Re: [asa] Historical Theology and Current Theology re: Original Sin & Monogenism

There are several questions involved. First, are we guilty because Adam
sinned and his condemnation comes down to us? Is the story of the Fall an
explanation for the state we are in, imperfect morally? Are the second
and third chapters of Genesis history? The first chapter obviously cannot
be, for it reflects the solid firmament on which sun, moon and stars were
stuck, with water above them. Also, the order of events in the first two
chapters do not match.

As Dick pointed out, the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 have their counterpart
in Numbers 13:33. Are they the same? I note that "sons of God" elsewhere
refers to the righteous. Is this merely a matter of hybrid vigor or
something similar?

I recently saw a report that part of the Neanderthal genome was
sequenced, including specifically the gene for hair color. There was a
coding that would have produced blonde hair, but it was not the same
mutation found in current blondes. So blonde hair today cannot be the
result of matings between modern man and Neanderthals. Other analyses
have discovered the identical virus genes incorporated into the genomes
of both man and chimp.

These, and many other matters, need to be addressed in the process of
developing a theology in this century. However, the field has been
preempted by those who declare that they do not interpret the scriptures,
but just read them as they stand. Similarly, neither you nor I have any
presuppositions. ;-)
Dave (ASA)

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:34:47 -0500 philtill@aol.com writes:

But of course that person wasn't the only person alive at the time, nor
was he the only person from that time who contributed genes to the human
population.

But would that really affect the transmission of original sin through the
lines that _are_ fallen (in particular through the paternal line)?

More generally, how pristine does the boundary have to be between human
and non-human? There is that passage where the "sons of God" had
children through the "daughters of men." I have to believe this is a
reference to fallen angelic beings (like Mesopotamian gods) since it
produced supernatural results. (Otherwise the context becomes internally
non-sensical.) In that case God destroyed the offspring, perhaps
implying they were not human (???). But if non-humans had indeed
intermarried with humans, then that shows such intermarriage is at least
possible in a biblical theology. So we don't have to expect a completely
pristine situation in defining the biological boundaries between human
and non-human, imago dei or not, fallen or not.

Other thought experiments: If I have 100% natural human DNA, then am I
more in God's image than someone who was conceived with an engineered
gene to prevent some disease? What are the limits on who is human and
who is non-human as increasing quantities of the DNA are artificially
engineered or spliced in from other sources? We now have the technology
to upset monogenesis artificially, regardless of what happened in the
ancient past, and we can expect to see it being used very soon. Will the
fallenness of mankind not be transmitted to someone who has artificially
engineered genes, and is therefore not in the monogenetic "family"?

Also, what if Neanderthals had intermarried with humans -- were the
offspring human or non-human? Or what if a retrovirus got spliced into
our DNA -- are we now part virus instead of fully human and therefore not
completely in God's image?

I have to believe the pristine boundaries around imago dei and fallenness
are spiritual and not biological. I think the same goes for salvation --
we may backslide, repent imperfectly, and have a belief loaded with
doubt, but our spiritual re-birth is something that has either occured or
not and God knows who are his. Since the spiritual re-birth is not
physical, then fallenness and being in God's image should likewise not be
physical, right? Therefore, we needn't necessarily expect pristine
biological boundaries around these things. So if we discover the
biological boundaries were not pristine way back 100,000 years before
Moses wrote Genesis, then would that really upset the essentials of the
faith?

Phil

Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 23 22:31:37 2007