> Greetings Russ,
> Yea, me again. I guess I am just a slow learner. So bear with me as I
> try to negotiate (sorry) an understanding of your notion
> of theological nonnegotiability.
>
> > > On Wed, 29 Nov 1995, Russ Maatman wrote:
> > >
> > > > Russ Maatman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> the nonnegotiable position I take re evolution is that
> > > > human beings were created de novo.<<
> > > >
> > >
> > > Russ, I have always been puzzled by your category of "nonnegotiability."
> > > Can you briefly outline what epistemological/hermeneutic justification
> > > you have in making this distinction? For example, why to you consider
> > > the de novo creation of Adam and Eve nonnegotiable (Genesis 2), but
> > > you do not employ this category for the de novo creation as
> > > described in Gen 1? (I am assuming that you still maintain either an
> > > overlapping day-age or framework exegesis of the first chapter of God's
> > > Word. The Impact of Evolutionary Theory, p. 185)
> > >
>
I did write before that everything in the Bible is nonnegotiable. But
we don't understand everything perfectly. I do think that there is
enough internal biblical evidence to warrant the conclusion that the
days were not 24-hour days. That leaves Genesis 1 open to a couple
(at least) of interpretations. But only one (at most, since obviously
we might not yet have the correct one) is correct.
As for Adam and Eve, it seems to me that the Bible links Adam to Christ's
redemptive work. Now we are on ground where we must have some nonnegotiable
beliefs *at present*; otherwise, we have no faith at all. If the Bible
does not indicate that Adam was created (excuse that phrase again)
de novo, then we have problems with many biblical indications that
Adam and Eve were our first parents. There is the matter of sin,
immortality, the creation of Eve--all things I have spelled out in
some detail in (I know it sounds tacky to keep saying this) my book,
which you have.
You seem to start out with the idea that every new scientific discovery
must, if scientists cannot disprove it by scientific methods, must
stand and our interpretation of the Bible might have to change. No.
Let's start out with whatever nonnegotiable biblical ideas we have
and then insist that they cannot be changed by scientific discoveries.
If some reseracher says archaeological data indicate that at most a
very timy tribe left Egypt and eventually became the Hebrew nation,
let's tell him he's wrong. If some social science research indicates
that pre-marital sex can be a healthy thing, let's tell everyone that's
a lie.
Obviously, God can--and we would expect him to do things this way--create
genes in different species that are similar; after all, everything
he created fits into his creation. It is arrogant for us to say that
we know that such-and-such in various genes is waste, useless, without
purpose. Once upon a time creationists were accused of filling in
gaps in our knowledge with God. Now, when we do not understand the
function of some organ or some gene, we claim we know enough to say
that this organ or gene has no purpose: we are once again filling in
gaps in our knowledge, but this time we do not invoke God.
> Russ:
> > First, you will certainly admit that all Christians consider certain
> > matters nonnegotiable. God is sovereign. God is one. God is the Creator.
> > Christ, the second person of the Trinity, became man. Christ died and
> > rose again so that he could be the redeemer of his people and, since
> > Creation had been polluted with sin, of Creation.
>
> Of course, but these are major issues throughout church history that
> were debated and even became part of the major church creeds. The de
> novo creation of Adam and Eve has never been debated and studied like the
> issues you state above. De novo creation of A&E never has been a primary
> tenet in any church creed (other than maybe some 20th century
> fundamentalist churches).
Denis, do your really believe that John Calvin, Martin Luther, and
all those other good guys would have said, "Man descended from animals?
Of course. So what else is new?"
>
> > You have seen my book and so you have read why I insist that a human
> > being is not a body-plus-soul, but rather a body/soul, and that therefore
> > the creation of Adam and Eve was not the addition of a soul to a body. By
> > the way, I don't have any difficulty with holding that Genesis 1 describes
> > the creation of everything, including the human race, and that Genesis 2
> > gets down to particulars, especially with respect to human beings.
> >
> > As I see it, the body/soul matter is (forgive the use of this word!)
> > nonnegotiable. From this (again, see my book) it follows that Adam and
> > Eve were created de novo.
>
> Forgive me Russ, but this is not a hermeneutical argument. This is a
> philosophic argument, of which its ontological assumptions
> (Platonic mostly) certainly can be questionned.
Me? Plato? I thought I showed in detail that it is the *Bible* that
presents man as a unity, that Adam is not presented as body-with-a-
soul-added-on.
>
>
> You have not answered my original question:
>
> WHY IS IT THAT THE DE NOVO CREATION OF ADAM AND EVE IN GENESIS 2
> IS NONNEGOTIABLE, BUT DE NOVO CREATION SEEN IN GEN 1 IS NEGOTIABLE?
I think I have answered that question above.
>
> IMHO you are being inconsistent, and I cannot imagine a
> hermeneutical move that allows you to maintain nonnegotiability
> for Gen 2, but negotiability for Gen 1. Help me out on this.
>
> > Most of what I am saying is the historic, orthodox position of the
> > Christian church. Those who want to accept another idea ought, therefore,
> > to accept the burden of proof. (Example: those of us who think that the
> > earth is very old have had to present cogent biblical reasons why this
> > view is tenable.)
>
> OK! So Russ what you are saying here is if the scientific data points to
> a view different from the obvious/literal exegesis of a passage, yes
> maybe even one that is NONNEGOTIABLE, then the nonnegotiability clause
> may be dropped. But then it in reality never was nonnegotiable--which
> is all I am attempting to convey to you.
>
> Regarding man and apes, I think the proof is quite clear: 98% genetic
> similarity. Gen 2, like Gen 1, like all the scientific statements in the
> scriptures, are all negotiable in the light of the scientific data,
> so-correctly interpreted.
>
I believe my remarks above cover that question.
How about you? All this started a few weeks ago when I pointed out
that if we are going to look at scientific results, then the recent
conclusion that men descended through the male line from a single ancient
man according to analysis of the Y chromosome--if we are going to accept
that, then what do we do with Jesus the human being? Either his Y chromosome
did not possess the characteristics of the Y chromosomes of contemporary
men, in which case there was in principle a scientific test showing
he was born of a virgin, or his Y chromosome was made to look like
that of a man from whom he did not descend. Which do you opt for, assuming
you accept scientific results--a genetic test for born of a virgin,
or creation of genetic material to look like that of someone from whom
he was not descended? I'm still not clear on your answer.
Anyway, Denis, may you have a blessed Christmas!
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