Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

What eye witness gave a faithful account of the events in Genesis 1 and 2?

Awesome link BTW.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: George Cooper
  To: ASA
  Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 7:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

  Early Genesis may still be a literal account, however.

  If an eye-witness gives a faithful account of an event that is beyond their understanding, their account can still be written to accomodate the readers of their day without being dishonest about what they saw. Only when others with greater understanding and knowledge come along, will there be any chance of a more complete exlanation of the account. This is especially true for certain verses, such as the references to the "four corners of the earth". We now have a better view of that statement:
  http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/06/the_sky_from_above.html [enjoy!]

  [My final post and plug for M-Genesis today]

  "Coope"

  ----- Original Message ----
  From: Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
  To: Loren Haarsma <lhaarsma@calvin.edu>; _American Sci Affil <asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:31:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

  I do think that there is a difference between Paul and the OT writers, for a
  couple of reasons.

  1) Much of the OT, especially early Genesis, is written in a poetic form,
  and is not a literal narrative like the epistles are.

  2) I have a lot easier time accepting that God was accomodating to the
  knowledge of the time regarding scientific issues of the origin of the
  earth because of the understanding of the people at the time. I have more
  difficulty accepting God accomodating what should be more easily understood
  about whether or not Adam was historical or not.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Loren Haarsma" <lhaarsma@calvin.edu>
  To: "_American Sci Affil" <asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

>
>
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, drsyme@cablespeed.com wrote:
>
>> Let me add my 2 cents to the original three questions. From an
>> evolutionary perspective, I think the greatest challenge to current
>> evangelical doctrine is that of inerrency. The problem with common
>> descent is it eliminates Adam as the first human being. This then leads
>> to difficulty with original sin, and the fall, but these difficulties are
>> not insurmountable regarding maintaining traditional doctrine of the fall
>> etc. However, it does make a historical Adam as the father of all
>> impossible, and since Paul seems to believe this, the most difficult
>> issue I have yet to reconcile is the idea that Paul got this idea wrong.
>
>
> I understand the concern. Do you see this issue as different from, or
> pretty much the same as, various Old Testament writers being wrong about
> the earth being fixed in place, with a solid dome firmament holding back
> waters above the sky? I believe a few of the Old Testament writers even
> quote God as taking credit for these things.
>
>
> Loren
>
> 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 10 22:07:07 2008