Re: Adam never met Eve

From: Bryan R. Cross (crossbr@SLU.EDU)
Date: Thu Nov 02 2000 - 10:11:49 EST

  • Next message: gordon brown: "Re: Reasons to Believe Ministry"

    "Howard J. Van Till" wrote:

    > 1. The likelihood that the biblical "Adam" and "Eve" are, at this time, best
    > (or even responsibly) interpreted as representing individual historical
    > persons is vanishingly small. (The 'Eve' and 'Adam' of population genetics
    > have nothing whatsoever to do with the biblical references from which these
    > terms derive.)
    > 2. Forcing the Bible (or any other sample of religious literature written in
    > historical and cultural contexts vastly different from our own) to conform
    > to our modern Western expectations for "matter-of-factness," or scientific
    > relevance, or historical precision is sure to generate far more heat than
    > light and to distract readers from the valuable religious insights that
    > could otherwise be found there.
    > 3. It is time for evangelical Christianity to shed the biblicism (bordering
    > on bibliolatry) that it now practices and to display a more appropriate
    > humility regarding the certainty and completeness of its grasp on human
    > knowledge of God and of how the human race might apprehend and worship the
    > Source of our being, the Standard of our daily life, and the Hope of our
    > future.

    Of course the opponent could equally assert that the likelihood that the
    ahistorical interpretation is correct is vanishingly small, that the persistent
    effort of ahistoricists to dehistoricize the texts generates far more heat than
    light, and that it is high time for ahistoricists to shed their scientism and
    liberalism and show some appropriate humility regarding the certainty with which
    they make their ahistorical pronouncements. Realists about truth are not phased
    by the 'more heat-than-light' charge, because it works both ways and is in fact
    nothing more than a rhetorical move to silence the opposition. The same goes for
    calls for humility from one's opponents while making confident assertions for
    one's own position. The only way for the various sides to come to an agreement
    regarding this question (should that ever happen) is for all sides to eschew
    rhetoric, and instead engage in deliberative discourse limited to the

    - Bryan

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 02 2000 - 10:12:11 EST