DBowling wrote: Kurieuo wrote: DBowling wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:You'll have to further explain, as I'm unclear on your points being made. That is, how such (Genesis 1:26-27 related to Genesis 2-3, different narrative [though I'd say same narrative, different focus]) indicates a lineage outside of Adam and Eve.
Sure... And for this we go back again to sequence of events
I think its pretty clear that Genesis 1:26-27 refers to the creation of mankind - Let's say somewhere around 200,000 years ago in Africa.
Then if we look at Scripture (and Mesopotamian history) we can place the historical Adam in Mesopotamia somewhere around 5,500 BC. (Remember Cain's city?... the dates for the earliest known Mesopotamian cities are significant in identifying approximate dates for when Cain would have built his city... and BTW those dates are consistent with the Scriptural genealogical dates.)
So if the Genesis 1:26-27 creation of mankind (200,000 years ago)
sequentially took place some time before the appearance of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 (5,500 BC)
Then by definition there were other lines of humanity present on earth at the time of Adam and Eve.
DB, are sure you can see you're not letting science guide what you find acceptable?
As I said earlier, I believe that both Special Revelation and natural revelation are truth. Therefore, I am inclined to accept an interpretation of Special Revelation that is consistent with natural revelation, and an interpretation of natural revelation that is consistent with Special Revelation.
Of course, most of us do here. Such doesn't mean we shouldn't constantly remain aware to how our readings may be prejudiced. I fear you're letting you extra-Biblical sources guide your interpretation. We all do, but such is really causing all sorts of Scriptural gymnastics here and there, to bend Scripture to a certain view. (one I see as unnecessary, science appears on our side so far as evidence for "consciousness" and a higher spirituality is concerned)
K wrote:It seems then that Romans 5:12, as we take Heiser to understand it, works against how some interpret him on Genesis 1-2. That is, if one posits these human genealogies outside of Adam and Eve lived much earlier. Interestingly, I don't see Heiser ever say that such genealogies existed much, much, earlier on. So then, Heiser doesn't contradict himself necessarily in what I've read of him on this issue. God still could have created other human lineages aside from Adam and Eve (according to Heiser's views), but they must have been created also at around the same time (unless we are to believe individuals lived for over a 100,000 years). For, it wasn't until Adam sinned, that death came upon all humanity.
The part of Heiser's argument that I embrace is the Scriptural basis for the existence of humanity before and separate from the lineage of Adam.
Here's my take on Romans 5:12.
One of the implications of the story of the Fall (at least from my perspective) is that prior to the Fall humanity did not know good and evil. According to Genesis 4, after Adam and Eve disobeyed God then their "eyes were opened" and they came to understand "good and evil".
So when Romans 5:12 says that by one man sin entered the world, my understanding is that the Fall didn't just affect Adam and Eve, it affected all humanity, so that the eyes of all humanity were opened and all humanity came to understand "good and evil". And thus through the disobedience of Adam, sin entered the world of humanity.
Regarding the death mentioned in Romans 5:12, I think we have discussed that before. I do not believe the death mentioned in Romans 5:12 is a reference to physical death. I believe it is a reference to spiritual death.
Without repeating too much of our previous discussions. The necessity for a tree of life in the garden of Eden is one of multiple indicators in Scripture that man prior to the Fall was physically mortal, and the tree of life in the garden was put there as an antidote to mankind's inherent mortality. So if mankind was mortal prior to the Fall then the death that passed to all men due to the Fall was not physical death.
Also, according to Romans 5:12 the death that resulted from the Fall specifically affected humanity. This is consistent with 'spiritual death' since humans are the only creatures on the planet who experience spiritual death, as opposed to physical death which affects all living things and is not unique to humanity.
So from my perspective
Prior to the Fall, mankind did not "know good and evil"
Adam and Eve were the first two humans to enter into personal relationship with the One True God.
When Adam and Eve sinned against God...
- their eyes were opened
- they came to know good and evil
- sin entered the world
- spiritual death spread to all men
Thus the need for a Savior to redeem fallen humanity.
Did we discuss Romans 5:12 before? I don't recall that we did, not here. Perhaps elsewhere, but I discuss many things so could have forgotten your beliefs in which case I apologise.
I do recall opening a thread to unpack "death" due to sin specifically. There, I explained that "physical death" is like a sign for the real death that can happen which it was modelled upon -- "spiritual death". The real death we may suffer, is death from God, God casting us out of His kingdom and our being cut off forever. That
, is true death, the DEATH which even swallows up death itself. (Rev. 20:14) Physical death, serves as a pointer, to the true death that can happen. So it's not like you can have the physical without the spiritual.
As for your own view, let me ensure that I understand you correctly. According to what you believe, humanity existed for around 193,000 years prior to Adam and Eve. They would have been committing all sorts of would-be "sin", say killing, murdering, raping, all sorts of sexual immoral stuff, stealing, hating on each other, but because they didn't know such was "sin", then they weren't really "sinning". It was therefore alright with God for humanity, who bore His image, to be doing such things for over a 100,000 years?
It wasn't until the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" was in the garden (alongside also the Tree of Life), a couple called Adam and Eve were told to simply not eat fruit from the tree. Then when they ate a piece of fruit, that is when sin entered into the world causing some sort of a "spiritual death"? Yet, all these other humans who had the 'Image of God' like Adam and Eve, lived 100,000+ years before, did whatever the heck they liked, yet sin didn't enter into the world causing any spiritual death. It sounds to me like God should have left us in our state of "sin" (in quotes, because such isn't really sin since we didn't know), and never ever brought onto the scene Adam and Eve.
As for "spiritualising" the death in Romans 5:12, the death that happened during Genesis, theologians generally say was "spiritual" and then "physical" followed. Most take a conjoined view of the "death" promised by God in Genesis 2:7. Understand, the words "in the day", like Heiser says of it found in Genesis 2:4, is like an idiom for what will come after -- it does not mean on the very same day.
Many respectable commentators on Genesis say of Adam and Eve when they sinned, that they lost their spiritual relationship with God and realising their nakedness and the like (thus suffering a spiritual death of sorts), and then they were also no longer protected from the effects of the physical world, the "Tree of Life" was removed from their presence allowing physical death to eventually follow. There is no room as I see it, especially with the "Tree of Life" metaphor, to limit the "death" promised of Adam and Eve (and humanity as such) to purely a spiritual death. And virtually no one does this, you might be the first I've come across. Rather it is generally a conjoined view of spiritual+physical death of humanity.
I'll leave you with Heiser's response against a view that we only have a "spiritual" death
MSH: There’s a lot in here that doesn’t make sense to me, and that isn’t entirely the fault of the commentator. Let’s take the first part, about “spiritual death.” I wonder whether this idea / category has any legitimacy at all. I’ve heard many preachers define death as separation of body and soul (okay with that), and then go on to talk about “spiritual death” as separation from God. It seems an odd category. Perhaps (and this depends on one’s view of whether hell and the “second death” is eternal), there is some legitimacy for the idea due to the “second death.” People are raised to judgment, and then die the “second death”. If that death is not annihilation of the body, then an eternal death would seem legitimately definable as “separation from God.” The problem, of course, with this is that, in the very same passage, Rev. 20:14, DEATH ITSELF suffers the “second death”. So you get into the logical problem of how DEATH ITSELF can still be “living” (ongoing) when it has DIED! Put another way, how can the second death be eternal if death is put to death? Paul himself says in 1 Cor 15:26 that “the last enemy to be destroyed is death.” This is, as many of you will see, an argument for the END of death (annihilation). Those on the traditional side have to come up with a way for death itself to die and yet not be dead. Not easy! I’m still chewing on this one, so I can’t say I’d cast my vote anywhere. It’s a problem. At least, though, you should all know why I’m hesitant to even accept the “spiritual death” category. I’m also glad that my answer to these replies on Romans 5:12 doesn’t depend on that question. But there’s another reason to wonder about the legitimacy of “spiritual death.”
Now, the commenter would likely define “spiritual death” as ANY separation from God. That seems an over-reading. With respect to verses like Rom 6:23 (“the wages of sin is death”) it seems clear that sinners (anyone who sins – which is every human who is allowed to live and can, except for Jesus) are destined for separation from God in the afterlife. Incidentally, some commenters think that Rom 6:23 undermines my Rom 5:12 view – that since all of us born after Adam die and we inherited Adam’s death, that means we inherited guilt. No – it means that all who sin and are unredeemed endure this afterlife fate. Adam and Eve *sinned* and then died. They lost immortality, and therefore all their descendants did. All who descend from Adam die, but only if they sin does the *wage* of *sin* come into effect – death in the afterlife unless redeemed. The rest of humanity wasn’t guilty of what Adam did, but they would suffer something very serious because of it: death / loss of immortality. And, as I noted in the previous post, with the environment of Eden gone, they would be helpless to avoid sinning.
I'm now a little amused by the irony in my quoting Heiser to you.
There is a great deal I disagree with him on, but then hopefully he can serve you to bring you back our way a little regarding sin and death.
Note, in Heiser's words, he too sees full effect of sin, the full wages of its, as death in the afterlife -- a more true and full spiritual death. So then, given spiritual death doesn't fully happen here on earth -- we've still got God sustaining our world, us in it, and we still retain spirituality of some sort! Therefore Heiser reasons it must be physical death which can and does happen completely, and if we're not redeemed, our sin will ultimately result in our final spiritual death.