so i was tooling around this morning looking for some current news (twitter wasn't giving me enough information), so of course i went to the NPR site and ended up finding too much to listen to/read. (this is not really a problem, but i realized that i've not been keeping current... BAD!)
i came across this piece which should be of interest to both my Christian friends and non-Christian friends alike. apparently, that has been some more dispute over the reality of science in the Christian faith. this one in particular is questioning the existence of Adam and Eve. kind of a big deal.
through my personal studies, i've come up with my own take that kind of blends the two thoughts into a very real, very possible way of thinking that the Genesis story is historically accurate and that evolution is still a very real thing (as it most definitely is). some of my college friends may have hear me speak on this before, but the logic of my stance comes from the language: once i learned that "ADAM" is a word for "man" in Hebrew, a door was open for my understanding of the intersection of my faith and science.
there are essentially two accounts of the creation of "man." the first in the linear 'day one, day two', etc. found in Genesis 1:26-31. then another account soon after at Genesis 2:7 (continuing with woman later in the chapter). in some discussions i've had in the past, this has never been explained in a way that made me think that these couldn't be referencing two different events. or better: a broad event and a specific one. God created man; Adam was one of these men and this is the story of his descendants.
just like fact that God created the universe is more important that the time period that it took him to do it, thinking that God created man, then we have a story about God's chosen people starting in Genesis 2, seems to work and make sense in my mind. it's not like there is an explanation needed for the people that Cain and Abel marry, or the many other nations that the Hebrew people encounter during the entire scripture, but this could account for it.
the report only hints at this idea of the importance of the Adam and Eve story, but that hint is huge: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity have no basis if there are no Adam and Eve. no story of the fall of God's people. the acceptance of Gentiles by God's people. all moot. science is great and there is a reason that it all works. my faith leads me to believe that the science was set in motion, and didn't just "exist" but that doesn't make it any less real. i'm curious of others thoughts which is what prompted this almost rant. besides i've not written in a while...BAD. feels good. until then---
3 comments:
I have been mulling this one over and have listened to the NPR story a few times. Will have to listen & consider more because basically I haven't been able to come to any conclusions.
Well Ed, i'd like to hear you explain your fusion of the two sometime. After reading your post a few times again i think i've got a better grasp on what you're saying.
You know i like this part, of course: "the logic of my stance comes from the language". :)
I also almost missed the "huge" reference in the story you referred to, mostly because he said "...or to what several world religions mark as the beginning: Adam & Eve" (paraphrase). Though thanks for pointing it out.
One of the points i'm still trying to work out is that one of the speakers seems to insist (scientifically) that humans came from apes--not a pleasant thought, by any means, but what does the science say? If we take an anti-ape stance, is that anti-evolution? Does that mean we have "egg on our face" as another speaker claims? (a great mental image, by the bye)
i think part of the problem is the definition of "Ape". most people when the idea that we 'came from' or 'evolved from' apes think of the ape to be like the gorilla's of africa or something. i agree that it's kind of odd to think that we'd come from that, but not just because they're apes. but because, if we evolved from them, why are there still apes? we should have all evolved to a much higher being.
BUT if we consider the fact there there's evidence of prehistoric man (Neanderthal, "Lucy", etc) we are easily evolved from them, but they were supposedly more ape-like in their existence when compared to the civilizations we've created since then.
this, like the wording in Genesis, could very well be the key to our understanding. as always, the language is the key.
also, having listened to the report again, i really don't know how something can be imagery and historically accurate as one person says the bible is. it would leave a lot more to the faith aspect, but how would you be able to decipher the difference? where are our hints as to what's what?
if this is indeed a cornerstone that's going to be pulled out from the bottom of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, it may be time to "stick our heads in the sand" out of protest of stupidity! haha!
Post a Comment