As always,
Denis
On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Russ Maatman wrote:
>
> Denis:
>
> Just as I was being bounced from the reflector for the third time in
> three days, I sent the following message. Would you please be a good
> Christian and, even though I disagree with you all over the place,
> forward this to the group?
>
> Russ
>
> Forwarded message:
> > From rmaatman Tue Dec 5 13:40:24 1995
> > Subject: Re: A question for TE's (fwd)
> > To: evolution@calvin.edu
> > Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 13:40:24 -0600 (CST)
> > From: Russ Maatman <rmaatman>
> > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Content-Length: 7718
> >
> >
> > Denis wrote,
> >
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
>
>
> 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
>
>
>