glenn morton wrote:
>
> At 02:28 PM 3/12/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
> >glenn morton wrote:
> >> You are the one who thinks I am wrong to consider Genesis 3 as accurate
> >> history. But if it isn't accurate history how on earth can you say that
> >> Genesis 3 relates anything of value at all? mere presupposition?
> >
> > First let's note that _your_ claim to understand Genesis 3 as _history_ is
> >spurious. Your reconstructions of what may have happened millions of
> years ago with the
> >first humans are indeed ingenious but they are simply claims that it
> "could have"
> >happened that way.
>
> ABsolutely. That is what every scenario about the flood is. The
> mesopotamian flood concept is also a 'could have been' theory. So is the
> recent advocacy of the Black Sea as the site of Noah's flood a 'could have
> been' theory. The difference is that there is no way those last two can
> match the data in the Bible. If either of the last two are correct then the
> Bible is wrong. The mesopotamian flood can't last a year and there are no
> mountians to be covered in Ryan and Pitman's Black Sea scenario.
>
> Even your views of Genesis 3 are a 'could have been' theory. It is you who
> say they are not accurate accounts. That is most certainly a
> possibility--they may be partially inaccurate, or totally inaccurate. But
> you can't escape the fact that you also are offering a 'could have been'
> view of Genesis 3. Genesis 3 could have been inaccurate. So I don't see the
> point of the above criticism. Everyone is stuck in that mode, me you and
> the president of the seminary. It is also a possibility that Genesis is
> accurate--another 'could have been'.
You continue to say that I am presenting a view of Genesis 3 as "inaccurate
history". That is a misrepresentation. When I have said that Genesis 1-11 is "not to
be understood as accurate historical narrative" I mean to say that it is not to be
understood as a presentation of accurate history at all, but also do not want to suggest
that it is Dreamtime-like myth. It is not "Historie wie es eigentlich gewesen ist_ or
"just the facts ma'am" but a theological statement about the origins of the universe and
humanity which makes some use of traditions of the times of the writers, some of which
contain accurate historical & geographical information.
What is the point of the above criticism? Your previous arguments have
suggested that my view is mere fideism while your's is testable by historical standards.
It ain't so. You present a _possible_ paleontological scenario and then say that
Genesis 2 & 3 (in particular) coulda happened there - with no evidence that it did.
> >For all your useful compilations of data, we have no historical or
> >paleontological or other data so finely focussed on the first human beings
> that enables
> >us to say with any certainty that they were named Adam & Eve or that they
> ate from a
> >forbidden tree or anything like that. Thus your claims to "accurate
> history" are
> >vacuous. It's "coulda been", "not impossible" history.
>
> The place we have one written record of Adam and Eve is from the Bible.
> Now if that account inspires no confidence that it is accurate, then why on
> earth are we bothering with it?
The question of its accuracy should have to do with whether or not its statement
about the human condition corresponds to our experience of responsibility, alienation,
guilt, forgiveness &c not FIRST to whether or not the first humans were named Adam & Eve
or Fred & Wilma.
> It becomes merely another false tale by
> another primitive society. Lets assume for the moment that you are correct.
> We can't really be sure that there is an Adam and Eve from this account.
You keep repeating this but it makes no sense to me. We can be sure that
there was some group of "first human beings", the first hominids who were (somehow)
aware of God's will & transgressed it - as all humans do. That's what Gen.3 says.
............................
> > More importantly, Gen.3 is a _theological_ text which says that human
> beings are
> >sinners. Its accuracy is to be judged by theological criteria.
>
> How do you know that it is accurate theologically when it can't even relate
> material facts that you can document as correct? Islamic peoples beleive
> that our theology is wrong and they think they are correct.
Muslims of course have no problem with an historical Adam & Eve in your sense.
Adam was the first prophet. Where they disagree is with the theological significance of
the Genesis 3 story. But if we're going to be talking with Muslims of course what we
ought to be talking about is our agreements and disagreements concerning Jesus, not
Adam. Spending time debating about Adam with Muslims is a triple-distilled waste of
time.
> How do we
> decide the case? If the Bible has nothing but 'theological' correctness,
> then I would submit that it is not a very certain foundation. In fact,it is
> entirely subjective.
For the millionth time, I have never said there is no history in the Bible.
There's a lot of it & the historical evidence for the life, death, & resurrection of
Jesus is of utmost theological significance. But the Bible also contains a lot of other
material as well - & not just "poetry".
> >If you deny that you're
> >a sinner, I can't prove it to you by a study of ancient history. In the
> same way, if
> >you refuse to believe that your sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, no
> amount of
> >information about the historical Jesus will prove it to you.
>
> I don't know if you can prove our sinful status by studying ancient
> history. ONe of the fears many evangelicals have of evolution is the worry
> that it removes morality from the world. I don't think it does because in
> one sense our human choice is always one of behaving like an animal or
> behaving like Christ. The difference between us and the chimps is that God
> told us to behave differently. He hasn't told the chimps to behave
> differently. Only if the accounts in the Bible are true, can sin really be
> imputed to mankind. We certainly don't impute sin to a chimp.
>
> But if you want to look at all the foul things mankind has done to his
> fellow men, there is not much we do to each other that apes don't do to
> their fellow apes.
>
> Consider these 'sins':
This listing which I snip is very useful is very useful & I'll retain it
for future use but I don't see its relevance to our discussion. I agree - sin isn't
just "doing bad stuff".
............................
> Now, I am not saying that we are to behave like this because the apes do.
> God made man and told him how to behave. It is our choice to behave like
> men are supposed to or like animals. But without the assumption that God
> set the behavioral standard in the Garden and through the revelation of the
> Law,
Very sly but I caught it! Yes, we don't know about sin without God's standard -
but whether or not it was set "in the Garden" is another matter. Sinai, or the Sermon
on the Mount, will do quite well.
..............................
> > You never got away from it. You've just stretched out the time scale.
>
> Maybe I am still self-deceptive. And I will tell you that sometimes I do
> wonder about that. But what of you? You believe something that you
> acknowledge isn't accurate in any real sense and thus is only accurate in
> the subjective realm of theology.
This may be your evaluation but it isn't what I would "acknowledge."
> At least my views do have, as you admit,
> the ability to actually have happened. Yours don't, because that is your
> starting point. Genesis 1-3 didn't happen as reported in the Bible in your
> view.
The first humans sinned. That is what Genesis 3 says. Why you insist on trying
to transform my view into a claim that "Adam didn't sin" eludes me.
.........................
> > The way in which this whole discussion has gotten away from the initial
> >subject is an illustration of precisely the point I made to start with.
> That point
> >was that discussions on this list, & most Evangelical ones of science &
> religion, seldom
> >make any connection with Christ. Here we started out talking supposedly
> about the
> >relationship between atonement & Genesis 3 but the subject has been
> reduced entirely to
> >the historical accuracy of Genesis 3, whether the first humans were really
> named Adam &
> >Eve &c.
>
> But that is precisely the connection between Genesis 3 and Christ--it is
> SIN.
I pointed out at the beginning of the discussion that it simply isn't the case
that _any_ of the theories of the atonement depends in a fundamental way on
understanding Genesis 3 as a "just the facts, ma'am" historical account. You did not
try to argue the theological points involved but immediately jumped back to the
historical character of the Eden story. There is indeed a connection, but the problem
is that you are willing to focus only on the Adam, rather than the Christ, end of it.
> So I disagree that we have entirely left the initial subject. Even
> what I wrote above about the chimps still has to do with sin--and it was
> sin that Christ came to atone for.
I think this is too limited a view & that Christ would have come even without
sin. But that opens a whole nother can of worms - or chimps.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 20:36:45 EST