Thanks Ron
This looks like a very useful resource.

_________________
Ron Bailey

Mike

The story is told twice, once in Genesis One and again in Genesis Two. In the first telling, mankind was given "every seed bearing plant for food." Animals are not to be eaten.

In the second telling the two trees are introduced, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good an evil. (Nowhere does the command in 1:28-9 get altered.)

These are not actual trees but represent the choice given to mankind. At this point mankind (A. Afarensis) is still an herbivore. Apparently, then women began the practice of scavenging meat. Men follow in this practice. Over the years this dietary choice divides mankind, and A. Afarensis evolves into homo habilis (a hunter/scavenger) and A. Robustus (an herbivore). (Cain and Abel.)

Homo habilis then evolves into homo erectus, and lives as both hunter and cannibal. (Evidence: widespread cut marks on Homo Erectus bones.) We descend into a long and dark period of human history because we chose to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Abel gets killed (actually eaten.) The fossil record shows the H. Erectus and Australeopithicus Robustus lived at the same time and in the same areas.

This interpretation fits and I advance it because it makes sense of both the Genesis story and the evidence of man's evolution.

The Tree of Life was taken away because we lived by taking life. (This practice evolved into war.) We knew good and great evil. Cain tries his hand at agriculture but fails miserably. Abel tends sheep which represents that he keeps his covenant with God. He brings the first of his flock as an offering (sacrifice) to God. This symbolizes that Abel has kept with God's command to be stewards of the world and not eat animals.

You know the rest of the story.

Jake

Ron,

Quote from Theistic Evolution: "There must have been abiogenesis; life must come from non-life, and it must do so without any help from God."

I strongly disagree. The whole process was rigged by God from the get go. We aren't a statistical fluke, but were part of a grand plan.

Jake

Jake wrote:The story is told twice, once in Genesis One and again in Genesis Two. In the first telling, mankind was given "every seed bearing plant for food." Animals are not to be eaten.
In the second telling the two trees are introduced, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good an evil. (Nowhere does the command in 1:28-9 get altered.)
These are not actual trees but represent the choice given to mankind.

This is not a second telling but a recursive to a point in the first chapter. Ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucidides, did not tell linear history. Linear history is a relatively recent style. We see this very clearly in the accounts of Kings and Chronicles where the writer loops back to an earlier point in the story and amplifies it.

Secondly, Jake, this hermeneutic (interpretation) is chaotic. Why is the 'seed' real seed in Chapter 1, but the 'tree of Life' is not a real tree? We have been here before, I know, but what you are doing is fitting Genesis into your pre-set evolutionary schedule. There are really so many leaps in the hermeneutics that that it is like the suit of clothes that 'fits where it touches'. I counted 10 speculations in your biblical analysis which have absolutely no warrant from the scripture itself. (I am not qualified to comment on the evolutionary hypothesis but I suspect that no evolutionist would accept your speculations either.)

This particular suit of clothes hardly touches anywhere and yet you say the interpretation fits. I fear you have started with your conclusion and reverse-engineered. I respect your choice to be a vegetarian but to blame man's consequent delinquency on a change in diet is totally without evidence of any kind, biblical or fossil.

_________________
Ron Bailey

Philologos wrote:

"you have started with your conclusion and reverse-engineered"

Actually, no. This whole idea came from a 1990 article in the NYTimes about Elizabeth Vrba's hypothesis on climatic changes and the evolution of humans. The diagram and the story sounded familiar. Human dualism, changes in eating habits etc.

The more I dug in the more I found points of comparison. I wrote to her and she found the whole idea "ingenious" and encouraged me to continue. So your point that "no evolutionist would accept your speculations either" is incorrect.

Furthermore, what Do you mean about tree of life and seed? Seed bearing plant has clear literal meaning. You can go outside and find one. Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are obviously symbolic.

Lastly, you cannot expect far removed sources of material on human development -- Genesis, and the fossil record as interpreted by scientists -- to have uniformity in language. So naturally, there is discrepancy.

Jake

sorry bout the repeat posts.

Philologos wrote:

"to blame man's consequent delinquency on a change in diet is totally without evidence of any kind, biblical or fossil."

Wrong. Evolutionary biologists agree that A. Afarensis was an herbivore. They also agree that the change to meat diet is linked to the development of stone tools for cutting and hunting. They also would agree that the tools of the hunt are the tools of war. Thus the transition to eating meat underpinned the development of war.

Here's a question for you.

How do you explain the footprints at Laetoli?

www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_03.html

see also

www.modernhumanorigins.com/laetolifoot.html


Jake

Jake wrote:Philologos wrote:

"to blame man's consequent delinquency on a change in diet is totally without evidence of any kind, biblical or fossil."

Wrong. Evolutionary biologists agree that A. Afarensis was an herbivore. They also agree that the change to meat diet is linked to the development of stone tools for cutting and hunting. They also would agree that the tools of the hunt are the tools of war. Thus the transition to eating meat underpinned the development of war.

and these evolutionists believe that this 'development' is the cause of our 'fall'? I would like the evolutionists to clarify whether or not we 'fell' upwards or downwards. Jake clearly believes that we fell 'downwards' as a result of a change in diet. I would like to know of other evolutionists who believe evolution was 'downwards' and that mankind's sinful behaviour is its result.

As regards the footprints, this is not my area of expertise but we are in the territory of prodigious calculation of the ages of the earth. One of the problems about these earth ages that the 'young earthers' have drawn attention to is that we date the strata by the fossils and then date the fossils be the strata. It may be significant that all agree that the Laetoli footprints would have been regarded as completely human (homo sapiens) if they had not been in such an old strata. As it is life gets a little complicated in that apparently these footprints are much more 'modern' than those of 'Lucy' although they are calculated to be 500,000 older. Lucy's 'ancestors' are now more modern than she is.

_________________
Ron Bailey

Jake wrote:

www.ucdsb.on.ca/tiss/stretton/chem2/nuc08.htm

"Items that have been dated historically, very acurately, have later been carbon dated and shown to be thousands of years older."

Items themselves are not dated. What is dated is the layer above and below.

The footprints are of A. Afarensis which is Lucy's kind. They are not more or less "modern" than Lucy. Moreover they are not fossils. Only the ash has been dated.

Many scientists mistakenly view the adoption of hunting and the development of stone tools as an advancement because it was the beginning of our tool making culture. But this would have happened if we didn't hunt, as well. Different tools would be developed for harvesting and planting. It is the agressive, brutal practice of hunting that was the beginning of our downfall. It was only a matter of time before we began hunting our kin.

Jake