So I think to say that one must settle his views on knowledge (epistemology) first, before we can conclude certain things like the historicity of Adam and Eve, the existence of God, whether His word is reliable and trustworthy, etc., leads to error. The history of philosophy has had just such an impasse.

Because God has revealed Himself clearly to all men by means of nature (general revelation), man’s own constitution, and Scripture (special revelation), men ‘do not’ begin with a mere guess about reality. All men and women as creatures of God have the same true metaphysical information and moorings, as well as justification for them (revelation from God Himself). So our intellectual endeavors do not begin with a leap (Descartes’ cogito ergo sum), but rather they begin in either submissive obedience or rebellious disobedience. All men then begin with genuine knowledge–true belief about the state of affairs and justification for that belief–and then proceed to use or misuse it. The beginning of philosophy then is not a subjectivist guessing game, but a matter of ethics and morality. How one uses his intellect is an ethical matter.

As much as I respect that great Italian Dominican philosopher Aquinas, and believe that he’s one of the greatest of philosophers, I don’t accept a Thomistic approach to reality. I’ve considered it, and been tempted by it, if you will, and consider his starting point, epistemologically, that, all knowledge begins with sensations, to be reasonable, but his recluctance, to take seriously, the “problem of knowledge”, strikes me as an important flaw. That is, Aquinas seems to regard skepticism, vis a vis the senses, to not be worth considering. He accepts, along with Aristotle, that the senses are wholly trustworthy, as long as one is careful in evaluating them. While this is a tempting view, as I mentioned above, I think Descartes, and the ancient skeptics, may have been on to something, concerning our need, to justify the reliability of the senses.

Ironically, while I’m inclined to accept Aquinas, when he makes claims, theologically, (not all, but some), and I like his optimistic outlook (relative to Augustine), I’m more inclined, to view Augustine’s philosophical outlook, more sympathetically, at least with respect to his need, to justify knowledge. (least anyone try to pigeonhole my views, philosophically, I’m undecided, as to which philosophical outlook, I accept, right now. It’s a work in progress).

Descartes, as anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the history of philosophy, knows, states “I think, therefore I am”. Pointing to the fact, that, if I think, even if I doubt, what I think, I still must EXIST, to think, including doubting, which is a species of thinking. So, if an “evil genius” is decieving me, (as Descartes, proposed) I still must exist to be deceived. so here’s the basis for all subsequent knowledge: I exist.

Augustine said: “Sir ergo sum”, “I err, so I exist”. A modification, of Descartes, “I doubt so I exist”. Or, rather, that, Descartes, who lived from 1596 to 1650, and Augustine, who lived in the fourth and fifth centuries, A.D., modified Augustine’s view. (There’s no evidence that Descartes borrowed this I think , therefore i exist, from Augustine. Descartes, came up with his view independently). So, Augustine, claimed, that, the fact that he’s fallible proves his existence. He has to exist, in order to make mistakes.

What does all of this, have to do, with the Bible, and the particular passages, that, you, ask me, about, Steve? It’s that one must settle one’s views on knowledge, how we know, what justifies our knowledge, first, before we can conclude certain things, as controversial, as whether Adam and Eve, were real people, can be settled.

But, if one is reading the bible, and one experiences, what can properly be classified as a “religious experience”, the latter, is unmediated, and could be a basis, for the bible’s legitimacy.

Are we back to a Thomist view versus an Augustinian view of man and his ability to reason autonomously from his senses correctly?

We’ll never get too far here on this one, dear brother, that we haven’t discussed before.

But what are your responses to my questions in #132 above?

“Logical experiences”, may seem like an odd phrase. i use it, because, when one “senses” internally, that a syllogism, or mathematical calculation, is valid, one “experiences” that it’s valid, obviously not in the way one experiences sight, or smell, but an interior “sense”. I would group logical, sense, and religious experiences, as the most reliable, because one only must trust one’s own mental capabilities. The latter, of course, may be flawed, due to illusions, hullucinations, or even the evil genius (!), but when one relies on others, whether scientists, or religious figures, just to give two examples, one must rely on one’s own senses, and logical deductions, as well as trust the scientists, senses, deductions, and honesty. I’m not saying one should not trust scientists. I’m saying one must, philosophically, distinguish, how, knowledge is justified, and where, on the knowledge spectrum, a particular claim, lies.

When one reads the bible, of course, one trusts one’s senses, and one’s logical deductions (as well as one’s memory, which I include as on the same level, of believability, as sense experiences), but one also trusts, that whoever put the bible together, was using his senses, and logic, properly, therefore we have the same “extra mediation” problem here, as we do with the bible. This makes me reluctant, to necessarily, take, at face value, what I read in the bible, and to accept the claim of the bible’s infallibility.

So I think the question then becomes, ‘What, Who, is the best source of knowledge?’ This leads us back to our earlier discussions on epistemic certainty, doesn’t it?

Are you arguing that your own senses and any ‘religious experiences’ you might have are the source of true knowledge, as opposed to knowledge from science? That knowledge from science takes a secondary role to your own sense and religious experience?

How are you trying to tie this in with God and His inscripturated Word?

So, for regular sense experiences (e.g.,sight, hearing) and religious experiences, one only must trust that, one’s brain is accurately interpreting one’s experiences. But, with science, one is trusting what a scientist tells one. That is, one’s trusting that the scientist 1)is honest 2) is accurately interpreting his her own sense experiences 3)is accurately interpreting his/her deductive reasoning powers. As well as trusting one’s own senses, and reasoning powers(i.e., one’s judgment that the scientist is reliable, is being logical).

When I was in my early twenties, and hadn’t had any philisophical understanding of anyting yet, a dear friend (also named Steve!) was setting me striaght on some things. I was very antireligious, and I was smugly pointing out how, as I believed then, religion was utter nonsense, and completely ludicrous. He pointed out to me the essential distinction, that sense and religious experiences, are more reliable than our beliefs in science. Of course, he wasn’t, and I’m not, saying science is unreliable, but it’s not the best source of knowledge. This had a profound affect on me, and opened me up, to religion.

I think you’re on to me, about the diversion :)

Talk with you, soon, dear brother.

As an aside,
But dear brother, I don’t see you wavering on the ‘so-called’ “experts” from a secular scientific view point in terms of their interpretation of evolution. Or agreeing with Francis Collins and BioLogos on their God-directed evolutionary interpretation. You accept these ‘experts’, but won’t accept a Hebrew or Greek ‘expert’ in these original languages? Might be a double standard here, my friend.

But sure, but let’s define our terms first. How are you defining ‘religious experience’? How do you define ‘unmediated’ in terms of one’s experience? How is ‘religious experience’, ‘as reliable’ as sense experience, and ‘more reliable’ than scientific experience? How are you defining ‘scientific experience’?

I can see that this discussion could lead us far astray of you ever answering the theological problems I posed with evolution, dear friend, but maybe you’re trying to tie the two together somehow?

I don’t know hebrew, for the old testament, or greek for the new testament. therefore, I’m reluctant to form a definitive interpretation, of the bible. As you know, much is lost in translation!

I believe that one can accept Christ, without believing every detail of the bible. I could be very wrong. Which is one of the reasons I enjoy talking with you, it helps me clarify my own position, so I can change, should I need to.

When one talks of evidence, I believe that one’s own experience, constitutes the best, most reliable form, because it’s unmediated, (except through one’s senses, which may be faulty),whereas when one relies on scienice, one’s accepting one’s senses, as well as the authority of the secientist (who accepts HIS senses, as well as the authority of other scientists). Therefore, religious experience, to my mind, is as reliable as the usual forms of sence experience, and more reliable than scientific experience. Do you mind if we go down the religious experience road, for a bit? We can get back to the bible, as well, but what’s your thoughts on the legitimacy of religious experience, verses other forms of evidence?

Thank, brother, and God bless.

I have not, to my own satisfaction, determined what parts of the bible are literal, and what parts are metaphorical. I’m open to being convinced either way, but I am certain, that some portions are literal and some metaphorical.

I think some people take the view, that, miracles can be dismissed on an a priori basis, but I don’t. If God wants to create what we would call a “miracle”, He can. After all, He made the rules! But sometimes people conclude things are miracles, when a beeter explanation, makes sense.

I’m sorry this isn’t very detailed, and doesn’t address your questions, at all, really, but I promise to get to them, later on. Take care, and talk to you soon.

If Adam and Eve are metaphor, then are Cain and Abel metaphor as well? Where does ‘history’ in the Bible start then, in your view? With Noah in Genesis 6, with Abraham in Genesis 12?

If Eve was not tempted by Satan, and did not ‘actually’ take of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and did not ‘actually’ give to Adam so that he ate, then was the Fall metaphor as well? There was no ‘real’ space-time Fall?

If the Fall was metaphor, then God’s curse in Genesis 3 was also metaphor? We’re not really under any curse today?

If Adam and Eve were real historical people who lived circa 100000 B.C., and were the first homo sapiens descended from hominid ancestors, in a long chain of evolutionary descent from an original inorganic form, then death has reigned throughout this process, correct? (I’m sure you’ve heard this argument before, but I’m curious to know your answer). That God used or allowed death, disease, suffering, to weed out unfit individuals as He continued to create leading up to Adam and Eve?

If so, then what significance does God’s command in Genesis 2:16-17, ‘to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die’ have for Adam and Eve, since being part of a long hominid chain of ancestors who had died before them, they (Adam and Eve) would have died as well? Does this command of God then have any bearing, any significance?

If this command of God in Genesis 2:16-17 had no real relationship to physical death, then what significance does God’s curse have in Genesis 3:19 to Adam that ‘he was to return to the ground, because from it he was taken, for you are dust, and to dust you shall return’?

You state above that you don’t believe a serpent (Satan) could talk. Scripture doesn’t say that Satan ‘turned into’ a snake, but is it possible that Satan can control and speak through a snake? That the ‘active’ participant here was Satan? What about Balaam’s donkey (Numbers 22:28)? Can donkeys talk if the LORD opens their mouth (the ‘active’ participant here being the LORD)? Are you saying that you deny the ‘miraculous’ in both of these cases, or just in one or the other? What about a virgin conception, Peter walking on water, Elisha’s throwing a stick into the water to make an iron axe head float (2Kings 6:6)? Are we picking and choosing which of the ‘miraculous’ to believe, and which ones not to believe (I don’t think you would deny the virgin conception, and in other posts you have said you don’t deny that a man once dead can come back to life)?

Bret, I realize I have asked quite a few questions here, but I really am interested in hearing your replies to each one of them. Talk to you soon.

As you know, I do interpret the bible in many passages, metaphorically. When God created us in His “image”, it’s completely reasonable to conclude that He’s not a human body. Or, that we must be perfect like He is. Similarly, it would not be incoherent, in my view, to conclude that, the Adam and Eve passages could be interpreted metaphorically, as well. I don’t believe that, for example, satan literally turned into a snake, and then started tempting Eve, by talking to her.

So, in principle, I’m open to interpreting Adam and Eve, metaphorically, or literally, i have’nt decided yet. But I’m inclined more toward metaphor.

But if they were real people, I’m more inclined to maybe, 100,000B.C., since empirical evidence seems to indicate that, homo sapians evolved distinctly, from other hominoid groups, at around this time.

Talk with you soon, brother, take care!

If yes, let me pose the first questions: “Do you believe Adam and Eve were real historical people in space-time?

If so, where in ‘time’ do you put them (25000 B.C, 50000-60000 B.C., 100000 B.C.)?