free read Four Views on the Historical Adam ô PDF eBook or Kindle ePUB

review ¶ PDF, eBook or Kindle ePUB Ö Denis O. Lamoureux

As a part of the Counterpoints series Four Views on the Historical Adam clearly outlines four primary views on Adam held by evangelicals featuring top notch proponents of each view presenting their positions in their own words and critiuing the positions with which they disagree You will come away with a better understanding of the key biblical and theological issues at stake and of the implic. This counterpoints installment by Zondervan is an excellent addition to anyone looking for a serious introduction to the ongoing discussion for the historical Adam Contrary to most books the introductory chapter written by two of the editors is an excellent way to begin the book and should not be missed Each position is set forth by its respective author and is followed by a couple pages from each of the other contributing authors on their objections Each chapter closes with a reprisal from the contributing author that I found helpful at times but often suffered from being too expansive and lacking depth due to space restrictions imposed What follows is a short review of the first 3 chapters Evolutionary creation by Dennis Lamoureux Archetypical View by John Walton and John Collins Unfortunately I was unwilling to spend time with William Barrick's Young Earth Creationist viewpoint due to a combination of strong disagreement coming into the text which was ultimately realized in his rather silly objection on Lamoureux's chapterTo start I should note that I have previously read John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One and found great plausibility and strength in his main points With that said I tried to read Lamoureux with the same fairnessLamoureux begins by setting the stage for his position and clearing the ground of any readers potential hostility towards the idea of evolution Being well versed in the foundations of evolution I found the first pages unsatisfying because they did not directly contribute to his position In fact I would argue that any reasonable reader would come to the discussion ready to dive directly into the discussion at hand Nevertheless there was a notable moment that precludes the actual discussion I believe we should follow the biblical and scientific evidence no matter where it leads I certainly agree Lamoureux's basis for the conjunction and implying that they should be used simultaneously as a logical check and corroboration of each other to extrapolate a clearer view of the truth While this would certainly be controversial to most I will leave the discussion for a appropriate contextAs John Collins Old Earth Creationist points out the point that God uses physical mechanisms to create life today is an invalid argument Lamoureux would have to show that the origin of life can be made by physical mechanisms I cannot answer this objection for lamoureux but I would suppose that Lamoureux would cite scientific literature explaining a number of current hypothesis on the origin of life developing through physical mechanism The real uestion is in what capacity is God involved in these yet undiscovered physical mechanisms This a point undeveloped by Lamoureux in his entire essay Walton's book even speaks on this by positing the layered cake model but even his discussion never goes beyond loosely stating that God on the top layer provides purpose to the mechanisms utilized by the bottom layer physical mechanisms I remain unconvinced Moreover another glaring stumble in Lamoureux's contribution was the unsupported statement that Real history in the bible begins roughly around Genesis 12 with Abraham The only support he offers is his position is like Most other evangelical theologians Again I am unconvinced All three responses take point on this I would state that after reading Walton’s book I would agree that Genesis 1 11 doesn't necessarily lack reality but instead is reality of a different plane presumably referencing the functional ontological perspective of the ancient near east I find Collins response completely inadeuate and Barrick acknowledges this but never responds to the claim It should be noted that Lamoureux's reprisal does not provide a response I found Lamoureux's insistence of accommodation and the contribution of the Message Incident principle and the concept of phenomenological language from an astronomical perspective to be particularly illuminating In fact Walton seems to have no major problems with this I also find that Walton and Lamoureux share conclusions on biological origins of creatures Both would arrive at the conclusion that creatures were not created de novo However focusing on Lamoureux he could not further his argument because current evolutionary data does not seem to suggest a complete method that they could evolve into the beings they are today While this limitation is on furthering of lamoureux's viewpoint it does not weaken the fact that it appears that creatures were not created de novo as in the ancient biological perspective I found Lamoureux's discussion of Adam's historicity to be illuminating and complements that which I learned from Walton's book but ultimately I could not make the logical leaps that Lamoureux makes The statement Adam is a retrojective conclusion of an ancient taxonomy is fine but it should not follow that Adam never existed If anything the fact that the genealogies point back to a single individual and the fact that there is no reason as walton states To believe That ancient genealogies included individuals whom they did not believe to exist should indicate that the there was a single first human created by God However I once again takes Walton's position that the account in Genesis 2 does not record the forming of a single uniue individual More on this when I cover Walton's chapter I am also in wholehearted agreement that just because the origin story of the Adam shares parallels with the ancient near east literature it does not follow that Adam is not a real person of the past Walton states the forming account may be an accommodation but that does not mean that the role of adam is an accommodation Moreover I share some of the concerns that both collins and Barrick share on salvation as a whole if we reject the role of adam as both a historical figure and his archetypical rolesignificance An explanation on this theological concern is ultimately not addressed by Lamoureux limits his discussion to possibility of de novo creation of Adam Lamoureux attempts to further support his claim that adam is an accommodation by the holy spirit as an incidental vessel to deliver inerrant spiritual truths by addressing Jesus reference in Matthew 194 6 and Paul's reference in Romans 512 and 15 Again I think Lamoureux is correct on his idea of the Holy Spirit accommodating to the ancient understanding of human origins but Walton is correct in uesting is Jesus is trying to make a theological point In other words it is an accommodations by both parties scientifically but it is a point of great theological significance with regards to the big picture of salvation Lamoureux does not address Walton's concern in the rejoiner To conclude both collins and Barrick seem to believe a non historical adam detracts from the overarching narrative element of the bible While I currently take Walton’s viewpoint on the historicity of Adam I don't believe Lamoureux's methodology leads to the the right conclusion His critical eye for accommodation in the bible is certainly noteworthy and commendable but I believe he misses a couple a important theological points takes a couple logical jumps and overall his overall all or nothing approach to accommodation to be faulty A few closing notes Collins contribution on distinguishing three categories of Ancient language and thus dismissing accommodation as a result is weak to say the least However his objection that We have excellent reasons for disputing whether a natural process is adeuate to produce human beings with their distinctive capacities I admit that this has always baffled me and I would be curious to do research as I am sure the lack of comfortableness most likely stems from my lack of knowledge Overall Collins has a couple good points but it didn't feel like a substantial and complete response to Lamoureux even though his response was given the most space I must add that I find Barrick's response that adam has no resemblance to rip van winkle or his plea For Eve to have evolved out of Adam would have taken millions of years Adam could not have slept for eons of time while God made the Woman This is the most absurd and ridiculous objection I've ever heard Lamoureux properly responded by pointing out that Barrick reveals his commitment to scientific concordism a practice that cannot be held While I found this objection laughable I was curious to see lamoureux defend Barrick’s objection on Jesus turning water to wine in Cana Lamoureux does not address this in the reprisal Also I was highly curious and doubtful when Lamoureux stated that scientific facts in the bible were revealed before their discovery by modern science However I found no such discussion or evidence in the textIn chapter 2 John Walton sets forth his view on Adam as an Archetype The gist of his argument is founded in Genesis 1 and 2 being read from the ancient near east ANE perspective and in particular the ANE’s focus on functional ontology This foundation provided much of the exegesis that allows Adam and Eve to be seen as archetypes To further the position of Adam as an archetype in Genesis 2 Walton begins by noting that “Adam” is the Hebrew word for humankind Presumably the point of this is to identify the significance of the name in the ANE context as an archetypal name and not a personal name to identify the first man cf 91 He then turns to the verb “Yasar” lacking a material context in “formed from dust” Gen 27 I found his lexical analysis here essential to thoroughly dismiss the material context of the verse yet I found it wanting after only a uick reference to Zechariah 121 is discussed Again this is most likely a byproduct of the space reuirement imposed of the author The significance of dismissing the material basis for “yasar” is found in the argument that Genesis 27 is not a statement on material discontinuity Walton goes on to posit “Adam being formed from dust does not preclude him being born of a women” I believe this logically follows but I do not find the dismissal of material context to be as concrete of a claim as I would like Walton continues by discussing Adam being taken and placed in a garden Walton points out an interesting possibility that there may be other people around this area cf Gen 414 but I fail to see how this spoils his incorporation of the origins of death into his hypothetical scenario with the Tree of Life being the source that allows Adam’s mortal body to achieve immortality Basically my uestion is if there were others around how did the tree of life not provide others with an antidote of mortality Several possible responses come to mind but it doesn’t seem to me as if the hypothetical scenario Walton provides at the end of the chapter serves well in this instance I found the section on “The message of the archetypes in Genesis contrasted to ANE” to be extremely rewarding and enriches the theology behind the archetypal view Walton’s contribution in the “Archetypal role of Adam and Eve in the New Testament” to be another highlight of the chapter Inside Walton provides some exegetical insight into a couple of passages relevant to the discussion at hand Of particulars notes are Romans 512 14 and First Corinthians 1545 In Romans we see the basis of imago dei hominids Gen 127 being subject to death but not morally responsible for their actions I find this hard to believe and as proverbs 1817 suggests I look to research what others read from Paul’s statement in Romans 513 This is of particular significance in Walton’s argument because it fits his view that Adam may not being the first human on the earth and that others may have come before him I believe this problem is could be solved by positing Genesis 127 and Genesis 27 as synoptic however this would be extremely short sighted and ignorant of the current scientific evidence We have to use the scientific evidence to check our assumptions that found our interpretations of scripture and anyone who has read the paper “Molecular genetics of speciation and human origin” should reasonably uestion assigning two individuals origins of homo sapiens in light of molecular biology’s contribution to our understanding on genes in the DNA While unable to rectify the conflict I do not believe it should be a major stumbling block in the acceptance of Walton’s Archetypal view Lastly the issue of First corinthians in Walton’s discussion is the lack of addressing the subject of the toledoth Previously Walton dismissed the material context of a verse off of one similar passage where the material context was absent One must wonder what Walton would do to respond to his stance on the toledoth serving as as an introduction to the next time period and thus resulting in Genesis 2 being an account that follows Genesis 1 This seems logical but as John Collins points out the archetypal focus “Fails to account for the whole context of the passage” Here Collins references first Corinthians 1549 as paul referring to the image of the man of dust being to have parallels to the image of God I see this as a valid literary point but I would uestion whether the image is a theological significance for the transmission of sin and the human situation resolved in the “image of the man of heaven” To be clear I don’t necessarily agree with collins attempt to keep Genesis 1 and 2 complementary AND synoptic but I do think they should be view as complementary as noted vigorously cf 127 Also on the topic of the transmission of original sin I should note that it seems theologically challenging to suggest that Adam is one of many humans occupying the narrative The paper “Molecular genetics of speciation and human origin” posits that molecular biology indicates a minimum of 100000 individuals had to be present during the 30 Million year transition from archaic humans to modern humans Presuming that the rise of homo sapiens sapiens parallels the creation of humankind in the image of God this is never defined by any author in the text one would have to identify where pre imago dei hominids fit into the picture of original sin Walton basis his claim of non responsibility in Romans 512 14 and the nature of original sin by one radiating out onto the rest of the world population and those to follow Walton basis his claim that there is no claim in the bible to biologicalgenetic relationships or material discontinuity and thus indicates that he currently favors a “radiation model” It should noted that the traditional view of seminal transmission has to be eliminated if one is to accept the evolutionary paradigm that there humankind does not find its headwaters in the material discontinuity and creation of Adam and Eve This is compounded by the point that Jesus biologically and genetically human yet he did not inherit sin biologically Walton notes he is not an expert on the doctrine of original sin yet I am curious to find a satisfactory answer to the problemThe last problem I found with Walton’s hypothetical scenario is the lack of functional food source until Genesis 25 6 The way I read Walton it seems as if the food sources had to derive from the “regular inundations of river systems saturated the ground indiscriminately thus no food was being grown” This begs the uestion of how could any life be supported without a functional food system As noted before a minimum population of 100000 necessitates a functional food system I would be curious on how Walton resolves this or if I am reading him wrong Even if Walton does not accept that there was a minimum 100000 individuals on the earth his hypothetical scenario fails to support life without a functional food source If he was to respond that fishing was the method of food and water came from the river systems I would be interested in the nutritional viability of a such a strict limited diet and how migrations of archaic humans were possible over large stretches of land without access to water sources and food sources I conclude that the objections given by Lamoureux and Collins provide a great tool to sharpen and clarify your understanding of the archetypal worldview In them I find no major methodological or exegetical issue that really but Walton’s view as a whole in uestion I would note that I would enjoy further research into Collin’s chiastic structure of Genesis 24 as a foundation for the synoptic nature of Genesis 1 and 2 I would also be interested in reading up on his views of why it is problematic that Adam is not the first human However with all this said I maintain that I find Walton’s view the most acceptable of the 4 views discussed in this book Obviously ongoing research would need to be done to work out the myriad of details and to fine tune the understanding of Adam’s historicityThe only thing that I can say about John Collin’s contribution is that it seems methodologically challenged and lacking substantial focus He brings up many great topics to discuss but the discussion suffers from being a mile wide and only an inch deep This is compensated heavily in the footnotes which is to be applauded but just reading the book alone does not do justice to Collins argument I am left with the impression that anyone looking to get a better understanding into Collins view should read his book “Did Adam and Eve really exist”

free download Four Views on the Historical Adam

Four Views on the Historical AdamIs your view theologically consistent and coherent than other views What are the implications of your view for the spiritual life and public witness of the church and individual believers and how is your view a healthier alternative for both Concluding reflections by pastor scholars Gregory A Boyd and Philip Graham Ryken highlight the significance of the topic in the faith of everyday believer. For the last few years the historicity of Adam has been a topic of controversy and debate within Evangelical academia It comes at no surprise that Zondervan would come out with a book in their Counterpoint series addressing this topic Four views are given a hearing in this book represented by Denis O Lamoureux Evolutionary Creation View that denies the historical Adam John Walton Archetypal Creation View C John Collins Old Earth Creation View and William D Barrick Young Earth Creation ViewNormally I’m cautious about these Four Views book either because I feel better contributors could have been selected or space limitation didn’t allow justice for the complex subject at hand With these expectations I must say I thought the book did a better job than I expected I’m happy to see some improvements over the years with this genre The four scholars selected are highly ualified representative of their respective views In previous works the format feature the chapters by each school followed by the responses by the other schools; I appreciated that this work also feature a rejoinder to the other schools’ responses a plus in my opinion in seeing what a counter rebuttal looks like I also appreciated the editors’ decision to have two pastoral reflections that discussed what the implication of the discussion of the historicity of Adam means practically for the Christian although I must say it seems Gregory Boyd’s essay ended up being on why Christians should welcome those who deny the historical Adam as brothers and sisters in the faith even in our disagreements The two contributors selected for this part were excellent Both Gregory Boyd and Philip Ryken are well known for being pastor scholars I thought the pastoral reflection also made their contribution to the discussion of which view one should take on the historical Adam uestion and these two essays must not be overlooked or dismiss because its pastoral in nature; in particular I had in mind how Ryken’s essay laid out what an historical or non historical Adam means theologically for the Christian experience and Gospel witnessI imagine not many will change their views from reading this book and yet I would say this book is still important and worth buying because it provide a concise summary of each perspective’s argument Never had I read a book in Zondervan’s Counterpoint series in which the contributors footnoted their own work as much as they did in this volume but I appreciated this as helpful for those who want to do further research One can’t really blame the contributors for footnoting themselves so much since this is a much complicated subject than most topics in this series since there is immediate uestion of Adam’s existence and also the undercurrent of one’s understanding of the role of modern scienceevolution in interpreting the Genesis 1 3 that formulate one’s conclusion to the Adam uestion Really this book had only one contributor Lamoureux who denied the historical Adam while the other three believed in a historical Adam; and yet all three who agreed on Adam didn’t arrive to their conclusion by the same method necessarily given their divergent view of the role of extra biblical data Modern cosmology science evolution Ancient Near East studies in interpreting Genesis 1 3 Dr Barrick has one of the most exegetically rich chapters in the book and readers will appreciate his grammatical and syntactical observation brought out from Genesis 1 2 The contributor with the strongest scientific background is Lamoureux but appeared to be the most exegetically weak where in the responses the other three contributors harped on him for his take on the Hebrew word Raia and his misleading translation of this term as “firmament” NOTE This book was provided to me free by Zondervan and Net Galley without any obligation for a positive review All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied

Denis O. Lamoureux Ö 6 read & download

free read Four Views on the Historical Adam ô PDF, eBook or Kindle ePUB Ã As a part of the Counterpoints series Four Views on the Historical Adam clearly outlines four primary views on Adam held by evangelicals featuring top notch proponents of each view presenting their positions in their own words and critiuAtions of Adam for contemporary Christian witness and church life Contributors include Denis O Lamoureux John H Walton C John Collins and William Barrick Each focuses his essay on answering the following uestions What is the biblical case for your viewpoint and how do you reconcile it both with modern science and with passages and potential interpretations that seem to counter it In what ways. Four Views on the Historical Adam edited by Matthew Barrett and Ardel B Caneday provides the views of six contributors The primary four are Denis O Lamoureux John H Walton C John Collins and William D Barrick each of whom is recognized scholar in the field These contributors will provide their views on creation and especially in regard to whether or not Adam existed Each author will then critiue the view of the other Following is a pastoral response from established preachers Gregory Boyd and Philip Ryken who address the impact of creation belief on the Christian faith Following is a brief summary of the book Summary The front matter of the book includes information about the individual contributors abbreviations and Bible versions that are used in the text Next is an introduction by Barrick and Caneday describing the book’s procedures and content They supply a brief historical overview of beliefs about the creation tale of the Bible including a number of evolutionary theories and the historic identity of Adam They describe the general thesis of each individual contributor that will form the core of the text along with essays critiuing the argument of the primary essay Chapter One is “No Historical Adam Evolutionary Creation View” by Denis O Lamoureux He proposes that the Triune God created the universe via an “ordained sustained and intelligent design reflecting natural process” The Bible demonstrates an ancient Ancient Near Eastern comprehension of the natural world and does not include modern scientific facts Adam is an incidental figure in the biblical record who serves to portray spiritual truths rather than literal scientific biological truths Although Adam never existed this fact does not impact Christianity Lamoureux argues that scientific condordism is not a viable theory as the Bible uses phenomenological language to describe things according to their appearance from the human perspective such as the rising and setting of the sun These experiences do not match what modern science tells us and serve as examples of accommodation on the part of God to match human understanding of the time He proposes that Adam serves to show biblical truths especially original sin and that the arrival of the first evolutionary developed humans to be a theological mystery In response to Lamoureux’s argument John H Walton believes that evolutionary creation is valid as long as it preserves the orthodoxy of the faith He supports the view that the Bible reflects an Ancient Near Eastern View of reality rather than the scientific reality we know today as well as accommodation by God to the biblical writers Further he argues that the creation texts of the Bible are predominantly about functional rather than merely material purposes in creations He also agrees with Lamoureux that Adam serves an archetypal function but argues that this does not mean that Adam did not actually exist C John Collins has a greater degree of disagreement with Lamoureux’s essay essentially viewing it as oversimplified approach featuring either or proposals He rejects the connection between literalness and historicity He argues that the view of scientific concordism should be nuanced to allow the legitimate use of historical concordism and he feels the author gives too much significance to the principle of accommodation on God’s part to an ignorant mankind William D Barrick argues strongly against the incidental or non existent archetypal conclusion regarding the historicity of Adam upon which originaluniversal sin relies He rejects Lamoureux’s reliance upon modern evolutionary theory and claims the creation to have been a one time act of special creation by God in six days as Genesis holds He denies that the accommodation principle mentioned above is valid Following is a rejoinder by Lamoureux dealing with the primary arguments made by the others He spends most of his effort defending the accommodation principle and the valid use of the modern scientific understanding of the cosmos Chapter Two is “A Historical Adam Archetypal Creation View” by Walton He maintains that Adam was a historical figure Despite this he believes that Adam serves an archetypal function in the Bible in that he represents all humanity especially in Genesis 2 regarding his creation Walton asserts that Genesis 2 is not making biological truth claims and therefore should not be viewed as treating with scientific data This archetypal focus is theologically viable particularly regarding sin and death and is supported in Ancient Near Eastern literature and culture In his response Lamoureux disagrees with Walton’s functional approach to origins believing it is too limited as most of the biblical accounts deal with both material and functional purposes He agrees with Walton’s ideas of ancient science present in Scripture and generally with the archetypal view Collins argues that Walton mistakenly asserts that Adam’s creation need not be the same as mankind generally and that Adam need not have been the first man Genesis 1 and 2 should be viewed as complementary narratives Barrick views Walton’s approach to temple theology commendable The archetypal view is valid in the sense is does not necessitate Adam being non historical Since Jesus is understood as a literal and historic figure serving as an archetype so should Adam He claims Adam should represent both seminal and federal headship of mankind In his rejoinder Walton claims that the responses are primarily re castings of the others’ arguments rather than valid and meaningful responses He spends most of his space dealing with Ancient Near Eastern worldviews and the material creation He argues against source criticism as a legitimate method for interpretation Chapter Three is “A Historical Adam Old Earth Creation View” by C John Collins He argues that the proper way to view Adam is that he was a historic person The first man is the source of original sin Further he is the progenitor of all mankind Still the genre and nature of the biblical record should not be taken too literally in order to account for connections between scientifichistorical accounts of creation evidencing an old earth theory Lamoureux agrees that there is an over arching storyline to the Bible and that Adam is a significant character However he argues that this does not necessitate a historical Adam He believes that Collins’ use of scientific condordism and God of the gaps fails to support the old earth methodology Walton agrees that a historical event is reuired to bring sin into the world and with the proposal that material human origins and the creation reuire that God be involved somehow in the process even if His contribution is hidden However he disagrees that the Ancient Near Eastern literature should be categorically denied as historic or literal Barrick claims that Collins’ view and his own differ primarily in how to date the age of the earth The historicity of the events should be expanded to the descriptions in the biblical text Specific time frames sometimes appear in the biblical account and these should be taken as both literal and important The old earth theory fails because it is slave to modern scientific principles that change In his rejoinder Collins clarifies his original proposals about his scientific concordist and God of the gaps stratagems arguing for a historical rather than scientific concordism He denies his position over relies upon current scientific thought Chapter Four is “A Historical Adam Young Earth Creation View” by William D Barrick His argument involves Adam as the seminal and federal head of humanity Further Adam’s existence is vital for a number of doctrines His reality is also important regarding the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture He denies the accommodation theory as well as evolutionary theories claiming the literal six day creation as portrayed in the Bible is the accurate account Lamoureux does not believe that original sin reuires a historical Adam; original sin certainly exists but it came from “behaviorally modern humans about 50000 years ago” He rejects the view that no historical Adam results in no need for Jesus He maintains that modern scientific fact is the proper basis for determining the processes and time frames for creation Walton points out that Barrick spends an inordinate amount of effort refuting others’ views rather than supporting his own Barrick misunderstands the archetypal principle and uses “scare tactics” in his writing He jumps to conclusions without valid support Collins agrees that Adam and the creation are actual events He thinks Barrick overemphasizes the importance between a literal interpretation of the Bible and historicity Further Barrick has unnecessarily tied this idea to inerrancy Following is “A Pastoral Reflection Whether of Not There Was a Historical Adam Our Faith is Secure” by Gregory Boyd He argues that Adam was probably a historical figure However this belief is not vital to the Christian faith Debates about the reality and person of Adam are acceptable and even positive as they contribute to biblical knowledge but these debates should not divide scholars or the church Next is “A Pastoral Reflection Understand the World or Our Faith Without a Real Historical Adam” by Philip G Ryken He firmly believes in a historical Adam due to hermeneutics doctrine and literal historical narratives confirm this He agrees with Boyd that belief in a historical Adam is a test of orthodoxy but he maintains that the understanding of Adam’s personage enriches one’s understanding of God’s Word Rounding out the book are name and Scripture indices a list of books in the series copyright information and a page about the publisher ConclusionI rate this book four of five stars This type of argument based approach by multiple authors is a helpful overview of the issue at hand as each contributor is representative of the most popular views held by scholars and the public Those wanting information regarding a given proposal can follow up with independent research I do believe the historicity of Adam has important ramifications for the Christian faith in general as well as the presuppositions of the individual