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

Bernie, as we've discussed before, "literal versus figurative" is just too
simplistic a way to look at these passages. There's no reason at all, for
example, that the story couldn't refer to a real man named Adam and yet that
some of the elements in the story (e.g., the serpent) couldn't at the same
time be figurative. As a better example, even the most "literalist"
interpreters of Gen. 1-4 acknowledge that God didn't literally "walk" in the
garden (Gen. 3:8). Gen. 3:8 alone clearly shows that these aren't simply
"literal" narratives, but non-literal does not necessarily equal
"figurative."

(Here's a contemporary example of figures of speech in narratives with a
historical referent: "the defense tore the offensive line to pieces and
swarmed the quarterback like a pack of ravenous lions."

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> 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
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.