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

 What does it matter that there is a difference between the Bible's account of the Eden and science's estimate where what we call modern humans first evolved?? What difference would it make to your faith?? Of what possible importance is the discrepancy between specific location of?our modern scientific assessment of human evolutionary migration and the book of Genesis' depiction of the dawn of man?? It is of ZERO importance to the purpose of the Book of Genesis or the study of science.

It is not the immanence of God that the Bible lends us.? We have Creation to give us that.? The Bible is to tell us how to honor and think (reason) about our most evolved instincts, emotions, feelings, and faith, which the rise of reason has nearly obliterated in modern man.? The Bible's purpose is not how to figure out precisely where the first humans that might have had the capacity to reason came from any more than science's purpose is to make evident the transcendence glory of God almighty as manifest in our faith.

-Mike (Friend of ASA www.thegodofreason.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>

To: philtill@aol.com

Cc: gbrown@colorado.edu; asa@calvin.edu

Sent: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:42 pm

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

Phil said:? However else can we understand that the original
humans were in Mesopotamia, when we know through genetics that they
were actually in Africa?

?

I'm not sure I want to concede this so readily.? First, the
mitochondrial DNA studies this is based on aren't calibrated with
laser-like precision.? Second, it doesn't seem impossible that humans
originated in Mesopotamia, dispersed (or were dispersed by God after
the fall or flood / Babel) into Africa, and then migrated back through
Mesopotamia and Europe.? If a small number of humans had remained in
Mesopotamia, maybe we'd still see a similar mitochondrial DNA pattern
after they became homogonized with the "returning" African population,
particularly given the very limited sample sizes on which the current
out of Africa theories are based (I think you're talking a sample size
of only hundreds or thousands of presently living people).

?

But, ok, all of the above does seem to be grasping.? From the
perspective of harmonizing these things, it would be easier, if we are
retaining Adam as a real person (which to me is still important), to
take him as a representative whose choices had the possibility of
affecting the nascent human race for good or ill.? Perhaps that small
group of early human progenitors that first migrated out of Africa
wasn't "Bibliological" man -- not yet possessing God's image in a way
that put them into the possibility of a covenant relationship with
God.? Adam was the first "Bibliological" man, and his breaking of the
first covenant between man and God affected us all, including, somehow,
his contemporaries.? (This is a view John Stott tentatively advances in
his commentary on Romans).?

?

Maybe.? I'd like to study how all this can be developed within the stream of historical theology.

On Nov 24, 2007 1:09 PM, <philtill@aol.com> wrote:

I
don't know exactly how this would relate to a theology of the imago Dei
and original sin, but it seems to suggest that biological descent alone
doesn't determine one's spiritual status.?

As I've discussed (partially) with David off-line, my personal favorite
hypothesis is that the Fall of Man was something that can only be
comprehended outside of spacetime.? It would be somewhat analogous to
the Atonement in that Christ took the sins of God's people from both
before and after the event -- it was not limited to the sins already
committed.? If the Fall is also outside spacetime, then it needn't have
occurred in a single event by a single human at any particular location
in spacetime.? It may have been that "Adam"=mankind partook of the Fall
in some way as a community outside of time, neither before nor after
the universe (so it is not a question of pre-existence of the soul).
?If so, then we as a race are inherently fallen, possessing original
sin, and so from the very start God created just the sort of universe
that would be fitting for our redemption and projected humanity into
it.? The universe therefore never "fell".? It was created "fallen"
(with pain, etc.) from the Big Bang onward because it was made for us.?
The account of the garden would therefore be understood as a metaphor
written into the setting of spacetime so that we could comprehend what
the Fall entails, even though we cannot comprehend it in its fullness
any more than we can comprehend Christ's payment on the cross in its
fullness.? We are dealing with infinities of sin and culpability and
holiness and grace, and so the best we can do is to extrapolate what we
do know, project it into comprehensible symbols, create analogies to
communicate how we should see our relationship with the Eternal God.?
The account of the garden may be one such analogy -- and a divinely
inspired one at that -- written in the well-known mythopoeic genre of
the time so that the original audience would understand the message
without being confused by the form of the analogy.

However else can we understand that the original humans?were in
Mesopotamia, when we know through genetics that they were actually in
Africa?? The text goes to some detail in describing the four rivers
that were clearly Mesopotamian.? I have tried to no avail to find a way
around that.? So it's not just a question of monogenism versus
polygenism that keeps us from taking the account as entirely literal
with a universal Adam.? It's also a question of the setting and the
timing.? Because of its setting and timing, either we must take the
garden to be a literal event that was well after the origin of humanity
and well outside of the region of mankind's first appearance (Dick's
view), or we must take it to be at least partially non-literal.? If we
wish to believe Adam (or "Adam") was the universal progenitor, then it
becomes a question of _how_ non-literal the account was.? Is only the
Mesopotamian setting non-literal?? Well, there's also the snake, which
was non-literal.? (It wasn't merely a snake, the most crafty beast of
the field, as the text says.)? Was a piece of fruit that gives you the
knowledge of good and evil also entirely literal, or was that
figurative of a spiritual transaction more profound than simply biting
into food?? Let's face it -- the account is written pretty closely to
expectations as something intended by its author to be understood
within the mythopoeic genre.? How could we ever fail to see that?

This doesn't mean that there wasn't a literal, universal Adam way
back in Africa, represented by the Mesopotamian "Adam" of the account.?
Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, as far as this text interpreted
according to that genre is concerned.? So it becomes a matter of
science and of systematic theology, but not biblical theology.? What
does systematic theology require us to believe about Adam?

If my view is truly heretical for some reason I have not seen yet,
then I will abandon it.? But this is what I've been considering as a
possibility for a year or two, now.

Phil

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 24 14:27:52 2007