Re: Dick Fisher's "historical basis" remains no less doubtful

One thought I had about Genesis 2 is that it is just a description of the
beginning of agricultural society.

Look at all of the agricultural themes that run through Genesis 2:
2:5 no shrub of the field had yet appeard on the earth,...no plant of the
field had yet sprung up; the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and
there was no man to work the ground...
2:7 And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground..
2:8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden...
2:9 And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground
2:15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it
and take care of it.
2:20 So the man gave names to all the livestock,

Is the sixth day of Genesis 1 the description of hominid evolution? Please
see :
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Zimmer.html#Zimmer

And is Genesis 2 the description of the neolithic revolution? Did God gift
Adam, with agriculture? Is Adam in Genesis 2 historical or figurative? Is
Adam in Genesis 3, historical or figurative?

I think that it would be consistent, with the biblical description of Adam,
to put a real historical Adam at the start of agricultural society, but
there are clearly parts of Genesis 2 and 3 that have to be figurative.

Perhaps the pure historical narrative begins with Genesis 4?

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
To: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Cc: <dickfischer@earthlink.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: Dick Fisher's "historical basis" remains no less doubtful

>
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:05:25 -0500 "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> writes:
>> I want to be clear about my question.
>>
>> I think there are two issues.
>>
>> The first is what it means to be created "in the image of God". And
>> how
>> Adam was, according to traditional biblical interpretation, the
>> first of
>> this race that was created in "his image". This characteristic is
>> unique to
>> Adam and his descendants. I dont see how other hominids in
>> meopotamia, or
>> elsewhere that were not descendants of Adam, a part of this race in
>> this
>> way.
>>
>> I think that the issue of original sin, and the consequences of the
>> fall is
>> a different matter.
>>
>> Lets just say for a moment, that all members of Homo Sapiens
>> Sapiens, are
>> created in Gods image, and have souls. I dont think I have a
>> problem with
>> Adam's fall condemning all of that race, even those not of Adam's
>> lineage,
>> including those that came before Adam. I also feel that saying this
>> stops
>> at anatomically modern humans is reasonable. In the same way,
>> Christ's
>> sacrifice covers all men, at least all that believe in him, whether
>> or not
>> they are part of Christ's lineage or not.
>>
>> The difficulty I have though is making all homo sapiens sapiens
>> spiritual
>> creatures, in the same way that Adam was, and still maintain the
>> historicity
>> of the Biblical text.
>
> Jack,
> Your first paragraph echoes my problem with Dick's approach. As I see it,
> if the first chapters of Genesis are taken as history, we have to
> transfer them to Africa. I once toyed with the notion of the Flood
> occurring in the Rift of Africa. At least this is near where evidence
> indicates that the earliest /Homo sapiens sapiens/ lived. Glenn wants to
> put the human lineage early enough to have the Flood be the filling of
> the Mediterranean. Either way, Adam has to be much earlier than 10-7,000
> B.C.
>
> In what follows, I don't think you have adequately considered the
> unlimited spread of the Fall against the limited extension of grace,
> unless you want to be a Universalist. Given this last, I don't see how
> one can suggest, as a few do, that the believers will have a more exalted
> position in eternity although all will ultimately be saved. Of course, if
> only those human beings who believed in Adam received the results of his
> Fall ...
>
> Your last paragraph poses the ultimate problem. Unless Genesis 1 is
> historical (and a number of the church fathers concluded that it can't
> be, but no one can accuse them of being influenced by the higher
> criticism), and Genesis 2, which does not agree with Genesis 1, is also
> historical, the need to interpret Genesis 3 as actual history need not
> arise. As I see it, the only way to take Genesis 1 as descriptive is to
> view it as a revelation to someone to counter the Babylonian or Egyptian
> cosmology and myths.
> Dave
Received on Tue Nov 16 01:17:46 2004