Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

I don't know about the Gen 2 and Adam perspectives. But I do know he
speaks of other parallel cultures and descriptions as support for his
understanding. Also, I understand the issue mentioned in your last
paragraph. However, I also know that Wheaton - at least to some extent -
is better than some in permitting, (even if understandably not
encouraging) the voicing of some counter-conservative ideas (like
evolution). It is my impression, though, that it manifests as tensions
(which are instructive) rather than an underwriting of those
perspectives. At least that is the impression I got from this particular
speaker, and from a couple of reporters' explorations into the conflicts
that naturally emerge in curricula like biology (both faculty and
students interviewed, with diversity of responses). JimA

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.
Received on Tue Sep 29 21:46:48 2009