ASA - February 2009: RE: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Wed Feb 25 2009 - 10:52:31 EST

Hi David, you wrote:

>Certainly by the time the scriptures are written, all living people can
trace their genealogy to Adam, though genetically the human population is
more diverse than n of 2.<

When I launched into this project in 1984 that's what I thought too. I had
surmised that the flood could terminate all mankind and that Noah's wife was
outside the Adamic line such that all living today could trace their
ancestry back to Adam and also through Noah's wife all the way back to the
apes in Africa. It was a good idea I thought, but early on in my research I
found it didn't line up with the facts of history. The flood is far too
late and Adam is far too late in history that we all can be related to the
covenant family. If you wanted to be related to Adam and Noah you should
have chosen parents who were Arabs or Jews or Greeks. If you didn't,
chances are you're unrelated genetically to the covenant couple. Oh, well.

When Christ died for us all, the hope of salvation became available to all
mankind. He urged his disciples to preach to every "creature," removing all
doubt that gentiles were welcome in the kingdom of God. The other thing
that may not be as apparent is the issue of accountability. Who was
accountable before Christ? I submit it was only those in the Line of
Promise, the children of Israel. That would exclude all gentiles everywhere
including those who did have Adamic roots, the children of Japheth and Ham,
and perhaps even the Assyrians, for example, who were from the line of Shem.
So the sin nature apparent in all mankind is not the issue in my estimation
- it's only accountability.

What we can gather from that is that those who were outside were not held
accountable, but when they were recruited into the family of Israel they
became accountable. Today everyone is accountable, perhaps, or maybe only
those who hear the gospel and have the opportunity to accept or reject. I
don't have an opinion on that. But the important point is that bloodlines
are of no importance.

Dick Fischer, GPA president

Genesis Proclaimed Association

"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"

www.genesisproclaimed.org

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 9:42 AM
To: James Patterson
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article

James -- reading what you've said here, I'm wondering if we've been
disagreeing when we really basically agree.

You said: to deny what Genesis tells us about Adam and Even being the ones
God chose to impart spiritual existence to, and who chose to sin.

I respond: Personally, I believe Adam and Eve were real individuals whom
God chose, into whom God breathed something "more" for the first time, and
who chose to sin, the results of which propogated throughout the entire
human race. So I don't think we disagree here.

You also said: there's some genetics back there with Cain wandering off, it
seems. What does one do with the aborigines that appeared in Australia at
circa 40 kBC?

I respond: yes, exactly! So there are "humans," not descendants of Adam,
around when Cain wanders off (hence his fear and the need for the mark of
Cain). Cain and other descendants of Adam intermingle with them and the
resulting generations are therefore also descendants of Adam, in some
mysterious way propogating the imago Dei and original sin. Certainly by the
time the scriptures are written, all living people can trace their geneology
to Adam, though genetically the human population is more diverse than n of
2.

To me, the foregoing sort of model at present seems to do the best job of
integrating all the information we have available, including the data
(however mushy) from population genetics, and preserves some important
theological considerations concerning how scripture treats Adam. It leaves
some interesting questions -- what about the spiritual status of those
"pre-Adamites" with whom Adam's descendants mingled? -- but if scripture
doesn't tell us, maye we don't need to know.

If we agree that the foregoing is a viable model, I don't think we really
have any substantial disagreement. If you want to say -- "let's hold a
model such as the above as a tentative possibility, with another possibility
being that there's enough fuzziness in the pog gen data that maybe somehow
all the genetic diversity can trace to an n of 2 as well" -- I'm perfectly
fine with that and would happily welcome robust data to show that.

David W. Opderbeck

Associate Professor of Law

Seton Hall University Law School

Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:51 PM, James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

> -- I've read many of the scientific articles you cite before, but I'm not
sure I've read all of them. Do any of them suggest an "n=2" for the origin
of modern humans? I don't think that's the case, but I could be wrong.

> Nope. Not a one. To do so would be considered a religious bent, and would
be unacceptable in a scientific (read: naturalist) journal. I think that, if
Adam and Eve were the progenitors of mankind, or even the Hebrews, then God
stirred the pot. Russell's OSP if you don't like miraculous intervention.

> -- When you say "n=2", do you insist that "n" consist of the origins of
the modern human genome?

> Not insistent, but I don't presume it's impossible. However it is worth
pointing out here that even RTB states that the dawn of man was *sometime*
10-100 kBC, mankind spread out from its origins at ~40 kBC, the flood was
about ~20 kBC, was universal and not global, and that Noah's lineage was the
origins of the Hebrew race. So.there's some genetics back there with Cain
wandering off, it seems. What does one do with the aborigines that appeared
in Australia at circa 40 kBC?

> Can "n" consist instead of spiritual properties?

> I think so.

> Let me offer something I think is an analogue: if Abraham was the father
of the Hebrew nation, was it necessary that every "true" Hebrew have genetic
material derived only from Abraham and Sarah, or was it possible to be
grafted into the Hebrew nation through marriage or other spiritual
relationships (follow up query to this question: were the children of Moses
and Zipporah Hebrews?)?

> Well I certainly hope it's possible to be grafted into the Hebrew nation!
I'm counting on it! I think I answered this question above, tho.

> JP

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 25 10:53:13 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 25 2009 - 10:53:13 EST