tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post5244903766152764790..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Did Adam and Eve Exist? (Part I)A. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-4705949971243700692011-06-12T05:02:39.429-07:002011-06-12T05:02:39.429-07:00I'm delighted that you are running this series...I'm delighted that you are running this series! I look forward to reading Part II. <br /><br />Thanks for recommending Just Genesis. I ask your prayers that I can remain focused to finish the first manuscript- 10 Myths About Abraham - this summer before I return to teaching in the fall.<br /><br />The fixed order in creation has been demonstrated in many areas of science: genetics, astronomy, and physics and in the social sciences as well. "Fixed" means that there are boundaries within which there is what the ancients called "flux." This worldview is contrary to the materialist claim that there is a gender continuum or a lower species-human continuuum. This is a source of confusion and delusion.<br /><br />The biblical worldview allows for metaphysical tension between binary opposites (binary sets): male-female, night-day, heaven-earth, east-west. Not all opposites are binary sets, only those objectively and universally known. These were believed to be God's fixed order in creation, the boundaries which are not to be trespassed. Thus homosex and bestiality are regarded as serious violations of the divine order.<br /><br />Your readers might find this helpful:<br />http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/04/genesis-and-genetics.html<br /><br />Keep up the good work!<br /><br />My verification word is "soresimi" - a hurting ape? :)Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-38692702807809959232011-06-11T22:47:10.368-07:002011-06-11T22:47:10.368-07:00Thank you, Alice Linsley, for that link. Denis Ale...Thank you, Alice Linsley, for <a href="http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2011/01/genesis-is-it-really-about-human.html" rel="nofollow">that link</a>. Denis Alexander, whom you quote, also wrote <a href="http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/alexander_white_paper.pdf" rel="nofollow">this article</a> at the Biologos site, and I will be examining its theses in the next post.<br /><br />I do not presume to approach your long-standing study of, and intimate familiarity with, the book of Genesis -- and I heartily commend <a href="http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">your blog</a> to all thinking Christians. What I am examining in this series of posts is the claimed incompatibility between evolutionary descriptions of human origins and those set forth in Genesis.<br /><br />In the post you referenced (linked in my first paragraph), you state: "There is a great difficulty here since the very notion of evolution is contradictory to understanding of creation held by those who gave us the Genesis material. They viewed the creation as having a fixed geometry, <a href="http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2009/04/plato-and-intelligent-design.html" rel="nofollow">exhibiting a fixed order</a>, with fixed boundaries between species."<br /><br />In this current series, I will not tackle the debates over macro- versus micro-evolution. What I hope to do is to uncover an exegesis of Genesis which will make the arguments of the evolutionists by and large secondary, or perhaps even superfluous. The "conflict" between Darwinian evolution and Christianity is a false one, and is based on claiming too much for Darwinism and too little for Christianity. Because God can do anything in this world, the Darwinians are wrong in trying to limit him to their evolutionary box. But Christians also go down the wrong path when they assume the primacy of Darwinism based on the claims of science, and hence the need of theology to accommodate itself to science.<br /><br />Thus when you write that "Genesis . . . isn't really about the origins of life as much as it is about the origins of Messianic expectation among Abraham's ancestors who lived in Eden," I really have no quarrel with that interpretation, and indeed, I can support it. I am not examining Genesis to learn how humans came in to the world and fell into sin; Genesis already tells me how that happened. My only concern is to give Christians even more ammunition against the Darwinian materialists.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-37634984219167535212011-06-11T19:55:46.988-07:002011-06-11T19:55:46.988-07:00I've spent 35 years studying Genesis and I'...I've spent 35 years studying Genesis and I'm convinced that it isn't really about the origins of life as much as it is about the origins of Messianic expectation among Abraham's ancestors who lived in Eden, beginning with God's first promise in Gen. 3:15 that "the Woman" (not Eve since she isn't named until verse 20) would bring forth "the Seed" who would crush the serpent's head and restore Paradise/communion with God.<br /><br />You might find this interesting:<br /><br />http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2011/01/genesis-is-it-really-about-human.htmlAlice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.com