Jeremy Christian's Take on Adam

I agree. @Jeremy_Christian, I’d encourage you look at a well-versed explanations of inspiration. I would also like to know if you affirm the Lausanne Covenant: The Lausanne Covenant - Lausanne Movement. If not, what are your reservations?

@deuteroKJ and I are tapping into a long tradition of thought on this. The article just linked to you by @deuteroKJ is a great first start. You might also want to look at this article (linked here): Five Views on Inerrancy.

This appears to be an “idiosyncratic” view. I do not think this is supportable by the text. In your story of Adam, it is creating some serious (and avoidable) theological problems. It seems as if you are reading in from our current context into the text at that time. They did not have the same notions of individuality as do we.

Your claims that “it is clear” is a great warning cue to rethink your position. If it is clear, it should be taught by many people throughout history. It is possible to objectively demonstrate this with evidence. If you think it is clear, but it is not widely appreciate, the “clear” point is probably a personal bias. It is more likely to be how you clearly see something, that is not actually in the text. We have to let the text reshape our biases.

Of course, the text can be teaching something that a lot of people missed. You could be right, and everyone else might be wrong. In those cases, however, arguing “it is clear” undermines your case almost entirely. It would better to explain and expound why it hasn’t been clear. If we can understand why a large number of well meaning people missed it to till you made the connections, we will be able to better assess if you are right, knowing that you understand what you are critiquing.

In the case of “free will” being the dominant narrative of Genesis, this seems to be anachronistic to me. It does not appear to be a dominant part of the narrative. Rather, it seems to be the dominant narrative in certain contemporary strands of thoughts. I’m skeptical.

1 Like

I really appreciate this. I think you really hit on something with the “it is clear” stuff. There was a time, long ago, when I would introduce this from the perspective of seeing something not seen before due to having the physical evidence and archaeological data that wasn’t available before. Allowing us, for the first time in history, to ground these earliest stories in their correct context.

When I first got into this I spent all my time trying to break it. For months before I published anything. I was convinced it was ridiculous and exceedingly arrogant of me to think I had found something not found before. I kept looking for a valid reason to dismiss it. I hesitated to speak about it to anyone, certain some obvious flaws would sink it immediately and make me look like the fool I was sure I was. But no matter the angle I came at it, it held up. And often in really surprising ways.

I guess I’ve become emboldened by all the time I’ve spent with this and am now coming off as kind of an a-hole. Sorry about that. Not the impression I wanted to make.

I’ve already, in the first few days, found lots of useful information and insights after years of discussing this and basically having what seemed like the same discussions over and over again. I’m excited about where this can go with the addition of knowledge and experience I’ve found here.

I thank you for letting me come participate.

2 Likes

We are glad to have you. I hope can learn from the best of what you have to offer, and to help raise your game to be taken seriously in larger contexts.

No worries. It sounds like you were in a small pond before.

Peaceful Science is different. There are professionals here of many sorts. Many of us come here to learn from one another. This pond is just for training. We are training together for the open sea.

2 Likes

Admittedly, calling it “free will” may be confusing things. I always thought of free will in the theological sense. But that title nowadays seems to confuse things. I call it free will because it’s both what it means theologically and in the determinism vs free will meaning. In a more modern context it can be seen as the emergence of the modern human ego.

Maybe this will clear things up. As we know now, scientifically, all matter behaves consistently according to the natural laws that govern this environment. The natural world works just as Genesis describes. God wills it and it becomes. Natural law is constant and consistent and is one and the same as God’s will.

This is what’s significant about free will. If all we are is the mechanistic biological organism we are then there cannot be free will. Our experience of our mind only makes it seem as though we are willfully choosing our actions, when in actuality we can have no willful control. We can only be what that the elements of our body determine us to be.

A free will is only possible if we have a non-physical soul that is able to behave free of natural determinism.

Now, as for Genesis. Seen in that light events begin to take on an interesting new context. It begins with creation. With the natural world adhering exactly to God’s will. All of which, including the humans, God deemed “good”.

Then comes the Adam and Eve story. Here is where it begins. God’s actions become scientific/experimental. Like the Eden story. God places Adam in the garden, an environment that only has one rule, mandated by God. This is what the story is illustrating. This is what’s significant about Adam and Eve. Unlike any of God’s creation, these two can behave contrary to God’s will. They have a “free will”. Like it was said about eating the forbidden fruit, doing so made them “like God”. Free will makes you capable of creating and adding to God’s universe. Things that we do are not of God’s will, but of ours.

From this point forward, God works specifically with this “chosen” line. Everything He does with this line is everything breeders do when breeding animals for specific characteristics. He chooses one of this line, Abraham, and puts him in a situation where his will is going to want the opposite of what God’s will is. Will his will cause him to override and go against God’s will? When he passes God then tells him he’s going to make his descendants many. And He does.

Then, He first sends the Israelites to Egypt where they live in slavery. Being the slave force of Egypt does well to isolate them from other groups. When He “heard their cries” He pulled them out and isolated them again, this time in the wilderness. All throughout this time He gives them rules to keep them from mixing with other groups.

From Adam and Eve forward the story focuses on human behavior. That bit in Genesis 6 I feel is particularly significant. Would I be wrong if I said the first few verses of Genesis 6 are at the top of the list of the most confounding verses in all the bible? What does it mean? In the context of Adam and Eve being the first humans on the planet, it makes no sense at all.

And these verses seem to be explaining exactly why God flood the Earth. It seems that one group of people began marrying another group of people, there’s some mysterious figures called the Nephillim who are mentioned here. Apparently well known figures judging by the way they’re spoken of. Then it says humans became “wicked”.

Gen6:5 - the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Then the flood. First, Adam can behave contrary to God’s will. Then Cain. Then humans became “wicked”. Then God sends a flood, after it says God “regretted” putting these humans on the Earth. Whatever these verses mean, the result is that it caused God “regret”. Something can only be regretted if the outcome was no anticipated.

You guys know how the rest of it goes.

Now, where things get interesting is when this hypothesis was put to the test. We’ll get into all of that, but there’s good reason to think there’s something to this.

Anyway, yeah, the new guy can be a little long winded. I hope this sheds some light. Interested to see the response.

Well, the bit about the bible we covered. I read the link you provided about inspiration. While I can see this in the context of individual writings included in the bible, I’m not sure the bible as a whole as it is today on our bookshelves should be seen as the infallible word of God. But I do think the bible achieves what it is meant to. It is, of course, what led me in my search.

Which leads me to my next reservation. The role of the church. I see the church as a man made thing that has been maintained and used through the ages much like humanity has used everything else. As a means to control and stay in power. I have a healthy mistrust of organized religion, as you’ll over time discover I’m sure. Precisely because it is governed by men. Entitled men, at that.

To establish yourself as the authority in all things God one thing that will need to be done is to establish the bible, the source of your knowledge, as perfect. Not to be questioned. That’s what I read when I read about the doctrine of inspiration.

Yes I believe the bible serves a purpose, and the fact that the “gospel” is known around the world by practically all I don’t think mortal man is even capable of. As I’d often say when atheists would try to dismiss the bible as written by farmers and shepherds, I don’t see these simple farmers and shepherds being capable of writing, over the course of centuries, the world’s oldest and most successful piece of propaganda ever created. Just as God created Jesus through interactions with humanity, so too I think of the bible.

This, from the Lausanne Covenant, I agree with …
“We confess that we have sometimes pursued church growth at the expense of church depth, and divorced evangelism from Christian nurture.”

But yes, for the most part, the standard tenants of Christianity, I agree with. I know most of what I say makes me a heretic in the eyes of the church. I’m comfortable with that.

@Jeremy_Christian in your perspective, how do you determine what in the Bible is true and what is not? Why do you hold on to the “gospel” and what do you understand it to be? Along that line, why do you agree with the standard tenants of Christianity?

1 Like

I take most of the bible at it’s word, but things like the duplicate wife-sister narratives tell me it’s not inerrant. It’s a product of man. I basically trust that it’s what it’s meant to be and accomplishes what it’s meant to. I don’t dismiss it. I just don’t swallow everything without careful consideration informed by what I know about the specific book I’m reading, who wrote it, who they were writing to, the climate of the time. All the critical aspects that go into reading any ancient texts. I just don’t put the expectation of God-made perfection onto it. I see it as accounts by the people of that time when this God interacted with humanity.

In fact, most of what I’m skeptical about isn’t each text and the details given, but more the editing process afterwards. Like the wife-sister narrative or the chapter/verse breakpoints, like the break between Gen1 and 2 I don’t think is accurate. I think the first few verses of chapter 2 should actually be the conclusion of chapter 1. That kind of thing.

The tenants of Christianity just make sense to me. Given all we know it’s the explanation that ties everything up in a neat bow and makes coherent sense of the whole thing. It completes the story the OT started and gives the story a reasonable and purposeful conclusion.

It began as faith and faith is what kept me at it. And I feel like that faith was rewarded through finding the explanation I was striving to understand.

I just feel like we were given these minds and reason and we’re warned about false prophets and things and just need to approach things knowingly and employing the faculties we were given. Anything humans are involved in, including the bible and religion, I keep a level of skepticism about.

1 Like

Okay, I have a question along the same lines. A couple of you seem to count the book of Enoch as a reliable source. Do you consider the book of Enoch or the book of Jubilees as God-inspired as well?

Personally I don’t. In the case of Enoch, specifically because it directly claims the sons of God to be angels. Which also makes me doubt the legitimacy of the book of Jude because it quotes from Enoch.

In my mind, procreation is a biological function that can only be done by a natural/biological being. There would be no need, especially considering this was considered an act of rebellion and not their intended purpose, for angels to have the capability to procreate with humans.

Whoever wrote Enoch claims to be a prophet taken on an inter-dimensional journey.

So, how do you all determine whether or not a text is valid or God-inspired, or do you just assume it of all biblical and extra-biblical texts?

I’m not sure anyone called it an inspired or “reliable” source. It is just a part of the culture at the time. It shows how people were reading Genesis, whether or not they were correct in their reading of Genesis.

There are many better reasons to doubt Enoch than this. It sounds like you don’t like what is saying, so you are convinced it isn’t inspired. That is not a sound argument.

And then their is the Virgin Birth…

I am generally in agreement with you here. I do not think that the Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-7 are angels. There is another solution that works better, in my view. We need to have an account of how it was originally intended, but then somehow in the fall it became undesireable.

This is all beside the point. The reason why The Book of Enoch came up was to show you that an divine counsel was an important part of early readings of Genesis. This certainly true.

In my view, God providentially governed the assembly of the bible to protect his message to us. Go, after all, raised Jesus from the dead to make himself known. It seems senseless he’d drop the ball in preserving Scripture.

We can get into the criteria of why different books were rejected or included if you like. I am going to have a greater respect for tradition here than you might have in this. The tradition of the church is important here.

They aren’t duplicates @Jeremy_Christian. They are parallel stories.

@Jeremy_Christian thanks for the explanation. Your view seems to fit the newer definition of “infallible” or “limited inerrancy.” However, the whole thing about chapter and verse divisions is irrelevant. These were post-canon and not at stake in the discussion of inspiration and inerrancy.

1 Like

There were a few early church fathers who argued for Enoch’s inclusion, but it never gained wide support. I agree these Second Temple texts give us a glimpse into the various discussions and debates of the time. The NT needs to be read in light of what we know, for sometimes the NT writers are responding to these convos.

It’s partially because Peter and Jude appear to agree with the Enochian tradition on sons of God that I take that view of Gen 6. This is one of the few areas where I disagree with @swamidass and @jongarvey.

1 Like

I began by adopting church tradition, assuming the process was guided by the Spirit. I’ve been open to change my view through study, but I’ve yet found compelling evidence to do so. Probably the one major shift I have made is to allow for multiple Hebrew and Greek text traditions to be considered “Scripture” (2 Tim 3:15-17).

1 Like

I’ve yet to read Heiser’s book Reversing Hermon, but its supposed to discuss, not just the Gen 6 stuff, but all the Enochian influence on the NT. I suspect any future discussion of Enoch will need to wrestle with this book. I’ve listened to Heiser’s lectures on the topic, but hoping to read the full manuscript over the next few months.

It’s not whether or not I like it. I explained my reservations as being tied to the ‘sons of God’ and their ability to procreate, which if I understand correctly, you agree with. If I’m right in my view then the book of Enoch as a whole drops considerably in reliability.

Is this not sound reasoning?

Also, if inspired, that would mean there would be some reason God deemed it necessary that we understand the hierarchy of angels in the next plane. Is it? Is this knowledge somehow helpful?

Yes, that’s how I view it too. As insight into the views and mindsets of the people of that age. But I’m not sure it can be used to validate whether or not a reading of Genesis is correct. This is the same reason I think Luke 3 is insightful as to how the people of that age thought of the ‘sons of God’.

In Jesus’ age Pharisees and Sadducees regularly debated interpretations of the Torah. So I feel it’s important to keep in mind that while they were indeed much closer to the culture than we are and spoke the language, it was not necessarily certain then what was right and what wasn’t. It was ancient history to them as well and not entirely clear.

Well you know my stance on that. Personally, it seems kind of odd that God would create the natural world and then override this particular mechanism to realize something. Not to mention it completely sidesteps all of His efforts throughout the OT leading up to this.

They are parallel in your view because you assume they’re God inspired. So to you they’re not duplicates. Parallel stories might share common themes, but these are beat for beat the same, with only the names of characters changed. Stating they’e not duplicates is saying you know for certain this was actual history and not an editing error. That has not been determined.

Side note: How hot must Sarah have been to have been chosen by the Pharaoh/King literally every time they went to Egypt?

I should make clear it’s not necessarily a lack of respect. It’s more an acknowledgement that they weren’t any more informed or privy to knowledge not available to us. They were fallible humans with differing views and opinions and unless inspired in the same was as the writers, were leaning on their own limited understanding.

Whether or not God played a role, and to what extent, is unknowable. To assume it I feel is potentially fallacious.

This, I think, is at the crux of my issue with the assumption of God-inspired. By definition of inspired as presented/upheld here, shouldn’t there be no disagreement or difference in opinion between writers? If God is the singular source then there should be no conflict of views.

And to what texts do we apply this assumption? All of them? Whether deemed canon or not?

I agree God-inspired played a role in the writing of these books. Most of them, anyway. But I’m not sure it’s safe to assume it about all of them across the board, or about the process to decide what is and isn’t within canon. It’s appears more of an assumption on your part than something confirmed scripturally or elsewhere.

@swamidass I’d like to focus in on the physical evidence that supports the ‘sole-genealogical progenitorship’ story/model/concept. We can certainly discuss the scriptural aspects, but I feel it would be more profitable to so do through the lens of the model I’m putting forward. If we can all understand and speak from that ground I feel it would be more clear. The whole reason I got into all of this in the first place is that I found it difficult to make anything of scripture without proper context. This model will illuminate the viewpoint I’m coming from and why I’m so married to some of my ideas here.

I’m not sure of the protocol of how to split off into another conversation, or if it would be better to include it all under this heading as it’s all tied together.

You can can start discussion the physical evidence here. If it makes sense, we can always split into a new thread later.

A rough timeline to get started …

5500BC - Adam/Eve created in Mesopotamia.
5400BC - Cain banished
5400BC - Beginning of first phase of Sumer (Ubaid) with establishment of Eridu, first human city
4000BC - Regional flood and end of Ubaid
3900BC - 5.1 kiloyear event/ Babel story
3800BC - Beginning of second phase of Sumer (Uruk) with estabishment of Uruk

Then somewhere along the way the establishment of Egypt and the Indus Valley in the next couple of centuries.

These events sum up the story of Genesis 2-11. This is the time frame I believe these stories to have happened along.

So, in my estimation, what we’re looking for here is the impact of these events on the populated human world around them. There should be a significant impact. More specifically, according to what’s described, there should be a significant shift in human behavior with the effect of free will (will call it until a better title can be agreed on) spreading genetically throughout the population. Characteristics of this change are consistent with what’s described in Genesis to have happened to Adam/Eve when they “fell”.

According to this model, two beings were created and placed in a garden. This garden was isolated from surrounding human populations as it had previously been a very arid and dry region. These beings lived lives 10 times longer than humans and were possibly larger.

At this point in history humans had begun to transition from migrating hunter-gatherers into settled cultures due to the advent of farming, primarily in northern Mesopotamia.

Around 5500BC, through the invention of irrigation techniques that allowed farming along the Tigris and Euphrates, the Sumerian culture began in southern Mesopotamia. For 200k years of anatomical modernity homo sapiens had remained egalitarian hunter gatherers. In all that time there’s very little evidence of humans behaving aggressively or violently toward one another though there appears to have been considerable interaction between groups through trading.

The Ubaid period as a whole, based upon the analysis of grave goods, was one of increasingly polarized social stratification and decreasing egalitarianism. A key behavioral change is first seen here. Though there were other largely populated organized farming cultures that predated Sumer by thousands of years to the north, never before had there been any signs of importance of some individuals over others until Sumer. Here, for the first time, do we see first male-dominance, and second a ruling and working class.

Another key to Sumerian culture was the boom of inventions. These include the fabrication of copper, the wheel, a numeral system, writing, sail boats, written law, a monarchical government.

According to the ages given in Genesis, Abraham was born about 2000 years after Adam’s creation, so Abraham lived around 3500 BC. Abraham’s father was from Ur, a Sumerian city. And as discussed, Abraham interacted with an Egyptian Pharaoh/king. So in this span of 2000 years, humanity goes from simple farming communities to the existence of at least 3 cultures (Sumer, Egypt, Indus Valley), all of which are male-dominant, all class stratified, all invented (independently) three distinct forms of writing based on three totally different languages. Nothing like this in tens of thousands of years of human history, now here, in the course of a couple of centuries, there’s this.

Another thing these three have in common, as writing is developed and they begin to record their word-of-mouth histories, is that they all write of immortal gods, male and female, who lived among them in their ancient pasts. This also is unlike anywhere else in human history throughout the world at that point. The predominant “belief system” throughout indigenous homo sapien cultures was more akin to animism.

image

Charting out the ages given, you can see that the longest living descendants of Adam all die around the time of Abraham’s life. In Genesis there’s quite a bit made about God being the only God, discounting the other gods that those in the lands in the surrounding areas follow. Like the gods of Abraham’s father’s home, in Sumer.

So, this is I think a good place to jump off. From this point forward the same change in human behavior in those three cultures can be seen spreading all throughout the world. In human history, there’s the first wave, the indigenous cultures that populate the planet, then there’s this other line of humans, much more aggressive, much more possessive, much more technologically advanced, who spread and conquer throughout the world, pushing the first line of humans to the brink of extinction.

In short, the story of early Genesis is the account of the beginning of the modern human world.

This, I believe to be, the impact of the events described in Genesis on human history. In my view, a sufficiently significant impact.

Thoughts?

1 Like

Your timeline is fine. The challenge is the theology that you bind to it. If you can separate the two, you might have a better shot at winning people over.

Okay, first I’d like to lay out my viewpoint in the correlation between what’s described in scripture and what’s been observed in natural history to get a grasp of God’s methods of creation and how they can be recognized in the natural world. Specifically, biologically, leading up to humans today.

Sauropsid

Genesis 1:20 - Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”

22 - And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

God’s will is what sets things in motion. Here the waters first “abound with an abundance of living creatures” leading up to and including birds. There’s quite a bit of time that passes as this ‘wave’ of creation is realized.

Synapsid

Genesis 1:24 - “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”

This causes a second wave. This time from the land, out of the animal life already there. The first proto-mammals emerge, leading to lines of warm-blooded/placental birthed land animals.

Humans

Genesis1:28 - Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Then again, like proto-mammals, humans began to evolve from the land life that already existed.

This, I believe, is what imbues life with the will that drives it, to survive, to procreate, to “be fruitful”. All life to this day, including our human/mammalian bodies, are driven by these commandments. This is not free will. This is when there is no free will. Only God’s will.

It’s as if each command adds a new natural law. And the natural world adheres and becomes. He doesn’t just “poof” it into existence. it happens over time. Waves. As sauropsids are becoming birds, synapsids begin to appear.

The same goes with humanity. Synapsids continue on, humanity branches off.

One characteristic that began to emerge in the homo genus that helped realize this “day 6” command was the penchant to travel and migrate. First starting I believe with homo Erectus prominently as there were multiple waves of migrations. This allowed them to eventually “fill the earth and subdue it.” Homo Sapiens both populated the planet and established itself as the dominant species.

“He brought them to the man to see what he would name them;”

Then came chapter 2 and the creation of Adam. The first thing God does after placing Adam in the garden is He brings the animals to him to see what he’d name them. Even this is an act of creation. Giving names to animals that did not previously have names. Now names exist, created by Adam. It seems silly, but it really is significant.

God is all-knowing, yet where free will is concerned, it would seem He truly can’t anticipate what will happen. It is truly a will free of His. Like the garden scenario. Adam is placed in an environment where God has instituted only one command. Eat from any tree but that one. It’s a controlled experiment. Rather than God dictating the behavior of Adam through His commandments, Adam is free to dictate his own behavior and choices.

This is why God’s attention is fixated on this one couple out of all the universe. This the only thing that exists in this universe able to behave free of God’s will. Behaving contrary to Gods’ will is akin to defying the law of gravity.

This is what the story is telling. This is the reason for Jesus. The reason for all of it. God created the universe, then focused His attention on this one specific project. To realize us. To make possible eternal life with a mind and will of our own.

Because it’s a will you have to willfully choose, and to do that you have to exist with free will to make that choice. It can’t be anticipated what each of us will do. We have to exist to find out.

Belief is what makes it a willful choice. If you’re shown you can’t choose to believe. But faith through belief is a willful choice made. Not influenced. Not coaxed. Willfully chosen.