The Problem With Adam and Eve | Response to Ken Ham
Alex O'Connor | 18 Sept. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3EIx_ZQlc4
2:02 The world as God made it contained no evil.
In the beginning of Genesis 3, this is no longer true of the angelic world, since a third of the angels made themselves evil after God created them, but was still true of the material world. The biological serpent was not evil, but was cursed along evil, because an evil angel had used it for an evil purpose. In fact, that evil angel was the ringleader of the rebel angels.
Everyone who starts out good and becomes evil, was not evil as God created him, but only became evil by chosing to become that, or to become sth other than God had intended it to be.
- River Bank
- @riverbank2193
- A problem that occurred to me in the past few years is that God supposedly knows and sees all things. He knows what will happen in the future as well as the past. He can give you prophecy. So when he created Adam and Eve and put them in the garden, he knew exactly what was going to happen. He knew exactly how it was going to play out from the start. Which makes him the designer of this system. If he knew ahead of time that the serpent would tempt the human beings, and the human beings would partake of the forbidden fruit, how does that make the human beings or the servant responsible? God set up the system, knowing exactly what would happen from the beginning. That is kind of like a computer programmer purposely designing a computer with a known glitch, and then blaming the users of that computer when the computer fails. It doesn't make sense.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @riverbank2193 Answered the other place.
3:52 Two solutions:
Adam literally in the same moment and therefore both in the same day died spiritually.
Adam died physically in the same figurative day, that's really a "day from God's perspective" = 1000 years from ours.
Dying at 930 means dying same millennium as one sinned?
- L.Ron Dow
- @L.Ron_Dow
- Adam & Eve were NOT made immortal - they were always destined to die. This is why they were expelled from Eden - to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life and becoming fully like the G0Ds. The G0Ds were scared of their creation - just as they were at Babel.
- Georgie
- @thenotoriusg
- Literally what?
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- Literally, same day @thenotoriusg, he died spiritually.
4:11 The talking snake is literal, because the story is.
God permitted Himself figurative language, because He knew Adam knew Him.
- River Bank
- In order to be a literal story, it would have to make sense. But it does not make sense so it has to be chalked up to being mythology.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @riverbank2193 You have so far not shown that.
5:17 Eve was deceived.
That's why Adam's sin was worse. He wasn't deceived.
He also wasn't in advance prone to sin, but prone to be solidaric with his wife. A solidarity which then quickly broke down because of the sin.
6:15 non possumus non peccare ...
not said of every sin singly, only of over time
16:29 You have shown no argument whatsoever against Genesis being a historical account.
You have only shown that as such a thing, it doesn't inspire you to Theodicy.
As for "ludicrous" ... here is Haydock (look him up).
Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)
- River Bank
- He did show an argument that Genesis has flaws. He very clearly showed inconsistencies and contradictions. To be a true historical account. There should be no inconsistencies or contradictions. He showed how certain parts of Genesis don't make sense.
A problem that occurred to me in the past few years is that God supposedly knows and sees all things. He knows what will happen in the future as well as the past. He can give you prophecy. So when he created Adam and Eve and put them in the garden, he knew exactly what was going to happen. He knew exactly how it was going to play out from the start. Which makes him the designer of this system. If he knew ahead of time that the serpent would tempt the human beings, and the human beings would partake of the forbidden fruit, how does that make the human beings or the servant responsible? God set up the system, knowing exactly what would happen from the beginning. That is kind of like a computer programmer purposely designing a computer with a known glitch, and then blaming the users of that computer when the computer fails. It doesn't make sense.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @riverbank2193 None of the arguments show that Genesis contains any contradiction, nor does this one.
"like a computer programmer purposely designing a computer with a known glitch"
We are not computers, freewill is not a glitch, and annihilating Adam and Eve because He knew would not be very favourable to us, their descendants. Not what you want, not what I want. He could have.
"To be a true historical account. There should be no inconsistencies or contradictions."
Even if there had been inconsistencies, that would at worst make Genesis a true historical account with some flaws. There aren't any, and even if it's four months since, Alex O'Connor didn't show any.
Sorry for replying this late, but I missed the notification.
- River Bank
- @hglundahl I have heard it pointed out that the timeline is different depending on which chapters of Genesis you look at. So that would be an inconsistency or contradiction. As far as it being an historical account, I like to imagine what would happen if intelligent beings came from another planet and we were trying to explain to them the history of our planet. On the one hand we have very sophisticated science telling us that the universe is billions of years old and the Earth is millions of years old and there is a specific order in which life evolved on our planet that is backed up by fossil records and genetics. On the other hand we have an ancient text that tells us otherwise. One story says that God created the animals and marched them past Adam so Adam could name them. Could Adam have named the millions upon millions of species that exist on our planet as they marched past him? And the majority of species that existed on our planet died out before humans existed on our planet. So how could he have named them? There were no humans in existence for millions of years but there were man man species living that went extinct.
The ancient text tells us first there was light and then at a later date God created the sun to light up the day and the moon to light up the night. But the moon is not a light. The moon reflects the light of the Sun. And how would there have been light before they were stars or a sun?
The ancient text also tells us there is a god that speaks freely with man in the beginning, but has no communication with us any longer. It also tells us about a talking serpent (requires faith in supernatural events). It tells a story about a god who knows everything, including the future and how the future will unfold. He creates human beings knowing exactly what's going to happen and then punishes them for doing what he knew what they were going to do all along. He knows that the answer is to send Jesus Christ but he doesn't do it for thousands of years. In the meantime he just punishes humans and gets angry with them (although why would he get angry if if he knows what the future holds? There are no surprises.) and at one point decides to kill them all except for a few. All the while knowing that won't do any good. How did Cain move to a nearby land and take a wife? He obviously married his sister. I've heard the morality of God never changes. But in that case it would have to. It would have to be OK to marry your sister back then but not OK now. That's changing morality. You don't see any flaws in Genesis because you are a believer and you believe it is perfect in the way it is. Imagine someone coming from outside our planet, outside our society, and trying to explain the validity of the stories. Would you go with the scientific evidence, or would you go with the dusty mythology? There are a lot of ancient mythology's in our world. This is the one that you cling to because this is the one that is associated with your belief system, maybe the way you were brought up. But that's pretty much the only evidence there is for its validity. That you believe it.
"...The problems go from there. Most commonly noted is that the creation stories in chapters 1 and 2 appear in fact to be different stories that actually contradict one another including the sequence in which things were created (were animals before humans, for example, or the human before the animals?). I go on to show just why neither account can pass muster as a scientific account of what actually happened, despite valiant attempts to make them “work.” In Genesis 1, how can there be light on earth long before there is a sun, moon, and stars? Or how can plants exist without a sun (photosynthesis?!). And in Genesis 2, how could humans appear before plants or animals, and how could every living creature appear as a full-blown species "
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @riverbank2193 "I have heard it pointed out that the timeline is different depending on which chapters of Genesis you look at."
Genesis 1 gives a broad panorama, Genesis 2 more detail on day 6, creation of man.
The words about a different timeline can be interpreted otherwise, as Hebrew doesn't have a pluperfect, and they can also be interpreted as Adam created last of the males, Eve last of the females.
"On the one hand we have very sophisticated science telling us that the universe is billions of years old and the Earth is millions of years old ..."
We have a very sophisticated superstition to that effect, a bit like we also have a very sophisticated superstition by Churchyard and Blavatsky not forgetting Edgar Cayce, about Mu, Lemuria and Atlantis.
"there is a specific order in which life evolved on our planet that is backed up by fossil records and genetics."
Only to those who skip or twist detailed knowledge about fossils, detailed knowledge abuout genetics.
"Could Adam have named the millions upon millions of species that exist on our planet as they marched past him?"
He only had to name certain types of vertebrates, and species have diversified since then. He would have been naming about 2000 animals, perhaps 2400.
"There were no humans in existence for millions of years"
There were no millions of years in the first place.
"But the moon is not a light."
The moon is not an independent light, but certainly the relative closest source of light for the night.
"And how would there have been light before they were stars or a sun?"
Because God created it.
"but has no communication with us any longer."
The latter part is not in the ancient texts. Have you heard of Garabandal?
"(requires faith in supernatural events)"
Yeah, so?
"He creates human beings knowing exactly what's going to happen and then punishes them for doing what he knew what they were going to do all along."
His knowledge does not preclude their responsibility.
"He knows that the answer is to send Jesus Christ but he doesn't do it for thousands of years."
Man needed to first see the misery of non-Christian existence. For instance in the domination of the evil demon Apollo, as depicted in Greek tragedy.
"at one point decides to kill them all except for a few. All the while knowing that won't do any good."
It definitely did good. God delayed the degeneration into modern horrors (psychiatry, cps, compulsory school, abortion, halfway houses as a necessary intermediate stage before homeless can have a home), which was ongoing, along with cannibalism, vampyrism and forced gay marriage and prevention of real marriages in the pre-Flood era.
"How did Cain move to a nearby land and take a wife?"
It says he "knew her" carnally there, not that he got her there.
"He obviously married his sister. I've heard the morality of God never changes. But in that case it would have to."
No, the sister marriages in the first generation after Adam and Eve were not morally equivalent to sibling marriages later on. Simple as that.
"It would have to be OK to marry your sister back then but not OK now. That's changing morality."
Not if the married siblings in that generation had one relationship less merged than "married" siblings would have now.
"Imagine someone coming from outside our planet, outside our society, and trying to explain the validity of the stories. Would you go with the scientific evidence, or would you go with the dusty mythology?"
If we take the word "dusty" literally, it's more dust in the scientific evidence than in the myths. They actually do not contradict.
"There are a lot of ancient mythology's in our world."
The other ones usually have true stories (for instance about Hercules or Orestes, poor guys), even if the ones telling them were sore at theology.
"That you believe it."
No, that a population believed it to be part of its history. That's generally speaking the best proof there is for the historic factuality of a text.
"why neither account can pass muster as a scientific account of what actually happened,"
There are lots of accounts that are not scientific, that are nevertheless not fables. Historic, journalistic, autobiographical ...
"and how could every living creature appear as a full-blown species"
What's the supposed problem with that one?
@riverbank2193 PS, if you ever have to speak to Aliens, please tell them, you belong to Jesus, they have no authority over you.
See also:
- Mark Doughty
- @markdoughty8780
- As a Roman Catholic, I always find these uploads fascinating. I'd never heard of Ken Ham before viewing this video, and, his version of Christian theology does seem to sit at the more extreme end of Christianity. Interesting all the same - thanks for uploading.
- dulls
- @dulls8475
- He just believes what God wrote in Genesis. What do you believe? The world or God?
- Mr. Mild
- @MrMild-sv7is
- How do you know Ken has the correct interpretation?
- Volleyball, Chess, and Geoguessr
- @Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr
- @dulls8475 He probably just believes his church
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- As a Roman Catholic, I see nothing extreme about Ken Ham.
But I converted in 1988, you may have had your catechesis or RCIA later. Btw, I don't consider Bergoglio to be Pope. He's extremely Anglican in a bad way.
- Mark Doughty
- Perhaps conservative would have been a better word to use. I'm a cradle Catholic; having said that I've thoroughly researched the subject and Roman Catholicism seems to me to cover the entire corpus of what Jesus Christ was teaching. @hglundahl
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @markdoughty8780 If you have thoroughly researched the subject, you should be aware that YEC is the position of the Church historically. A literal Adam and Eve is presupposed in the dogma of Trent Session V on Original Sin, canons I, II and III, plus obviously in all Church Fathers who make mention of the matter.
- Mark Doughty
- Yes, I am aware of that. The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree which was ratified by Pope Pius X (on June 30th, 1909) regarding the literal historical meaning of the opening chapters of Genesis, stating that they could not be doubted concerning the creation story of all things (being created) by God at the beginning of time which includes the creation of man as well as everything else.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @markdoughty8780 are you also aware that:
- things like the PBC are just a means to rapidly convey Bible and Tradition
- and the Old Earth solution given as acceptable back then basically involves
- a) deep time up to creation of Adam and no men up to then
- b) and basically straightforward Biblical chronology from then on.
JW's hold that position. I find it incompatible with dating related evidence, specifically carbon dating.
No comments:
Post a Comment