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

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Tue Sep 09 2008 - 10:36:09 EDT

Hi George:
 
There are a number of anchors that point to the 6,000 to 7,000 year
range for Adam, only one of them is the genealogies. Further is the
linking of Eridu to the Adamic line according to Babylonian tradition.
Also Enoch, the city Cain built, is part of Sumerian and Akkadian
history located on the same canal as Eridu less than 50 miles north.
Enoch (Sumerian Unug) later is known as Erech (Sumerian Uruk). Eridu
dates to 4800 BC and Enoch to 4200 BC so that fairly well fits the
biblical description.
 
Also, nearly every one of Noah's grandsons can be traced to somewhere.
Japhethites headed west, Hamites went south and Semites stayed pretty
much at home. Had they lived tens of thousand of years ago that would
be impossible, and Noah provides another restriction on the Adamic line.
So Noah and the flood looks pretty secure at 2900 BC. And the last four
patriarchs before the flood resonate in the Sumerian king list. So I
would say the overall evidence points to Adam's introduction in southern
Mesopotamia, and the Garden's location near to Eridu, and the time at
about 7,000 years ago. I would work my theological assumptions around
that scenario rather than try to establish a theological scheme and
rearrange history to fit it.
 
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: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:31 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam-
logically inconsistent?
 
Great point, Dick. Soul-less humans demonstrating a spiritual nature
seems oxymoronic. If Adam was the first "living soul" then how could
humans 10,000 years ago be so spiritual? [I suspect the real age may
extend beyond 15,000 years since Aborigines and other races were older
than Clovis.]
 
One answer is Adam predates all "spiritual" homo sapiens. Thus, the
6000 years for Adam derived only by genealogies is in error. This was
a bit hard for me to swallow at first since the begats were very
specific linking father and son. But, portions of these genealogies
are found in various locations of the O.T. and, surprisingly (though
you likely already know), they don't agree with each other. There are
at least 6 generations missing in a comparison between a lengthy
genealogy list found in Ezra and Chronicles. This opens the door to
allowing a time much greater than Usher's dating, but it raises the
question as to why gaps would exist in these genealogy accounts. One
obvious problem would be the fact that the actual number of generations
between Adam and Abraham would be in the hundreds, then memorizing all
of them would be quite a burden for both parent and child in learning
and teaching hundreds of chronological names. Perhaps the names that
are chosen for memory are done so according to either their prominence
in society or that they names fit some sort of poetic meter. Any chance
of these names fit some sort of mnemonic advantage, Dick?
 
Another possibility is that God elected at some point after Adam to
extend that which He gave Adam and Eve to all homo sapiens, perhaps
after the fall when they would have reproduced and sent their children
out to mix with the pre-Adamites.
 
One allusion, though slight, to the idea of both pre-Adamites and their
possible limited spiritual state is found in the verse that establishes
Jubal as the father of the harp (not the flute). I understand that the
word for harp does indicate it is not a flute, but something much
greater. If flutes were, essentially, the first manufactured instrument
and they predate Adam's period then it makes sense that Jubal would not
be credited with the first instrument, but the first advanced musical
instrument (ie harp). Just how superior a harp would be in indicating
spirituality is a tough question, admittedly, but it is worth
mentioning.
 
"Coope"
 
 
 
 
 
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 9:53 PM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam-
logically inconsistent?
 
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 Tue Sep 9 12:26:45 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 09 2008 - 12:26:45 EDT