Replies

My view is that the â€œgardenâ€ was in effect a refuge from which [Adam and Eve] were safe and isolated from surrounding tribes.

Dear brothers marron and TXnMA, I've been attending your recent exchange of replies with great interest, and have been mulling it over. Mostly I agree with both of you, my Christian brothers.

But I do have to say that I found the idea of "other tribes" more or less contemporaneous with Adam and Eve extraordinarily perplexing, from my POV; i.e., my understanding of Genesis. There is nothing in my reading of Genesis that could account for such a phenomenon as "other tribes."

Perhaps my understanding of Genesis is faulty. That cannot be peremptorily ruled out; so bear that in mind in what follows.

Genesis is God's account to us, of His ex nihilo Creation, of His "breath of life" that makes all things live, from the living Universe itself as constituted by all living, created things, up to and including Man.

It seems to me there is a huge cognitive, or epistemological gulf between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2: Genesis 1 deals with the spiritual creation, with the Logos as articulated in the different realms of Being, as yet unmanifested. There is not a word of "matter" or of "incarnated material substance" in Genesis 1. Genesis 1 appears to function at the creative, divine ideational level -- at the level of divine Logos, in its differentiations as translated down to the world of human and creaturely existence in their respective gradations....

It isn't until we get to Genesis 2 that problems of "matter" are introduced into the divine discourse -- "the dust of the earth" that God used to "form" Adam's physical body. Note the word "form" -- it doesn't connote the same meaning as "create." Adam was "created" in Genesis 1; but he wasn't "formed" until Genesis 2. And as TXnMA points out, this "forming" was done out of already extant materials, according to God's laws.

When God creates a human, He creates an eternal SOUL, made in His image, and destined for communion with Himself, a relationship of beloved son with his Father. [Generic pronouns used here; no disparagement of the female intended.]

It seems to me a main idea of Genesis 1 is that it deals with the origins of human life. Thus it goes to the idea of "the first Man," which is Adam. Who later on acquired a "helpmeet," the "first woman," Eve.

In Genesis 2, we are dealing with the materialization, that is the incarnation, of two human souls made in Genesis 1. And the Bible very strongly suggests (to me at least), that these first two incarnated human souls were the very first parents of the entire human race. (You gotta start somewhere....) And they were fruitful; and they did multiply....

So, where do "the other tribes" come from?

Here it seems to me that both my dear brothers in Christ are in some way, shape, or form, backloading current genetic theory onto God's Beginning, trying to explicate a total mystery by the use of current scientific understandings.

If Eve is just a "clone" of Adam -- which I strongly doubt, for she was separately created "female" in Genesis 1 -- then any geneological heritage from what can only be understood as the ultimate of inbreeding (propagation with a clone), would wipe out all their progeny over the next indeterminate, yet countable generations, due to deadly mutations....

So, do we need to hypothesize "other tribes" to account for our desire for explanation according to the scientific explanation that we learn from studies of genetics? If so, please tell me how we humans think we can reduce God's action to purely human categories of understanding, in the first place.

I don't see anything in either Genesis 1 or 2 about the contemporaneous existence of "other tribes" with what transpired in the Garden of Eden.... But surely the purported existence of ""other tribes" would clear up some misgivings that we moderns might have, on the genealogical issue....

But then, I could be wrong. And if so, would be glad to be corrected by those more knowledgeable on this subject than I.

Thank you ever so much, dear marron, and dear TXnMA, for writing!

I assure you I’m not trying to explain current genetic theory, I couldn’t begin to do that. I am not that smart.

The other tribes seem to be there once they leave the garden.

Now, there are several possibilities. One is that, after all, they did live nearly a millenium. In a thousand years you could have a lot of kids, who as they move off from the homestead, could be those tribes.

Cain’s fear of them, in that case, could be well founded if it was their brother he killed.

The Bible only mentions 3 children of A&E, but it could be that if there were many, and they only named the three who were important to the point being made.

Another possibility is that, if we admit there may be other children not mentioned, there may be other tribes not mentioned. This little detail of creation has always mystified me.

Another thing, there seems to be a fair bit of the supernatural going on, with fallen angels roaming the land and having families of their own. The pre-flood world is just a bit weird.

I’m bouncing ideas off the wall, and you and TXnMA are my sounding board so to speak. It never bothers me to be wrong, its how I learn. It never even bothers me to be wrong about biblical matters; God likes me and I get away with asking questions. When I’m wrong he seems to take it in good humor.

Dear Sister bb: You wrote:

Nor do I, Dear Sister, see evidence of "other tribes" in those verses. However, I am ever mindful of the principle that,

"Absence of evidence is not (necessarily) evidence of absence".

As I have oft pointed out, nowhere in Scripture does the term, "galaxy" occur. Yet, we live within one, and God's creation contains far more of them

than the mere, individual stars we (or the recorder of Genesis) could count with our unaided eyes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hope that we, here in this discussion, can avoid the sort of error committed by Moslems in Baghdad, when they attacked ice vendors "...because the Holy Koran doesn't teach us that the Prophet (PBUH) had ice in his drinks!"

Whether we like it or not, (or whether or not it causes us epistemological angst) there is very sound evidence that humans were here, even on this continent well before the dates pontificated by the likes of Bishop Ussher and his ilk. Over ten thousand years ago, humans here in Texas were capably making magnificent stone tools of a sophistication that taxes the capabilities of even the most masterful of us students of the art and science of lithic technology today.

Should our adherence to tradition and our deepest desires to label Adam and Eve as "THE FIRST" cause me to cast aside masterpieces of human artistry like this

when I uncover them in unmistakably ancient context?

I hope not...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This may come as a surprise, but I am beginning to consider the possibility that Bishop Ussher may not have been too far off (within a factor of 4X or so) in his dating of the creation of Adam and Eve. The "begats" can only be "stretched" so much, and placement of Adam & Eve within the last Ice Age would put them smack in the middle of a thriving Homo sapiens sapiens population ... [Does that make me "YA&E"?] '-)

Of course, YEC folks would still have a problem with the first five days of Creation; but that's their problem -- not mine... '-)

==============

Well, it's approaching 3AM. Guess I'll consider this an adequate kickoff for my 79th orbit around our local, fusion-powered source of Global Warming energy -- and power down for the "night"... '-)