Hi George, you wrote:
& to repeat: Telling someone that Christianity doesn't stand or fall
with historical Adam, Eve & Noah doesn't require that one believe that
they aren't historical.
I'm sorry, there are three negatives in that sentence, so let me just
clarify a bit. For one who claims Christ they can probably endure a
certain amount of error in their apologetics without it putting their
salvation at risk. We can guess at how much but I don't know how we can
have any certainty. I saw a movie last night, The Mormon Puzzle, at the
Southern Baptist Church where I attend. It was well done and showed the
zany things they believe and the dubious background of their founder,
Joseph Smith. For example, according to Mormon doctrine God was once a
flesh and blood man living on another planet who worked himself up to
become a god. Baptism is required to enter heaven and only one in
authority can perform the rite, which assures only Mormons will get
there. And like that. Everybody there could see the obvious errors in
their doctrine shown in the film. Yet I was one of the very few non
YECs in the group. How easily we see the specks in the eyes of others.
Are the Mormons unwitting members of a cult? The film said they were
"lost." Does that mean Mormons are unsaved? All Mormons? Some of us
feel we know the answer to that, but others aren't so sure. I believe
YECs are saved. The ringleaders I have doubts about. But they're just
doubts. I can't judge. I don't see how anyone could think Genesis 2-11
was historical if they haven't seen the evidence. I've seen it and I
believe it. Others will see it and can decide for themselves.
I would never say nor do I believe that anyone's salvation depends on
how they interpret Genesis. If so everybody might be lost. However, I
think I have clearly demonstrated in the upcoming book, Historical
<http://www.historicalgenesis.com/> Genesis, that early Genesis does
jibe with ANE history and thus has historical relevance. I honestly
believe in the long run it will help doubters come to Christ. This
method of apology might be an avenue for those who believe in inerrancy
to have better reasons to hold to it. Without belaboring that or
sounding like I'm trying to pump book sales, I think a number of
positive benefits will derive from it. If it doesn't help anybody else,
it helped me to become more grounded in the faith. I believe greater
confidence in the integrity of the Old Testament can only help increase
our confidence in the New Testament. It certainly can't do any harm.
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
<http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/> www.genesisproclaimed.org
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:45 AM
To: Dick Fischer; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
Actually I was quite surprised by your earlier response. When I said
"You're right that there are some people who have been so imbued with
the notion that Christianity stands or falls with historical Adam, Eve &
Noah that that has to be dealt with before they can give Christ serious
consideration," I thought I was simply agreeing with you. I did not
think that you believed "that Christianity stands or falls with
historical Adam, Eve & Noah." I was taken aback when you replied "Is
this slanted or what?" & "Cut me some slack, bro!" & thought that
perhaps I hadn't understood your position. I'm glad to get your
clarification. In light of it, perhaps you can explain what was slanted
& required cutting some slack in that earlier post of mine.
& to repeat: Telling someone that Christianity doesn't stand or fall
with historical Adam, Eve & Noah doesn't require that one believe that
they aren't historical.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net> Fischer
To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:24 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
(I was over my four posts so had to wait until after midnight to
respond. See Terry how disciplined I am?)
I can't believe as long as you have known me George that you would even
ask me those questions. Going in to this project over twenty years ago
I had no idea there was any link between Genesis history and ANE
history. In fact, I knew no ANE history at all. I bumped into it when
a friend showed me something about ancient Sumer in an encyclopedia and
some things clicked. I was already a committed Christian at that time
so my faith certainly didn't hinge on Genesis. You for one don't
believe (yet) in the historicity of early Genesis and I believe you to
be a terrific example of what being a Christian is all about. Have you
really misunderstood me this badly or are you just pulling my leg?
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
<http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/> www.genesisproclaimed.org
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:10 PM
To: Dick Fischer; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
Uh, me.
Do you think that Christianity does in fact stand or fall with an
historical Adam, Eve & Noah? I.e., do you think that people who don't
think believe that Adam, Eve & Noah were all historical figures are not
really Christians regardless of how firmly they may trust in Jesus
Christ as Son of God, Lord & Savior?
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fischer <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net>
To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:02 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
George -
Is this slanted or what?
>You're right that there are some people who have been so imbued with
the notion that Christianity stands or falls with historical Adam, Eve &
Noah that that has to be dealt with before they can give Christ serious
consideration.<
Cut me some slack, bro!
Okay, if you think Genesis 2-11 is not historical and Josephus says it
is, whom should we trust? The most preeminent Jewish historian of all
time, or, uh, you?
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
<http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/> www.genesisproclaimed.org
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 4:24 PM
To: Dick Fischer; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
Dick -
You're right that there are some people who have been so imbued with the
notion that Christianity stands or falls with historical Adam, Eve &
Noah that that has to be dealt with before they can give Christ serious
consideration. For some, we may be able to deal with it adequately by
convincing them that that presupposition is false. (& note that
reaching that conclusion doesn't require a decision about whether Adam,
Eve or Noah were historical figures.) For the rest, those who insist
that Christ can't be Lord & Savior if there was no historical A, E or N,
I simply have to leave to the mercy of God. I will say that A & E are
theological representatives of the 1st humans, & real in that sense, &
that the story of N makes use of real memories of a Mesopotamian flood,
but I am not going to try to persuade them to believe something that I
myself think is false. & that's not just for the sake of my
intellectual purity but because by doing so I would also tacitly accept
the claim that Christianity is "faith in Christ plus something else" &
thus come under the strictures of what Paul says to the Galatians about
"another gospel."
Of course you & I will part ways there because you think that Genesis
1-11 should be read as historical narrative. I won't debate the point
further here. But surely you know by now that I do NOT think that the
stories of Adam & Eve and Noah are "a bunch of baloney."
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fischer <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net>
To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
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
<http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/> 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/
----- 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
<http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/> 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/
----- Original Message -----
From: David Opderbeck <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
To: David Campbell <mailto:pleuronaia@gmail.com>
Cc: 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> 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 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 Thu Nov 15 11:01:17 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 15 2007 - 11:01:18 EST