Re: [asa] RE: Conrad Hyers essay

The Vulgate of Gen.2:7 says that formed man /de limo terrae/, translated as
"of the slime of the earth" by the Douay-Rheims-Challoner version. That
isn't a good translation of the Hebrew - the primary meaning of /`aphar/ is
"dust." But for centuries western Christians understood humanity to have
been made from "slime" without any sense that they were denying that they
were God's creatures.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Cc: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Conrad Hyers essay

> You hit the nail on the head. The rejection of a slime derivation is just
> one of many similar arguments which have at the core the implicit
> elevation of man, distinguishing us from the rest of slightly(?) less
> impressive aspects of Creation. It is part of the whole class of
> anthropocentric conceptualizations, distinguished by a lack of humility
> and sense of context, physical and scriptural alike. It brings to mind the
> classic question on drivers' license exams, whether a license to drive is
> a right or a privilege. JimA
>
> Robert Schneider wrote:
>
>> Ted quotes Harry Emerson Fosdick from his letter "A Reply to Mr. Bryan in
>> the Name of Religion," published originally in the "New York Times" in
>> 1922. (We use to use it in our Religious and Historical Perspectives
>> interdisciplinary course at Berea College, along with a selection from
>> the Address Bryan was going to deliver at the conclusion of the Scopes
>> Trial.)
>>
>> "Origins prove nothing in the realm of values."
>>
>> I'd like to add further from Fosdick's letter:
>>
>> "The fundamental interest that leads Mr. Bryan and others of his
>> school to hate evolution is the fear that it will depreciate the dignity
>> of man. Just what do they mean? Even in the book of Genesis God made man
>> out of the dust of the earth, and that is low enough to start with, and
>> evolution starts no lower. As long as God is the creative power, what
>> difference does it make if out of dust by sudden fiat or out of dust by
>> gradual process God brought man into being. Here man is and what he is he
>> is. Were it decided that God had dropped him from the sky, he would still
>> be the man he is. If it is decided to God brought him up by slow
>> gradations from lower forms of life, he is still the man he is.
>>
>> "The fact is that the process by which man came to be upon the planet is
>> a very important scientific problem, but it is not a crucially important
>> religious problem. Orgins prove nothing in the realm of values. To all
>> folk of spiritual insight, man by whatever process he first arrived, is
>> the child of God, made in His image, destined for His character."
>>
>> Fosdick goes on to express great sympathy for the concerns that led Bryan
>> for his position, but challenges his attack on evolution. Perhaps I
>> should say, the evolution of man, since Bryan, if my memory is correct,
>> was a day-age proponent and prepared to accept evolution prior to
>> humankind.
>>
>> I would add, that if I should hear the statement that "I don't believe
>> that I am descended from slime" (a common objection), I would say,
>> "What's wrong with slime? God created it, too! Isn't everything God
>> created good?" "Slime" conjures up an "ugh!, sticky, messy, useless" sort
>> of thing and is used to characterize the behavior or character of certain
>> persons; it's a rhetorical device designed to appeal to negative
>> emotions. Even the word sounds, well, slimy. It ought to be challenged.
>>
>> Bob Schneider
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jan 31 16:41:22 2007