Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

Dear Christine,
You've missed a part in the Walton thesis:
   "It ain't about material origins, but functional origins."
By saying Gen 1 is not about material origins, he can
dodge the problem with Gen 1 (eg the of the firmament).
But being at Wheaton, he has to believe in a material
Adam in Gen 2. Otherwise, he'll leave or he'll get fired.
Denis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christine Smith" <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

> Hi all,
>
> Okay, you'll have to forgive my ignorance here with the particular scholar
> being referenced, but from my own reading of Genesis 2, it seems to me
> that this is also a passage describing functionality - specifically, the
> functional relationships between man and creation, and man and woman. I
> see Adam as both literal and metaphorical here (in other words, a
> historical person who has been transformed here into a theological
> symbol). So, I don't follow why the functionality argument can't be
> maintained for Genesis 2 or how that would necessarily invalidate a
> literal Adam?
>
> In Christ,
> Christine
>
> "For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7
>
> Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find
> out how.
>
> Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV
> for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org
>
>
> --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Pete Enns <peteenns@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Pete Enns <peteenns@mac.com>
>> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments
>> To: "Denis O. Lamoureux" <dlamoure@ualberta.ca>
>> Cc: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro99@q.com>, "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 12:42 PM
>> Denis,
>>
>> This is my main criticism of John Walton, too. I think he
>> is doing marvelous work helping people who are struggling
>> with the implications of Gen 1. I will likely see him at SBL
>> in November, and I hope to ask him whether he intends to
>> continue he work into Gen 2-3.
>>
>> I also am not entirely convinced of his material/function
>> distinction, but it is certainly valuable to consider.
>>
>> Pete Enns
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Denis O. Lamoureux wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Jim,
>> > It's easy for Walton to use his "it ain't about
>> material origins,
>> > but functional origins" in Gen 1.
>> >
>> > But did you notice something? HE STOPS AT GEN
>> 1.
>> > Why doesn't he use his thesis on Gen 2 and Adam?
>> >
>> > Ask him if he thinks Gen 2 is historical? He
>> works at
>> > Wheaton College, and if he says there is no
>> HISTORICAL
>> > Adam, then he's gone . . . .
>> >
>> > D
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Armstrong"
>> <jarmstro99@q.com>
>> > To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> > Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 8:19 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book
>> comments
>> >
>> >
>> >> I think you are dead on. John Walton, OT scholar
>> from Wheaton presented a lecture for Canyon Institute for
>> Advanced Studies in Phoenix in 2006 titled, "Reading Genesis
>> with 1 with Ancient Eyes: What Does it Mean to
>> Create?" In it, he discussed at some length
>> this matter of ancient perspective, and I believe he would
>> agree entirely with your surmise that the division implicit
>> in those the two words would be incomprehensible to those
>> ancient eyes. Science had neither defined nor differentiated
>> itself in those days. Nor did they did not think in material
>> terms per se, instead understanding everything as a part of
>> God's presence and activity in the world. Walton mentions
>> that "miracle" is a New Testament word, things that denote
>> some departure from what nature has the capacity to do in
>> the material world. In contrast, the OT terms are signs and
>> wonders, and distinctly (he says) not about shuffling
>> material things about, again because those ancient eyes and
>> hearts (a western term) do not have a framework at all like
>> western material-based terminology and explanation. He
>> suggested our traditional way of interpreting much of Gen.
>> 1, for example, would fall on the ancient ears about as well
>> as an explanation of daylight saving time.
>> >> JimA [Friend of ASA]
>> >> Murray Hogg wrote:
>> >>> Hi Denis,
>> >>>
>> >>> I actually wonder if using the terms "science"
>> and "history" in this context isn't - in the end analysis -
>> anachronistic.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd offer the observation that what
>> "pre-modern" societies do is tell stories - they don't do
>> "science", and they don't record "history". And if one can
>> escape the need to force Genesis into either category, then
>> the result is very liberating. One can even begin to read
>> Genesis theologically as per the entire point of the
>> narrative!
>> >>>
>> >>> Here I think much benefit might be gained from
>> a familiarity with the field of ethnohistory - which
>> discipline gives some interesting insights into the way
>> non-Western and pre-modern societies deal with their past.
>> It's on my list of subjects to get around to "one day."
>> >>>
>> >>> Actually, as I think about it, this might be
>> more or less another way of putting your entreaty of
>> "Separate, don't conflate", viz; if one can discriminate
>> between "history", "science", and "story" -- where "story"
>> is a way of conveying meaning (theological meaning in the
>> case of Genesis) -- then one is, I think, well on the way to
>> resolving the "problem" which arises in light of our
>> modernist inability to see that there is more than one way
>> of conveying spiritual truth.
>> >>>
>> >>> Blessings,
>> >>> Murray
>> >>>
>> >>> Denis O. Lamoureux wrote:
>> >>>> Dear Bernie,
>> >>>> You are a scrapper my friend!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You write:
>> >>>>> Ancient theological idea:
>> >>>>> Adam was the first human to sin.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This statement is nothing but
>> theology
>> >>>>
>> >>>> NOT true. It's ancient science
>> (creation
>> >>>> and existence of Adam) delivering an
>> inerrant
>> >>>> and Holy Spirit-inspired theology (sin is
>> >>>> very real and humans are sinners).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bernie: Separate, Don't Conflate!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best,
>> >>>> Denis
>> >>>
>> >>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>> with
>> >>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of
>> the message.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>> with
>> >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>> message.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>> with
>> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>> message.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>> with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 29 16:04:42 2009