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

From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tue Sep 09 2008 - 22:35:00 EDT

David said: I'm not sure why it's such an enormous problem that there were "spiritual" hominids that might not have had the same sort of "soul" as Adam.   Good point  I interpret God's special breathing into Adams and giving him a "living soul" as more a gift of eternal life than an augmentation of spirituality, though some seems likely. "Coope" On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:31 AM, George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> wrote: 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.   -- David W. Opderbeck Associate Professor of Law Seton Hall University Law School Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

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 22:35:31 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 09 2008 - 22:35:31 EDT