Re: [asa] biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent?

Bernie,
Gordon, in a later post, wants to make the dust real, but are we that
percentage of silicon? Our bones may account for the calcium carbonate,
but I don't think we can account for the amount of hydrogen, nitrogen and
carbon in our bodies from what we can call dust. There also usually seems
to be more iron in normal dust than found in our bodies. It's true that
we are the debris of vanished stars, but that debris has been sorted into
some different concentrations.

In contrast to the attempt at a literal reading, if Genesis 1 reflects an
apologetic that cleans out the polytheism of ANE mythology without
correcting the science, why should not the same apply to our
understanding of Genesis 2 and 3? Whether we have male and female created
instantaneously in God's image and likeness or an animated mud male with
the female later produced from him, trying to read the record independent
of ANE mythology creates problems. That the early descendants of Adam are
farmers and metalworkers, indicating a chalcolithic culture rather than a
hunter-gatherer stage, tells us that we are dealing with the late outlook
that has forgotten the historical development of early Homo. Dick tries
to get around this with a late Adam and the claim that the ANE mythology
is a degenerate version of the true biblical history. However, I would
like to see some solid proof from him that the Bible authors did not make
use of cleaned up legends to communicate monotheism and other lessons to
the Hebrews. And the attempt to identify the water or creation with the
accretion disk of what will become planetary systems seems to me to be
really reaching. M-Genesis seems to me even less relevant than Dick's
attempted unification.
Dave (ASA)

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:06:41 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
<bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
I may have asked this before, so please excuse me if I’m repeating
myself.
 
I think I just realized that it is inconsistent to believe in both
biological evolution and a historical Adam. Here’s the logic- please
comment:
 
1. Genesis 2 says God made man (the first human) from the dust of the
Earth. Either this is literal or figurative.
2. Genesis 2-3 says this first man’s name is Adam, and gives a story of
the fall. Either this is literal or figurative (talking serpent, tree of
life, etc.).
 
To believe in evolution and a real Adam, it would require that item 1 is
figurative, since we know that Adam was not made from the dust of the
ground literally.
 
To believe in evolution and a real Adam, that would mean item 2 is taken
literally, since it it the story of a real person.
 
So here we have a passage where some of the critical components are taken
figuratively and some literally, with no hints from the text itself which
is figurative and which is literal. Since there are no hints, it would
seem reasonable that both must be either figurative or both literal, so
in that case, one can’t both believe in evolution and a literal Adam and
still be consistent.
 
Did I miss something? People who go for biological evolution and a real
Adam are Dick Fischer and M-Genesis adherents, I think.
 
Reference:
Gen 2:7 KJV:
 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
 
…Bernie
____________________________________________________________
Boost your online security with a personal firewall. Click here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oCGoekbYuDqFvHmxGMedYbin0JMogcY6bRabJUcVkD1bDQB/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 31 19:38:17 2008