[soc.religion.christian] Core of the Bible

mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (06/24/91)

In article <Jun.22.00.42.14.1991.6476@athos.rutgers.edu>, allenroy@cs.pdx.edu
(callen roy) writes:

> I do not find ... Science and the Bible at loggerheads. 

agreed.

> But the theory of Evolution, cuts the very core out of the Bible.

I find this a disturbing, and puzzling, opinion and would like to
see some explanation of it.  There are two aspects to my concern:

	- locating the "core" of the Bible, and also how the rest
	  relates to that core.

	- understanding the relation of that biblical core and the
	  researches of natural science.

On the first point, I would think that ANY Christian would have to find
the "core" of the Bible, indeed the center of history, in the Passion &
Resurrection of Christ.  From that central point, the opening chapters
of Genesis are simply a very distant periphery, a setting of the stage,
much like the "preface in Heaven" in Job.

Now, one can "work outwards" from that central act of God, and come at
one or two removes to Paul's *reflection* on that act, wherein he says
(for example)

	"It was through one man that sin entered the world, and through
	sin death, and thus death pervaded the whole human race, inas-
	much as all men have sinned.  For sin was already in the world
	before there was law, though in the absence of law no reckoning
	is kept of sin.  But death held sway from Adam to Moses even
	over those who had not sinned as Adam did, by disobeying a direct
	command -- and Adam foreshadows the Man who was to come...  For
	if by the wrongdoing of that one man death established its reign,
	through a single sinner, much more shall those who receive in
	far greater measure God's grace, and his gift of righteousness,
	live and reign through the one man, Jesus Christ."

The doctrine here taught, from which we derive elaborations like "original
sin" and such, the doctrine of the Fall which is countered by God's grace
in our new life in Christ, is *presented* by Paul as a symbolic link of
the one man Adam with the one man Jesus Christ.  But I think you would be
very hard pressed to claim that Paul, himself, understood matters in only
this way, or "required" this explanation as itself an article of faith.
For in the SAME letter from which I took this, Paul *himself* writes a
creation story DIFFERENT from that in Genesis -- there is NO single man,
Adam in that story, but all men "have refused to honor him as God, or to
render him thanks."

What I am saying is that Paul teaches the SAME theological point in any
number of ways, either in his own "narrative" (= story = "myth") or in
his reflections on others' stories (as in Genesis 3.)  It is altogether
irrelevant whether one can "harmonize" Genesis 1 with Genesis 2 (I think
not, without doing irreparable harm to both, but let that pass), or Romans
with Genesis 3.

Narratives do NOT have a simple deductive relation to the lessons we can
learn from them.  They are not axiomatic formal systems with given rules
of inference.  Instead, they *confront* us, as other people do, and lay
a claim to our attention -- the WAY in which we confront and learn from
these stories is the WAY in which we confront and learn from God.  The
stories *exist* in order to *lead* us towards that central core of God's
Incarnation, Death and Resurrection.  The Fall is deeply embedded as one
part of the truth lying in this core.  To that extent, when I said above
that Genesis is stage setting, I was underplaying it for a moment, simply
in order to make its importance more visible now.

But now you should be able to see what I have in mind about how the rest
of the Bible relates to that core.  Paul, very near the center, feels no
particular obligation to the details of the stories -- he uses them when
they teach his message, and he uses others in other contexts.  Again, I
have to repeat that there is NO DEDUCTIVE SYSTEM in this!  What there *is*
is the gospel, and out attempts to communicate it to each other and God's
attempt to communicate it to us, where I would read as commentary Isaiah's

	For my thoughts are not your thoughts
		nor your ways my ways, says the Lord...
	For as rain and snow fall from the heavens
		and return not again, but water the earth,
	Bringing forth life and giving growth,
		seed for sowing and bread for eating,
	So is my word that goes forth from my mouth;
		it will not return to me empty;
	But it will accomplish that which I have purposed,
		and prosper in that for which I sent it.

I take this to mean (among other things) that any rigid exegetical scheme
where someone says "this verse means thus-and-so, and anyone who disagrees
with me is wrong" is in fact BETRAYING the Word of God.  This works, as
Jesus notes in the parable of the seed, in non-conscious non-rational ways.
The word brings forth life and growth, and further seed for sowing in the
myriad readings that emerge as we reflect on old texts in new contexts.

The claim that Genesis "has" to be read as Fundamentalists claim is simply
wrong.  It is denied by Paul's example and by Isaiah's prophecy.  We read
stories as we "read" people -- in a complex process in which the important
agent is treating them seriously and with respect.

----

I will touch here only briefly on the second of my two points, the relation
between science and the "core" of the Bible (including also the surrounding
layer in which we find the doctrines of the Fall as the background/context
in which to "understand" the Resurrection.)

The thing is, that UNLIKE the Bible, science *is* a process of deduction
and inference (including the empirical, "inductive," tying of experience
to formal inferential models.)  Science *specifically* deals with the
world as an "objective thing" (though the meaning of this can get very
complex) *rather* than as a person.  There are residual metaphors ("It's
not *nice* to fool Mother Nature!") that we use, and these should remind
us that many (maybe most) scientists relate to the world around them in a
manner that may be explicitly religious, or may be merely cultural left-
overs from nonscientific eras.  But anytime you encounter scientists using
this language to laymen, you should assume it is a matter of their feeling
*unable* to talk to you in terms that honestly do justice to their work.

Much misunderstanding happens from "popularizations" where professionals
*assume* (often incorrectly) that they cannot get across important points
of technical inference, while readers *assume* (even more incorrectly!)
that what the "scientist" tells them in his inability to speak a public
language is somehow the "real" content of science.  It's very sad, but
communication *is* difficult -- unlike God, we *cannot* guarantee that
our words will return to us having accomplished their purposes.

And here is where I have to pose questions to *my* readers: I really do
NOT understand WHY it is necessary to read Genesis 1 and 2 as a natural
history in order to "assent" to the Fall as an important part of the
way we understand the redeeming action of God in Christ.  (I'm assuming
that I have correctly located the source of the problem in creationists'
assuming that evolution "means" that there "was no" Fall.)  Paul uses
the "one man Adam" as a symbolic counter to the "one man Jesus Christ"
-- but you can be *quite* sure he had no "biological theory" or mechanism
in mind (though the Church later insisted, I think nonsensically, that a
mechanism is to be found in sexual procreation.)

The opening of Romans shows the Fall as a "collective" failure of men to
recognize God.  This is entirely amenable to an evolutionary description
of human history.  If you will allow me a crude statement of it: as genus
homo developed the *capacity* themselves to be persons (agents with purpose
that they themselves could consciously monitor and control) they FAILED to
deal with the Person at the "core" of Reality, or failed to do so correctly,
and instead pursued, as we all continue to do without God's grace, purposes
that glorfy and worship -- and enslave us to -- anything at all BUT God.  I
can't think of anything MORE likely, as a result of evolution of conscious
purpose :-)

Or one can see, after the manner of current Roman Catholic teaching, that
Genesis 1-3 show God's creation of the human soul, as our image of God,
out of the "clay" of non-human or not-yet-human creatures, and the immediate
abuse of this creation by disobedience.  I personally see no compelling
reason to require the Adam/Eve/Garden/Serpent story as telling a historical
truth -- it seems far more likely to be an adaptation of a traditional tale
as a vehicle for God's word -- but I am not trying to clamp my opinion on
the community as some sort of revealed truth.

There are undoubtedly still *other* ways of seeing the Fall within a context
of human evolution.  In some important sense it doesn't *matter* whether we
have an agreed interpretation or *any* interpretation.  Does the Resurrection
matter less if we no longer think exactly the same thoughts as Paul did?  If
we can read him and understand, then surely we can hope for the Spirit to
guide *us* in truth, as Paul was guided.

So again, and finally, my question is, WHY is evolution a problem?  I just
can't see that it is.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I was ready to be sought by those
m.siemon@ATT.COM		    who did not ask for me;
...!att!attunix!mls		I was ready to be found by those
standard disclaimer	  	    who did not seek me. --  Isaiah 65:1

math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) (06/25/91)

In article <Jun.24.01.08.56.1991.13460@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes:

>For in the SAME letter from which I took this, Paul *himself* writes a
>creation story DIFFERENT from that in Genesis -- there is NO single man,
>Adam in that story, but all men "have refused to honor him as God, or to
>render him thanks."

That is an interesting thesis, but it doesn't wash.  Romans 1:21-23 
speaks of all unbelievers, not just the first humans.  Adam and Eve,
though they had fallen, still glorified God, for when Cain was born,
Eve said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man."
In Lutheran churches we teach that Eve mistook Cain for the savior 
promised in Gen 3:15, the savior who would crusch the serpent's (Satan's)
head.  And when Seth was born, Eve said, "God has granted me another child
in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."  

Some (particularly the Jehovah's Witnesses) teach that Adam and Eve are 
condemned to hell, but I think they had faith in the Savior to come, and
are saved.

David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran.

My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by
The University of Houston.

allenroy@cs.pdx.edu (callen roy) (06/27/91)

Hi Michael:

I agree the the 'core' of the Bible is the Salvation provided by Jesus--His
life and death and ressurection.  Further, Jesus came to save us from sin which
is 'the transgression of the Law'.  Regardless of wheather on considers the Law
to be the ten commandments or the Pentatuch,  Jesus said that the foundation of
both the Law (Pentatuch) and the Prophets is Love for God and man.  Love is a
binary relationship that is vital for life in the universe.  So, sin is a
broken love relationship between God and man.  In order for sin (a breaking
of a relationship) to occure there must first be a love relationship. Where
does the theory of Evolution indicate that genun homo acquired a love
relationship with an absent god, so that a Fall could occure.

Jesus believed Genesis 1 and 2 because he said, 'haven't you read that at the
beginning the Creator 'made them male and female.''  He accepte the naration
recorded by Moses as fact--including the Adam/Eve/Garden/Serpent story. And
Jesus not only believed in the creation story, He was (is) the Creator.  'In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,
He was with God in the beginning.  Through him all things were made; without
him nothing was made that has been made. . . The Word became flesh and lived
for a while among us. . . the one and only 'Son'.' (John 1:1-3,14)

Jesus also believed in the Flood as recorded by Moses (Matthew 25:37-39;
Luke 17:26-27).  The Flood blasts the foundation of the theory of Evolution--
They will say. . .Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has
since the beginning of creation.(Theory of Unifomatarinaism)  But they
deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the
earth was formed out of water and with water.  By water also the world of that
time was deluged and destroyed.(2 Peter 3:4-6) 

The moderator of this BB prefers that we not get into a deep discussion of
Creation vrs. Evolution, so I'll not go further into that.  I close with this
point, I am convinced that the Cration/Flood model is a far better
interpretation of the facts of science than the theory of Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution does do away with God and a loving reationship with
Him.  It does away with the Falling away from the loving relationship with
God. By doing away with 'sin', it does away with the need for a saviour.
If we don't need a saviour, then all the Gospel is trivial nonsense.  And
a Christian is a fool's fool.

The only reason why someone would doubt the Creation, is because they doubt
the Bible and the Saviour of the Bible.  They belive a man's theory above 
Jesus' own beliefs.  Evolution cuts the 'core' out of the Bible.

Allen Roy
God loves you.  All He wants is for you to love Him back.

jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (07/01/91)

In article <Jun.27.02.59.01.1991.18990@athos.rutgers.edu> allenroy@cs.pdx.edu (callen roy) writes:
+
+The Theory of Evolution does do away with God and a loving reationship with
+Him.  It does away with the Falling away from the loving relationship with
+God. By doing away with 'sin', it does away with the need for a saviour.

I do not see in what M. Siemon posted regarding a 'liberal'
interpretation of human origins and the development of human
consciousness of 'sin' as 'doing away with God, Sin, and the
Remedy'. 

As a scientific concept the idea of 'God' has not been part of the
body of Science for some time. Hence explanations such as 'God did
it' are no longer valid(accepted by the scientific community at
large). This has as much to do with the problem of 'causality' for
which the scientific community has another problem. Mere observation
of juxtaposed events does not imply a causal relationship.

If one wishes one does not need 'Science' nor 'Scientific models',
one can use the model 'God did it' it explains all phenomena and if
some phenomena seems 'inconsistent' one can always fall back on
'humans are limited and can not possibly comprehend the infinitude
of the Diety'.

Personally I like Velekovsky's planet collision theory. Or how about
'polar shifts' etc. There are inumerable theories for which there is
no information(or such small amounts of information) which would
allow one to choose the 'best' theory or model which fit the most
'facts'. As for Evolution, one can 1) accept it as doctrine 2) accept it
provisionally 3) dismiss it 4) dismiss it with prejudice. It is only,
in my mind, because the fundamentist wants to have the Bible be
absolutely consistent both internally and externally(i.e. accurately
reflect the universe as we understand it from a 'scientific' point
of view) that the theory of Evolution 'cuts the core away'.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu

mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (07/01/91)

In article <Jun.27.02.59.01.1991.18990@athos.rutgers.edu> allenroy@cs.pdx.edu (callen roy) writes:
>The Theory of Evolution does do away with God and a loving reationship with
>Him.  It does away with the Falling away from the loving relationship with
>God. By doing away with 'sin', it does away with the need for a saviour.

I do not see how Evolution does away with sin. Evolution
describes a method by which God gradually fashioned the
diversity of species we see in the world today. How else could
it have been done? When a potter makes a pot it is gradually
fashioned from a lump of clay - it is not instantly magicked
into existence. So why should some think it necessary to
believe that God magicked the world into existence rather than
created it as a craftsman would create an object?

Evolution does not describe how self-consciouness and free will
could have come into existence. At this point creation is no
longer under the full control of God - it has an independent
will. This is what we mean by the "Fall".

Matthew Huntbach

wimjan@dbf.kun.nl (Wim-Jan Hilgenbos) (07/01/91)

>Hi Michael:

>I agree the the 'core' of the Bible is the Salvation provided by Jesus--His
>life and death and ressurection.  Further, Jesus came to save us from sin which
>is 'the transgression of the Law'.  Regardless of wheather on considers the Law
>to be the ten commandments or the Pentatuch,  Jesus said that the foundation of
>both the Law (Pentatuch) and the Prophets is Love for God and man.  Love is a
>binary relationship that is vital for life in the universe.  So, sin is a
>broken love relationship between God and man.  In order for sin (a breaking
>of a relationship) to occure there must first be a love relationship. 

So far so good.....but,

>Where does the theory of Evolution indicate that genun homo acquired a love
>relationship with an absent god, so that a Fall could occure.

Wat's this refering too? Evolution theory doesn't try to explain this fact.
Probably doesn't even acknowledge it try to explain this fact.
Probably doesn't even acknowledge it

>Jesus believed Genesis 1 and 2 because he said, 'haven't you read that at the
>beginning the Creator 'made them male and female.''  He accepte the naration
>recorded by Moses as fact--including the Adam/Eve/Garden/Serpent story. And
>Jesus not only believed in the creation story, He was (is) the Creator.  'In
>the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,
>He was with God in the beginning.  Through him all things were made; without
>him nothing was made that has been made. . . The Word became flesh and lived
>for a while among us. . . the one and only 'Son'.' (John 1:1-3,14)

Jesus doesn't contradict this story, but that doesn't mean He accepts it
as fact. His reaction is explained as well if He believed it to be a
parabel (is this english?).
The second argument is better, but doesn't say !HOW! everything was created.
Still in a discusion with an evolutionist its not based on common ground
so it can't be used as an argument.

>Jesus also believed in the Flood as recorded by Moses (Matthew 25:37-39;
>Luke 17:26-27).

See my remarks above.

>  The Flood blasts the foundation of the theory of Evolution--

?

>They will say. . .

Who will say?

>Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has
>since the beginning of creation.(Theory of Unifomatarinaism)  But they
>deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the
>earth was formed out of water and with water.  By water also the world of that
>time was deluged and destroyed.(2 Peter 3:4-6) 

Where is this referring too?

>The moderator of this BB prefers that we not get into a deep discussion of
>Creation vrs. Evolution, so I'll not go further into that.  I close with this
>point, I am convinced that the Cration/Flood model is a far better
>interpretation of the facts of science than the theory of Evolution.

>The Theory of Evolution does do away with God and a loving reationship with
>Him.  It does away with the Falling away from the loving relationship with
>God. By doing away with 'sin', it does away with the need for a saviour.
>If we don't need a saviour, then all the Gospel is trivial nonsense.  And
>a Christian is a fool's fool.

>The only reason why someone would doubt the Creation, is because they doubt
>the Bible and the Saviour of the Bible.  They belive a man's theory above 
>Jesus' own beliefs.  Evolution cuts the 'core' out of the Bible.


This absolutly isn't true. Allthough I believe God created all things
I don't accept the Genisis story as a litteral truth. Ther eare more ways 
than one to look at the Bible and I think youre neglecting that.
Besides, I don't think you're arguing with correct arguments, which
is the reason why I decided to respond.
Its ok if you want to argue creation, but you should do it the right way.

>Allen Roy
>God loves you.  All He wants is for you to love Him back.

Greetings WimJan