Re: [asa] Two questions... (bottlenecking)

Quoting David Clounch:

> I can see what you are getting at. The problem though, is that in
> order for them to be the first humans in a Biblical sense they were
> not just one pair out of many pairs. They were the original pair.
> Now, biologically they could have been one pair out of many. But they
> must have possessed some other unique characteristics and abilities
> not possessed by the other pairs. Otherwise they were not the Adam
> and
> Eve of Christianity...instead someone else was because there were
> humans that came before them.
>
> The idea that our Adam and our Eve, as a pair, are just one of many
> many pairs of Adams and Eves in a population of humans is not
> congruent with Christianity. Its outside the bounds of Christianity
> as I understand Christianity.
> Why do I say that? Because the one of many pairs idea indicates
> that the original man and original woman perhap were not even mated.
> Instead a pair of their descendants were mated (and became what we
> think of as Adam and Eve). But if this were the case, the originals
> were not created in any personal sense. And our Adam and Eve are
> imposters because they are mere grandchildren of the originals. The
> whole Biblical story is therefore terribly wrong. This is all
> rather
> troubling.
>
> Therefore, pardon my ignorance, I don't see the benefit of
> considering whether the entire human race today was descended from
> one
> pair if it was not T.H.E. original pair of all humans that ever
> existed. Not if the idea of worrying about that is to prop up
> Christianity.

I have spoken to this question before, but I will just make a couple
brief comments.

I think that most theologians would agree that the second chapter of
Genesis contains many figurative and symbolic elements. Many of these
are taken up in other parts of scripture and figure prominently in
Revelation. But having symbolic elements does not necessarily imply
that a passage has no historical reference. There is an underlying
historical reality, but the text is not an historical narrative.

There was a point in human history at which humans, given an awareness
of God and an understanding of God's will and desires for them chose
instead to follow their own desires and so ruptured their relationship
with God, with one another, and with creation. That corrupted (or
"bent"to use a C.S. Lewis term) nature came to characterize all of
humanity. We all take on the penalty of Adam's sin because we all sin,
just as we take on the righteousness of Christ by identifying with His
death and resurrection. That understanding does not require that a
single pair of humans be the physical ancestors of all living humanity.
 In fact, the Genesis 2 text itself, if read at face value, suggests
that Adam and Eve were one among many.

I think that it is entirely consistent with the text (though not
demanded), to see Adam and Eve as symbolic figureheads and not to refer
to two specific individuals at all. But again, I see the story of
Genesis 2 as a symbolic retelling of a real historical event -- the
entry into the human race of conscious willful disobedience to God, and
its consequences.

Keith

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Feb 12 15:07:09 2009