Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu Aug 02 2007 - 07:49:04 EDT

Peter

You so over-polarise figurative vs literal that you do not allow any other position. Yours is a good debating tactic to the uninformed - either A or B but you ignore the possibility that Genesis may not be a totally literal narrative which means your simple either/or is invalid.

In fact the whole of the bible is neither literal nor figurative but a varying mixture of both. even the Gospels are not literal accounts.

As literal historical is meaningless, so is a literal historical Fall. That does not mean that there has not been a Fall and that we are not fallen.

Further early Genesis does not state that animals did not die before humans appear.Too much reading into the Bible of notions like an alleged curse affecting all of creation with suffering sickness and death coming to the animals is just not justified.

Lastly I believe in the fall but not the curse as the latter is not scriptural.

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Peter Loose
  To: 'Iain Strachan'
  Cc: dopderbeck@gmail.com ; 'Michael Roberts' ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:28 PM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

   

  Actually Iain, I did not mean what you appear to think I mean. I apologise for not being clear in the first place.

   

  If you read again what I said, it was your "stance in respect of bad things being literally due to." that is cause for sadness on my part. That's why I went on and raised the perspective from Paul in I Corinthians - 'as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive'.

  This is what I said Sat 28/07/2007 10:54

  A challenge to the figurative interpretation of the origin of 'bad things' would be the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 15:22 (NIV) "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

  Would those who adopt a figurative interpretation of Genesis 3 in respect of the cause of bad things, please explain why Paul didn't take that same view - apparently? Do they propose a mythical Adam and a literal Christ? Or are they proposing that 'all will be made alive' is also figurative? Figurative of what may I ask?

  You are free of course to reject your YEC friend's view of The Fall. But in so doing you raise absolutely huge questions about the entire record of redemption. Are you seriously suggesting that one can have a mythical Adam and a literal Christ? The parallelism fails. I think this Genesis 3 'myth' or 'figurative' interpretation needs some careful discussion and explaining. Indeed, I find it impossible to understand the flow of reasoning in 1 Corinthians 15 in any other way than demands a literal historical Fall as recorded in Genesis 3. A further sample of that account in 1 Cor. 15:21 (NIV) "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man." is in harmony with 15:22.

   

  Do we understand something in this matter that Paul didn't?

   

  Blessings

   

  Peter

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: dopderbeck@gmail.com [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
  Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:35 PM
  To: Iain Strachan
  Cc: Peter Loose; Michael Roberts; asa@calvin.edu
  Subject: Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

   

  But Iain, though I agree with you on the need for a broader hermeneutical perspective, and though I agree with you that it's too pat and simple to attribute carnivorous animals and such to a recent historical fall, I'm really struggling with the way in which, it seems to me, you're dismissing a central narrative of the Christian faith. The picture scripture gives us of human rebellion against God is, in fact, the picture of a man and woman eating fruit God told them not to eat. And scripture does, in fact, suggest that this somehow messes up everything. It seems to me that we need to appropriate this picture and interpret it in the context of what we know about the physical world, but not to dismiss it.

  On 8/1/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:

  Peter

  On 7/28/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com > wrote:

   

  Iain and Friends:

   

  I find this stance in respect of 'bad things being literally due to one historical woman and her husband eating a piece of fruit' to be very sad.

   

  Sorry, but that is exactly what my YEC friends tell me. That the fall is a literal historical event, tied precisely to Adam and Eve eating the fruit, literally on a given day. As direct result of this God put the curse on the whole of creation, and from thenceforth all the bad things happened. "Carnivory" started up (I've even seen articles on this on the AiG website), animals started eating each other.

  The logical extension to this is that to answer Michael's pointed question as to why God "designed" the Ebola virus is that Adam's specific act of disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit was the direct reason that God made this happen.

  My creationist friends tell me that the whole Gospel falls apart if you don't accept this.

  I agree - the whole stance is very sad indeed, and I feel honour bound as a Christian to continue to point out its absurdity - an absurdity that keeps people away from Christianity because most people think you must be a nutter to believe such things.

  As I have said elsewhere, we must think about what the Fall narrative _means_ rather than being stuck on whether it happened literally as described. (Man+woman+fruit).

  Iain

   

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.0/929 - Release Date: 31/07/2007 17:26

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 2 07:51:20 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 02 2007 - 07:51:20 EDT