Hello Adrian,
You wrote: you read Gen Ch1 and Ch2 chronologically, and as separate events.
This is a major theological innovation, and as far as I know, have never been
seriously proposed, let alone accepted.
I don't see anything very radical about reading the Bible chronologically.
The idea that the events in Gen. chapters 1 and 2 are separate events makes a
lot of sense to me, especially when we remove the chapter and verse
divisions, which of course were not part of the original inspired text.
Understanding Genesis in this way was not my original idea. I've read it
explained this way by others a few times. Though I can't recall exactly who
and where right now. But I really don't see that it should make any
difference. If understanding the Bible in this way helps to reconcile
scripture and science, it does not bother me in the least that it is a rather
new and somewhat novel way of understanding Genesis. When old ways of doing
things no longer work new ways of doing them must be found.
You seem to very much a traditional fellow. And that's good, so long as the
traditions you are supporting are important for the Christian faith to hold
on to. But I don't see that the traditional understanding of Genesis which we
are discussing is one of them. In fact I see that needlessly clinging to it
is hurting the cause of Christ. For as I see things, your "traditional"
understandings of Adam being literally the first man and all of us being
literally his descendants conflict with several scientific realities. Because
they do I think they must be misunderstandings of the scriptures. That is, if
the Bible is true, which I think it is. Of course, I will gladly again
embrace any and all traditional understandings of Genesis, a young universe
and young earth, a six 24-hour day creation, a "poof" type of creation with
no biological evolution involved, Adam literally being the first man, a
global flood, mankind's three major races coming from Noah's three sons, all
earth's different languages coming into existence at the tower of Babel, and
fallen angels marrying women and producing children. that is if you can show
me that any of these things do not conflict with scientific realities. If you
cannot, and if I still want to accept the Bible as containing the truthful
inspired words of God, then I must do as I have done. That is, see if there
may be a way of understanding the Bible that does not conflict with
scientific realities.
You seem to be quite certain that the Bible tells us that Adam was the first
man in an absolute biological and chronological sense. And you also seem to
feel that such an understanding does not conflict with scientific realities.
So maybe you can help me overcome the problems I now have reconciling this
"traditional" understanding of Adam with what I now believe to be very well
established science. If you can provide me with reasonable answers to a few
questions I should be able to again believe that Adam quite literally the
first man.
1. In your attempt to reconcile what science tells us about how long man has
lived on earth, I take it you must believe that the "Adam" of Genesis 2 and 3
lived a long time ago. Why then does Bible chronology indicate that only some
4,000 years passed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Christ?
2. If you say there are "gaps" in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, what was
the point in the author of Genesis recording all that chronological
information?
3. When do you think Adam was created?
4. If later than 30,000 years ago, how do you answer scientists who say that
men just like ourselves have continually inhabited places like Africa, Asia
and Australia for at least that long?
5. If more than 10,000 years ago, how do you answer scientists who say that
nowhere on earth did men raise crops and heard animals, activities that the
Bible tells us Adam and his children engaged in, more than 10,000 years ago?
6. Who were the people living in the land 'east of Eden' whom Cain was afraid
might kill him? (Gen. 4:14-17)
7. Though the Bible tells us God does not hold children responsible for the
sins of their parents (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; Ezekiel 18:20), the
doctrine of "the fall" of mankind says that all who have not accepted Christ
as their Lord will be eternally condemned by God because of something Adam
did. How do you explain this apparent contradiction?
8. The science of genetics has determined that information coded within the
nucleotide sequences of human RNA and DNA is fully responsible for
determining what characteristics will be inherited by a couple's children.
And this branch of science has proven conclusively that a human being's
genetic code cannot be altered by actions as ordinary as those performed by
Adam in the garden of Eden. However, advocates of "the fall" doctrine say
that Adam and Eve's original nature somehow changed at the time of their
disobedience and that their altered nature was then passed on to their
descendants. How do you believe the act of eating a piece of fruit was able
to alter Adam and Eve's genetic codes?
If you can provide me with reasonable answers to these questions I will be
glad to again accept the "traditional" understanding of "Adam and Eve." If
you cannot provide such answers I think you should consider the possibility
that some long held "traditions" may be based on misunderstandings of the
scriptures. And the possibility that the majority, even a large majority, of
Christians may be wrong about some of what they believe the Bible "clearly"
teaches.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 26 2002 - 00:25:36 EDT