DOCSLIB.ORG

Twenty-Five Short Answers to Big Questions About Creation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Twenty-Five Short Answers to Big Questions About Creation Ian Taylor © 2010, 2012, Ian Taylor, Creation Moments Twenty-Five Short Answers to Big Questions About Creation CONTENTS 1 Were there Pre-Adamic civilizations? 4 2 What is the Day-Age Theory? 6 3 Was each day of Creation Week 1,000 years? 8 4 What about the Gap Theory (a.k.a. the Ruin and Reconstruction Theory)? 10 5 What are the Tranquil Flood and Local Flood Theories? 12 6 What is the Progressive Creation Theory? 14 7 What color was Adam? 16 8 Why did Adam have to name all the animals? 18 9 How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? 20 10 Did dinosaurs live in the Garden of Eden? 22 11 Why did God curse the ground and not Adam? 24 12 What was the curse placed upon Eve? 26 13 Did Adam really live for 930 years? 28 14 How many were Adam and Eve’s children? 30 15 Did Adam and Eve’s children practice incest? 32 16 Why did Cain kill his brother Abel? 34 17 Who was Cain’s wife? 36 18 What is wrong with Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam? 38 19 Have remains of human giants been discovered? 40 20 Has Mankind evolved or devolved? 42 21 Where did our moon come from? 44 22 Is the light from distant stars proof for millions of years? 46 23 Can the millions of years demanded by geology be refuted? 48 24 How did the birds evolve? 50 25 Can Evolution Theory explain human consciousness? 52 Theories used by Christians to reconcile the Creation account with evolution. 1. Were there Pre-Adamic civilizations? For the past century or so, the North American Christian has had a selection of Bibles from which to make a personal choice. Very often that choice will have been the Bible with the most extensive footnotes perceived to be study-helps for the many difficult passages. Based upon the King James version, The Scofield Reference Edition, published in 1907 and revised in 1917, has been one of the most popular. A more recent alternative with even more footnotes is Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, also based upon the KJV and first published in 1961. The footnote to Isaiah 45:18 in Scofield’s edition suggests that Genesis 1:1-2 refers to a pre-adamic age ruled by Satan, judged by God then left desolate for an indefinite interval before a re-creation of the earth. Dake rehearses the same account more forcefully directly under Genesis 1:1-2. Although both Scofield and Dake claim to reject evolution, their footnotes silently claim its possibility by adopting all the billions of years for the first “day.” Today’s new Christian has been indoctrinated with evolution and naturally tends to adopt these footnote interpretations without question. It is therefore important to be aware of the source and especially the implications for the idea of a pre-adamic civilization. The Dutch ecclesiastic, Isaac de la Peyrére [1596-1676], published his Systema Theologicum ex Prae-Adamitarum Hypothesi in 1655. In this book he claimed that the Bible is only concerned with the history of the Jews. Peyrére argued that God separated one man from His pre-adamic stock, and he became Adam, the father of the Jewish nation. The Gentiles of all colors today were said to be descended from that pre-adamic race. Even so, Peyrére argued that salvation was available to all men but he had problems explaining the original sin. Recalling that there were only eight individuals on the ark, all of Noah’s family and reasonably of the same color, Peyrére had to face the fact that a global flood would have drowned the Gentile stock; therefore, he concluded the Genesis Flood had to be local – somewhere in 4 Mesopotamia. Isaac de la Peyrére was severely condemned by the Church of his day, and his name is now generally forgotten. The notion that the Genesis Flood was merely local is popular today and this will be addressed in Question 5. However, there are problems associated with a pre-adamic age theory. In the first place, the creation account specifically tells us that the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day [Genesis 1:14-19]. Therefore, unless every one of those days of creation was a normal 24-hour day, including the first day, that pre-adamic civilization would have been in total darkness where no living thing could survive. Nevertheless, the belief in a pre-adamic age lingers on usually together with some belief in evolution among a great many Christians today. In the face of continuing difficulties to explain the spontaneous origin of life on early Earth by evolutionary processes, the scientific community today is pursuing a new theory. It is being argued that ancient earth was “seeded” with life from outer space via the comets. This effort is being aided by influential writers convincing their readers that sophisticated building complexes have been discovered on Earth. These are usually at the bottom of the sea or remote “observatories” such as that at Nazca, Peru. Most of this is merely speculation grasping for evidence to support it. Unfortunately, in the absence of sound teaching there are those who wish to believe all this and even claim it as the remains of that pre-adamic world. As far as the Christian is concerned, a pre-adamic world complements the theory of evolution, relegates to myth God’s creation of planet Earth in six days and therefore denies the fourth Commandment [Exodus 20:11]. Recommended reading in this series : Questions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Documented essay paper: Pre-Adamic Man by Ian Taylor, obtainable from Creation Moments. 5 Theories used by Christians to reconcile the Creation account with evolution . 2. What is the Day-Age Theory? Following the publication of Darwin’s theory in 1859 and the apparent support from Charles Lyell’s geological studies, there have always been Christians prepared to go only so far with their faith in Scripture. The point of departure usually begins with Noah, the animals, the Ark and the Genesis Flood. If that Flood was global, Noah and his Ark were absolutely necessary, and the first compromise was to declare the Flood to be local. Secondly, it was the interpretations given to geological findings that made it seem more rational to believe that the Earth was created millions of years in the past rather than only a few thousand years ago. The Scottish popular writer Hugh Miller [1802-1856] was an evangelical Christian and very familiar with rocks and fossils. In his book, The Testimony of the Rocks, he argued that the creation days spoken of in Genesis chapter one were actually the days when Moses received his revelation of the creation on Mount Sinai! In this way, Miller believed he had reconciled the six days claimed by Scripture with the millions of years demanded by geology. After completing his manuscript, he was deeply troubled and shot himself on the eve of Christmas, 1856. Miller’s book appeared from the publisher the following month. His was one of the first Day-Age theories and was short-lived. Miller’s suicide had discredited his theory, but another more successful and longer-lived Day-Age theory soon appeared. This new theory argued that the Hebrew word YOM, meaning “day,” can be used either literally or figuratively in Scripture. While this is true, the theory adds that in the case of Genesis chapter one, YOM is used in the figurative sense to mean long ages. Then, with this understanding, it is claimed there is no conflict of Scripture with science. There is, however, plenty of conflict with common sense: For example, if those “days” were each millions of years, then we might wonder how the grasses, herbs and fruit trees created on the third “day” survived until the sun was created on the fourth “day”? In the matter of the Genesis Flood, this is 6 placed either in the remote past before the creation of Man or it was local. However, if it took place before the creation of Man, it could not have been a judgment upon Man’s wickedness while Noah and his Ark become mere fiction. Alternatively, if the Genesis Flood took place in historic time, then it is said to be actually local but global in the minds of the people of the day. Perhaps the most serious objection to the Day-Age theory is the fact that the creation account concludes each day’s events with the formula: “So the evening and the morning were the first day,” second day, etc The Jews have always counted each day to be from sunset to sunset rather than from mid-night to mid-night as most Western nations do today. Either the words of Scripture are meaningful and there for good purpose or they are not. If those words are claimed to be simply a Hebrew colloquialism and not what is plainly stated, then Scripture as a means of revealing what could not otherwise be known has totally lost its purpose. Recommended reading in this series: Questions 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. 7 Theories used by Christians to reconcile the Creation account with evolution. 3. Was each day of Creation Week 1,000 years? Genesis chapter one is a summary of God’s creation and begins in verses one and two with the creation of space, then the Earth with the waters. Later that same day [YOM], God created light [OR], saw it was all good and declared the evening and the morning to be the first day [YOM].
Recommended publications
  • Sin. Systematic Theology.Wayne Grudem

    Sin. Systematic Theology.Wayne Grudem

    Systematic Theology Wayne Grudem Chapter 24! SIN What is sin? Where did it come from? Do we inherit a sinful nature from Adam? Do we inherit guilt from Adam? EXPLANATION AND SCRIPTURAL BASIS A. The Definition of Sin The history of the human race as presented in Scripture is primarily a history of man in a state of sin and rebellion against God and of God’s plan of redemption to bring man back to himself. Therefore, it is appropriate now to consider the nature of the sin that separates man from God. We may define sin as follows: Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. Sin is here defined in relation to God and his moral law. Sin includes not only individual acts such as stealing or lying or committing murder, but also attitudes that are contrary to the attitudes God requires of us. We see this already in the Ten Commandments, which not only prohibit sinful actions but also wrong attitudes: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Ex. 20:17 NIV). Here God specifies that a desire to steal or to commit adultery is also sin in his sight. The Sermon on the Mount also prohibits sinful attitudes such as anger (Matt. 5:22) or lust (Matt. 5:28). Paul lists attitudes such as jealousy, anger, and selfishness (Gal. 5:20) as things that are works of the flesh opposed to the desires of the Spirit (Gal.
  • The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and John Milton

    The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and John Milton

    Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 3.1, 3–27 © 2000 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press THE FALL OF SATAN IN THE THOUGHT OF ST. EPHREM AND JOHN MILTON GARY A. ANDERSON HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL CAMBRIDGE, MA USA ABSTRACT In the Life of Adam and Eve, Satan “the first-born” refused to venerate Adam, the “latter-born.” Later writers had difficulty with the tale because it granted Adam honors that were proper to Christ (Philippians 2:10, “at the name of Jesus, every knee should bend.”) The tale of Satan’s fall was then altered to reflect this Christological sensibility. Milton created a story of Christ’s elevation prior to the creation of man. Ephrem, on the other hand, moved the story to Holy Saturday. In Hades, Death acknowledged Christ as the true first- born whereas Satan rejected any such acclamation. [1] For some time I have pondered the problem of Satan’s fall in early Jewish and Christian sources. My point of origin has been the justly famous account found in the Life of Adam and Eve (hereafter: Life).1 1 See G. Anderson, “The Exaltation of Adam and the Fall of Satan,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, 6 (1997): 105–34. 3 4 Gary A. Anderson I say justly famous because the Life itself existed in six versions- Greek, Latin, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and Coptic (now extant only in fragments)-yet the tradition that the Life drew on is present in numerous other documents from Late Antiquity.2 And one should mention its surprising prominence in Islam-the story was told and retold some seven times in the Koran and was subsequently subject to further elaboration among Muslim exegetes and storytellers.3 My purpose in this essay is to carry forward work I have already done on this text to the figures of St.
  • Chimpanzees Share Forbidden Fruit Kimberley J

    Chimpanzees Share Forbidden Fruit Kimberley J

    Chimpanzees Share Forbidden Fruit Kimberley J. Hockings1*, Tatyana Humle2, James R. Anderson1, Dora Biro3, Claudia Sousa4, Gaku Ohashi5, Tetsuro Matsuzawa5 1 Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, 2 Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America, 3 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 4 Department of Anthropology, New University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, 5 Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan The sharing of wild plant foods is infrequent in chimpanzees, but in chimpanzee communities that engage in hunting, meat is frequently used as a ‘social tool’ for nurturing alliances and social bonds. Here we report the only recorded example of regular sharing of plant foods by unrelated, non-provisioned wild chimpanzees, and the contexts in which these sharing behaviours occur. From direct observations, adult chimpanzees at Bossou (Republic of Guinea, West Africa) very rarely transferred wild plant foods. In contrast, they shared cultivated plant foods much more frequently (58 out of 59 food sharing events). Sharing primarily consists of adult males allowing reproductively cycling females to take food that they possess. We propose that hypotheses focussing on ‘food-for-sex and -grooming’ and ‘showing-off’ strategies plausibly account for observed sharing behaviours. A changing human-dominated landscape presents chimpanzees with fresh challenges, and our observations suggest that crop-raiding provides adult male chimpanzees at Bossou with highly desirable food commodities that may be traded for other currencies. Citation: Hockings KJ, Humle T, Anderson JR, Biro D, Sousa C, et al (2007) Chimpanzees Share Forbidden Fruit. PLoS ONE 2(9): e886.
  • 05Jun 1999.Pdf

    05Jun 1999.Pdf

    N V Doors DOiiic re than one sad tale has been told of too little suddenly that his door of opportunity was closed. and too late." Recall Jesus' story of the Ten Virgins Said his master. "Take from him the pound, and give it who were awaiting the Imminent return of the bride to him that hat/i ten pounds" Luke 19:24. groom. Five of them were wise and well prepared for The book of James tells the same truth in these his arrival, even if it should be unexpectedly delayed. stark words; "To him that knoweth to do good, and loeth And five were not wise, and not prepared. Jesus it not, to hun it is sin' James 4:1 7. called these latter ones "foolish.' We quite naturally think that something we do What made the difference? All had brightly burn wrong is more serious than something we simply do ing lamps until.,.the time delayed, and the lamps of not do. But James tells us this is not true. He says that five of them were burning low, Getting more oil not to do what we know we should is equally as wrong became urgent. And while these five went to find oil as openly committed sin. In other words, sins of for their lamps-the bridegroom came. `4nd they that omission are ust as culpable as sins of commission. were ready went in with him to the ,narriage: and the door Neglect is serious. It is the warning of the book of was shut." Hebrews: "How shall we escap if we neglect so great sat The open door dosed.
  • Hawthorne Analysis

    Hawthorne Analysis

    I was left puzzled from our discussion on Wednesday about the metaphor surrounding Rappaccini's Daughter and the Adam and Eve Garden of Eden story. Olga and Lindsay both asserted that Hawthorne's style is to construct blatant and solid-to-a-fault metaphors, and I agree with that conclusion. So if that is true, then how come we had such a difficult time in class coming to a consensus on the roles from Rappaccini's Daughter within the analogy? I had my own opinions on the content of the metaphor and will clarify them here. Adam is a reasonable place to begin: Adam is the original figure of good and of humanity. God brings him into the world and sets him in a good situation for him to be happy. Later, Adam is given a companion whom he loves and cherishes, but who ultimately gives him a gift (as she sees it) that is actually detrimental to him. Giovanni seems to be the Adam within Hawthorne's story - he comes into Padua innocent and bright, young and beautiful, and is situated in a comfortable condition: the apartment and university. However, he is lonely and seeks companionship in Beatrice. Beatrice is the Eve because she is the companion of Giovanni, the one who is his first friend in the world of Padua. She also is the one who gives him a gift which she feels is agreeable. Just as Eve innocently gives Adam the apple, Beatrice gives Giovanni the poisonous cloud and lets it permeate his being. The other clear analogy is the garden.
  • Who Were the Kenites? OTE 24/2 (2011): 414-430

    Who Were the Kenites? OTE 24/2 (2011): 414-430

    414 Mondriaan: Who were the Kenites? OTE 24/2 (2011): 414-430 Who were the Kenites? MARLENE E. MONDRIAAN (U NIVERSITY OF PRETORIA ) ABSTRACT This article examines the Kenite tribe, particularly considering their importance as suggested by the Kenite hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, the Kenites, and the Midianites, were the peoples who introduced Moses to the cult of Yahwism, before he was confronted by Yahweh from the burning bush. Scholars have identified the Cain narrative of Gen 4 as the possible aetiological legend of the Kenites, and Cain as the eponymous ancestor of these people. The purpose of this research is to ascertain whether there is any substantiation for this allegation connecting the Kenites to Cain, as well as con- templating the Kenites’ possible importance for the Yahwistic faith. Information in the Hebrew Bible concerning the Kenites is sparse. Traits associated with the Kenites, and their lifestyle, could be linked to descendants of Cain. The three sons of Lamech represent particular occupational groups, which are also connected to the Kenites. The nomadic Kenites seemingly roamed the regions south of Palestine. According to particular texts in the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh emanated from regions south of Palestine. It is, therefore, plausible that the Kenites were familiar with a form of Yahwism, a cult that could have been introduced by them to Moses, as suggested by the Kenite hypothesis. Their particular trade as metalworkers afforded them the opportunity to also introduce their faith in the northern regions of Palestine. This article analyses the etymology of the word “Kenite,” the ancestry of the Kenites, their lifestyle, and their religion.
  • Doctrine-Of-Sin-Master.Pdf

    Doctrine-Of-Sin-Master.Pdf

    The Harsh Realities of Sin HAMARTIOLOGY - THE DOCTRINE OF SIN Intro Text: Romans 6:23 The late President Calvin Coolidge returned home from attending church early one Sunday afternoon. Because she was ill, his wife was unable to attend. When he returned, his wife enquired about the service. The president said "it was a nice one". She then asked about the sermon, to which he replied that "it was a good one". "What was it about", she asked. "He preached on sin", he said. "And…?" "Well, I think he was against it." In his book “Respectable Sins”, Jerry Bridges quotes Psychiatrist Karl Menninger: “The very word, ‘sin,’ which seems to have disappeared, was once a proud word. It was once a strong word, an ominous and serious word… But the word went away. It has almost disappeared-the word, along with the notion. Why? Doesn’t anyone sin anymore? Doesn’t anyone believe in sin?” The simple truth seems to be that the word… the very notion or concept of sin, seems to be found in one of two extremes: (1) On the one hand it is determined to be politically incorrect… judgmental… expressive of intolerance; (2) while on the other hand it is quite the topic of discussion and sermons… where taking the cultural high-ground, we shake our fists, wag our heads, cluck our tongues, and express copious amounts of dismay at the short-comings of others, and the moral decay of our society. But what of us… you and me… looking in the mirror… doing serious self- examination with the Bible as our guide and standard??? We are going to examine one of the most fundamental doctrines of the Bible - The Doctrine of Sin - Harmartiology….
  • How Can Original Sin Be Inherited?

    How Can Original Sin Be Inherited?

    DEAR FATHER KERPER Michelangelo, The Fall and Expulsion from Garden of Eden. Web Gallery of Art sinned against obedience. But this act How can original represents much more: they actually rejected friendship with God and, even worse, attempted to supplant God as God. sin be inherited? To see this more clearly, we must rewind the Genesis tape back to chapter ear Father Kerper: I’ve always had a huge 1. Here we find that God had created problem with original sin. It seems so unfair. I can the first human beings “in the image of God.” (Genesis 1:27) As such, they understand punishing someone who has broken a immediately enjoyed friendship and law. That’s perfectly just. But why should someone even kinship with God, who had Dwho’s done nothing wrong get punished for what someone else lovingly created them so that they could share everything with Him. did millions of years ago? Though Adam and Eve had everything that human beings could Many people share your understandable In the case of speeding, the possibly enjoy, the serpent tempted reaction against the doctrine of original punishment – say a $200 ticket – is them to seek even more. Recall the sin. As you’ve expressed so well, it does always imposed directly on the specific serpent’s words to Eve: “God knows in indeed seem to violate the basic norms of person who committed an isolated fact that the day you eat it [the forbidden fairness. But it really doesn’t. How so? illegal act. Moreover, the punishment is fruit] your eyes will be opened and you To overcome this charge of unfairness, designed to prevent dangerous and illegal will be like gods.” (Genesis 3:5) we must do two things: first, reconsider behavior by creating terribly unpleasant By eating the forbidden fruit, Adam the meaning of punishment; and second, consequences, namely costly fines and and Eve attempted to seize equality rediscover the social nature – and social eventually the loss of one’s license.
  • Janson. History of Art. Chapter 16: The

    Janson. History of Art. Chapter 16: The

    16_CH16_P556-589.qxp 12/10/09 09:16 Page 556 16_CH16_P556-589.qxp 12/10/09 09:16 Page 557 CHAPTER 16 CHAPTER The High Renaissance in Italy, 1495 1520 OOKINGBACKATTHEARTISTSOFTHEFIFTEENTHCENTURY , THE artist and art historian Giorgio Vasari wrote in 1550, Truly great was the advancement conferred on the arts of architecture, painting, and L sculpture by those excellent masters. From Vasari s perspective, the earlier generation had provided the groundwork that enabled sixteenth-century artists to surpass the age of the ancients. Later artists and critics agreed Leonardo, Bramante, Michelangelo, Raphael, Giorgione, and with Vasari s judgment that the artists who worked in the decades Titian were all sought after in early sixteenth-century Italy, and just before and after 1500 attained a perfection in their art worthy the two who lived beyond 1520, Michelangelo and Titian, were of admiration and emulation. internationally celebrated during their lifetimes. This fame was For Vasari, the artists of this generation were paragons of their part of a wholesale change in the status of artists that had been profession. Following Vasari, artists and art teachers of subse- occurring gradually during the course of the fifteenth century and quent centuries have used the works of this 25-year period which gained strength with these artists. Despite the qualities of between 1495 and 1520, known as the High Renaissance, as a their births, or the differences in their styles and personalities, benchmark against which to measure their own. Yet the idea of a these artists were given the respect due to intellectuals and High Renaissance presupposes that it follows something humanists.
  • Chaos and Order, Order and Chaos: the Creation Story As the Story of Human Community

    Chaos and Order, Order and Chaos: the Creation Story As the Story of Human Community

    Chaos and Order, Order and Chaos: The Creation Story as the Story of Human Community James E. Faulconer Extended prolegomenon Along with a number of other contemporary scholars, Walter Brueggemann has asked us to remember that God speaks to us in scripture most often through narrative and storytelling rather than systematic theological exposition. Speaking of the rst chapters of Genesis, he makes the following observation: The story is not explained. It is simply left there with the listening community free to take what can be heard. There is, of course, talk here of sin and evil and death. But it is understated talk. The stakes are too high for reduction to propositions. The story does not want to aid our theologizing. It wants, rather, to catch us in our living. It will permit no escape into theology.1 As Brueggemann says, the story is both concrete and imaginatively open-ended, allowing us the freedom to consider the variety of ways in which present events and those of the story may overlap.2 Scripture calls for a different kind of reading than what we use for a modern history, philosophy, or theology text. I will try to take the substance of Brueggemann’s warning to heart and read scripture differently than I would read a theology text. And I certainly hope not to read it merely as an aid to theologizing. Nevertheless, I will be doing scriptural theology. But I do so precisely because I think that is a kind of theology that can “catch us in our living” by helping us to read differently than we previously have.
  • Another Look at Cain: from a Narrative Perspective

    Another Look at Cain: from a Narrative Perspective

    신학논단 제102집 (2020. 12. 31): 241-263 https://doi.org/10.17301/tf.2020.12.102.241 Another Look at Cain: From a Narrative Perspective Wm. J McKinstry IV, MATS Adjunct Faculty, Department of General Education Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary In the Hebrew primeval histories names often carry significant weight. Much etymological rigour has been exercised in determining many of the names within the Bible. Some of the meaning of these names appear to have a consensus among scholars; among others there is less consensus and more contention. Numerous proposals have come forward with varying degrees of convincing (or unconvincing as the case may be) philological arguments, analysis of wordplays, possi- ble textual emendations, undiscovered etymologies from cognates in other languages, or onomastic studies detailing newly discovered names of similarity found in other ancient Semitic languages. Through these robust studies, when applicable, we can ascertain the meanings of names that may help to unveil certain themes or actions of a character within a narrative. For most of the names within the primeval histories of Genesis, the 242 신학논단 제102집(2020) meaning of a name is only one feature. For some names there is an en- compassing feature set: wordplay, character trait and/or character role, and foreshadowing. Three of the four members in the first family in Genesis, Adam, Eve, and Abel, have names that readily feature all the elements listed above. Cain, however, has rather been an exception in this area, further adding to Genesis 4’s enigmaticness in the Hebrew Bible’s primeval history. While three characters (Adam, Eve, and Abel) have names that (1) sound like other Hebrew words, that are (2) sug- gestive of their character or actions and (3) foreshadow or suggest fu- ture events about those characters, the meaning of Cain’s name does not render itself so explicitly to his character or his role in the narrative, at least not to the same degree of immediate conspicuousness.
  • The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge: an Inquiry Into the Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition

    The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge: an Inquiry Into the Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition

    VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 56 OCTOBER 1970 NUMBER 6 THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE: AN INQUIRY INTO THE LEGAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN MARIJUANA PROHIBITION Richard ]. Bonnie* & Cbarles H. Whitebread, Il** Mr. Snell. What is the bill? Mr. Rayburn. It has something to do with something that is called marihuana. I believe it is a narcotic of some kind. Colloquy on the House floor prior to passage of the Marihuana Tax Act. • Assistant Professor of Law, University of Virginia. B.A., 1966, Johns Hopkins University; LL.B., 1969, University of Virginia . •• Assistant Professor of Law, University of Virginia. A.B., 1965, Princeton Uni­ versity; LL.B., 1968, Yale University. We wish to express our sincere appreciation to the students who assisted us in the preparation of the tables at Appendix A. Because the drug statutes of the several states are particularly confusing and difficult to find, and because so many jurisdictions have recently changed their drug laws, the preparation of the chart required long, tedious work which so many were kind enough to perform. To them, our most sincere thanks. We should like to thank especially Michael A. Cohen, John F. Kuether, W. Tracey Shaw, Alan K. Smith, and Allan J. Tanenbaum, all students at the University of Vir­ ginia School of Law, whose research assistance and tireless effort were invaluable. \Ve are particularly indebted to Professor Jerry Mandel who supplied us with much of the raw data used in the historical case studies in this Article. In his excel­ lent article on drug statistics in the Stanford Law Review, Problems 'With Official Drug Statistics, 2] STAN.