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

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Mon Sep 08 2008 - 22:53:23 EDT

Hi George, you wrote:
 
>>The pre-Adamites were likely human in every respect except for the
lack of the one specific item special introduced into Adam -- a living
soul and "son of God" (Luke 3:38).<<
 
A "living soul" has always been a problem for me. Pre-Adamites are
co-Adamites and post-Adamites. Take native Americans for one example
for which remains have been found near Clovis NM dating to earlier than
10,000 years ago which are likely ancestral to modern-day Indians. Were
the ancestors born without souls and then acquired them 7,000 years ago
when Adam was introduced? In short there really is no logical scenario
that would say they "lacked" anything but that present-day humans have
something special. Which takes us back to how do we have souls and when
did we get them, and Adam's late entry merely complicates the matter.
 
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Cooper
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 11:29 PM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam-
logically inconsistent?
 
 
Hi Bethany,
 
You said: There are several problems: First, what happened to these
pre-Adamites? or did they simply 'become human' along the way?
 
The pre-Adamites were likely human in every respect except for the lack
of the one specific item special introduced into Adam -- a living soul
and "son of God" (Luke 3:38). This first soul and son warranted God's
own breath (literal or figurative) and he was promptly, by grace, given
place in a very unique and wonderful garden, which was out of reach for
the indigenous pre-Adamites.
 
Bethany said: The pre-Adamites may have been granted souls, perhaps
after sin had entered. Or, Adam's descendants may have eventually
displaced them through marriage with them. I favor the latter case
since I have learned that the genealogy accounts are not inerrant.
 
Second, this approach still ignores the purpose and genre of the
chapters as trying to explain God and origins.
 
The message that God is Creator is quite clear. The complications seem
to arise in the details since what we seem to have is a simple account
from a simple observer. Only 6 separate times (ie days) did our
observer (Moses) have to witness some key highlights of creation.
Evolutionary ideas would have been beyond any observer under such
limited observations. Darwin spent years on the Beagle before he put
things together, and decades before writting of it. It is logical that
Moses when unsure of what was really happening would do the very thing
that John was told to do in Revelations -- just write what he saw.
 
Third, it is anachronistic - still trying to shove modern science into
the text.
 
Shoving motion is a relative term; it can depend on your frame of
reference as to just who is shoving whom. The modern astronomy
elements of an earth "without form and void" and the likelihood of a
watery appearing protosun accretion disk are not ad hoc views.
Admittedly, the pre-Adamites idea may not be as easy to integrate, but
it does offer much in explanation. How anachronistic this is is hardly
reason to dismiss it.
 
Fourth, you'd still need humanity to be fanning out of the middle-east
instead of Africa.
No. As long as we don't restrict time, we should be fine. Cain's would
have married a pre-Adamite who might have had a MtDNA trail back to
Africa. If only sons were born to the decendants of Adam's daughters,
we will never see the daughters MtDNA, as I understand it. Of course,
it might still be out there, and new genographic studies may have much
to say on this topic. [The Y-chromosome trail is another issue may or
may not be so simple.]
 
Thanks for your comments.
 
"Coope"
 
 
 
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 10:30 AM, George Cooper
<georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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 Mon Sep 8 22:54:30 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 08 2008 - 22:54:30 EDT