Ahh, I see that in the same context of men describing their ancient ancestors as their “father”. In other words, he was a descendant of Adam, who was of dust. Therefore he ultimately was from dust. So I am reading that backwards from you, but in sequential order. Job is not saying “I was derived from an embryo and therefore Adam was also derived from an embryo”. He is saying “My forefather was derived from dust and therefore I too was ultimately derived from dust.”
Go back further into the Hebrew. The animals themselves, at least some of them, were “brought forth from the earth” providing the basis for a “grounded” understanding of all creatures being “formed from dust.” This is especially necessary to explicate, in contradistinction to what it means to be “created in God’s image,” which does not overcome “creatureliness,” but which ennobles mankind uniquely. Man is not, thereby, God’s “equal,” but His representative, by virtue of relationship. The Garden of Eden story sets us up with that kind of dramatic foreshadowing, as Adam and Eve contemplate taking the illegitimate action of seizing the fruit, in order to become more like God, after falling for the lie about God’s good intentions for them. It’s all right there in the text.
Well I think you had it right there the first time. The creatures in chapter two (not necessarily chapter one) were brought forth from the “adamah”. They were not from dust. Only Adam was “from dust”. Two different Hebrew words. I explore it all in the ebook you have so there is no need to go through it all here.
I am a bit confused by that sentence. I am the one who thinks Adam was both created and formed (and made). I thought you were the one to make a point that he was not bara. If you are saying that Adam was “created in God’s image” by virtue of being of natural descent from the human population created in chapter one then you are sort of taking the same argument that I used against your application of the verse in Job. That is, if Adam is created in God’s image because he was born naturally from a distant ancestor who was created in God’s image then Job is formed from dust because his distant ancestor Adam was formed from dust- which leaves you problems with 2:7 again I think.
The text makes the point he was not “bara’d.” I merely point that out. Yes, as a descendant of the humans from Genesis 1, he already posseses the “imago Dei.” My comment merely addresses why “formed from dust” is even included in the Adam account in the first place; it accomplishes the task of dramatic foreshadowing on the very questions the fall will be all about. No problems posed with the Job understanding, at all. The Hebrew mind was grounded in BOTH the “creatureliness” of man AND his God-given role as an image-bearer, to be also like God somehow. In Adam’s case, it was literally to be the first disciple of the Malak YHWH in the garden. “Formed from dust” NEVER rules out normal human birth, in the Hebrew mindset. It is the theological corollary to “Let the earth bring forth.”
And, there’s the rub. We want it to be an “origins” story, when its primary function is aetiological. It is meant to situate a worldview paradigm.
Guy
Just to note (from C John Collins book in particular) that a number of views of Adam as descended from someone “outside the garden” view his “special creation” as relating to those aspects that render him different, and that doesn’t necessary entail “image.”
My own “limiting case” is that the Christian is genuinely and actually a “new creation”, with a continuity looking forward to the resurrection as the seed is to the plant. And yet that special creation through grace, in Christ, leaves us sufficiently like what we were that many would doubt there’s been a change at all.
Edit - I wouldn’t pin to much on the words for “creation”, which are largely synonymous in this context. In 1 Cor 11.9 Paul speaks of woman being created for man, not man created for woman. The context is clearly Gen 2, and the word choice clearly a translation of <i<bara.
Again, you run into the problem of letting a later text cloud your interpretation of the former (the seminal, in fact) verse(s).
If Paul is quoting an aphorism, rather than a verse, and then correcting the warped understanding that results from it, you’ve hardly got a basis for inserting a word that isn’t even there in the account of Adam and Eve. So, no, it is, in fact, a basis for contending with someone who insists that the absence of the verb “bara” with regard to Adam is of no account. That’s how language functions, and the level of care we must take not to accidentally eisegete.
That said, we can allow ourselves the view that every single human birth is, in fact “special,” and “created by God” as long as we remain aware that we’re looking at a particular instance, and not thereby claiming anything more “special” for that child than for every other child.
However, neither of these justify our using it as a basis for claiming Adam was “specially created by God” in a manner that sets him apart from the rest of humanity in some kind of biological or even a physically ancestral sense, in and of itself. What set Adam apart was God placing him “in the garden, to tend it and to keep it.” He is also set apart by every other aspect noted in those stories, obviously, and the implications for what he chose have “spread” to us all.
Is it clouding @jongarvey 's interpretation or informing it? Adam was both created and formed. He was created in the middle part of 1:27 “In the image of God created He him”, and formed in chapter two. Just like Christ because Adam is “a figure of Christ” (Romans 5:14 I think). The human part of Christ was “created” in the womb of Mary (and actually in the heavens in the beginning but let’s talk about that later). But the God part of Christ was not created, He just changed form.
Adam was both created and formed. Like Christ.
Only in a recapitulative reading. It’s the “imago Dei” aspect that’s “created” in humanity, and integrated into our physical form, in Genesis 1:27 and ff., but that was done with all of humanity (“adams” in the plural) well before Adam even comes on the scene.
I don’t believe the @swamidass Model is where this debate will have relevance. The Model is designed to accommodate conventional Creationism and a Theological version of Evolution.
As an aside, then, I find it ironic that we have 2 interested parties, on opposite sides on the creation issue … neither of whose positions for the criteria of The Model! - - even though they are both Old Earthers.
-
One side only allows for a minimum of [micro] evolution (which opposes the Common Descent leg of the Model)… and
-
The OTHER rejects special creation (de novo) of Adam/Eve… having God select two humans from an evolved population when they are ready for God’s plans (which opposes the Creationism leg!).
Like I say, George… I think all of us are more concerned with explicating the text well than with building an “accomodating” model.
The kind of pigeon-holing you’re doing here pretty much obscures the very real nuances in our various views. If you have a different goal, that’s perfectly your right to choose. Cheers!
1 Like
Personally, I don’t want “my” model version to be “accomodated,” or “accepted,” for that matter, unless it explicates the Hebrew nuances in the text well. I’m sure Mark and many others would say the same.
2 Likes
You really should read your sentence over again. Here… let me give it a novel appearance, so it will be like reading a brand new sentence:
“The kind of pigeon-holing you’re doing here pretty
much obscures the very real nuances in our various views.”
On the face of it, it’s hard to imagine a more wrong-headed sentence. But let’s give it a go.
First, what is the operative principle here? Is it the Pigeon-Holing? Or is it the
EXECUTION of the much-needed Pigeon-Holing?
Since the former view, that Pigeon-Holing, in and of itself, obscures nuances is
completely in error, I’ll just move on to the the latter possibility.
I can only conclude that you think I’m doing a bad job of recognizing nuances.
Perhaps. But I would say that I can only recognize nuances as people offer them.
You, for example, @Guy_Coe, are a perfect example. You are so nuanced, you
use terms for one kind of Creationism and re-baptize it as something else… and
then you apply it completely counter-intuitively.
It is the pigeon-holing that will RESPECT your nuances, Guy, as long as you are
willing to offer enough detail that the appropriately nuanced pigeon-hole name can
be crafted.
This morning, @swamidass did a perfectly heroic job of presenting nuanced differences
in more than one scenario that Dr. Gauger is interested in. He named them with sufficient
clarity (without going over the top in length) so that now I have a fairly clear idea of his
intentions. And he did it all on his own, voluntarily, rather than in response to someone, like
me, who was genuinely confused by your discussions (yes, you, Guy) … and was simply
try to comprehend what on earth you were talking about.
Once there IS an adequately named Pigeon Hole, nuances are never lost. If an important
Nuance is created that makes for a distinction, the nuance is instantly preserved forever with
a slightly nuanced name. Think about chemistry: if we didn’t have a specific name for every
compound created… shared discussions would be impossible… or we would have to use
Alpha-Numeric names for everything. Ugh.
Otherwise, it would seem, what you want is 100 pages of single-spaced narrative … filled with
all sorts of wonderful nuances… but with no way to keep track of which nuance interferes with,
or supports other nuances… because they aren’t categorized or even defined.
It’s not the attempt at naming I’m having trouble with.
It’s the pigeon-holing you did above, which after noting some ironies, then concludes that neither model fits --when Joshua himself thinks they do.
Ironies abound in false dichotomies --like forcing someone to choose between either evolution or creation, by falsely implying you can’t have both.
If that’s confused you even more, then… good. That’s a prelude to breaking the hold of categoricalism. There; no 1,000 word essay needed. Cheers!
I look forward to you explaining the set of definitions one would use so that one could have both Evolution and Creationism.
I’m sure it can be done… but only by re-working the conventional meanings of those words.
Can you make a thread on that idea?
Shoe on the other foot. If you were to take the “sequential” view, where, exactly, would you find the biblical warrant for having to choose between evolution and creation? Maybe that will help you understand why I consider this issue of primary importance, and not in summarizing to the point of “definition” the myriad of nuances laid out by any number of good contibutors here on that topic. I don’t wish to be distracted by that task at the moment.
@Guy_Coe, I’m not sure you are being fair with me. What makes you think I do not agree with you on the importance of Biblical warrant? I am interested in “definitions” only to the extent there isn’t any other concerns.
This is the first time I’ve heard that you had concerns about such warrant. All I can do is relate the premise that I thought was rather settled. And if there is something that makes it dubious, I would certainly want to
hear about those factors!
So, the warrant I had assumed was generally received without controversy is the following:
Genesis 1 speaks of humanity in general, but says nothing about the method, other than what it had already said about how living creatures were to be made: Gen 1:24 “And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures…” In fact, 1:24 is part of a couplet, 1:25, where the same text is repeated… but instead of “the earth”, God’s proxy, we have God doing the very same things, creating these things. To me, this seems pretty clearly a cunning way to portray evolutionary creation - - God is behind it all, but it is a proxy that produces the living creatures.
Contrasting this with Genesis 2, Genesis 2’s reference to dust and Adam’s side may not be definitive, but it certainly makes it feasible that in this case, God is not using a proxy. The fact that Adam and Eve are named specifically lends credence to this phase of creation being of limited scope, as is the whole Eden, which becomes equally limited.
Until Swamidass hit me with the “peaceful co-existence” of faction argument, I certainly had no interest in special creation of any of the animals. But once I saw that the difference in the stories at least made a different method of creation plausible, I decided that it wasn’t up to me to insist one way or the other. The Believers who come to the model, are free to accept all sorts of options that we are constructing. But I would think it would be a reasonable expectation that those who are “promoting” the Model would not insist that Genesis 2 could not be about special creation. The tone of Genesis 2 seems geared around providing the option, but not requiring the option if one was inclined to see 100% natural law at work for both creations.
So… with this understanding of what I arrived at this “PeacefulScience” shack … how would you evaluate where I’m going wrong?
Didn’t we already make a thread on that idea? You and me I mean…
2 Likes
@anon46279830, I don’t see how these are mutually exclusive. I am asking @Guy_Coe about a thread so that there is some prepared narrative that can be attached to any posting if someone wants the pros or cons for Guy’s version. But that’s gravy. I have no idea how he framing this conflicted view … and so it’s principally so I can understand it…
Aren’t you like diametrically opposed to Guy’s view? I still don’t fathom your position at all… it seems much easier to think God controls evolution to make all his creatures … which also explains why he needs to make even the intermediates … which will eventually become extinct anyway.
So… there is certainly no reason to think that I won’t need YOUR explanation. Remember, I’m an Evolutionist at my core… and was pretty much at Guy’s stance out of natural inclination, and now at Joshua’s stance out of Philosophical considerations.
I’m all about what the text says, and nowehere does it “require” a direct act of God with regards to Adam, and if Adam’s “surgery” was in a revelatory dream state, then it doesn’t require a direct act of God for Eve, either. I note that that’s an irony, as I once was certain both were "specially created " until the Hebrew text was explained to me more fully. Do I think people who disagree with this need to be excoriated? Of course not.
I do, however, now see this as part of a “better model,” on linguistic grounds, whose scientific implications fit nicely with the available evidence, and don’t posit “bestial” interbreeding. A polymorphic monogenism, leading to GA, somewhat like the account in Ian Tattersall’s “Lone Survivor,” works for me. I believe in evolution mostly as a God-directed “weeding out” process, and creation as a creative option at any time. God is always free to act, but He also designed the deeper regularities into nature, and actively upholds them. More details than that, we can have fun wrangling out the “what-ifs,” “no ways,” “well, maybes,” etc.
I’m sure you don’t mean to say that if I don’t do what you ask, it’s not fair. No more so than if you don’t do what I asked. Have a good evening.