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

________________________________
From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 7:12 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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."
. . . . . . . . . .
Hi David-

In your example those are all figurative expressions, not a mix of literal and figurative.

In Gen 2, we all agree that God made a guy named Adam (regardless of whether Adam was the first human or if pre-Adamite's existed prior). The question is how: by forming dust from the ground literally or figuratively. Literally means he took real dust. Figuratively means the dust is symbolic. See my question? If I'm oversimplifying, please explain.

...Bernie

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 23:46:14 2008