At 12:37 PM 3/13/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
>
> No. Saying that there is a context in which Genesis 3 might have
happened is
>not the same as having evidence that there was a real couple named Adam &
Eve, the
>latter made from a rib of the former, who were tempted by a talking
serpent &c. That is
>what would be required in order for you to say that you had evidence for
Gen.2 & 3 to be
>"Historie wie es eigentlich gewesen ist."
> .........................
>
>> Pandora's box corresponds to our experience of responsibility, alienation
>> and guilt. To me this is not a very useful criteria.
>
> & there is certainly no reason for Christians to say that portions of Greek
>myth, or lots of other sources, may say correct things about the human
condition.
>But when you widen the field a little to take in the related Prometheus
story you
>have something which clashes sharply with the biblical account.
Ultimately Gen.3 is
>not authoritative, or even necessarily very interesting, by itself but in
the context
>of all Scripture - which means first of all in relation to Christ. Which
is why, e.g.,
>Jews & Muslims & Christians evaluate Gen.3 differently. Only Christians
can say of it
>"O happy fault that was so worthy to have so great a Redeemer."
>
> ...................................
>
>> You missed entirely my point. I wasn't advocating talking to muslims about
>> Adam. I was pointing out that you can't claim the Bible is theologically
>> correct without at the same time saying that Islamic theology is false. How
>> do you know that without some form of physical confirmation of one or the
>> other story?
>
> But if it's a matter of "physical confirmation of one or the other story"
then
>Genesis 3 is irrelevant. We have no basic difference there. Where we do
have a
>difference is over whether or not Jesus died on the cross.
No, the Muslims beleive that Jesus died on the cross. They have little
doubt about that. The differences are in who Jesus was, and did he arise. I
have muslims in my extended family.
> I think you've misread me. I said I _can't_ prove that you're a sinner
from a
>study of history.
I stand corrected.
Of my citing H. G. Wells.
> Yes, & you could have also cited the dumb James Kennedy statement posted
here
>recently. But it's still wrong. What the church needs - & what many
modern theologians
>have tried to do - is to make it clear that atonement has to do with the
sinful human
>condition however that condition arose in the evolutionary process. That
doesn't mean
>that theology ignores that question but its resolution - & especially
resolution in
>terms of an historically accurate Eden story - is not a necessary or
sufficient
>condition for understanding atonement. The type of thing you're doing
here is a
>hindrance to such work because it reinforces the idea that we've got to
find out who
>Adam & Eve were before we can appreciate what Christ has done.
The problem with this last sentence is that what you are doing isn't going
to help people like Provine, Wells, E.O. Wilson, my former boss etc. They
are well aware of the attempts to make christianity true without connecting
it to history. They find it less than acceptable.
You can have the last word. It is time to put this one to bed.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 21:15:48 EST