Dialogue with a Pre-Adamist (Not a Pre-Adamite, I think)

Reminder,

still under

Dave Bestul

Mark 10:6-12New International Version (NIV)

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

Question: Does this confirm that Jesus taught a young earth? If Adam and Eve were created at the BEGINNING of creation, doesn't that pretty much kill the gap theory? Thanks.

And now first

the answer (17 mars, 19:39) to that which serves as quasi status to this subthread, and then the comments directed at that one:

David Caldarola

This is a common interpretation error. God "created" humans, male and female. He "formed" Adam, and "made" Eve. Adam and Eve are not the first people created, they are the first of the "chosen people." Adam was, in essence, the first high priest and Eden was the holy of holies where the high priest and God communicated to each other. Eve was "made" from the flesh and bones of Adam, (DNA) to establish a pure family line for the chosen people who are called "a priestly people." They were intended to be a race of priests who would minister the laws, precepts, injunctions, and ceremonial rites to the world congregation. At least, this was what God had intended.

Rohn Timm

So are you YEC or OEC?

Stephen Mitchell

This is nonsense, David.

David Caldarola

Rohn Timm - I am YEC, though I don't believe one has to take everything the bible says literally. One has to consider the time that has elapsed, the people the words were said to, their culture, their language, the translator problems, etc.

Stephen Mitchell - It is all there, Stephen. But you are free to pick and chose what you wish.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" Adam and Eve are not the first people created,"

The people before Adam and Eve, if any : were they unfallen or fallen?

If fallen, how come the fall of mankind came with Adam?

Even, how come Adam could be unfallen himself?

If unfallen, are they elves who withdrew from Earth after Adam's fall, not necessarily immediately?

If unfallen and living with us, why are they not superior to us, how do we not see immortals?

Adam's sin was transmitted by propagation, not by example.

This means, if they had been unfallen up to the time of Adam, they would have remained so.

"though I don't believe one has to take everything the bible says literally."

Oh, one has to.

"One has to consider the time that has elapsed"

Between when and when?

Between events and text? I rely on tradition, even oral one, as a faithful means of tradition.

Or between text and us? Up to us to learn the expressions of the then time, and none of them are absent from our culture, though some are not predominant. "he knew his wife" is for instance intelligible to us, even if that is not the most usual way of expressing the fact.

"the people the words were said to, their culture, their language,"

Yes, what about them?

"the translator problems, etc."

What about these?

David Caldarola

Hans-Georg Lundahl _ It would be easier if you had asked one question at a time. So I will start with the first post. The people outside of the garden, the "male and females he created" were unfallen because they had no laws to disobey. Even if they did not have the fullest measure of grace because they were not directly in the garden with Adam, the presence of grace, as well as the absence of any evil influence - as well as any threats or needs to survive - was sufficient as they "waited" for the law and ceremonies to come from Adam and that Holy of Holies called Eden. (I do not say they were told to "wait" though it is possible that the spirit inferred this to them.)

Now comes the sin of Adam and Eve. As I mentioned in a post elsewhere, so I'll repeat it here, Hans, Adam and Eve were NOT cast out of the garden. It was God who left Eden because he cannot have sin in his presence. It would be like you are living in an immaculately kept up house with the most beautiful woman on Earth. If your love breaks down and she cats you out of the house - even if you move to a magnificent palatial estate, you still feel cast out and punished because that beautiful woman and the "love-nest" you had is separated from you. But if she walks out of that "love-nest" and you remain, you still feel "cast out" of her life and your immaculately kept nest deteriorates. The effect is the same.

Notice in Gen: 4-16 Cain leaves and lives in the east side of Eden. Eden is still there. But God is not. Without his presence to keep the garden pristine, it becomes like any other piece of land acreage - subjected to weeds, drought, erosion, etc. (This is what God means when he told Adam he would have to "work" the land - without His presence, it does not produce life; fruits, grains, flowers, etc., instantly and automatically.) But that now "normal" land was once Eden. This is vital to understand what you asked. How does this affect, or cause all those outside of the Genesis narrative to become fallen?

God's withdrawal from Eden takes His grace and presence with Him. (That abundant grace Paul spoke of - "without which, no man can see God.") The blessed state the entire world was in, is now also subject to decay, its people and animals will go hungry - hunt each other for food - and those males and females will work the Earth by the sweat of their brows, bear their children in pain and suffering, etc., and sin since they don't have the abundance of grace necessary to stay unfallen. This is how they and we share in the sin of Adam and Eve. Their sin caused the withdrawal of God and his sanctifying grace which keeps the world pristine and sinless. Once this happened, everyone on Earth was afflicted. We, therefore, do not necessarily share in the "sin" of Adam and Eve, we share in the results it caused.

Without this abundant grace, sin among people, even yet without the law, was inevitable. (Greed, selfishness, cruelty, etc., for these are "graceless" qualities.) But note that none of this would have happened if Adam and Eve were left to their own devices and choices - it took the supernatural evil influence of Satan to derail this paradise. If there were no Satan and his interference, We would all still be in Paradise and the garden of Eden would still be the temple of God from which the priestly people administer to the world congregation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Did I get this right : the unfallen people became fallen because God withdrew from Garden of Eden?

David Caldarola

Hans-Georg Lundahl - You are falling into semantics here. We call Satan and his ilk "fallen" because they physically "fell" from heaven. Adam and Eve "fell" from grace when they sinned. The "males and females He created" fell out of grace because that abundant grace was no longer available. Their "fall" was inevitable. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the "fall" of Adam and Eve, and the subsequent "fall" by mankind was in the same context as Satan's.

One of the concepts of scripture that is often lost in the English translations is that God and sinners are not "seeing eye to eye." This eye to eye motif is central to scriptures. When Jacob and Esau had their reconciliation, the entire passage, if more accurately translated from the Hebrew, highlights this idea. Even when Moses was allowed to see God, he could only see him from behind. When we go to heaven, we will be purged of all sin and blame, and will receive again that abundant sanctifying grace that will make it possible for us to be fully reconciled with God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not confusing a fall from both grace and redeemability with a fall from grace.

God is everywhere and His grace did not depend on His "physical presence in Eden", rather, that manifestation of His was apppropriate for the initial state of grace, since Adam and Eve were able to differentiate between God's spiritual presence, that of angels and that of deciving fallen angels, should these speak directly as spirits (which is why Satan used a serpent to talk to Eve, I suppose).

So, apart from fact that your reading is not supported by Tradition, it is not so very coherent theologically either.

Stephen Mitchell

This whole conversation has drifted into the absurd.

David Caldarola

Hans-Georg Lundahl - It is perfectly coherent. You simply are not capable of discerning it. Look at your example; "... since Adam and Eve were able to differentiate between God's spiritual presence, that of angels and that of deceiving fallen angels, should these speak directly as spirits (which is why Satan used a serpent to talk to Eve, (I suppose.)"

This is incoherent. You are saying that Adam and Eve could differentiate between, etc., - and then you suppose they weren't suspicious of a serpent that could talk to them? Now, you are correct that my explanation is not supported by Tradition. But this "tradition" you quote is wholly debatable. Are you talking Catholic Tradition or Protestant Tradition? If Protestant, does that include Jehovah's Witness and Mormon Tradition? By tradition, you mean the general consensus of those denominations you agree with.

Look at it this way, and I am not bragging - I have given you a sound and correct explanation of things and you cannot understand it. Why? I'll tell you, and believe me this is not to be offensive in any way. What I have said was given to me, not to you. I do not profess to be a spiritualist, a prophet, or a theologian. In fact, I have been a very poor Christian who has struggled mightily with my meager faith. And I believe this is why God gave me some insights - perceptions - into these things. Not because I am especially deserving or "holier-than-thou," but because I was such a wreck in life that He knew I needed such clarification more than others.

I recall debating things with a former friend of mine who wouldn't accept a word I said - no matter how much documentation, audio visual material, or biblical references I provided. I was fuming inside at his bullheadedness. I remember talking a walk in the middle of the night and chatting with the Lord about this. To make a long story short, it was "given" to me that I couldn't convince my friend of anything because he was not ready to receive it... that is why the Lord said over and over again... "I gave it to you."

Oddly enough, my friend James, must have understood this because when I was leaving his house in a bit of a huff, he said, "David, don't take this too hard... maybe I'm just not ready for this - don't cast your pearls before the swine." James was not ready to receive what I demonstrated to him, even with a ton of material from the "experts." You and Stephen Mitchell who commented above, are not ready to receive it. But I have told you these things because the "tradition" that scripture is self-interpreting is false. You will glean from scriptures the minimum necessary for your Christian character, mission, and hopefully eventual salvation.

But you will be banging your head against the spiritual wall till the day you die trying to figure out the "spirit" of scripture with sola-scriptura. "He came into the world, and the world knew him not." I have given you what He gave me, and you didn't recognize it. There is not point to go further. Just keep studying and praying and being as good a Christian as you know how, and you will be fine. Go in peace.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[Answering points one by one, will be giving it as "dialogue"]

David Caldarola

Look at your example; "... since Adam and Eve were able to differentiate between God's spiritual presence, that of angels and that of deceiving fallen angels, should these speak directly as spirits (which is why Satan used a serpent to talk to Eve, (I suppose.)"

This is incoherent. You are saying that Adam and Eve could differentiate between, etc., - and then you suppose they weren't suspicious of a serpent that could talk to them?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

One possibility is that animals were given a possibility to talk to man before the fall.

Another is that they were still fairly naive and she (not Adam) thought the serpent was unusually bright.

Adam would probably have been suspicious on the exact ground you mentioned, he had named the serpent.

David Caldarola

Now, you are correct that my explanation is not supported by Tradition.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

THanks for the admission.

David Caldarola

But this "tradition" you quote is wholly debatable. Are you talking Catholic Tradition or Protestant Tradition? If Protestant, does that include Jehovah's Witness and Mormon Tradition? By tradition, you mean the general consensus of those denominations you agree with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mainly Catholic tradition. I am a Catholic. We do however use "witness of heretics" in apologetics, meaning that if for instance Nestorians and Monophysites agree here, this means the tradition had an antiquity prior to mid or end of 5th C. AD.

And if Jewish Tradition agrees, this means the tradition has an antiquity prior to Our Lord.

And that means, if it had been what He called "traditions of men" in the bad sense, He would have had an opportunity to correct it.

David Caldarola

Look at it this way, and I am not bragging - I have given you a sound and correct explanation of things and you cannot understand it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If by correct or sound you mean simply coherent within itself, I agree.

I only do not agree it is coherent with other theological data.

And I do not agree I didn't understand it.

David Caldarola

Why? I'll tell you, and believe me this is not to be offensive in any way. What I have said was given to me, not to you. I do not profess to be a spiritualist, a prophet, or a theologian. In fact, I have been a very poor Christian who has struggled mightily with my meager faith. And I believe this is why God gave me some insights - perceptions - into these things. Not because I am especially deserving or "holier-than-thou," but because I was such a wreck in life that He knew I needed such clarification more than others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In that case, God might have given you occasiuon to get temporary false explanations while you couldn't understand the true ones.

And you should be able to sustain your gift in debate, if you think it is a true one.

David Caldarola

I recall debating things with a former friend of mine who wouldn't accept a word I said - no matter how much documentation, audio visual material, or biblical references I provided.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You haven't provided all that many to me.

And instead of giving me Tradition, you have half and half flouted the criterium.

David Caldarola

I was fuming inside at his bullheadedness. I remember talking a walk in the middle of the night and chatting with the Lord about this. To make a long story short, it was "given" to me that I couldn't convince my friend of anything because he was not ready to receive it... that is why the Lord said over and over again... "I gave it to you."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

We each have a right to hope when a voice of God speaks in our imagination that God is really taking care of it.

I don't think we have a right to hope, if it is theoretic material, to be right even if we cannot well defend it.

David Caldarola

But I have told you these things because the "tradition" that scripture is self-interpreting is false. You will glean from scriptures the minimum necessary for your Christian character, mission, and hopefully eventual salvation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you mean the tradition that Scripture is self explanatory in what concerns our salvation, it is indeed false, at least as far as those are concerned who decieve themselves.

In the general gist of Biblical History, most is self explanatory as in any given historic text.

Not because Protestants have a false tradition about Scripture being self explanatory in salvific matters, but because that is how the Church Fathers took it.

David Caldarola

But you will be banging your head against the spiritual wall till the day you die trying to figure out the "spirit" of scripture with sola-scriptura.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not even into Sola Scriptura, it was condemned by the Council of Trent.

I am however into Tota Scriptura.

No single datum of Scripture is false.

As for your version, if I recall it correctly (it is a debate which has taken us days, so I am speaking of what I read yesterday or last week), you gave data which are not reconcileable with sound Catholic theology as you gave them.

End of

my dialogued one post answer.

David Caldarola

Hans-Georg Lundahl - There are some good points in your reply. But, "One possibility is that animals were given a possibility to talk to man before the fall," was not one of them. This is really stretching into near fantasy to argue a point. Secondly, the comment on Tota Scriptura has a problem. What you are saying is that if one takes scriptures in its totality, it is inerrant and infallible. This may very well be true, but it is highly debatable that any single person on earth has interpreted this totality in a totally correct manner.

Even the early church fathers rejected Paul's letter to the Hebrews, and promoted the Gospel according to Thomas. We are still stuck with the reality that the Bible is a translation of a translation of ancient languages and foreign cultures. There is an ever repeating cycle employed here. We try to take the bible literally, and we end up with some apparent contradictions and many questions. So, we interpret. And for awhile, the interpretations seem to make sense, but then endless debates and arguments occur, along with more questions and apparent conflicts, so we try going back to the literalist approach. (Rinse and repeat.)

Now, I am also Catholic. But I do not agree with everything the catechism teaches. Why? Because every objective truth that is revealed to man is vulnerable to his own subjectivity. (Grasp, understanding, interpretation.) It's like when you read a passage in the bible you have read a hundred times before, and have heard referenced a hundred times by scholars, and then suddenly - poof - a light goes on and you perceive of that passage in a whole new light. The problem with Tota Scriptura is that it presumes that certainly everything should have been perceived and commented on by now.

But there is one issue that both the Catholic and Protestant interpretations believe in that is incorrect. But I do not have the authority to explain it - I am not a priest or theologian. But to hopefully gain a better grasp of what we are talking about, what part of my initial explanation above, ( March 18 at 9:27am) runs counter to scriptures?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Again, dialoguing my answer:

David Caldarola

Secondly, the comment on Tota Scriptura has a problem. What you are saying is that if one takes scriptures in its totality, it is inerrant and infallible. This may very well be true, but it is highly debatable that any single person on earth has interpreted this totality in a totally correct manner.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, my comment does NOT have that problem.

I am NOT saying that.

I am saying that every single detail of Scripture is inerrant.

And there are lots of people who actually have looked correctly at details of Scripture.

David Caldarola

Even the early church fathers rejected Paul's letter to the Hebrews, and promoted the Gospel according to Thomas.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Simply false, if by "the early Church Fathers" you mean all of them. Some may have rejected Hebrews, and none can have promoted the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

If any promoted the Childhood Gospel of St Thomas, that is another matter.

Note very well, by Church Fathers I mean canonised saints who lived within the Church called Catholic and who are recognised by the Catholic Church as Church Fathers. I do not mean Tertullian who died outside the Church or Origen who is not a canonised Saint.

I do mean for instance, among early ones, Sts Polycarp of Smyrna, Irenee of Lyons, and a few more.

David Caldarola

We are still stuck with the reality that the Bible is a translation of a translation of ancient languages and foreign cultures.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not if you know Greek, in that case only OT is a translation, NT is original text.

As to ancient and foreign languages and cultures, what is the exact problem? What exact passage is problematical according to some translation problem to you?

David Caldarola

There is an ever repeating cycle employed here. We try to take the bible literally, and we end up with some apparent contradictions and many questions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Key word "apparent".

David Caldarola

So, we interpret.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No problem, as long as literal sense is respected.

David Caldarola

And for awhile, the interpretations seem to make sense, but then endless debates and arguments occur

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And the Church which it belongs to to interpret Scripture is able to keep Her head through these. So are to some degree debaters like myself who are careful to believe with the Church.

David Caldarola

along with more questions and apparent conflicts, so we try going back to the literalist approach. (Rinse and repeat.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

This supposes that the literalist approach was left to the side in the first place when interpreting. It shouldn't (there are other levels of interpretation, allegoric, moral and anagogic, but these involve topics other than the strict history depicted in the text and so do not concern us).

David Caldarola

Now, I am also Catholic. But I do not agree with everything the catechism teaches.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If it is the infamous CCC, no problem. Try Baltimore Catechisms or Catechism of Pope St Pius X.

David Caldarola

Why? Because every objective truth that is revealed to man is vulnerable to his own subjectivity. (Grasp, understanding, interpretation.) It's like when you read a passage in the bible you have read a hundred times before, and have heard referenced a hundred times by scholars, and then suddenly - poof - a light goes on and you perceive of that passage in a whole new light.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Happens, but when genuine does NOT discredit what the text had literally said before that.

When I came up with Tower of Babel being a rocket about a year ago, I checked that skyscraper had not been the consensus of all fathers, and while it sheds a new light on Nimrod's venture and allows the city in which it occurred (and the building of which was left off, which is not said about the tower!) to be Göbekli Tepe, it does not contradict anything the text had literally said.

David Caldarola

The problem with Tota Scriptura is that it presumes that certainly everything should have been perceived and commented on by now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not at all.

Tota Scriptura is a parallel to the scientific Tota Empiria - but no scientist pretends all empirical fact has already been seized and commented on.

David Caldarola

But there is one issue that both the Catholic and Protestant interpretations believe in that is incorrect. But I do not have the authority to explain it - I am not a priest or theologian. But to hopefully gain a better grasp of what we are talking about, what part of my initial explanation above, ( March 18 at 9:27am) runs counter to scriptures?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

One single issue : people descending from Adam before his fall or even being previous to Adam and getting the original sin, not because Adam sired them in an already sinful state, but because God withdrew from Eden.

What you considered as a description of what happened to sinless men is rather a description of what happens to a country when the Eucharist is withdrawn.

People like Shakespear would have been innocent of the Reformation, but unless consciously resisting, the sheer lack of Eucharist and Confession was taking its toll in apostasies.

End of

my second dialogued one post answer.