Re: [asa] No Adam?

From: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Date: Sat May 02 2009 - 03:55:53 EDT

Hi Phil,
 
Your position is a bit confusing to me, as is the title of the thread. If we take 'Adam' to mean 'man' then there was, inescapably, a 'first man.' It may be simply an exercise in distinguishing 'almost-man' from 'man.' Nevertheless, categorically speaking, in other words, paying attention to when the language 'man' was first chosen to signify 'that particular creature there and then,' it holds that there simply must have been a 'first man'. Aristotle's logic tells us this - (paraphrase) 'there must have been a first.'
 
Of course, if you believe in poly-genesis, in contrast to mono-genesis, then this adds to the confusion, the former an idea which it does seem that a few people on the ASA list accept.
 
Thus, the allusion to Hamlet is fair only if one agrees that there was 'no Hamlet' before a certain text about him was printed. In other words, and this is important, Hamlet did *not* gradually appear from precursors. Hamlet was created or designed or built or composed or made out of the imagination of Shakespeare, 'one fine day,' or in other words, as a 'leap into time.' Before the text was published, there was no Hamlet.
 
Yet, this situation does not hold the same for 'Adam,' the 'first man' (call him the first 'homo-sapiens sapiens', according to anthropology, if you prefer). Are you suggesting that when the first text/story of Adam was printed (here we mean scribed or written) that 'that text' was the birth of 'Adam' as a mythical figure, but not as a symbol of the 'real first man,' which must also have existed. If so, I'm curious Phil, do you think that 'first man' and 'first woman' had names. If so, what were they?
 
Gregory
 
 

--- On Sat, 5/2/09, philtill@aol.com <philtill@aol.com> wrote:

From: philtill@aol.com <philtill@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] No Adam?
To: bernie.dehler@intel.com, asa@calvin.edu
Received: Saturday, May 2, 2009, 8:49 AM

I think the fall was real and happened somewhere along the course of human evolution. (My personal take is that the Fall was simply mankind becoming moral agents while not yet spiritually ready, and hence we were unable to overcome our biologically inherited selfishness and being no longer innocent it "killed" us.)  Given that the Fall was real and occurred in evolutionary history, I think it's quite acceptable for Jesus and the apostles to speak of an Adam as the symbol representing mankind, because they had real things to say about humanity's Fall and it was most easily communicated through the genre of myth.  Jesus referring to "Adam" is referring to the character in the story, much as if I said, "well, remember what Hamlet said...'"  I would not be asserting that Hamlet was a real individual, only that something spoken by the Hamlet-character was real truth worth repeating. 

Even if I was unaware that Hamlet was not a real individual (as perhaps the apostles did not know that "Adam" was not a real individual), it would not be wrong for me (or them) to speak that way, because it is not my intention to make assertions about "Hamlet" (or "Adam"), but it is my intention to assert some of the truths that his story presents.

Phil __________________________________________________________________ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 2 03:56:27 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 02 2009 - 03:56:28 EDT