Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Can't Tell You]

This is a question for Christians who believe that God used evolution to create the universe and everything in it. I am making the assumption that you cannot believe in the book of Genesis, specifically the story of original sin. At what point were humans human enough that God set two of them in a garden, and put the fate of the entire world on their decision? So this leads me to think that there never was an original sin, but rather that we evolved with the ability to make choices and that some of those choices are bad. So without original sin is there really a storyline for a redemptive action?

[jimwalton]

Glad to talk. There is an approach to Genesis 1-2 that understand them to be about function, not structure. Even though God created the world (that is obvious from other places in the Bible), that is not what Genesis 1-2 are about. Instead, Gen. 1-2 are about how God ordered the cosmos and gave it its function as his temple, and humanity as his priest and priestess, co-regents of the earth to care for sacred space. For instance, the creation of light and darkness were to function as day and night, ordering time. The separation of the "firmament" were so that they could function as the source of climate. The separation of land and sea were so that the land could function to bring forth life for survival and balance: agriculture and the circle of life. The sun moon and stars were to function to give seasons: calendar. Birds, fish, and animals function to create diversity, balance, and food. Man and woman were to function to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and rule it. Function, not structure.

From this perspective, the questions of science are left to science, because the Bible tells *that* God created the universe, but not *how* or by what process or how long it all took. If science says it was gradual, then it was gradual. Truth is truth. But the Bible tells about its order, function, and purpose: it is God's temple, designed to give him glory and sustain life, and our purpose is to care for it, and to have a relationship with him. Both evolution and Genesis can be true. We don't have to choose one or the other.

But what about original sin? If Genesis 1 & 2 are about functionality, not manufacture, then possibly humans evolved in the hominid chain, as science says. And when humans got to the point in their evolutionary development where they were both morally culpable and spiritually capable, God "took them and placed them in the garden" (Gn. 2.15), instilled them with a soul (Gn. 2.7), and now they were told how to live moral lives (make moral choices). They were warned about the consequences of wrong choices. God's intent was that they obey and have eternal life, and what was offered to them was life (access to the Tree of Life). They stand in the garden as archetypes (representatives; I'm not saying this story is an allegory or that this is metaphorical) of humanity. They have every tool at their disposal to make a good choice, but they also have free will and so can make any choice they wish. While they had been making choices before this point (some good ones, some bad ones), now they are in a different situation. They have been ensouled, they have been instructed, they have been warned, and now true morality is possible. As the story goes, they choose the wrong, they become separated from the life of God by their own choice, and God initiates a plan to redeem them back.

So there we have the possibility of evolution, the reality of free will, the actuality of a moral choice, God's desire for good and life for them, their willful rebellion, original sin, and God's plan of redemption.

[Can't Tell You]

Thanks for the conversation. So I think one of the issues that I have been thinking about is that since humans evolved, would there not have already been "sin" in the world? Evolution take a long time to make small changes, so the humans that were coming into being would have had a small amount of both morally culpable and spiritually capable traits through that process. I don't think that it would have been that just at some point God would have chosen two of them as representatives of the entire specie.

For the sake of argument, let's make the assumption that He did take them and place them in the garden. How could a just God live and interact with a being that already would have been exposed to sin? Given that there would have already been countless years of sin, death and survival within that hominid chain, given the nature of survival. So sin in some form must have always been there for as long as humans could have even made the most rudimentary choices. I don't see any evidence that they were instructed or that they could have been, as there would already have been sin in the world and God by his very nature could not have had a relationship with them given the fact that they would have come from a people that had already sinned.

Thanks again for indulging me, I recently de-converted from Christianity and have not had a chance to run through some of my thoughts out loud yet.

[jimwalton]

Glad to run through these thoughts. "Sin" is define in many ways, but one of the primary ones is disobedience to God and rebellion against God. In that sense there could not have been sin until God ensouled them and instructed them. Before that time they just would have been "animals," making good or poor decisions, acting out their survival behaviors. But after they've been ensouled and instructed, now when do something contrary to the will of God, rebel against him or deliberately disobey him, now we have "sin". Even though they are evolving, what they do can't be classified as "sin" anymore than your dog chewing up your favorite slippers is. See, that's not "sin", it's just a dog being a dog (maybe what we call a "bad dog," but he's not being immoral). But at some point where humans had evolved past their "doggishness" and became "mannish," now we have a different situation, and God placed them in the garden, ensouled them, instructed them, and now we have homo sapien sapiens.

> For the sake of argument...How could a just God live and interact with a being that already would have been exposed to sin?

God does it all the time. He interacts with us, according to the Bible. Jesus, according to the Bible was God in the flesh, lived with humans for 30-some years. This is not a problem. God's purpose is to destroy the power of sin, not to squeamishly avoid it. And as I said, if humans before this point had just been part of the "animal" category, then there wouldn't have been countless years of sin. As Romans 5.14 says, sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Was there death and survival in the world all this time? Of course. The death that sin brought was spiritual death (separation from God), not physical death. It's impossible to have life on the planet and not death. You can't tell me that Adam and Eve, even in the conservative Biblical tradition, were walking along and never stepped on an ant. Or that when they picked a head of lettuce and ate it they weren't "killing" it. When Adam picked a bouquet of dandelions for Eve, he "killed" them. It doesn't make sense that death didn't exist. There was death in the system before sin. What sin brought was something different.

> I don't see any evidence that they were instructed

Gen. 2.15-17, at the very least. Obviously that's not all that God said to man, but it makes the point: He was instructed, morally and spiritually.

I'm willing to talk more. We all have to think deeply about this stuff—run through out our thoughts outloud—because it's important. Glad to "indulge" you, and thanks for talking with me. Possibly, though, you de-converted based on faulty information and need to reconsider your decision.

[Tune It]

> From this perspective, the questions of science are left to science, because the Bible tells that God created the universe, but not how or by what process or how long it all took.

But it does say how long it took (unless you view "day" as not being literal) and it certainly describes a sequential order of creation that is not correct according to science.

> They have every tool at their disposal to make a good choice, but they also have free will and so can make any choice they wish.

What are the tools at their disposal that they didn't have before?

>While they had been making choices before this point (some good ones, some bad ones), now they are in a different situation.

What is different about their situation?

>They have been ensouled

What does this mean?

> they have been instructed, they have been warned, and now true morality is possible.

They had two entities telling them conflicting things. Without knowledge of good and evil, how did they know which entity was right?

> they choose the wrong, they become separated from the life of God by their own choice, and God initiates a plan to redeem them back.

But didn't God know what their choice would be? Didn't he place the serpent in the garden as well? If they didn't know it was wrong, can you hold them to the same standard of morality as someone who intentionally does the wrong thing?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for good questions. Let's go through them.

>But it does say how long it took

As I said, I take Genesis 1 as an ancient temple text (looking at the text through ancient, rather than modern eyes). The cosmos already existed (created by God, but we don't know when, how, or how long it took), and Gen. 1 tells us that God was ordering the cosmos to be his temple, his dwelling place. The cosmos was his temple, the earth was his "Holy Place," and the Garden of Eden was the "Holy of Holies," where he met with his priest and priestess, just like in the days of ancient Israel. Same picture, but instead of a building, it's the universe. In the ancient world, people built temples for their gods. In the Bible, God builds his own temple for him to reveal himself in, and engage his people.

That having been said, you need to know that in the ancient world, temple dedication (inauguration) ceremonies were always (ALWAYS) 7-day ceremonies. If Gn. 1 is a temple text, the seven days may be understood in relation to some aspect of temple inauguration. The temple is made functional in the inauguration ceremonies, and therefore the temple is created in the inauguration ceremony. It took Solomon 7 years to build the temple (1 Ki. 6.37-38), and its inauguration included a 7-day dedication to which is added a 7-day feast/banquet (2 Chron. 7.9; 1 Ki. 8.65). Solomon's dedicatory prayer proclaims the functions of the temple (1 Ki. 6.30-45). The days, then, are the period of time devoted to the inauguration of the functions of the cosmic temple, and perhaps also its annual reenactment. So the seven days are literal days, but not days of manufacture. This isn't a science text or a sequential one, but a temple inauguration text. That's why it's not a correct scientific sequence—it isn't meant to be. We have to think like them to understand them, not think like us.

> What are the tools at their disposal that they didn't have before?

Before this (if this theory is correct), they were just animals, so to speak, part of the animal world, much like a dog. There are no "morals" in a dog. He's just "doggish". Sometimes we say he's a bad dog or a good dog, but that's us as humans calling stuff that as we interact with dogs in our world. But dogs are just dogs. When they reach the point of homo sapien sapien, God breathes into them the breath of life (Gen. 2.7). He now has the breath of God, and he became a living soul (*nephesh*). The source of this nephesh is God. He is also now spoken to, and accountable for, spiritual and moral behavior (Gn. 2.15-17). He also has the means to obey (free will, and an unimpeded relationship with God in his temple, and the gift of life [the Tree of Life]), as well as the freedom to make his own choices.

> What does this mean (that they have been ensouled)?

In Gn. 2.7, God breathed into humanity His breath. Humans are the only ones ever said to receive this divine breath. We are left to interpret this. There are some things we can clearly say about it: it's something pertaining to the divine, it has something to do with life, it seems to have been a personal interaction, it's unique to humanity, it's not a possession but part of human nature. The same idea occurs in early Egyptian literature where the god Re puts breath into the nostrils of man, and in a late Egyptian text (2nd c. AD) in which the breath of life is the beginning of a new kind of existence. Now we have an embodied being (formerly an animal of sorts) with the divine breath of life in it. That's what I mean by "ensouled".

> Without knowledge of good and evil, how did they know which entity was right?

It's understanding the words correctly. Now that they have become homo sapiens, God has formed a relationship with them, he has taught them about morality and about spirituality (represented by the brief words in Gn. 2.16-17; there was certainly more), now they have knowledge of good and evil, but they haven't "eaten from that tree". The knowledge of good and evil corresponds to their ability to decide. Now, different from before, there is a moral choice before them, because now morality exists, and they are accountable. They know what the wrong is—God has explicitly told them. They are free to choose whatever path they wish. When the "serpent" talks Eve, she already knows what God has commanded; she knows what's wrong, and admits it.

> But didn't God know what their choice would be?

Yes he did, but knowledge doesn't imply causality.

> Didn't he place the serpent in the garden as well?

No he didn't. There's no indication in the text that God had anything to do with that, or that he placed him there. So this supposition isn't true.

> If they didn't know it was wrong, can you hold them to the same standard of morality as someone who intentionally does the wrong thing?

They did know it was wrong. It was clearly explained to them in Gn. 2.16-17, both that the action would be wrong, and what the consequence would be. But God can't exactly give them free will and then forbid them to use it. He can tell them what the wrong choice would be, and he can tell them the consequences of their wrong choice, but then the ball is in their court. They knew it was wrong, and they are accountable for their decisions.