Re: [asa] Adam and the Fall

David,

Trying to save a case for a federal head Adam is exactly the same
hermeneutical move as trying to save a case for a firmament. I'm not
arguing that I can *prove* there was no Adam. I'm saying that the same
inappropriate concordism (I'd agree that there are some types that are ok,
say, theological concordism) is being used in both cases. No one agrees
with one, everyone tries to agree with the other. Why?

Bethany

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:03 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>wrote:

> I'd go further, and with due respect to my friend Beth, I'd argue that this
> kind of "certainty" could only be hubris. What sort of evidence could you
> even begin to offer that would provide certainty that there was never a
> "federal head" Adam? Given the mists of history that ancient, it would be
> like trying to demonstrate definitively that there was never a guy named
> Zerubunapal who stubbed his toe in Ur in 4000 B.C. Now, you might argue
> that the "federal head" Adam seems extremely unlikely and strained, and you
> might then have a fair point. But as "certain" as something we can directly
> observe today ("there is no solid firmament") -- uh uh.
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Steve Martin <
> steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Bethany,
>>
>> I think that one can be as certain that an Adam didn't exist as one can
>>> be sure that there is no firmament...
>>>
>> Wow, that is pretty certain :-)
>>
>> I guess, it is this certainty that I'm questioning. There are many
>> biblical minimalists that state with the same certainty that Abraham, Moses,
>> and even David and Solomon never existed. I agree that there is a world of
>> difference between Gen 1-11 and what follows in the OT, but to state
>> categorically that there is no historical basis for any of the characters
>> involved seems too strong. I can accept that one would say it is
>> theologically unnecessary for an Adam to have existed, but it doesn't
>> necessarily follow that he didn't. (Of course, the set of those who a)
>> believe Adam existed but that b) it is theologically unnecessary for him to
>> have done so, is probably pretty small).
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Bethany Sollereder <
>> bsollereder@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve,
>>>
>>> The Adam you are talking about (the one that first had a covenantal
>>> relationship with God) is exactly the Adam that Denis rejects. He holds to
>>> gradual punctiliar polygenism, which means the image of God and "real
>>> humanity" was manifested gradually amongst many humans.
>>>
>>> I think that one can be as certain that an Adam didn't exist as one can
>>> be sure that there is no firmament...
>>>
>>> David,
>>> I can appreciate you wanting to bring in Paul and his beliefs as
>>> attesting to the historicity of some sort of Adam. But it is not necessary,
>>> any more than it is to ascribe to Paul's 3-tier universe presented in Phil
>>> 2. He also held to ancient beliefs of science and cosmology, and Adam was
>>> part of that package.
>>> Nor do we need the doctrine of original sin being passed down through
>>> Adam's sperm to hold to the idea that all people are sinners. Sin, as it
>>> were, is empirically verifiable. Just look around.
>>>
>>> Always,
>>> Bethayn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steve Martin (CSCA)
>>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 12 23:11:07 2008