Mike, thanks for posting that information from Carl. I'm glad to know that he at least leaves the question of all of humanity's being destroyed in Noah's Flood open, although I'm disappointed that he doesn't outright reject this contrary-to-fact idea.
:: I'd like to know your take on how your view of the Flood affects the rest of the Bible's believability. Plenty of believers strongly insist that if the Flood were not a real, global event that wiped out the human race, much of the Christian message is damaged or pointless ...
: I understand why many Christians feel this way. For one thing, they understand that if the flood of Noah's day was not global, or at least not universal in its destruction of the human race, then we are not all Noah's descendants. And, if we are not, then maybe we are not all even the literal descendents of the "Adam" of Genesis. And if we are not, then why do we need Jesus? Don't we only need Jesus because of the sin we inherited from Adam ?
That's essentially the problem. There are, of course, many relevant details.
: I understand why many Christians feel this way. But I think there is no need for them to worry. I think their concerns are largely based on a misunderstanding of Christ's Ransom and a misunderstanding of the events in Eden. This is, of course a bit of a long story. I'll do my best to be brief.
I think it's difficult to be brief on this subject because of the many details.
: I understand that Christ died to pay for the sins of all mankind, not just to pay for Adam's sins. I believe God used Adam and Eve as representatives of the human race to demonstrate the fact that all human beings are incapable of living perfectly righteous lives. And, because we all are incapable of doing so, none of us deserves to live forever. And, because we are all unworthy of eternal life, we can only hope to receive it as a gift from a Creator who is willing to overlook all of our unrighteousness.
Immediately we see a huge set of problems -- the things that I call "details". First, no one in his right mind would think that killing you to atone for the sins of Hitler's Gestapo in WWII would actually do so. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice, because the one killing has no relation to the other 'sins'. Second, no supernatural being with access to the "design specifications" of humans would need to be convinced by an actual demonstration that the things designed in by an omnipotent and perfectly competent Designer are really there. They would simply have to 'read' the 'specs'. And of course, the imperfectly designed humans would be in no position to judge, so they wouldn't count. Furthermore, the question is raised: What's the point of a Supreme Designer making a group of somewhat intelligent beings who are unable to do what He obviously wants, namely, live "perfectly righteous lives"? What's the further point of putting to death a man who was deliberately created to be an obvious exception to the rule to "atone" for the design flaws that the Supreme Designer put there in the first place? All that the Designer has to do is change his design. Easy -- no fuss, no muss, no incomprehensible and contrary-to-our-sense-of-justice shenanigans needed. Finally, if this Supreme Designer really wanted mankind to live forever, why didn't he just make them with what they needed in the first place? Why the long, tortuous and torturous road?
: The Genesis account clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were created mortal, with a dying nature just like us. The story of Adam and Eve told in Genesis makes clear that their being able to live forever was not a part of their original physical nature. Rather, Adam and Eve's ability to live forever depended entirely on their eating from a tree "in the middle of the garden" of Eden, "the tree of life".(Genesis 2:9)
All of this makes far more sense than the infantile and demonstrably ridiculous notions of the JWs, I'll grant that.
: Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were going to be allowed to continue to eat from that tree only if they passed a God given test, a test which we are told they failed. After failing that test God expelled Adam and Eve from Eden and prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life".
Again, why a test of the obvious?
: Genesis indicates that had Adam and Eve been allowed to continue eating from "the tree of life" their lives would have been prolonged indefinitely.(Genesis 3:22-24) But when God prevented them from ever again eating from "the tree of life" they died what were apparently natural deaths.
All of which, to me, loudly shouts "Ancient Mythology!"
Good Lord, man! The account even credits God for inventing the first weapon of war -- the sword -- long before it was ever used by mankind. Doesn't that tell you something?
: A careful reading of the Genesis account shows us that living forever would have been as unnatural for Adam and Eve as it would now be for us.
In your interpretation of Genesis, that again is far more in accord with reality than the notions of JWs and other Fundamentalists.
: Genesis does not indicate that Adam and Eve originally had eternal life programmed into their genetic codes by God and later had their genetic codes reprogrammed by God in order to remove eternal life from those codes. Rather, Genesis indicates that Adam and Eve would have lived forever only if God had graciously given them eternal life from an outside source, "the tree of life".
Once again, why not build mankind properly the first time around?
: Most objections to this natural reading of Genesis come from those who adhere to the doctrine of "The Fall" of mankind. This doctrine is based on what I believe is a misunderstanding of the apostle Paul's words in Romans 5:12-20 and 1 Cor. 15:21,22.
I'll quote these passages here, from the NWT since most readers will be most familiar with the rendering:
Romans 5:12-20:
12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned?. 13 For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come. 15 But it is not with the gift as it was with the trespass. For if by one man?s trespass many died, the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift with the undeserved kindness by the one man Jesus Christ abounded much more to many. 16 Also, it is not with the free gift as it was with the way things worked through the one [man] that sinned. For the judgment resulted from one trespass in condemnation, but the gift resulted from many trespasses in a declaration of righteousness. 17 For if by the trespass of the one [man] death ruled as king through that one, much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one [person], Jesus Christ. 18 So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] many will be constituted righteous. . 20 Now the Law came in beside in order that trespassing might abound. But where sin abounded, undeserved kindness abounded still more.
1 Cor. 15:21,22:
21 For since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. 22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.
I think you have to admit that, on first reading, the traditional JW/Fundamentalist interpretation has a lot going for it.
: Romans 5:12 tells us that "sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin." But as we read further we find that the kind of "sin" that first entered into the world through Adam, the "sin", which was responsible for bringing about his "death", was the "sin" of "breaking a command".(verse 14) And we are told that the kind of sin committed by Adam "is not taken into account (or "imputed" - KJV, NAS) when there is no law." (verse 13)
So far so good.
: Because these verses tell us that Adam was the first man to sin by "breaking a command" from God, it follows that the "death" that "entered into the world" as a result of Adam's new kind of sin would have been Adam's new kind of death, death as a penalty imposed by God for "breaking a command" from God.
Basically reasonable, except that it's setting up for the huge leap of logic that's addressed below.
: However, other verses have added to the confusion.
What? Confusion from God's Word?
: Romans 5:15,17 and 18 tell us that "many died by the trespass of one man", "death reigned through that one man" and "as a result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." 1 Cor. 15:21,22 repeats this same thought by saying that "death came through a man" and "in Adam all die."
Right.
: Many Bible readers say that these verses clearly indicate that all people today have "inherited" a "fallen" or "sinful" nature from Adam. And they say that it is this "fallen" nature inherited by us, as a result of Adam's disobedience, that brings upon us God's condemnation. They maintain that these verses prove that human beings were not "sinful" creatures until after Adam's spiritual, physical and genetic natures were somehow radically changed at the time he disobeyed God in Eden. Then, they say, when Adam fathered children after his nature had been corrupted, his children and all their descendants inherited Adam's "corrupted", "fallen", "sinful" nature.
A good description of JW/Fundamentalist doctrine.
: Advocates of "The Fall" doctrine insist that unless we have all "inherited" a "fallen" nature from Adam we do not all need God's forgiveness through Jesus Christ, as the Bible tells us we all do. (Romans 3:23,24; 1 John 2:2)
I'll again quote these from the NWT:
Romans 3:23,24:
23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom [paid] by Christ Jesus.
1 John 2:1,2:
2 My little children, I am writing YOU these things that YOU may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. 2 And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world?s.
Now we come to the crux of the matter. First I'll quote you entirely, then requote sentences and comment on them.
: However, I believe this understanding of the Ransom is incorrect. I believe the key to properly understanding all of Pauls words on this subject matter is found in Romans 5:19. There Paul wrote,"By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." (Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible) I believe Paul was able to say this because Adam, serving as God's chosen representative of the whole human race, demonstrated by his disobedience that all human beings are "sinners." ( If Adam in paradise, without a care in the world, was unable to resist sin, what chance do any of us have in doing so? ) So, after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good reason to condemn the entire human race as being undeserving of eternal life.
: The Bible clearly tells us that God will hold each one of us responsible for his or her own unrighteousness, not for Adam's. (Romans 14:10-12, 2 Corinthians 5:10) And the Scriptures say that we all need the forgiveness God offers us through Jesus Christ, because we have all personally "sinned" and have all personally "fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
These things being so, we do not all have to be Noah's descendents, or Adam's for that matter, to need God's forgiveness. We do not have to be Adam's physical descendents to be considered to be "sinners." For Adam's sin has been "imputed" to us, because of what he did. In the same way, we do not have to be physical descendents of Jesus to be considered by God to be "righteous ones." For Christ's righteousness is "credited" to believers, as a result of what He did.
Here are my detailed comments:
: I believe the key to properly understanding all of Pauls words on this subject matter is found in Romans 5:19. There Paul wrote,"By one man's disobedience many were constituted sinners." (Romans 5:19, Amplified Bible)
In English, in the sense used here, "constitute" means "to appoint to an office, function or dignity; to set up, establish, enact, found; to legally process".
In the Greek text of Romans 5:19, "constitute" is from the root word kathistemi which means (BAGD 3rd ed. p. 492) "to take someone somewhere, bring, conduct, take; to assign someone a position of authority, appoint, put in charge; cause someone to experience something, make, cause". BADG puts the usage in Rom. 5:19 in the latter category, with the extra comment "in possible legal sense". The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 2 (ed. by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Eerdman's, 1991, pp. 225-6) says that the meaning is "conduct, appoint, bring about", and comments on the word's use in Rom. 5:19 as follows:
In Rom 5:19 Paul refers to the eschatological judicial act of installation in the realm of righteousness or of sin: In Christ's all-encompassing obedience, which determines all destiny, God establishes his eschatological righteousness as a judicial verdict that will restore for the polloi -- the believers, the members of Christ -- the relationship to this righteousness. In retrospect, according to Paul, it becomes apparent -- with the acceptance of the corporate anthrwpos doctrine -- that Adam's disobedience has established the unrighteousness of humankind. This judicial act of kathistemi, which eschatologically determines and divides history, has a christological basis in that the person and destiny of Christ are both comprehended in the eschatological kathistemi of God (cf. kathistemi in the interpretations of Psalms 2, 8, and 110 in Heb 2:6-10; 5:1-10; 7:21-28). The eschatological legal expression in the word kathistemi is derived in both Hebrews and Paul from the presupposed mystery of the fate and dignity of the Son of Man ...
In other words, God simply declares that all men are sinners -- not sinners in an inherent sense, but as a judicial verdict -- based on "Adam's disobedience". The problem here, of course, that this declaration is a good example of the fallacy called "hasty generalization", in which the size of the sample is too small to support the conclusion. In other words, just because Adam and Eve disobeyed God does not automatically mean that the rest of mankind are unable to obey God, i.e., that they are all "sinners". This is made even more apparent by your comments to Satanus in posts below: "I believe Adam and Eve were two real people created by God and placed in a garden which was located not too far from where other people were already then living" and "I believe in order to tell this story properly God had to create two brand new people." If they were created brand new, from scratch, then they weren't even related to other humans, except that they would have shared the same basic blueprint. If the Bible says that God himself can make such a fallacious judgment, what does that say about God?
Now, you might argue that this fallacious demonstration was not actually necessary, because it can be demonstrated in other ways that mankind is "unrighteous". But if you do, then you've obviated the necessity for the demonstration you say was provided by Adam and Eve.
Given the above, let's note that your argument proceeds right along this fallacious path:
: I believe Paul was able to say this because Adam, serving as God's chosen representative of the whole human race, demonstrated by his disobedience that all human beings are "sinners."
See what I mean?
: ( If Adam in paradise, without a care in the world, was unable to resist sin, what chance do any of us have in doing so? )
This is a horrible argument. Adam had no experience (according to Genesis) outside the Garden. Eve herself was probably extremely young by comparison, perhaps only hours or days old (they almost certainly had not yet had sex, since the context of the story demands this), and so she was even more inexperienced. It's simply not fair by any rules to allow a superhumanly intelligent being like Satan to tempt such people -- even if, as the Bible says, "Adam was not deceived". Furthermore, experienced people living under much more difficult circumstances -- people with plenty of "cares in the world" -- would be far better able to resist the temptations of a deceiver. Who of us today isn't completely innoculated against TV advertisements?
: So, after Adam failed a simple God given test of his righteousness, God had good reason to condemn the entire human race as being undeserving of eternal life.
Nope. That's a completely fallacious test. It's also easy to see that this test is an example of the fallacy called "the unrepresentative sample", where the sample used in an inductive inference is relevantly different from the population as a whole. Just because the brand new and unique Adam failed a test doesn't mean that all other men must fail.
: The Bible clearly tells us that God will hold each one of us responsible for his or her own unrighteousness, not for Adam's. (Romans 14:10-12, 2 Corinthians 5:10)
But that completely contradicts the arguments you've made above. If each human is unable to perfectly obey God (is inherently "unrighteous"), and demonstrates it during his or her course of life, then the test of Adam and Eve is irrelevant. Conversely, if that test were needed, then all humans are, by their created nature -- not individually, as a result of specific actions -- "unrighteous". You can't have it both ways.
: And the Scriptures say that we all need the forgiveness God offers us through Jesus Christ, because we have all personally "sinned" and have all personally "fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
But this contradicts Romans 5:19, which says that God constituted or judicially declared mankind to be sinners.
: These things being so, we do not all have to be Noah's descendents, or Adam's for that matter, to need God's forgiveness. We do not have to be Adam's physical descendents to be considered to be "sinners."
Yes, if these things are so.
: For Adam's sin has been "imputed" to us, because of what he did.
Geez. I sin and God imputes unrighteousness to and says you ought not to live forever. What a nice God!
: In the same way, we do not have to be physical descendents of Jesus to be considered by God to be "righteous ones." For Christ's righteousness is "credited" to believers, as a result of what He did.
Which would be entirely unnecessary if proper logic were followed.
In conclusion:
: I think believers who "strongly insist that, if the Flood was not a real, global event that wiped out the human race, much of the Christian message is damaged or pointless," simply misunderstand the scriptures.
On the contrary, I think that at least some of them understand the logical difficulties in your argument. Of course, they substitute their own. In neither case are the difficulties solved. Indeed, attempts to argue around the difficulties only increase them, as I believe this post shows.
I also want to comment on your first post to Satanus:
: You asked: Do you believe that before 'adam' there were lots of people?
: Yes, I do. Bible chronology seems to indicate that only about 4,000 years passed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Christ 2,000 years ago. But paleontologists, anthropologists and archaeologists all assure us that mankind has lived on earth far longer than 6,000 years. For instance, anthropologists date the first settlement of the Americas by modern men to 15,000 B.P. (Before the Present) and their first settlements in Australia to 35,000 B.P.
There's a lot more to this than the settlement of the Americas and Australia by modern humans several tens of thousands of years ago. Almost every year, new discoveries of hominid fossils are made that, taken together, indicate a history of human-like creatures 5-7 million years old, depending on how "human-like" is defined. The hominids now called Homo ergaster and Homo erectus (ca 2 to .5 million years ago) were extremely human-like in their bodies, but not in their skulls, and it's apparent that they were toolmakers. Neanderthals had things in common culturally with modern humans, burying their dead with ornaments and so forth. They originated at least 250,000 years ago and died out not earlier than 28,000 years ago. Homo sapiens has existed in modern form for some 100,000 to 150,000 years, and specimens called Archaic Homo sapiens are dated to well over 500,000 years ago.
: To explain this apparent conflict between well established science and scripture some Bible believers have suggested that there may be gaps in the Genesis genealogies and that, if there are, Adam may have been created by God near the time scientists tell us modern man first appeared on earth.
Given the above information, can you understand the difficulties that even your much more reasonable view of evolution creates? Why would God tolerate several million years of terrible living conditions for his intelligent or semi-intelligent creatures? Has he no compassion?
: However, such an explanation does not solve the apparent conflicts here referred to because the same scientists who tell us modern man has been around for at least several tens of thousands of years also tell us that the things Adam and his direct descendants were involved in did not take place anywhere on earth prior to 10,000 years ago. These things include raising crops, herding animals, forging tools of copper and iron and building cities. (Gen. 4) So, whether or not we use Bible chronology to date God's creation of Adam, we know that the Adam described in Genesis could not have lived any earlier than 10,000 years ago.
Fair enough. But that really doesn't solve a host of difficulties, many of which I haven't even touched on.
I'll leave the rest of your post for further discussion.
AlanF
