Re: [asa] legitimate parallel to explain death before Adam?

Does anyone know if a study has been made on the hermeneutic Jesus used in
the light of recent important research into Second-Temple Judaism's
hermeneutical approaches? It would be very useful for a discussion like this
one. Bruce Chilton has made a study of the Targumin and in a book on the
topic offered the Jesus that when Jesus cites Scripture he is often using
the text of a Targum Amaraic paraphrase on the Scriptures.

Bob Schneider

On 9/3/07, Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
>
> Michael Roberts wrote:
>
> Denis wrote the following to sum up the YEC position which claims to be
> the historical view of the church.
>
>
> *Even more troubling for evolutionary creation is the fact that the
> Biblical authors, including Jesus Himself, often refer to the early chapters
> of Genesis as literal history. *
> **
> This is a typical YEC canard based on dodgy evidence . Douglas Kelly gives
> 50 or so examples in Creation and Change p 129 and falsely claims that the
> NT took Genesis literally
> **
>
> Granted -- how, exactly, Jesus & his contemporaries read the O.T. is
> probably assumed, but on what evidence do you base your assumption that they
> *didn't* read the Scriptures literally? I can see how one might begin:
> It is fascinating to read of Jesus' word play with the pharisees in John
> 11:34, for example. Where he quotes a Scripture in which people are called
> gods (from Psalm 82). It would be a classic case of quote mining Scripture
> (and Jesus even adds the comment "...and Scripture cannot be broken". He
> apparently delighted in tripping up Pharisees with such word play --
> probably because he knew their propensity to "live by the word" --or should
> we say "literally", and he used it against them to make his points. (See
> also, the whole 'whose son is the Lord?' exchange.) They seem like
> inconsequential arguments theologically speaking, but not to the Pharisees
> who loved the letter of the law. (and the crowds delighted...) II Cor.
> 3:6 -- the letter kills but the Spirit gives life.
>
> But beyond these things, I can't see any reason from Scripture to think
> that Jesus thought of the Mosaic law & writings any differently than anyone
> else of his time would have. (more on this below.)
>
> **
> *In addition, the origin of physical death poses a particularly acute
> problem for conservative Christians who accept biological evolution. The
> Scriptures clearly state that death came after the creation of humanity and
> that it was a Divine judgment on the world for Adam's original sin. *
> **
> That's funny. It doesnt say it in any of my bibles, whether AV, RSV, NIV.
> NRSV, JB or anything else
> **
>
> Yes it does -- or at least the N.T. does **when you read it literally
> and take liberties with context** which is what is being contested here in
> the first place. (Rom 5:12, I Cor. 15:21) Before you get your dander up
> (am I too late?), I'm not trying to defend the literal reading here, or that
> death didn't occur before Adam. Science aside, that has plenty of Biblical
> problems such as "how did Adam know about death" if it allegedly wasn't
> anywhere in the world yet, and so forth. What I am defending is the easy
> assumption that N.T. writers and their contemporaries took it literally.
> I can't offer any direct evidence that they did, but to say that their
> understandings anticipated the scientific objections that would be raised
> fifteen centuries later, and therefore they harbored this anachronistically
> futuristic knowledge of naturalism and cosmology is a stretch, isn't it,
> Michael? Denis grants the literalists this assumption and shows (very
> convincingly I thought) that accommodation to the current understandings of
> the time is a norm throughout Scripture, and therefore their (the
> literalists') argument, even if true, carries little weight. The
> implication that we must share the same cosmology that Paul had in common
> with his culture is shown to be the falsehood that it is. Now -- the
> appeal to Jesus, himself, perhaps takes it to a different level. To
> demonstrate that God Incarnate operated with a certain understanding perhaps
> carries more weight. So is it fair to demand that as a precondition for
> modern theologians accepting modern scientific findings, that Jesus himself
> (being omniscient to the thinking of many, after all) should have
> scientifically set this all straight when he walked the earth in the
> flesh? Do you insist that the modern argument has to be won at that
> level? I don't think it has to be. Of course, I don't think Jesus chose
> to exercise omniscience in that kind of way (which might have been part of
> 'emptying himself' and not considering equality with God something to be
> grasped). And I would base that on, of all things, ... a straightforward
> reading of Scripture. So, given that Jesus seems not to have been here to
> launch modern science onto the correct track as preferred and defined by
> post 16th century thinkers, but to accomplish something much greater, I
> don't think any appeals to his Scriptural silence on this can help us. So
> Denis' argument includes, I think, even Jesus himself. He abided in the
> Father and knew what he needed to know to accomplish His mission. He used
> current understandings of his day to help deliver that far more important
> message.
>
> Most of this was about the N.T. times, but I am also interested in your
> materials (I should probably read your book you mentioned) regarding the
> 17th or 18th century thinkers who predated Darwinism in their thinkings
> about death and an ancient earth. I don't question your claims, I'm just
> curious how they concluded that death had come before man. (I know the
> antiquity itself was already well challenged at that point.)
>
> --Merv
>
>

-- 
Robert J. Schneider
187 Sierra Vista
Boone, NC, 28607
828-264-4071
"Science and Faith: perspectives on Christianity and science:
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/.
"A Catechism of Creation: An Episcopal Understanding":
www.episcopalchurch.org/science/.
When asked what he would do if he knew Christ would return tomorrow, Martin
Luther is said to have replied, "I would plant a tree."
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.