Re: [asa] Who do Adam & Eve represent? (Was: Was Adam a real person?)

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Wed Apr 16 2008 - 09:27:10 EDT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Wallace" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Who do Adam & Eve represent? (Was: Was Adam a real

> Gregory Arago wrote:
>> A thought just came into mind for George: since it appears you hold the
>> position that 'Adam and Eve weren't real' (at least not 'historically
>> real,' i.e. flesh and blood living persons, though they were/are still
>> 'theologically real'), what do you claim as the first 'historical' event
>> or action in the Bible? When does 'Biblical history' converge with
>> 'actual, real history' in regard to human persons?
> Good question. I recall Glen Morton's comment to the effect that for some
> on the list, much in the Bible is not historically real or only
> incidentally historically true but mainly theological truth. I hope that
> Glen was wrong but sometimes I wonder.

It's often said that "History begins with Abraham." I think in reference to
the Bible that's roughly correct. Not that there's no historical data in
Gen.1-11 or that it's all historical narraive from Ch.12 on, but the balance
shifts strongly.

One of Glenn's problems (I'm not speaking behind his back - we've debated
this often) is that he can't grasp the idea that there is genuine truth in
anything but historical or scientific accounts. He's wrong.

>> If I'm understanding the TE/EC position, using part of George's response
>> to Dave W. below, would it make sense to say something like, 'we (i.e.
>> humanity) evolved into losing the kind of relationship that God
>> intended'?
> Gregory, I am not sure there is an EC position here. Rather what you have
> is George's position and George is a TE/EC. When I read Helmut Thielicke,
> another Lutheran EC in "How the World Began", I get the impression that he
> considers the result of primal disobedience to be more than just lost
> potential, as do I.

I wonder if Gregory is setting me up here! To make the type of statement he
suggests would require the very broad use of the word "evolution" that he
I would say that the course of human cultural development diverged from the
type of development God intended.

I like Thielicke but am not sure the view of human evolution he held was
adequate - i.e., that he saw the difficulties in holding any sort of primal
state of integrity. I grant though that we really can't know much if
anything about the spiritual state of the first humans from humans: As
Lewis says (I think in The Problem of Pain), we can find their pottery but
not their prayers. So I don't want to be dogmatic here.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Apr 16 09:30:51 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 16 2008 - 09:30:51 EDT