On 25 November Denis Lemoureux wrote, concerning my question about
Jesus's Y chromosome and--in case his Y chromosome did indeed resemble
that of an ancient male--the possibility that it would *seem* that
he had a father, whereas he actually did not:
> My point is that the reason you have even
> considered arguing in this manner is that your hermeneutics (and
> resultant exegesis of Gen 2--the de novo creation of Adam and Eve) is the
> operative factor. Given just the scientific data, and a different
> hermeneutical program (say like mine, if I may say it--that Gen 1-11 is a
> Holy Spirit inspired ancient near eastern cosmology) you would not have
> come up with your initial question.
[delete]
Then Denis quotes me:
> > But--it seems to me--it removes one of the scientific reasons for claiming
> > that Adam and Eve had ancestors.
>
> I very much disagree with you here. Your argument is not a scientific
> one! It is foundationally and utterly theological with a scientific
> veneer. The science claims that our current Y chromosome can be traced
> back to one individual.
OK--you disapprove of my Genesis 1-11 hermeneutics. But Adam and Eve
are not the point of the discussion. If Jesus's Y chromosome resembled
that of other contemporary males, then it would *look like* he descended
from a single male who lived long ago and so it would *look like* he
had a human father. But he did not have a human father. So, *no matter
who* are first parents were, it would *look like* he descended from
them, whereas he actually did not. I mentioned Adam and Eve because
I believe they were our first parents. But that particular belief is
not essential to the argument.
It's good discussing with you, Denis! I look forward to your responses.
In Christ,
Russ
e-mail: rmaatman@dordt.edu Home address:
Russell Maatman 401 Fifth Ave. SE
Dordt College Sioux Center, Iowa 51250
Sioux Center, Iowa 51250 Home phone: (712) 722-0421