RE: [asa] Adam and the Fall

Ian wrote:
 
>But I am convinced that Denis has something substantive to say to us as
we struggle to faithfully respond to God's revelations of himself
through the book of God's word and the book of God's works.<
 
Denis may have something substantive to say but this isn't it. Having
myself established a basis to legitimize the historicity of this man we
call Adam today that the Akkadians called "Adamu" and who had namesakes
for centuries after he lived, I can say with confidence that there is a
high degree of likelihood there was just such a man, and I can say
without hesitation that Denis is totally out to lunch on this issue.
And having nothing to contribute he should simply vocalize the same. On
the subject of history, my organization, Genesis Proclaimed Association
had a booth at a recent Faculty Commons Leadership conference in
Arlington, VA. Denis was there and came up to my booth and introduced
himself. My book, Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham was available
at a discount price. He didn't buy it. So how can he deliberately
avoid exposure to the evidence and then make public pronouncements that
such evidence doesn't exist? Heck, I would have given him the book.
 
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Schwarzwald
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:57 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Adam and the Fall
 
At a glance, I'd make the same call as David - there's a vast gulf
between recognizing that Adam as typically envisioned by some/many did
not exist, and that no Adam existed, full stop. Just as there's a gulf
between asserting that creation did not take place in a handful of
twenty-four hour days several thousand years ago, and that there's 'no
physical correspondence to reality' within Genesis.

I think the mistake is to regard uncertainty with how to definitely
regard those books of Genesis as a problem that needs to be solved
immediately, such that we have to have an immediate, definitive, and
binding answer to the question. I'd see a better option as realizing
that there are a variety of possible ways to understand those books in a
way that do have 'physical correspondence to reality' (in fact, I think
the justification for doing so is strong, even while being faithful to
science), and recognizing that there will be some amount of uncertainty
with whatever way we decide. Recognizing our limitations is no crime
here.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:43 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
wrote:
Ian, this has been an issue I've struggled with as well. I agree with
you that Denis' work is excellent on many fronts. The notion of
accommodation for which he argues isn't original with him, but it's
becoming more prevalant even in some more conservative circles -- see,
e.g., Daniel Harlow's article in the Winter 2008 Christian Scholar's
Review (http://www.csreview.org/XXXVII2/harlow/)
 
However, respectfully to Denis' position, I think he's too quick to
dismiss any notion of a historical Adam. I'd commend to anyone to
consider the alternatives proposed by Denis Alexander in his new book
"Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose" (some excerpts in a CiS
talk here:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/edinburgh2007/papers/Edinburgh_Alexande
r_text.pdf) and in Daniel Harrell's new book "Nature's Witness: How
Evolution Can Inspire Faith" and in Loren and Deb Haarsma's book
"Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design and Evolution."

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Ian Johnston <i-johnston@bethel.edu>
wrote:
The recent thread on Adam's Ancestors (David Livingstone's new book) has
stimulated me to encourage more of us to grapple with Denis Lamoureux's
scholarship (Evolutionary Creation, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008,
ISBN 9781556355813) as it bears on the biblical Adam.
Denis (who has been a regular participant at ASA Annual Meetings for
more than a decade, and an occasional contributor on this listserve)
seems to me to have made significant break-throughs in arguing against a
strictly literalist reading of the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Many
of us have been convinced that the science of the Bible represents
ancient frames of reference, and therefore we would not expect the
scriptures to make any significant contribution to current scientific
notions about cosmology, geology or even biology. But ancient science
also encompasses ancient explanations of human origins and extends to
explanations of human mortality (especially in the context of biological
death).

Denis's careful scholarship brings him to the following conclusions (on
p319 of Evolutionary Creation):

The Historicity of Adam

The Bible presents overwhelming evidence that the inspired writers
understood the physical world from an ancient phenomenological
perspective. In fact, there is not one verse that reveals a scientific
truth prior to its discovery by modern science. Scripture features an
ancient science of the structure, operation, and origin of nature. In
particular, the de novo creation of humanity has profound implications
for the traditional Christian belief in the historicity of Adam.

First, Adam never actually existed. Genesis 1 and 2 present the de novo
creation of the heavens, earth, plants, and animals. This is an ancient
origins science with no correspondence to physical reality. Consistency
within these first biblical chapters demands that this is also the case
with the origin of humans. The quick and complete creation of Adam is
identical to the de novo creation of the firmament-neither happened in
history. Second, Adam never actually sinned. In fact, it is impossible
for him to have sinned because he never existed. Consequently, sin did
not enter the world on account of Adam. Third, Adam was never actually
judged by God to suffer and die. Again, he lacks existence, and as a
result the ability to sin, so he was never condemned for his
transgression. Thus, suffering and death are not divine judgments upon
Adam, every other human after him, and the entire creation. There never
was a cosmic fall.

The historicity of Adam is built on an ancient conception of origins.
The traditional belief in an actual causal connection between his sin
and the origin of physical death is false. Adam is an incidental vessel
that delivers inerrant foundations of the Christian faith to remind us:
we are created in the Image of God, we are sinful, and God judges us for
our sins. Though Adam never existed, he is the prototype of the human
spiritual condition. In order to understand our existence, we must see
ourselves in him - Adam is you and me.

I hesitate to quote these conclusions without comment on how Denis gets
to them ... knowing that the biblical literalists in the Christian
community will certainly find these ideas to be difficult to swallow and
even inflammatory. But I am convinced that Denis has something
substantive to say to us as we struggle to faithfully respond to God's
revelations of himself through the book of God's word and the book of
God's works.

Ian Johnston

--
Ian S. Johnston, Ph.D.
Professor of Biological Sciences
College of Arts and Sciences
Bethel University, St Paul, MN 55112
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.