Re: The puzzle of Adam

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Perrett" <donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org>
To: "Peter Ruest" <pruest@dplanet.ch>; "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: "ASA Discussions" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 2:23 AM
Subject: RE: The puzzle of Adam

> George wrote in replies to Peter Ruest: (My comments below)
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Peter:
> In contrast, the text of Gen.2:5-25 never uses "bara'" and is clearly
> restricted to a region and time which do not fit with what we know about
> the origin of the first humans. The "puzzle of Adam", therefore, cannot
> be solved while believing Gen.2 to be a creation story.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>George:
> {Gen.2:4a-25 is not a "bara story" or a story of cosmic origins. But
> this does not mean that it is not a "creation story" in the sense of an
> account of the origins of humanity and elements of the world important to
> humanity. Plenty of accounts that we call "creation stories" in other
> cultures are limited in this way. It is quite natural for people to seek
> first some understanding of themselves and only gradually expand their
> view
> to questions about the larger cosmic order.
>
> Gen.2:4a-25 is a story of the origin of the first human beings and of
> other animals. There is simply no suggestion that there are any other
> humans or humans /in posse/ outside the boundaries of Eden when the events
> described here takes place. Furthermore, the fact that the origins of
> both
> Adam and Eve are described in ways very different from the normal way in
> which human beings come into the world argues against the idea that at the
> same time there are already other creatures who are the same biologically
> as
> this man & woman and are reproducing in the ordinary manner.
>
> It seems to me that the "severe conflict" that you are trying to avoid
> by your argument is a result of your thinking that the historical &
> geographical details in early Genesis require those texts to be
> "historical
> accounts" in some approximation to the modern sense of the term. As I
> said
> above, this is just not necessary.
>
> & lest there be confusion, I should add that by speaking of these texts
> as "stories" and referring to their cultural conditioning &c, I am
> definitely not denying that they are authoritative theological texts.}
>
>
>
> DON P:
> Perhaps a quote will help - Genesis 2 KJV
>
> 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of
> them.
> 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
> rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
> 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it
> he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
> 4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they
> were
> created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
> 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every
> herb
> of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain
> upon
> the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
>
> If as you say, Genesis 2 is about the creation of MAN (adam) and the
> animals, then lets take a closer look and feel free to explain your view.
>
> Genesis 2:1 says the heavens and earth finished already. But doesn't say
> anything about humans. OK no conflict with George's statements.
>
> Genesis 2:2 now mentions day 7 after ALL creation including that which was
> done on day 6 has "ended". Let's see wasn't man created on day 6? Looks
> like a conflict of George's statement.
>
> Genesis 2:3-5 Again we have mention of day 7. Conflicting? Part may appear
> to side with George's view of a creation story, but let's examine another
> more "literal" view.
> Genesis 2:3 refers to God's blessing of the seventh day. Most literalist
> take this as being the seventh day of an actual week. While others are
> undecided. I have and will continue to have the view that this refers not
> to a specific day but rather an age, the one in which we live now. Day
> seven began when creation was completed and will end only when the "end
> times" come, and then we'll start day eight.
> Genesis 2:4 refers to this specfically. When it says these (this) are the
> generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created (past
> perfect), in the day that the LORD God made (past perfect) the earth and
> the
> heavens. Thus we have an opening to our Genesis 2 story. That which came
> after ALL creation was done. What generations existed prior to the
> creation, to include man? None. Yet something is missing. What is it?
> Genesis 2:5 Now we see what was missing. No mention of plants in general
> or
> herbs in general or even of man in general, but of plants and herbs of the
> field and a MAN to till the ground of the fields. What does this mean?
> This is the beginning of the AGE of agriculture.
>
> All after this begins to give details of events relating to this "first
> man"
> of the fields and of the new era. This of course implies that Adam may
> have
> been the first to have a structured language and therefore God brought
> forth
> animals he had created (and would continue to create) so that they could
> be
> given names. It may also imply that there was no agriculture prior to
> this.
> As for Eden, or the garden, imagine a man who has been given a new special
> ability and a covenant with a God about whom others were not fully aware.
> God wants to keep his newly created (re-created) man separate from all
> others. He does this by placing him in a special place were adam (man)
> would be able to flourish. He of course needs a mate as do we all. But
> no
> suitable woman was found. Genesis 2 does not state there were NO women,
> just none that could help him. Perhaps due to lack of intelligence, or
> maybe God wanted Adam to be with a woman that would have the same special
> bond/covenant as Adam. He therefore takes a rib (dna, sperm, or whatever
> this metaphor implies) and creates a woman specially for Adam.
>
> Conclusion: Genesis 2 in no way implies any unique creative act (bara),
> but
> is rather a detailing of the creation of a specific man at a time when man
> had already migrated out of Africa and into the middle east and (perhaps
> due
> to the terrain) was given unique abilities to survive and begin an era
> were
> man would be connected with God

You are begging the question. 1st, the division between the 1st & 2d
accounts is generally put either at the middle or end of 2:5, so 2:1-3 is
all part of the 1st account. (Boy, I sure wish the people who made the
chapter & verse divisions had done a better job!) But then you seem to be
assuming that the 2d account is filling in details of the 6th day in the 1st
account, & that's precisely the point at issue. On the contrary, a number
of factors - e.g., the order of events, word usage, the whole atmospheres of
the two accounts, & the fact that there is nothing in the 2d account to
suggest any tie with the 6-day framework of the 1st, indicate that they are
2 separate creation stories.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sat Nov 27 11:11:15 2004