glenn morton wrote:
>
> At 08:36 PM 3/12/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
>
> > You continue to say that I am presenting a view of Genesis 3 as "inaccurate
> >history". That is a misrepresentation. When I have said that Genesis
> 1-11 is "not to
> >be understood as accurate historical narrative" I mean to say that it is
> not to be
> >understood as a presentation of accurate history at all, but also do not
> want to suggest
> >that it is Dreamtime-like myth.
>
> That is fine, but by continuing to insist that Genesis 1-11 is not accurate
> historical narrative there is one and only one possible logical conclusion.
> It must be INaccurate historical narrative. THis can only mean that
> something is wrong in it. WHat is wrong? How much is wrong? How do we tell
> which parts are accurate and which are inaccurate?
In one way _Macbeth_ is "inaccurate history". In a more important way it's
a category error to judge it as "history" at all. Before questions of historicity come
into question Macbeth is (a) good entertainment & (b) a profound look into the human
condition, and especially the effect of ambition. [(b) may be most important but (a)
was probably closest to Shakespeare's concern.] In the course of providing both of
these the play makes use of some real history about a real Scottish king - but of course
nobody takes the witches &c very seriously as real history & most of the dialogue is
made up. You can get more accurate history by going to Shakespeare's sources & even
better with all the tools of modern historians, but you're not going to do lots better
for either entertainment or a statement about ambition.
Can God make use of stories which involve some historical details, but in a
secondary sense are "inaccurate history" to do something like what Shakespeare did? The
evidence is pretty overwhelming that the answer is "Yes". The gospels provide clear
examples which I've discussed before & will do so again if you wish.
..................................
> > What is the point of the above criticism? Your previous arguments have
> >suggested that my view is mere fideism while your's is testable by
> historical standards.
> >It ain't so. You present a _possible_ paleontological scenario and then
> say that
> >Genesis 2 & 3 (in particular) coulda happened there - with no evidence
> that it did.
>
> Au contraire, there is evidence that it happened the way I say. The
> anthropological evidence for human traits which are post-Fall items is
> extensive 2 million plus years ago. I would refer you to Dating Adam,
> Sept. 1999 PSCF. And yes my view is testable. That is what I have been
> doing in my studies of anthropology. When I wrote Foundation, fall and
> Flood, I knew that there was a way to test my thesis. If it had a chance of
> being true then I would be able to find anthropological data in support of
> it. At the time I wrote FFF I didn't know didly about anthropology. I have
> spent the past 5 years studying anthro. The thesis outliined in FFF was
> confirmed over and over again. So my view has already withstood testing.
> There are still other tests that it can undergo as new data is found.
No. Saying that there is a context in which Genesis 3 might have happened is
not the same as having evidence that there was a real couple named Adam & Eve, the
latter made from a rib of the former, who were tempted by a talking serpent &c. That is
what would be required in order for you to say that you had evidence for Gen.2 & 3 to be
"Historie wie es eigentlich gewesen ist."
.........................
> Pandora's box corresponds to our experience of responsibility, alienation
> and guilt. To me this is not a very useful criteria.
& there is certainly no reason for Christians to say that portions of Greek
myth, or lots of other sources, may say correct things about the human condition.
But when you widen the field a little to take in the related Prometheus story you
have something which clashes sharply with the biblical account. Ultimately Gen.3 is
not authoritative, or even necessarily very interesting, by itself but in the context
of all Scripture - which means first of all in relation to Christ. Which is why, e.g.,
Jews & Muslims & Christians evaluate Gen.3 differently. Only Christians can say of it
"O happy fault that was so worthy to have so great a Redeemer."
...................................
> You missed entirely my point. I wasn't advocating talking to muslims about
> Adam. I was pointing out that you can't claim the Bible is theologically
> correct without at the same time saying that Islamic theology is false. How
> do you know that without some form of physical confirmation of one or the
> other story?
But if it's a matter of "physical confirmation of one or the other story" then
Genesis 3 is irrelevant. We have no basic difference there. Where we do have a
difference is over whether or not Jesus died on the cross.
.................................
>
> It is very useful and relevant. You said you could prove that man was
> sinful but without citing the bad things man does you have little basis for
> saying that. And the apes make it clear that such behavior might not be
> sinful.Why is it sinful for us? Because God told us not to behave as apes!
I think you've misread me. I said I _can't_ prove that you're a sinner from a
study of history.
> >> But that is precisely the connection between Genesis 3 and Christ--it is
> >> SIN.
> >
> > I pointed out at the beginning of the discussion that it simply isn't the
> case
> >that _any_ of the theories of the atonement depends in a fundamental way on
> >understanding Genesis 3 as a "just the facts, ma'am" historical account.
> You did not
> >try to argue the theological points involved but immediately jumped back
> to the
> >historical character of the Eden story. There is indeed a connection, but
> the problem
> >is that you are willing to focus only on the Adam, rather than the Christ,
> end of it.
>
> I would quote H.G.Wells, in his _Outline of History_ Vol 2
> p. 776-777 (Doubleday, 1961):
>
> "It was only slowly that the general intelligence of the Western
> world was awakened to two disconcerting facts: firstly, that the
> succession of life in the geological record did not correspond to
> the acts of the six days of creation; and, secondly, that the
> record, in harmony with a mass of biological facts, pointed away
> from the Bible assertion of a separate creation of each species,
> straight towards a genetic relation between all forms of life, _in
> which even man was included!_ The importance of this last issue to
> the existing doctrinal system was manifest. If all the animals and
> man had been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there had been
> no first parents, no Eden, and no Fall. And if there had been no
> fall, then the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story
> of the first sin and the reason for an atonement, upon which the
> current teaching based Christian emotion and morality, collapsed
> like a house of cards."
> Like it or not George, lots of people see the connection between an actual
> Adam and Christ. H. G. Wells is another case of a smart person leaving the
> faith because no one could provide him with answers for his intellectual
> questions. He was raised by a devout christian woman who was afraid to send
> her son to study under Huxley.
Yes, & you could have also cited the dumb James Kennedy statement posted here
recently. But it's still wrong. What the church needs - & what many modern theologians
have tried to do - is to make it clear that atonement has to do with the sinful human
condition however that condition arose in the evolutionary process. That doesn't mean
that theology ignores that question but its resolution - & especially resolution in
terms of an historically accurate Eden story - is not a necessary or sufficient
condition for understanding atonement. The type of thing you're doing here is a
hindrance to such work because it reinforces the idea that we've got to find out who
Adam & Eve were before we can appreciate what Christ has done.
BTW, it's significant that while Paul of course talks about Adam in Romans 5,
his most profound statements about the nature of sin in that letter, 1:18-31 & 7:7-25
make no reference to Adam.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 12:36:04 EST