tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post5566089285463733219..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Did Adam and Eve Exist? (Part II)A. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-57414047637605825822015-12-03T15:33:09.022-08:002015-12-03T15:33:09.022-08:00An American philosopher published last month in a ...An American philosopher published last month in a peer-reviewed Spanish philosophical journal an article entitled, "The Rational Credibility of a Literal Adam and Eve." See this: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5244649 Yes, it downloads in English!<br />The piece rebuts the genetic claims by Ayala and others against the scientific possibility of a literal Adam and Eve.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06678043713249923407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-85350398052307133952015-09-13T15:16:54.811-07:002015-09-13T15:16:54.811-07:00Www.thefirstscandal.blogspot.com does not in any w...Www.thefirstscandal.blogspot.com does not in any way threaten any religious beliefs. Any perceived threats are not spiritual or theological, but emotional and intellectual. Hence, the ad hominem attacks against the interpreter.Robert Hagedornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03047026068043418553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-33046973505605054522011-06-23T07:54:11.137-07:002011-06-23T07:54:11.137-07:00@Margaret,
If I am correctly understanding what y...<b>@Margaret</b>,<br /><br />If I am correctly understanding what you have written, you're assertion appears to be that the Orthodox believe the biblical story of Adam and Eve is inherently allegorical, rather than historical. I say this because the Book of Genesis says what it says, so the determination of whether a part of it is allegorical or literal is open to some interpretation.<br /><br />While I do not personally have a problem with the understanding that some parts of the Bible are not literal historical accounts, but were intended as didactic allegory, I do not think it is a necessarily easy task accurately to differentiate between the two.<br /><br />It seems to me that this series of articles is valuable in illuminating both the plausibility of there having been an actual Adam and Eve, but also in illustrating at least one logical approach to sorting out the historical from the allegorical.<br /><br /><i>Pax et bonum</i>,<br />Keith TöpferMartial Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679584221923893460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-60231781480728554952011-06-22T10:31:41.892-07:002011-06-22T10:31:41.892-07:00John,
The spiritual 'problem' of origina...John, <br /><br />The spiritual 'problem' of original sin is an issue of interpretation of the writings of St. Augustine in the centuries after his death by Western Or Roman Catholic clergy. Their new dogma was carried into the Reformation. The Eastern Orthodox do not believe in original, inherited sin, but that humanity was created 'good' with a propensity to sin. If you eliminate the dogmatic error, than you are not burdened with certain types of questions concerning our relationship with God, and are able to fully embrace the path of deification or theosis given us by the Lord. We had shared in a death like Adam, but the new Adam gives eternal life.Margarethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12505517873442278318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-2265531425685579902011-06-18T06:48:57.978-07:002011-06-18T06:48:57.978-07:00OK, next -- and let me make it clear that I'm ...OK, next -- and let me make it clear that I'm an Anglican/Anglo-Catholic in a parish that's making its way toward the Ordinariate, and thus taking a look at the Roman catechism for the first time. I was raised a Presbyterian and confirmed an Episcopalian in adulthood -- maybe a version of John Paul II's youth under totalitarianism giving him a better understanding of where they're coming from.<br /><br />My parish has been holding a weekly class/discussion session on C.S.Lewis's Screwtape Letters. One thing that's struck me in studying the RC catechism at the same time is the number of issues -- say, the position that humans have both a spiritual natue and a physical nature -- that's clearly covered in the catechism, but isn't really spelled out the same way in Anglican or other Protestant doctrine.<br /><br />In much of his writing, Lewis actually fills in the gaps in Anglican doctrine with Catholic material. Not only does he rely on the spiritual-physical explanation of the catechism, but he also relies on Catholic teaching on things like the Seven Capital Sins, the virtues, and so forth, which I don't believe you'll find at all in Anglican, Episcopalian, or other Protestant doctrine. But without them, you're up to questions like, "Gee, what was it that Cong. Weiner actually did wrong?" and you don't have much of an answer, other than "it's the lies". <br /><br />I gave Father K at St M, an ACA church, an outline of our exchange in the comments, and he pointed out that the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer was deliberately (in his documented view) reworded to minimize Adam's fall and Christ's role in atoning for it. In that case, you may certainly be granted an indulgence in not fully accounting for this spiritual event in your evolutionary thinking. <br /><br />Nevertheless, there are real spiritual issues here in addition to the logical ones. Lewis himself pulls something of a theological bait-and-switch in Screwtape and elsewhere, since he claims to be an Anglican but wherever Anglicanism fails him, he just reaches over to the RC catechism for what he needs. In that sense he is neither an "Anglican" thinker nor fully, 100 percent honest about what he's doing insofar as he represents himself as an Anglican.<br /><br />I would suggest again that trying to reinvent the wheel when two millennia of Christian thinking has been working through these logical and theological issues is not a good use of time.<br /><br />But also, my chat with Father K last night reminds me that the Episcopal Church (and the ACNA for that matter, which I believe you're affiliated with) relies on the 1979 prayer book, which, combined with scripture, reason, and pick-and-choose tradition, is pretty much the only available theological resource. A little like going camping with a book of matches and a raincoat, to my way of thinking. But suit yourself.John Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04625895756906828468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-33355191344199074972011-06-17T15:55:55.300-07:002011-06-17T15:55:55.300-07:00Now you are talking, John -- those are all excelle...Now you are talking, John -- those are all excellent questions, and ones I have been wrestling with for quite some time. And I will answer them, I promise, in this series -- or if not answer them, provide a logical starting point for doing so. Because up until now, as far as I can tell, the logic has it all backwards -- with the resultant difficulties you so saliently point out. <br /><br />But in order to get there, I first have to develop my own argument logically. Part I gave an overview of the two systems of belief, and noted where they appeared to differ; Part II looked at what I could find of the best theological responses made to the problems date. (And as you, Martial Artist and others here have pointed out, these models fail to satisfy, because they all require some kind of mass transmission of "original sin" to multiple individuals at the same time.)<br /><br />As presently planned, Part III will take a look at the studies in population genetics which define the parameters of the interpretative task. And in Part IV, I will put forth my own suggestion for how to harmonize the account of Genesis with the science of genetics, which was unknown to any of the ancients, or to the Church fathers (or to Darwin, for that matter).<br /><br />So if you can stay the course, I would like to hear from you whether my idea is logically satisfactory -- and if not, why not. Thank you for your thought-provoking comments here, and I look forward to more of them.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-20785536603533769812011-06-17T14:46:05.311-07:002011-06-17T14:46:05.311-07:00It's outside the scope to look at the scientif...It's outside the scope to look at the scientific evidence for physical evolution. Nevertheless, there's a spiritual issue involving the problem of original sin, and that leads to a logical issue. The RC point of view doesn't know (and neither does St. Science) exactly how our physical bodies came about, but it does have a position on our spirituality. For reasons primarily of political expediency, the Church of England decided to finesse a great many of these questions, but that doesn't make them go away.<br /><br />The issue as I understand it is how did original sin get transmitted to the whole human race; there are subsidiary issues, such as the pretty plain scriptural assertion that Christ as one man atoned for the sin of Adam, another. <br /><br />Now, I'm not sure what you're going to argue here exactly: let's say that somehow 10,000 early humans "evolved". (Logically, you've got the problem of where those 10,000 came from, exactly -- why start there, after all? Did 20,000 almost homo sapiens suddenly reach the same evolutionary point at the same time and mate to produce 10,000 homo sapiens? Shouldn't there be an easier explanation?)<br /><br />But leaving that aside, let's say two of those 10,000 named Adam and Eve ate the apple and created Original Sin. What of the 9,800 who didn't? Why didn't they convoke some prelapsarian version of an ecumenical council (especially since they were still perfect and unfallen) and correct Adam and Eve? Or are you arguing that 5,000 of that group were Adam and 5,000 Eve, and 5,000 serpents chatted them up, and they had an apple-ducking contest all at once? That seems less credible than Genesis, frankly.<br /><br />Or are you just going to sorta-kinda your way around the whole set of logical problems here? This is still the Anglican dilemma: it basically has the creed, scripture, and a limited set of traditions which some Anglicans buy into and others don't. You can finesse how original sin came about (as it appears you're getting ready to do), and Bishop Spong finesses Christ's divinity, and you're both Anglicans. An attempt was made to hold Spong to account, and it failed -- so Spong's cool. But I'm not sure how your approach differs from his.John Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04625895756906828468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-54887538898181715532011-06-17T14:23:21.234-07:002011-06-17T14:23:21.234-07:00"Reinventing the wheel", John? The link ..."Reinventing the wheel", John? The <a href="http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp" rel="nofollow">link you gave us</a> (for some reason Blogger truncated it) expressly states: "It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence . . .", and what I am doing in this series is precisely that: looking at the most recent scientific evidence, and trying to square our current theological accounts with what science is now saying. If that exercise to you is just reinventing the wheel, then you might as well stop reading -- you will not find anything new here, because you already have a wheel on which your world rides, and you seem quite happy with it as is.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-74796708882902471832011-06-17T12:48:46.142-07:002011-06-17T12:48:46.142-07:00It does seem to me that in two long posts, you'...It does seem to me that in two long posts, you've basically spent a lot of photons to revisit what's at this site http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp <br /><br />It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism). <br /><br />In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37). <br /><br />My guess is that you're going to wind up here sooner or later. But why spend all that time and effort reinventing the wheel? And if you disagree, why not specify where now?John Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04625895756906828468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-80616233561294143312011-06-17T11:14:37.344-07:002011-06-17T11:14:37.344-07:00Charlie, could you give us an example of what you ...Charlie, could you give us an example of what you mean by this: "the Bible shows God as active throughout the creation, not simply once to get things rolling." Are you speaking of progressive creation?<br /><br />If so, how do we reconcile that with the creedal assertion that "through Him all things WERE made...?"Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-63065012511875244612011-06-17T10:19:36.364-07:002011-06-17T10:19:36.364-07:00There is a degree to which I can accept a "ho...There is a degree to which I can accept a "homo divinus" sort of explanation. What would be critical to me in such a case is that God specifically appointed a couple to be the representative pair, whose actions would then affect the entire group that they represented.<br /><br />On the whole, however, the idea of a group of physically humans being given spiritual life and so recognizing God is not satisfying, if is in the gradual way that seems to be implied.<br /><br />If God can create, he can certainly make sure that his Adam and Eve generate a sufficient number of genetic variations to account for those we see now. Science can posit the existence of a necessary sized pool, but the Bible shows God as active throughout the creation, not simply once to get things rolling.Charlie Suttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08726338596245954419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-37014790413526726632011-06-17T09:07:16.018-07:002011-06-17T09:07:16.018-07:00This is a wonderful series! When you have finished...This is a wonderful series! When you have finished posting this series I'll link to the segments at Just Genesis. This is the sort of presentation and discussion that many of my readers enjoy.Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-78108451530193075452011-06-17T08:28:57.436-07:002011-06-17T08:28:57.436-07:00Just be patient a bit, John -- I'll review wha...Just be patient a bit, John -- I'll review what science says about the evolution of <i>homo sapiens</i> in the next post in this series. I think you'll find that there <i>is</i> a lot to say. If you want to read up on it on your own, you could start with <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Venema.pdf" rel="nofollow">this article</a>.<br /><br />You sound almost annoyed that there is even a debate going on. And I'm not talking about Bishop Spong: since he denies the physical resurrection of Christ, he has no stake in this debate at all. His Christ did not come to save anyone's sins, so he has no need for an Adam who introduced sin into the world.<br /><br />Catechisms are intended to recite (and teach) the key doctrines of a faith. They do not say anything about science, because science keeps changing, while the central ideas of our faith do not change. So I'm not sure how the Roman Catholic catechism could help us on this issue.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-4149841954818041782011-06-17T07:35:55.022-07:002011-06-17T07:35:55.022-07:00I'm not sure why anyone is bringing evolution ...I'm not sure why anyone is bringing evolution into this at all. The question of when homo sapiens "evolved" is related to what homo sapiens evolved from, and I don't think anyone has a good answer there. Even when I was in college in the 1960s, for instance, it was agreed that homo neanderthalis wasn't the candidate, if in fact it was a separate species (forensic reconstruction of neanderthals from skulls suggests they looked like Uncle Herb). <br /><br />The australopithecus is now regarded as a "proof of concept" that there were hominids from which homo sapiens could have evolved, but isn't regarded as the actual ancester (see the PBS page at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/l.html ) <br /><br />All of this ankle bone correspondence business is pure speculation. As to whether Adam existed, I'm not sure anyone can say for sure. Certainly ancient oral traditions have proved to be more accurate than supposed, but in part aren't we in an Anglican dilemma here? There's no Anglican equivalent to the Roman catechism, which would settle a lot of this stuff and save a lot of time -- so everyone rolls his or her own. The Curmudgeon sees things one way, Bishop Spong another, and merrily we roll along.John Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04625895756906828468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-81111134761104285752011-06-16T10:53:30.575-07:002011-06-16T10:53:30.575-07:00That's true, John. However, the context of the...That's true, John. However, the context of the Genesis material is African (Nilotic/Kushitic) and that is an important factor in understanding what the material is telling us. Especially since Messainic expectation is traced to these ancestors of Abraham.<br /><br />http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2011/01/who-were-kushites.html<br /><br />It seems that the physical evidence of human existence on the Earth isn't conclusive, but the so-called "Apes of the South" were fully human. Even Mary Leakey admitted that. Some (where there is enough fossil evidence to speak definitively) Australopithecine fossils dating between 700,000 and 2.4 million years are recognized as "early human fossils", having human dentition, bipedalism and stone tools.<br /><br />When Jeremy DeSilva, a British anthropologist, compared the ankle joint, the tibia and the talus of fossil "hominins" between 4.12 million to 1.53 million years old, he discovered that all of the hominin ankle joints resembled those of modern humans rather than those of apes. Chimpanzees flex their ankles 45 degrees from normal resting position. This makes it possible for apes to climb trees with great ease. While walking, humans flex their ankles a maximum of 20 degrees. The human ankle quite distinct from that of apes.<br /><br />With DNA samples from 2400 individuals from more than 100 modern African populations, researchers have identified a panel of 1327 sites of genetic variation across the entire genome. Analysis of the data suggests that modern Africans are descended from 14 ancestral populations, which correlate with known linguistic groups. Comparative linguistics and genetics are moving to similar conclusions when it comes to the question of "change" among humans. The evidence in both fields indicates a limited amount of flux, but no essential change. Read Sarah Tishkoff's African gene study here:<br /> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17057-huge-gene-study-shines-new-light-on-african-history.htmlAlice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-38369032042862037892011-06-16T10:15:56.505-07:002011-06-16T10:15:56.505-07:00As far as I'm aware, there is no algorithm or ...As far as I'm aware, there is no algorithm or any rule of thumb for how long it takes for one species to evolve from another, especially since this (again, as far as I'm aware but following the views of Behe et al) has never been observed. As a result, to say that modern man "evolved" 100,000 or 200,000 years ago is a very loosey-goosey assertion -- especially as questions are now being raised about whether this actually happened in Africa.John Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04625895756906828468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-28186135015667785732011-06-15T21:42:54.914-07:002011-06-15T21:42:54.914-07:00Great article!
The core of our Faith is the Res...Great article! <br /><br />The core of our Faith is the Resurrection which speaks of Why Jesus Christ came and Who He is. Darwinian materialists and the BioLogos group can't explain the meaning of the resurrection of the the Second Adam. <br /><br />My problem with the BioLogos crowd is that they claim to represent a biblical worldview but reject the biblical assertion of a fixed order in creation. Humans were created fully human or they were not. In biblical parlance Adam and Eve stand for the first human couple created by God. (We need to consider this in the cultural context of the people from whom we receive this story.)<br /><br />Genesis asserts that the order of creation is fixed and unchanging. This assertion must be understood before it can be either accepted or rejected. By fixed order the Bible means that God has established the order of creation with flexible but fixed boundaries. This means that there is change within species but not evolution from one species to a totally different species. This is why humans produce only humans and if there is something wrong with the genetic code, the fetus usually aborts. Plants produce plants. Animals produce animals and while bacteria can mutate, it is still bacteria.<br /><br />In the BioLogos view, "genetic precursors" of Man are not human in the biblical sense, that is, they were not created in the image of God and given life by God's breath (Heb: nephesh). Besides ignoring what the Bible asserts, this explanation lacks physical evidence for genetic precursors. Primate fossils can be classified as either human or ape if sufficient fossil remains are recovered, especially in cases where artifacts such as tools are found or there is evidence of cooking fires.<br /><br />In other words, evolution of humans from sub-humans lacks substantive physical evidence, as even evolutionists admit. The nearly complete skulls of people who lived 160,000 years ago are, in the words of paleontologist Tim White, "like modern-day humans in almost every feature." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1295624<br /><br />The French geneticist Roux has stated "Evolutionary convergence at the molecular level is presumed to be widespread, but is poorly documented." <br />http://www.pnas.org/content/95/20/11804.full<br /><br />The lack of documentation is because convergence evolution is an interpretation, not an unbiased presentation of data.Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-55603559594820202552011-06-15T10:59:10.978-07:002011-06-15T10:59:10.978-07:00As am I. Although I must admit that the two "...As am I. Although I must admit that the two "models" proposed by BioLogos fail to satisfy, if I may put it that way for the moment.<br /><br /><i>Pax et bonum</i>,<br />Keith TöpferMartial Artisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679584221923893460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-75286489090468267802011-06-15T08:28:48.384-07:002011-06-15T08:28:48.384-07:00Following with interest.Following with interest.Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.com