The Flood "Removed" not "Killed" Everyone?

(Jeremy Christian) #261

I suspect this may be speaking of a later era. The Sumerians eventually blended into the Akkadians. There’s a long history that this could be referring to.

But speaking specifically about egalitarianism and social classes, these traits are seen in the Ubaid period of Sumer, a period that came long before any of those other cultures were in the picture…

“The Ubaid period (c. 6500–3800 BC) as a whole, based upon the analysis of grave goods, was one of increasingly polarised social stratification and decreasing egalitarianism.” - Ubaid period - Wikipedia

(Greg) #262

For real? Are you telling me that when we see in the second chapter of Genesis how “when there was no man to work the ground” Adam was created by God, this is not reason enough to undeniably conclude that those first humans, made in God’s image were Adam, Eve and their descendents? Eve is named Eve because she is “the mother of all of the living”

How painstakenly critical over ridiculous minute details some at Peaceful Science are of Behe on his recent book that seem to want to jar the throngs of the creative power from being accredited to God, giving it instead to chance and mutation and time in the natural, allthewhile attempts to dismantle the easiest understandable form in early Genesis, written at literal revelation from the mouth of God.


(Jeremy Christian) #263

Let me know if you find it. I’d like to check that out.

(Kenneth Turner) #264

Your view is entirely plausible and highly valued in church tradition (I’m not even denying it). But it is an inference from biblical data, not what “exactly what Scriptures say.” The relationship between Gen 1 and Gen 2 is not “undeniable” in the history of interpretation.

I literally don’t know what this means

(Greg) #265

I couldnt care less about tradition. Tradition gets things wrong. But sometimes tradition speaks up loudly over common sense understanding of Scripture, and God is not the author of confusion. So in Genesis, if Adam was created when there was no man to work the ground and Eve is the mother of all of the living, these are the first humans. If science says otherwise, then science can take that up with God one day. In the meantime, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord as described in His very words. And we will encourage the church, the Bride of Christ to do the same.

(Kenneth Turner) #266

Though you don’t intend this, this statement is sub-Christian. It’s not a statement the Reformers would make, or any theologian I’m aware of. The biblical authors were certainly concerned with a faithful tradition (e.g., “the faith once for all delivered to the saints”).

Very true

Whose common sense? This is a loaded phrase

I completely understand the logic of how you arrive at your conclusion. But it still involves assumptions related to exegesis, hermeneutics, language, etc. Calling it “common sense” doesn’t settle anything. At least recognize that other Christians (in the past 2000 years) do not share all your assumptions; thus they at times arrive at different conclusions. You are certainly allowed to argue your case, but it does take arguments more than assertions. I recognize you sometimes do present arguments for your statements; but there’s a whole lot of confident assertions (and unhelpful “Really?” and “Unbelievable” add-ons) that stop actual engagement.

(George) #267


You said Sumer was ground zero for patriarchal society … it wasn’t.

If you take out the word “patriarchal”, the sentence is correct.

(I continue to look for the journal article I mentioned.)

(Greg) #268

I will gladly recognize that there are going to be some who will tell me that they have:

  1. repented of sin which is clearly defined by God in Scripture,

  2. have found forgiveness from those sins by having faith that Jesus atoning work on the cross was sufficient as prophecied in Scripture,
    3 who have made the Triune God, Creator of the universe their Treasure of all treasures as He has clearly defined Himself in His Word, the Scriptures.

  3. who believe that God was trying to say something contadictory from the essence that is plainly understood from the writings about Adam and Eve as the first Humans because they trust scientific interpretations more than Scriptural sense.

I will recognize this type, but the mix of numbers 1 through 4 that define him seem bewildering to me. The Book of James talks about how we might validate the legitimacy of our faith in Jesus by the essence of our works. I have nothing but sorrow for the guy making it to judgement to face the perfect, holy, just, powerful God, Creator of the universe to have to reveal to Him that their faith was acted out in works of dismantling the foundation that undergirds all Scriptural content, the gospel included in Genesis 1-3 that speak of the first man Adam and the first woman Eve, the fall etc because they thought science trumps God’s Words.

I do believe that Genesis is incredibly important for understanding the rest of Scripture and gospel theology. One of the supporting arguments to this is from this negative scenario: the latter day saints completely dismantle the Genesis account in order to fit the balance of their teachings. They look at the fall as a sort of blessing of achieving higher knowledge towards being more like God and procreation privileges. Take away Genesis, and so goes sound theology approved by God as found in all of Scripture.

(Kenneth Turner) #269

@Greg do you recognize/concede that some come to different conclusions than yours on Genesis irrespective of science?

(George) #270


This is not the one I remember… but it touches on some of the issues…

(George) #271


"Mesopotamian women in Sumer, the first Mesopotamian culture, had more rights than they did in the later Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian cultures. Sumerian women could own property, run businesses along with their husbands, become priestesses, scribes, physicians and act as judges and witnesses in courts. Archeologists and historians speculate that as Mesopotamian cultures grew in wealth and power, a strong patriarchal structure gave more rights to men than to women. Perhaps the Sumerians gave women more rights because they worshipped goddesses as fervently as they did gods."

"The role of women in ancient Sumer"
“In ancient Sumer, women’s rights varied and were dependent on their social status. While royal women had considerable power in the political and economic system, common women did not participate in literary or political life. Women of high status, such as priestesses and members of royal families, could learn to read and write. These high-born women were given some administrative authority. Women of lower social status, however, were occupied with child rearing and running the household.”

“Women in Mesopotamia were not treated as the equals of men. Women’s position varied between city-states and changed over time. In the early periods of ancient Sumer, women were respected more and had more rights. Many powerful goddesses were worshipped and they were the primary deities (gods) in some city-states.”

“…Unlike women in later periods, who stayed at home, women of this period could go out to the marketplace to buy wools. These women were allowed to deal with the donkey drivers who transported their textile products. Women could own property and sometimes attended to legal matters when their husbands were away. Women’s jobs often grew out of her household tasks. A woman might sell the beer she brewed, for example, or even become a tavern keeper.”

“Women of the merchant class could run textile businesses. Women of royal families also ran businesses, but mostly for the city-state, rather than for themselves. In the palaces, women either made cloth by spinning and weaving, or helped with the food. During the Assyrian era, female power and freedom declined. From this period, the law stated that elite women had to wear a veil in public. Women’s roles were strictly defined as daughters and wives. Women rarely acted as individuals outside their families.”

(George) #272

(Greg) #273

I know of theologians who claim this. But i would encourage them w this challenge of thought: If science seemed to agree that the earth began 6000 yrs ago and that the evidence seemed to point to the human population tapering to a couple around this time, would they stick to a theology that Genesis is poetic, and the men first created in Gods image were before adam and that the proper interpretation of Genesis is of gaps allowing for millions of years etc?

If one blanks out all of the mainstream science of old ages and evolutionism and reads Genesis, the historical account of Adam and Eve, the following geneologies that include them etc, i just do not see how one can want to participate in theological gymnastics that want to circumvent the sense of that text.

(Jeremy Christian) #274

Okay. Thank you, George. I really appreciate it. It appears that while there was class stratification, the shift to male dominance came later. Good to know.

(Kenneth Turner) #275

So your answer seems to be a qualified “no.” Those who profess such are…lying?..unaware of their motives? I know of me in my sub-disciplines (Old Testament, biblical theology) who really care nothing about science. In fact, I’ve been quite shocked how such brilliant people aren’t even aware of the science discussions & debates. Yet, they do come to different conclusions on the biblical text and its implications. This is largely due to reading the OT within its ancient Near Eastern context.

If you mean a genre designation of “poetry,” I know of no one in my discipline who makes such a claim. If “poetic” takes on its more technical sense of “poetics” (and its companion, intertextuality) then, yes, all biblical literature is “poetic.” This refers to literary & rhetorical devices/features an author uses to construct his composition (e.g., key words, motif, sequence of action, structure, intentional anachronisms, inclusio).

This has been speculated by Jews and Christians centuries before modern science.

I’m not sure which gaps you’re speaking of–between Gen 1:1 and 1:2? between Gen 1 and Gen 2? in the genealogies. At least with the genealogies, there are reasons to suggest less-than-full lists in light of historical (i.e., ANE comparisons) and literary features. (I don’t deny that science is often a driving factor for many, but suggesting there are others.)

But we all read from out own situatedness. We all have reading glasses on that shape the reading. No one reads and interprets in a vacuum. Ideally, we should be willing to discover and understand our assumptions and biases, and understand others have slightly different sets of assumptions and biases. This is where honest and charitable dialogue can prove fruitful.

Your lack of seeing does not necessary mean someone else is at fault or wrong. Once again, you impugn bad motives to those who arrive at different conclusions. That’s unhelpful. In fact, it’s hurtful to engagement.

As someone who lives in cognitive dissonance on a lot of the topics discussed at PS, I’m at least hoping many of us can learn a better way to have the discussion. Thus, I’ll continue to choose those interlocutors who share the same spirit/goal. I think the Christian tent is large enough for various views; and I think how we discuss these things serves as a corporate witness to the world (either wooing or repelling people from our Savior). Yes, we all have to draw those lines where fellowship, at some level, is broken. It seems Adam/Eve is becoming the new litmus test in many circles (in my evangelical world at least). That’s why it’s important to discuss, and to discuss well.

(Greg) #276

I choose not to read Scripture as a series of texts that have evolved via borrowing from surrounding cultures or alternative religions. I choose to read Scripture from Genesis to Rev as the very words from the One and Only God who spoke through prophets and apostles. If there are others similar to the Bible, it is bc they are reporting truth albeit apostate, or recording history that agrees with Biblical history. Your last sentence seems to define your perspective different from my view here, but im not sure. Could this be the reason for our seeming disconnect?


An 18th century conversation between Calvinist John Murray and a Christian Universalist

“And pray sir,” said the young lady, with great sweetness, “Pray sir, what is the unbeliever damned for not believing?”

What is he damned for not believing? Why he is damned for
not believing!

“But my dear sir, I asked what was that, which he did not
believe, for which he is damned?”

Why, for not believing in Jesus Christ, to be sure.

“Do you mean to say, that unbelievers are damned, for not
believing there was such a person as Jesus Christ?”

No, I do not; a man may believe there was such a person, and
yet be damned.

“What then, sir, must he believe, in order to avoid damnation?”

Why he must believe that Jesus Christ was the complete Savior.

“Well, suppose he were to believe, that Jesus was the complete Savior of others, would this belief save him?”

No, he must believe for himself, that Jesus Christ is his complete Savior.

“Why, sir, is Jesus Christ the Savior of any unbelievers?”

No, Madam.

“Why then, should any unbeliever believe that Jesus is his
Savior, if he is not his Savior?”

I say he is not the Savior of any one, until he believes.

“Then, if Jesus be not the Savior of the unbeliever, until he
believes, the unbeliever is called upon to believe a lie. It appears to me, sir, that Jesus is the complete Savior of unbelievers; and the unbelievers are called upon to believe the truth; and that, by believing they are saved, in their own apprehension, saved from all those dreadful fears, which are consequent upon a state of conscious condemnation.”

No madam; you are dreadfully, I trust fatally misled. Jesus
never was, never will be, the Savior of any unbeliever.

“Do you think that Jesus is your Savior, sir?”

I hope he is.

“Were you always a believer, sir?”

No madam.

“Then you were once an unbeliever, that is, you once believed
that Jesus was not your Savior. Now, as you say, he never was nor never will be, the Savior of any unbeliever; as you were once an unbeliever, he cannot be your Savior.”

He never was my Savior till I believed.

“Did he die, for you, till you believed, sir?”

“All Shall Be Well: Explorations in Universal Salvation and Christian Theology, from Origen to Moltmann”

Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

(Greg) #278

I liked that. Gets one thinking. As i have said before, if the scriptures were positioned in a way that humanizes God, i would never believe them to be of God. The idea that God transcends time and that He has always existed is so mind boggling. We like to argue over the age of the earth…we may only have 5% capacity for understanding time as God does. Anyway, the mystery element in the character of God who is sovereign over everything should arouse a doxology of reverential praise.

And this verse came to mind in Ro 10: But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.


Is that your pitiful attempt to disprove apokatástasis? Because scholars like Feser and Wright tried the same and they failed, miserably. You failed as well.

(Greg) #280

Please explain what this means