RE: The wee people

Hi Charles,
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Charles Carrigan
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 12:24 PM

>Hi Glenn,
>
>This discovery is no doubt one of the most incredible in the last
decade, or more. I agree with your views that H. sapiens is probably
not the only species that
>should be considered to be made in the image of God. But there is a
great amount of difficulty in deciding when the first "human" (Adam)
existed, precisely
>because evolutionary change is a gradual process.
>
>But I fail to see what this has to do with the historical vs.
non-historical views of Genesis. Objections to Christianity of "I can't
believe it because it isn't historically
>true" are only worthy of consideration IF the portions of scripture in
question were intended to be historical in nature. To me, this is kind
of like saying "I don't
>believe in Aesop's fables because they aren't historically true." That
completely misses the point - whether or not Aesop's Fables are
historically true means zilch to
>the truth and the messages behind the stories. No one believes Greek
mythology to be historically true, but it is still read and cherished as
valuable literature
>because there are truths in there about human behavior that can still
be seen in our world today.

I like H. G. Well's take on this issue:

"If all the animals and man have been evolved in this ascendant
manner, then there would have been no first parents, no Eden,
and no Fall. And if there had been no Fall, the entire
historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin
and the reason for an atonement, upon which current teaching
bases Christian emotion and morality, collapses like a house of
cards."~H. G. Wells, The Outline of History, (Garden City:
Doubleday, 1961), p. 776-777

The issue you raise is a long standing discussion point here on this
list and I am decidely in the minority position. But I think both sides
of the Christian house, the YECs and the OE ers of all stripes are eager
to remove Christianity from verification. The YECs say that all science
is wrong and thus what science says about the flood and the rocks is
just so much bunk. But on the other hand, the other side of the
Christian house equally removes the Scripture from verifiability and
objective reality by saying exactly what you say above--it wasn't meant
to be taken as real history.

My rejoinder to this is, and I am waiting for someone to tell me why "In
the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' is not meant to be
taken as real history, as a real event in the space-time diagram. It
seems the height of ad hocery to claim that Genesis 1:1 must be taken as
a statement of true history but the rest of it is merely poetic mush.

>
>I would say that in the case of a story about a man named "Dust" and
his wife named "Mother-of-all-the-Living", which also involves a walking
talking serpent,
>whether or not it is historically "true" is missing the point of it.
There is still a wealth of Truth within it (and that Truth being given
by God), beyond whether or not it
>is "factual".

The talking serpent is always brought up but it seems to me more
believable to believe in a talking serpent than the resurrection of a
dead man. Why is one believable and the other not? What is the
difference between these two unbelievable events?

As to the wealth of truth, I always ask what truth? I have a dozen
different 'true' interpretations of Genesis 2. Which truth are you
referring to?

Here they are:

○"Some have gone further and claimed the geographical
allusion is to a fantasy. For Cassuto, 'The Garden of Eden
according to the Torah was not situated in our world.'
Skinner claimed: 'it is obvious that a real locality
answering the description of Eden exists and has existed
nowhere on the face of the earth...(T)he whole
representation (is) outside the sphere of real geographic
knowledge. In (Genesis 2) 10-14, in short, we have...a
semi-mythical geography.' For Ryle, 'The account...is
irreconcilable with scientific geography.' Radday believed
that Eden is nowhere because of its deliberately tongue-in-
cheek fantastic geography. McKenzie asserted that 'the
geography of Eden is altogether unreal; it is a Never-never
land.' Amit held the garden story to be literary utopiansim,
that the Garden was 'never-known,' with no real location.
Burns' similar view is that the rivers were the entryway
into the numinous world. An unusual mixture of views was
maintained by Wallace, who held that the inclusion of the
Tigris and Euphrates indicated an 'earthly geographic
situation,' but saw the Eden narrative as constructed from a
garden dwelling-of-God motif (with rivers nourishing the
earth) combined with a creation motif, both drawing richly
from those motifs as found in Ancient Near East mythological
literature. The variety in these recent proposals is more
than matched by the variety put forward during the Christian
era prior to the middle of the nineteenth century; W. Wright
covered this history in detail in 1860.
○"If actualism in Eden's geography is considered
doubtful, then the story may be interpreted as a homiletic
exposition built on primeval residue, or as a late
sociological commentary. It might be a 'picture of
paradisal beatitude,' the idyllic goal of life in obedience
to the Torah. One interpreter saw it as a faint
recollection of the conflict involved in the transition from
hunter-gatherer to farmers. Another found from its
Sumerian/Akkadian parallels an allusion to the royalty of
gardener-kings: man is not a servant of the gods but has
been made a king himself. Other interpreters found in it a
political allegory dealing with conflict between the
Judahite royal social and economic elite and the peasant
class, or a sexual allegory, or a polemic against Canaanite
religion, or a parable of the deposition and deportation of
a king to Mesopotamia (hence the inclusion of 2:10-14)/
Differences from the Sumerian paradise myth and the
Gilgamesh epic led Bledstein to perceive the Eden story as
intended to reduce men 'from heroic, godlike beings to
earthlings.' and to separate females from the extremes of
goddess or 'slavish menials of men.' In Genesis both '(m)an
and woman are equally human...' and their creation lacks the
usual Middle Eastern fertility cult overtones." ~ John C.
Munday, Jr., "Eden's Geography Erodes Flood Geology,"
Westminster Theological Journal, 58(1996), pp. 123-154,p.
128-130

OK, from an allegorical viewpoint the story has been
interpreted in numerous contradictory ways. How can we tell
which is correct? I think they are all wrong.

1 “Tolkein” interp: Cassuto: “'The Garden of Eden according to the
Torah was not situated in our world.'” This is the

1a Skinner: “'it is obvious that a real locality
answering the description of Eden exists and has existed
nowhere on the face of the earth...(T)he whole
representation (is) outside the sphere of real geographic
knowledge. In (Genesis 2) 10-14, in short, we have...a
semi-mythical geography.'”

1b Ryle, “'The account...is irreconcilable with scientific
geography.'”

1c Radday: “Eden is nowhere because of its deliberately
tongue-in-cheek fantastic geography. McKenzie asserted that 'the
geography of Eden is altogether unreal; it is a Never-never
land.'”

1d Amit: the garden story to be literary utopianism,
that the Garden was 'never-known,' with no real location.

1e Burns': “the rivers were the entryway into the numinous “world.

1f Wallace: who held that the inclusion of the
Tigris and Euphrates indicated an 'earthly geographic
situation,' but saw the Eden narrative as constructed from a
garden dwelling-of-God motif (with rivers nourishing the
earth) combined with a creation motif, both drawing richly
from those motifs as found in Ancient Near East mythological
literature.”

 "If actualism in Eden's geography is considered
doubtful, then the story may be interpreted as a

2. Preaching: homiletic exposition built on primeval residue,
3. sociologic: a late sociological commentary.
4. utopian: It represents paradisal beatitude,' what an idyllic life is
offered by obedience to the Torah and god
5. archaeologic: It represents the the transition from
hunter-gatherering to farmering.
6. mormonic: Man can become gardner-kingman is not a slave of the gods
but has been made a king himself.
7. Marxist It’s a political allegory dealing with the battles between
the Judahite royalty and the peasant class, Marxist
8. Hefnerian its a sexual allegory,
9. fundamentalist: a polemic against Caananite religion,
10. Gibbonian, power is fleeting: a parable of the deposition and
deportation of a king to Mesopotamia (hence the inclusion of 2:10-14)

11. “Differences from the Sumerian paradise myth and the
Gilgamesh epic led Bledstein to perceive the Eden story as
intended to reduce men 'from heroic, godlike beings to
earthlings.' and to separate females from the extremes of
goddess or 'slavish menials of men.' “
John C. Munday, Jr., "Eden's Geography Erodes Flood Geology,"
Westminster Theological Journal, 58(1996), pp. 123-154,p.
128-130

I particularly like the marxist interpretation.

In no other sphere of life affecting history or science do we claim
things that are not true are true nonetheless. We don't celebrate the
truth found in the phlogiston theory. Why should we celebrate the
'truth' in some poem that has no connection with reality or even the
truth of a limerick.

"I just want to mention Berkeley who maintained that matter would cease
to exist if unobserved, but luckily there is God who perceives
everything, so matter may exist after all. This view was attacked by
Ronald Knox in the following limerick:
     "There was a young man who said, 'God
     Must think it exceedingly odd
     If he finds that this tree
     continues to be
     When there's no one about in the Quad.'

Berkeley replied in kind:

     "Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
     I am always about in the Quad.
     And that's why the tree
     Will continue to be,
     Since observed by Yours faithfully, God."
L. Solymar and D. Walsh, Lectures on the Electrical Properties of
Matter, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 59

Which is true?
Received on Fri Oct 29 14:09:03 2004