RE: Re: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?

Hi Dave, you wrote:

I'd turn you upside down. You hold that the first chapters of Genesis

agree with Mesopotamian sources because both reflect the same history. I

think they agree because the Mesopotamian myths were there and the

apologist responded to them in order to communicate with maximum clarity

in the circumstances. This requires that there were fully human beings

long before the time you give for Adam's existence.

Agreed. I've said that all along.

I find a grave problem with your idea that a notion could transform a

humanoid creature that is not quite fully human into a fully human
being,

and that notion (which could not be transmitted across oceans to the

already inhabited New World) made the others also human.

I think you have me confused with someone else. All humans whether
related to Adam or not are fully human. I'll use myself as an example.
My family came from eastern Europe and Germany. Although conceivably
some Japhethites could have migrated there I have no proof any did nor
do I have any evidence any did. So I presume that I do not possess any
Adamic/Noahic ancestry. If I were Asian, or African, or native
American, I could be pretty certain I wouldn't have any Adamic roots as
there is no evidence Noah's family was any other than middle eastern in
terms of race.

Could there have been any kind of human society without moral notions?

Jer. 17:9: "The
<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03820&version
=kjv> heart is
<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06121&version
=kjv> deceitful above all things, and desperately
<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0605&version=
kjv> wicked: who can
<http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03045&version
=kjv> know it?"

Could an idea, however deep and sublime, produce a soul (which I hold to
be biblical) or produce the Nancey Murphy kind of function?

Wikipedia says: "Her first book, Theology in the Age of Scientific
Reasoning, won prizes from both the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Religion> American
Academy of Religion and the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Foundation> Templeton Foundation
awarded the 1999 Prize for Outstanding Books in Theology." Are you
assuming I've read her book? I haven't.

Glenn has also pointed out worship long before 7000 B.C. I conclude that
your idea for an Adam is too late and too pathetically weak. Also, as I
have noted elsewhere, I

see no way that you can escape Universalism.

Dave, I think you are borrowing some from column A and some from column
B. If a historical Adam introduced in southern Mesopotamia about 7000
years ago doesn't fit your theology then change your theology. It is as
simple as that. I don't have any ulterior motives other than to say
that all the evidence I have gathered puts him there and then. If you
don't like him in that historical niche dig up your own evidence that
places him someplace else at some other time and publish it. Whatever
theological ramifications result from a Neolithic Adam don't seem all
that dire to me. What are they?

As to possibilities in an old universe, God could have chosen 2
hominoids

and changed them into ensouled beings, at least 50,000 years ago,
letting

them replace all earlier "species" (varieties ?) of _Homo_. Or he could

have done something similar with an entire breeding group. The soul
could

have been transmitted to all hybrid descendants as well as the pure
bred,

giving Glenn his hair. Alternatively, the development of the group may

have resulted in their becoming "ensouled," whether with or without

creative intervention. I see these as the basic kinds of explanation,
but

know of no way to definitively test them.

Tell you what, I'm sending you the same list of books I sent brother
Michael. Pick out some good titles and dig in. Or ask my suggestion
and I'll choose a few for you. But the trouble as I see it is that
everybody has overlooked history in trying to wrestle with Bible/science
issues. History is like the third leg of a three legged stool. My
method of apology rests on a solid base. All the others have severe
logic flaws. For those who haven't dug into it I can see that a lot of
possibilities might exist. After over twenty years now I can say with
some confidence that this method is the only one that makes sense and it
is practically bullet proof.

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Mar 29 23:11:01 2007