tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443607685038239795.post7724629179589632854..comments2012-10-09T11:34:43.370-04:00Comments on Post Tenebras Lux: Adam: Actual or Allegory?Daniel J. Fickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08184556407855739136noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443607685038239795.post-53932381022383703292012-04-12T15:35:40.327-04:002012-04-12T15:35:40.327-04:00Always have been interested in this myself Dan and...Always have been interested in this myself Dan and curious to see what you find. Obviously I am a Christian but hold more to an intelligent design view point rather than strict creationism. Strangely enough I still believe in "Adam" and "Eve" so to speak and for some reason that doesn't feel contradictory to me. I guess I just know I have my faith in Christ and in the end that is all that really matters.Ann-Mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16834002491710902718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443607685038239795.post-59307072576565963302012-01-30T17:27:38.338-05:002012-01-30T17:27:38.338-05:00Reasonable and wise questions and theological purs...Reasonable and wise questions and theological pursiut. I myself have wanted to pursue this topic too, but haven't been able to make it materialize. I will be anxious to hear what your quest opens up. Keep me posted.Lawrence Garciahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16778263554380361465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443607685038239795.post-56351191271414808032012-01-30T15:15:00.862-05:002012-01-30T15:15:00.862-05:00Oh I mean to give two more book recommendations. S...Oh I mean to give two more book recommendations. <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596382309/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=gurrdesi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1596382309" rel="nofollow">Should Christians Embrace Evolution: Biblical & Scientific Responses</a></em> got some attention from <em>World Magazine</em> as one of their <a href="http://www.worldmag.com/articles/18207" rel="nofollow">books of the year</a>.<br /><br />Another one I have not read but have kept an eye on is <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802848389/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=gurrdesi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0802848389" rel="nofollow">Darwin's Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and Creationists Both Get It Wrong</a></em> by Conor Cunningham.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443607685038239795.post-61090429398023547262012-01-30T15:08:32.537-05:002012-01-30T15:08:32.537-05:00In your quest for the historical Adam, may I sugge...In your quest for the historical Adam, may I suggest Meredith Kline's Kingdom Prologue. He was the first OT scholar I studied under in seminary. He would have been of the "both" camp (where I tend to be). K.P. is not published by a regular publisher - you might be able to get a copy by contacting the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary Bookcenter (My copy is packed away at my parents house for now). It is a commentary on all of Genesis but the chapters dealing with the creation week and the events leading up to the flood are fascinating. He argues for the creation week as a poetic framework of "real days" but not necessarily 6 24hour periods. The purpose of Genesis 1-3 according to Kline is to reveal God's Suzerain kingship over the universe and humanity's vassal kingship (under God) who has dominion over the under-vassals of creation. Days 1-3 introduce "kingdoms" (like Light and Darkness) over which "creatures" (like the Sun & Moon) "rule" as kings. He says all the "ruling/governing" language is very intentional. He also argued/demonstrated an entire world history preceding the flood. This allows for a much older than 6,000 year-old earth but doesn't rule out Adam and Eve as actual individuals. Kline was not an evolutionist by any means - he was a creationist through and through. But he did see room for a much older planet than most creationists hold. As for Adam & Eve, Paul & Jesus seemed to deal with them as real individuals - "if it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me, man!" Seriously, studying under Kline a few years before he was graduated to the Lord's presence was one of the most faith-revolutionary times of my life. He showed us the continuity of scripture from cover to cover. He was also a staunch Calvinist of the Orthodox Presbyterian variety. Fascinating scholar. I recommend him. - Jonathanjtswifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084960055915741981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443607685038239795.post-16136996562955224082012-01-30T14:57:15.252-05:002012-01-30T14:57:15.252-05:00I really like the tone of this post, Dan. This is ...I really like the tone of this post, Dan. This is an important question and sorting out the implications of various positions is really important.<br /><br />I don't think Enns's use of the Israelites' cultural context is at all compelling. It makes me wonder if Pete thinks the Israelites were capable of contributing anything unique to their own cultural context. If they did then why couldn't they contribute something new on the human origins front too? Even without taking inspiration into consideration (!) it seems historically plausible to me that, in fact, their version of human origins was unique. There's no absurdity to that logic. It may be surprising, but so are lots of things about the Israelite's creation account.<br /><br />But I see a bigger problem lurking in his quote and that is an attitude that reduces all historical interpretations of Gen. 1 to "definitive, quasi-scientific, account[s] of human origins." The question I want to hear asked is this: Is it possible that Genesis 1 has no extra-textual referentiality and still has implications for science? <br /><br />To use another example, the fact that Jesus' parables do not refer to real people does not mean they have no implications for how real people live. Too many in this debate think that removing a historical Adam and Eve from the picture frees us to accept whatever answers science gives us about human origins. I don't find that to be a safe assumption at all.<br /><br />I'm not yet convinced that Gen 1-2 are non-historical accounts (and, of course, every genre can refer to real people and events which makes genre identification necessary but not definitive.) But even if I was convinced they were non-historical it wouldn't settle the issue of human origins for me. I would still have to answer the question: what, if any, implications does the theology of Gen 1-2 have for the scientific theories being offered today?<br /><br />Hope that makes sense.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443607685038239795.post-76824553712283203412012-01-30T13:58:27.390-05:002012-01-30T13:58:27.390-05:00Being partially distanced from the conservative ev...Being partially distanced from the conservative evangelical family (as well as any/all iterations of its liberal counterpart) might actually be a really great reason for wandering down this rabbit hole. We're probably never doing the best exegesis when we're too firmly rooted in a tradition.dannyyencichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09043010083839503415noreply@blogger.com