RE: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent?

From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sat Sep 06 2008 - 13:30:22 EDT

Gordon said: In fact, one might ask how Adam was supposed to understand what
it meant to die the day he ate from the tree if he hadn't seen something
that was dead.

Indeed, how would Adam suddenly coming from dust understand anything at all?
What would be necessary, I assume, is a set of specific neurological
patterns that would allow assimilation of the that which is being observed,
as well as, a logic center that was capable of assigning meaning to these
categorized sensory signals? If such patterns existed already that were
well adapted to the environment in dealing with reality, then, perhaps, they
could be the basis for the pattern placed into our instant Adam and Eve.
This is almost identical to having molecular patterns (eg DNA) already in
existence to create a physical body, albeit greater care and logical
arrangement would seem necessary for creating a mind that could understand
things. The idea of Pre-Adamites serving this purpose for a living soul
human to emerge by God's own deliberate hand does make some sense. Adam may
not have had images in his mind of actual death "experiences" but he may
have understood death to mean something like the opposite of living, which
he was now experiencing.

I am curious of everyone's opinion of whether or not pre-Adamaites would,
essentially, eliminate inconsistency between evolution and a literal Adam?

"Coope"

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of gordon brown
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:22 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically
inconsistent?

Bethany,

The "no sickness, no tears, no pain, no death" that conflicts with science
is an interpretation of Genesis, not what it actually says. In fact, one
might ask how Adam was supposed to understand what it meant to die the day
he ate from the tree if he hadn't seen something that was dead. The Garden
required watering and a human gardener. The really unusual thing in the
Garden was the tree of life. It isn't until near the end of Chapter 3 that
we get even a clue as to what it was for. I think that that is where the
question of literal interpretation and agreement or disagreement with
science is most readily raised.

Revelation builds on themes from the Old Testament. Just as Genesis almost
from the beginning introduces the Garden of Eden, Revelation almost at the
end describes a new Garden of Eden. However it is far more than a
recycling. In the new Garden or city there is no sun, no moon, and no
night. This is seen as being much better than the old Garden.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Bethany Sollereder wrote:

> Gordon,
>
> Actually, if you look in the LXX, Gen 2:8 uses the word paradise (*
> paradeison*) to describe the garden of Eden. But the word just means an
> idyllic place or state - in fact when I just looked it up, paradise was
> defined as "the abode of Adam and Eve before the Fall in the biblical
> account of the creation: the Garden of Eden". It was a place where the
> forces of chaos had been dealt with by the acts of creation. Humans had a
> task, but it was one they were well able to do. They were in need of
nothing
> - there was no sickness, no tears, no pain, no death. And to top it all
> off, God walked in the garden with them.
> In fact, take a look at the late chapters of Revelations and we see a
> recycling of many of the same things, only it is a garden-city in Rev, not
> just a garden.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Bethany
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 6 13:31:16 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 06 2008 - 13:31:17 EDT