Re: The death of the RTB model

From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Tue Feb 21 2006 - 16:54:19 EST

This is for Iain and Bill, and Dick

Iain wrote:
>Glenn, I truly sympathise that you have experienced rascism directed towards your family - I have not directly
>experienced it in my family, I have seen the ugly effect of it on people I know (particularly Jewish friends, and in inverse, a >colleague of mine who had a German wife had his son bullied at school by being called a F*****g Nazi).  However, I can't >really agree that minimization of the poison of  rascism is the criterion on which to choose the interpretation of Genesis,
>and do not feel that descendedness from Adam is a likely major cause of rascism, compared to, say colour of skin,
>religion, nationality.  Eg Jews and Arabs both trace their descendency back to Abraham and that doesn't stop rascism.
>Not to mention Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland ...

Don't oversimplify my reasons.  I do believe that racism is a danger in the other view But I also do believe that the Bible is teaching the genetic unity of mankind with the Adam and Eve story. Many verses seem to agree with that view--Eve as the mother of all living, Genesis 11's table of nations (no, it doesn't include everyone on earth, and the fact that Adam is called the first man.  It is hard to have a neolithic Adam and believe I Cor 15:45 

"The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

****

Bill wrote:

>I'd like to hear Dick's answer to that one -- not that Dick is the only person who takes this view. I believe Roy Clouser
>expressed a similar view in an article in PSCF a few years ago. I agree that I see no commission in the opening chapters of
>Genesis. There _is_ a commission to Abraham in Gen 12:3b. Possibly Adam's mission was imply to begin the line of God's
>people. The missionary work was left to later generations.

To me, this is another example of everyone knowing what it was that God meant, even though God couldn't actually find the capability to inspire the writer to write what he actually meant. The problem is, so many people have mutually exclusive ideas of what it was that God meant.

>Why the story of the rib?

>Since all creatures were made from the earth, it's not too much of a stretch to say that if God took a creature or a human and
>transformed him by making him aware of God, then God made Adam from the dust of the earth. But if God did this, then Adam
>was unique, and would need a unique mate. So God made him a mate. Not that Adam and Eve were necessarily the first
>humans, but they were the first to know God.

I could accept your reasoning here, but were Neolithic humans, merely animals?  That is the racist/dangerous view that I worry about with this view.  If you have a line of humans, taken from a line of animal-creatures who just so happen to have our skeletal morphology and happened to also do farming, have language and otherwise engage in human-like behavior, then you have a right to ask--are any of these mindless/soulless people still walking around on earth?  You know that the Native Americans were in the US long prior to the Neolithic.  I bet there is no genetic input from Adam to them in the Neolithic scenario. So, if Adam needed a special wife because all other humans, were really creatures and not humans, then, what about my Daughter-in-law who is descended from Native Americans?   Hmmm.  I might have to ask if she is really human!  Oh my gosh, maybe my grand-daughter isn't either. BTW, it took 3 encyclicals for the Popes to finally convince people that Native Americans were really descended from Adam.  The belief that the Indians had nothing to do with Adam was used as a justification to treat them badly.

The God-takes-animal-makes-man approach is what I do in A^3 but the only way it really works is if Adam is really the genetic ancestor of all humans. Otherwise you have some real problems.

 

>>Why the story of teaching Adam the animal names?

>Possibly God wanted to emphasize that Adam was his authority on earth. When you name something -- according to the
>ancients -- you gain authority over it.

So, did Adam get a new language?  The previous Neolithic peoples surely had names for the animals.

>Why is your wife a descendant of Adam and you not? Did you make an arbitrary choice? Or is this chivalry? Or...? (Not that
>this has anything to do with the current subject, but you've made me curious) I have to agree with Iain, though: people find plenty >of reasons for playing the race card without invoking something so obscure and nebulous as descent/nondescent from Adam. In
>Belgium the Flemish hate the Waloons because of differences lin language, for cryin' out loud.

My wife is arabic. Thus a descendant of Abraham, thus a descendant of Adam. I am merely a Scot whose ancesters were replaced by sheep on the old clan-lands.

>I don't mean tell 'em what they want to hear. At some point the Christian community needs to recognize that they have a
>problem with science that they had better fix if they don't want to lose their kids and lose their ability to influence society. That fix >has to be consistent with Biblical revelation, and we haven't found it yet. We need to keep looking. And we need to continue to
>search for ways of telling our story that are truthful _and_ will be heard. We aren't there yet.

The view has a problem with the science of anthropology. Nobody wants to pay attention to it any more than YECs want to pay attention to geology.  There are obvious religious altars, idols and other religious artifacts long before this Neolithic Adam and long before Hugh Ross's 100,000 year old Adam.  That says these animal-creature-humans were acting like they were worshipping something which, under the Neolithic-Adam-as-the- first-to-know-God scenario in which an animal-creature-human was turned into a REAL human, religion and religious activity can not be and are NOT evidence of actual humanity.  So, farming, religion, art, language all are not evidence of actual spiritual humanity and in many versions of this aproach those who engaged in such behavior were animal-creature-humans.  So, I always end up asking what is the evidence of ACTUAL humanity in this view?

*****

Dick wrote:

>All commentaries agree on some passages and differ on others.  And to avoid controversy they donít stick their necks out very far
>and take chances.

I absolutely agree with that. There is very little creativity in theology, and while I differ with you on the solution, my hat is off to you for doing something different than the pablum ordinary.

But, Dick, in all of that, I didn't see an answer to some of Bill's question.  My copy of your interesting book is in Houston and I can't access it. Do you believe that Adam was taken from pre-human animal-creature-humans?  I don't recall that.  And do you believe that Adam was the first missionary?  Where is that in the Bible and why all the mumbojumbo about ribs, snakes etc in the Genesis account if what God really meant to say was, Adam you are to tell others about me?

BTW Dick you should try some scorpion sometime.  Makes you a man! :-)


Received on Tue Feb 21 17:01:00 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 17:01:00 EST