There probably was a time when I might have followed this chain of
logic, ...the one that says if one story falls as fact, it casts a
shadow on the others. But the reality is that we all have a lot of
practice in sorting through stories and assigning how much credibility
or simply how to interpret each.
And yet, there is another issue here, that there is a difference between
fact and truth. I struggled with that difference for months, as most
people in western culture probably will. An example by John Dominic
Crossan helped. He describes an imaginary statue of Abraham Lincoln, on
Elm Street, in some middle America city. The statue shows Lincoln with
an ax posed to sever the manacle chains that bind a slave. Does this
visual story illustrate a fact. Nope, but it does illustrate a truth.
Similarly, we can lose a literal Adam without losing the truth in the
story. The most compelling evidence that this is can be done is that
lots of people have done so.
JimA
Dick Fischer wrote:
> Hi George, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>The idea that Gen.1-11 is "a boulder" on the road to Christ assumes
> precisely what I am challenging - that one must come to Christ by
> starting with the early chapters of Genesis, & Adam in particular,
> & work toward Christ. We don't.<
>
>
>
> You're right. WE don't. But some do. How many books do you pick up
> and start reading from about three-fourths of the way from the
> beginning? Only one that I know of. The stories of Adam and Eve, and
> Noah and the flood are known throughout the civilized world. Both are
> in the Koran. If someone is convinced those stories are a bunch of
> baloney it is bound to have an impact on how much credibility can be
> attached to the rest of the Bible. Certainly you can see that!
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer
>
> Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
>
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
>
> www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:26 PM
> To: Dick Fischer; ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes
> are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
>
>
>
> The idea that Gen.1-11 is "a boulder" on the road to Christ assumes
> precisely what I am challenging - that one must come to Christ by
> starting with the early chapters of Genesis, & Adam in particular,
> & work toward Christ. We don't. Of course if people have been
> previously bothered by, & have left the faith because of, the notion
> that they have to accept the historicity of Adam &c as essential to
> Christianity then that problems needs to be dealt with somehow. But
> IMO that's better done by pointing out the the historicity of Adam
> isn't essential to Christianity than by putting together
> some concordist scheme. Even if they're convinced of the truth of the
> latter they're still likely to be stuck with a skewed version of
> Christianity in which Adam is of more importance relative to Christ
> than he should be.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Dick Fischer <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net>
>
> To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:31 PM
>
> Subject: RE: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?)
> pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
>
>
>
> Hi George, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>People start with themes like "In search of the historical Adam"
> or "Who was Adam?" instead of viewing matters in light of what the
> NT says about Christ.<
>
>
>
> Simply in terms of what is important and what isn't, accepting
> Christ ranks at the top without question. Whether there was an
> Adam or wasn't, or where and when he may have lived if there was
> such a fellow, for a believer, may be a matter of mere curiosity.
> So why stir the pot?
>
>
>
> For one thing, truth matters. For another, there are untold
> millions of nonbelievers who feel they needn't bother with a book
> at all that starts with an unbelievable fairy tale. And for those
> who believe the Bible is supposed to be a reliable witness, the
> Bible can indeed be such witness if the first passages of the
> first book are shown to be reliable.
>
>
>
> Why do millions fall for YEC when we, the intelligentsia, know
> with absolute certainty it can't possibly be true? It is because
> they believe the Bible is true and this is the only way it can be
> interpreted. An historical Adam in the context of human history
> they can believe in may persuade some to escape the clutches of
> the evil YECmeisters.
>
>
>
> So I for one believe that lining up all the evidence both that
> which confirms the New Testament and that which confirms the Old
> Testament in the long run can have positive benefits. There are
> many road blocks in the way of potential believers. Genesis 1-11
> can be one giant boulder in the middle of the narrow road leading
> to Christ. This is not to say there aren't others as well. But
> this is one I think can be removed, and why shouldn't we spend
> effort to remove it if we can?
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer
>
> Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
>
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
>
> www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 4:44 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?)
> pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
>
>
>
> One execllent theological reason to prefer a fully evolutionary
> view in which H. sapiens - & thus Jesus - really is related to
> chimps & other species is that this provides a way of
> understanding the biblical promises that "all things" are saved,
> reconciled to God &c through the Incarnation. I set out this
> argument a long time ago in a PSCF (then JASA) article available
> at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/JASA3-86Murphy.html .
>
>
>
> A major failure in many of these discussions is the failure to
> approach the issues christologically. The usual Evangelical
> approach is, if I can coin a term, adamological.
>
> This is almost exactly 180 degrees wrong. People start with
> themes like "In search of the historical Adam" or "Who was Adam?"
> instead of viewing matters in light of what the NT says about Christ.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: David Opderbeck <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>
> To: David Campbell <mailto:pleuronaia@gmail.com>
>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 3:31 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?)
> pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
>
>
>
> Aside from the various other ways in which this particular
> question is causing me angst right now, here is something else
> that bothers me about it. It seems to me that this question
> presents a particularly thorny issue for how and to what
> extent "science" may be used to intepret scripture vs. how and
> to what extent we need to assert scripture over against a
> particular scientific data point.
>
>
>
> When we consider the age of the earth / universe and the
> creation "days," it seems to me that it is easier to be
> flexible. There are any number of exegetical questions before
> we even get to the scientific ones. Moreover, messing with
> the age of the earth / universe involves basic physical
> constants like the speed of light that can't really be messed
> with under the anthropic principle. Finally, the theological
> issues seem somewhat less thorny -- though the question of
> death before the fall is not a small one.
>
>
>
> When we consider the exegetical issues concerning Adam, IMHO
> at least, there seems to be significantly less flexibility, at
> least within even a moderate "inerrancy" framework. IMHO,
> without disrespect to those who think otherwise, it does too
> much damage to the doctrine of scripture and to the narrative
> framework of scripture to suggest that the accommodation
> principle -- which I think is a valid principle generally --
> goes so far as to render these texts essentially
> non-historical. So for me, this seems to be a place in which
> it might be appropriate to say that, while scripture does not
> teach "science," it does to some extent bear on "history,"
> such that it might be appropriate to question the naturalistic
> assumptions underlying particular scientific models.
>
>
>
> In particular, it seems to me that the genetic continuity
> between humans and our presumed chimp ancestors, and
> population gentics studies based on presumed times of
> divergence and rates of mutation, do not render the
> traditional understanding of Adam impossible. They render it
> difficult, and perhaps unlikely, but not impossible. It is
> possible that God specially and miraculously created Adam
> using pre-existing hominid genes; and it is possible that God
> caused imago Dei man to be dispersed geographically in such a
> way that the histocompatibility diversity we observe today
> happened faster than the models assumed. This does not
> violate any fundamental physical constant such as the speed of
> light. It is a different kind, or at least a different
> degree, of question than the age of the earth.
>
>
>
> At the same time, we can tentatively propose some other
> scenarios. But in my view, it's unfair to equate some
> push-back here with "YEC thinking." Perhaps, like the wine at
> Cana, this really is a place at which methodologial
> naturalism, without the illumination of scripture, does not
> really reflect the truth of history.
>
> On Nov 12, 2007 3:03 PM, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com
> <mailto:pleuronaia@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Actually, evolution does not absolutely rule out a single
> couple as
> ancestral to humanity. Glenn Morton's model develops this
> line of
> thinking. It posits some rather long gaps in the genealogies
> and has
> other difficulties, but then there are difficulties in any
> approach to
> reconciling the scientific data and Genesis 1-11. It is much
> easier
> to have rapid change in a small population. Any particular
> mutation
> important to making humans human would have its origin in a single
> individual. Many other variant scenarios with some sort of
> historical
> Adam are also possible.
>
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto: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 Nov 14 16:04:21 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 16:04:21 EST