Hello Mike,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MikeSatterlee@cs.com [mailto:MikeSatterlee@cs.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:11 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu.; ateo@whitworth.edu
> Subject: Men before Adam
> 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.
While your ideas are certainly very interesting, I don't see any good
support for them, neither from Scripture (1Cr 15:45 And so it is written,
The first man Adam was made a living soul;), nor from church history.
> 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.
How so? How has science offered strong evidence that there was not a first
human being from whom we all descended?
> 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.
As I have mentioned in an earlier post, I reject a literalistic
interpretation of Scripture. What I affirm is that Scripture does offer
historical truths, but not in a scientific sense of the word. I think
perhaps you do the same when you used the example of Cain getting a wife,
but yet reject the literal understanding of all of the above.
> 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.
I have no problem with the understanding of Adam as the first human person
because I don't think science has been able to resolve this issue, because
the definition of a human person as made in the image of God is a
theological issue. In the same way, while many on this list accept evolution
as a fact, just about everyone would reject the notion that natural
evolutionary processes ALONE is able to account for life. The former is a
scientific issue about mechanisms, and the latter is a
philosophical/theological issue.
Blessings,
Adrian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 26 2002 - 13:06:40 EDT