On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 22:05:28 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>What caught my eye was the statement that all animals came from the dust.
>This places a different interpretation on dust than the traditional
>interpretation. Animals come from their mothers bodies, i.e., come from
>living matter or at least organic matter, and God does not physically scoop
>up dirt in the formation of the various critters. I would contend that
>Eccl. 3:19-20 is consistent with the view I have advocated that Adam was
>created from living matter, an ape.
You don't need to go as far as Ecclesiastes. As I have pointed out
a number of times before, Genesis 1 & 2 itself strongly suggests that
both the animals and man had a common ancestry:
1. man and the land animals were created on the same `day' (Gn
1:24-27);
2. man's body was formed from "the dust of the ground" (Gn 2:7) and
the animals were brough forth from "the earth" (Gn 1:24). Indeed,
the very same words "out of the ground" (Heb. adamah] are used for
the animals: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast
of the field, and every fowl of the air..." (Gn 2:19). In fact it is
specifically taught that "The first man is of the earth" (1Cor
15:47);
3. Exactly the same Hebrew words in Gn 2:7 used of man "and man
became a living soul [Heb. nephesh chayyah]" are used of the animals
"And God created great whales, and every living creature [Heb.
nephesh chayyah]..." (Gn 1:21); "And God said, Let the earth bring
forth the living creature after his kind, cattle..." (Gn 1:24):
"This unity already finds expression in the classical passage of the
Old Testament-the first passage to indicate the complex nature of
man-namely, Gen. 2:7: "And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life- and
man became a living soul." ...The word "soul" in this passage does
not have the meaning which we usually ascribe to it-a meaning rather
foreign to the Old Testament -but denotes an animated being, and is a
description of man as a whole. The very same Hebrew term, nephesh
chayyah (living soul or being) is also applied to the animals in Gen.
1:21,24,30" (Berkhof L., "Systematic Theology", 1966 reprint,
pp192-193).
GM>I have advocated that Adam was the victim of a chromosomal fusion
>(apes have 48 chromosomes; man has 46). Ecclesiasties usage of the
>term dust would certainly allow for this type of interpretation of
>Genesis 2.
Saying that "Adam was the victim" sounds a strange way of putting
it! The point is that this ape wasn't yet "Adam" until he had this
alleged operation.
There are a few problems with your chromosomal fusion theory. First,
if 2 chromosomes out of the apes 48 were fused, that would leave 47
chromosomes, not 46. Are you advocating two 2-way fusions or one
3-way fusion?
Secondly, since the adult human body contains 100 trillion cells
(Stringer C., & McKie R., "African Exodus", 1997, p117), each with
the same number chromosomes, are you claiming that God performed
not one chromosomal fusion in this ape but 100 trillion?
Third, the genetic difference between man and ape is much wider than
just a chromosomal fusion: "The genetic differences between humans
and chimps are minor, but they include at least ten large inversions
and translocations." (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin", Penguin:
London, 1977, p55).
Happy new year!
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------