God so that no one is without excuse before God's judgment is meaningless. If creation is not real, or if our mind and our senses cannot actually comprehend the reality of creation, there is no way creation can be a witness to those who have never heard the word of God preached. So when the disciplined study of creation we call science yields information about creation that does not fit with the supposed chronologies of Genesis, it is time to follow the advice of Augustine and not get tied up in a literal interpretation of those passages of scripture.

I certainly wouldn't want to deny (a)-(c), however it's not as simple as that. It's one thing to believe what is rational (which we should), but it's quite another to rewrite Christianity. The problem with the 'Fall of Adam' is not the time period prior to the Fall. There is nothing biblically speaking that prevents eons and eons happening prior to the Fall. The big problem is the natural state of decay and destruction that happened prior to the Fall, and how that affects Christian doctrine.

You see, if Adam's sin had nothing to do with there being decay and death in nature, then it is more serious than Paul simply being naive about the Genesis scriptures. What it means is that the Fall was not what separated creation from God. It stands to reason that God subjected his creation to a whole lot of natural evils (parasites, disease, planetary collisions, etc), and for what reason? He couldn't think of any better means to create the world? Biblically speaking, the sin of Adam is what caused this separation from God, hence it is only through the redemption of the children of God that God will create a new heavens and new earth with the former one of decay and destruction passing away.

I'm not saying evolutionary theory has no place in Christian doctrine, on the contrary I'm saying that Adam's sin is a direct result of the world of natural selection that we are all familiar. This, in my view, is the only viable position to take with regard to evolutionary theory. If one doesn't take this position, then a good deal of Christian doctrine about why man is separate from God must be re-written - not so easy to do without just inventing your own religion.

[gluadys]

Unless b) and c) are true, Paul's assertion that creation itself bears witness to God so that no one is without excuse before God's judgment is meaningless. If creation is not real, or if our mind and our senses cannot actually comprehend the reality of creation, there is no way creation can be a witness to those who have never heard the word of God preached. So when the disciplined study of creation we call science yields information about creation that does not fit with the supposed chronologies of Genesis, it is time to follow the advice of Augustine and not get tied up in a literal interpretation of those passages of scripture.

I certainly wouldn't want to deny (a)-(c), however it's not as simple as that. It's one thing to believe what is rational (which we should), but it's quite another to rewrite Christianity.

I don't think anything in science requires a rewrite of Christianity. It is really a matter of not buying into the lie that some scientific knowledge is anti-God or anti-biblical or that there is some sort of conspiracy to use science to force atheism on people.

People misuse science in many ways, just as people misuse religion in many ways. A rational person and a genuine believer learns to cut through the misuse and see science and religion for what they are, not what people pretend they are.

The problem with the 'Fall of Adam' is not the time period prior to the Fall. There is nothing biblically speaking that prevents eons and eons happening prior to the Fall. The big problem is the natural state of decay and destruction that happened prior to the Fall, and how that affects Christian doctrine.

snip

I'm not saying evolutionary theory has no place in Christian doctrine, on the contrary I'm saying that Adam's sin is a direct result of the world of natural selection that we are all familiar. This, in my view, is the only viable position to take with regard to evolutionary theory. If one doesn't take this position, then a good deal of Christian doctrine about why man is separate from God must be re-written - not so easy to do without just inventing your own religion.

I think we are pretty much in agreement on the rest.

[harvey1]

I don't think anything in science requires a rewrite of Christianity. It is really a matter of not buying into the lie that some scientific knowledge is anti-God or anti-biblical or that there is some sort of conspiracy to use science to force atheism on people. People misuse science in many ways, just as people misuse religion in many ways. A rational person and a genuine believer learns to cut through the misuse and see science and religion for what they are, not what people pretend they are.

I agree with you. However, I'm not sure we agree on the impact of Adam's fall. In my view, Adam's fall is the reason for the evils in the world, not just human evils, but the naturalist evils of creation (e.g., parasites, disease, etc).

[gluadys]

However, I'm not sure we agree on the impact of Adam's fall. In my view, Adam's fall is the reason for the evils in the world, not just human evils, but the naturalist evils of creation (e.g., parasites, disease, etc).

Actually, I don't have a problem with that.

What we probably do disagree on is the identity of Adam. I don't hold that Adam was a specific individual.

[harvey1]

However, I'm not sure we agree on the impact of Adam's fall. In my view, Adam's fall is the reason for the evils in the world, not just human evils, but the naturalist evils of creation (e.g., parasites, disease, etc).

Actually, I don't have a problem with that.

What we probably do disagree on is the identity of Adam. I don't hold that Adam was a specific individual.

I think he was a specific individual in the same way that Jesus was a specific individual. Although, 'Adam' is a name that applies to much wider description than just one man, see for example:

"Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." (Gen. 5:2)

Here it is clear that the name 'Adam' applies as a collective title to all of humanity, both male and female. I might add that wherever God took life from the ground in the universe with intent of making life into his likeness I would say is also 'Adam'. So, even in the widest sense possible, Adam is representative of natural consciousness in the universe - whereever it occurs. The fall of Adam is the fall of the infinite 'son of God' to the finite 'son of God' with the finite taking on death, and with death, all the properties of natural selection as it occurs in the universe. It is for this reason that the plan of salvation became necessary from prior to the creation of the universe:

"He was pre-destined indeed to this work, even before the creation of the world, but has been plainly manifested in these last days for the sake of you who, through Him" (I Peter 1:20)

So, in my view, the fall of Adam was a predestined event that was later <i>manifested</i> in our earth history at the beginning of modern humans.

Are we on the same wavelength with regard to this issue?

[gluadys]

However, I'm not sure we agree on the impact of Adam's fall. In my view, Adam's fall is the reason for the evils in the world, not just human evils, but the naturalist evils of creation (e.g., parasites, disease, etc).

Actually, I don't have a problem with that.

What we probably do disagree on is the identity of Adam. I don't hold that Adam was a specific individual.

I think he was a specific individual in the same way that Jesus was a specific individual. Although, 'Adam' is a name that applies to much wider description than just one man, see for example:

"Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." (Gen. 5:2)

Here it is clear that the name 'Adam' applies as a collective title to all of humanity, both male and female.

snip

So, in my view, the fall of Adam was a predestined event that was later <i>manifested</i> in our earth history at the beginning of modern humans.

Are we on the same wavelength with regard to this issue?

Perhaps not exactly, but close enough.