Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

Can I ask a dumb question?

Why is the idea of God breathing a soul into a population of Adams less
miraculous than breathing a soul into one individual Adam?

And why would it mean there is no historical Adam?

It seems to me there are three scenarios:

1. Traditional view: Adam the individual (individual soul and individual
body)
2. The TE view: 1000 Adams (a population) (1000 souls, 1000 minds, 1000
bodies)
3. Materialist view: No Adam, no soul, just 1000 bodies with suddenly
emergent minds.

Please note this is an oversimplification. It ignores the scenario of one
individual infused mind/soul which then propagated into a ripe population.

I'm having trouble understanding the assertion that there is no historical
Adam (scenario 3) if it turns out that scenario #1 was not what the
scriptures asserted. In fact, if the theology that goes alongside TE is
correct, (as I understand it) this means the traditional view is wrong, but
it also means the traditional view is NOT EVEN ANCIENT. Its a modern
mistake never originally intended to be in the Bible. So how could it then
be a mistaken ancient theology? Grrrrr. Is my heartburn from feeling
cheated or did I just have too much pepperoni last night? Is the entire
thread over theological mistakes sort of absurd?

Thanks Ahead,
Dave C

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:47 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> And here is where the core theological issue emerges - the meaning of "the
> gospel." The gospel is fundamentally the person and work of Jesus Christ,
> through whom & for whom all things were created & by whose cross the world
> wll things are reconciled to God. All the other aspects of theology - how
> sin got started &c - are interesting and important but they are not the
> gospel. The failure to realize &/or appreciate this leads to an appalling
> over-emphasis on secondary issues as if they, rather than Christ, were the
> article by which the church stands or falls. And the failure of churches to
> keep Christ front and center has led to a loss of faith of far too many
> Christians - I suspect Bernie is one example though I don't know enough of
> his personal history to say for sure - when they find out that they've been
> misled &/or mistaken about what is really a peripheral matter.
>
> I don't want to be misunderstood. Creation is important, law is important,
> and the Old Testament is important. But any theology in which christology
> is seen as just one more doctrine alongside those other matters is seriously
> defective. Those whose faith is limited to acceptance of some propositions
> found in a supposedly inerrant book are riding for a fall.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm<http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Escitheologyglm>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Enns" <peteenns@mac.com>
> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Cc: "Denis O. Lamoureux" <dlamoure@ualberta.ca>; "Jim Armstrong" <
> jarmstro99@q.com>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments
>
>
> Gen 1 is definitely less controversial than Gen 2ff. The same reasoning
>> that applies to Gen 1 when applied to Gen 2-3 yields a view that many
>> Christians are not willing to accept because of what is perceived to be at
>> stake: the gospel itself.
>>
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Michael Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Pete
>>>
>>> That is interesting. I have been doing a long study on the history of
>>> Genesis interpretations and have focused mostly on Gen ! (paper published in
>>> Geol Soc of London spec publication). In a sense it is the least
>>> controversial part.
>>>
>>> If you take Buffon in the 18 century, the controversy he caused was over
>>> the historicity of the Flood not geological time. Most miss that. Even RC
>>> priests J Needham were arguing for millions of years in the 1760s and
>>> getting imprimaturs!
>>>
>>> Gen 2-3 are more challenging,
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Enns" <peteenns@mac.com>
>>> To: "Denis O. Lamoureux" <dlamoure@ualberta.ca>
>>> Cc: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro99@q.com>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:42 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>

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 20:42:17 2009