Pages

Wednesday, June 04, 2014

Wright on Adam


OK, Genesis one, two, and three is wonderful picture language, but I do think there was a primal pair in a world of emerging hominids, that’s the way I read that. 
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/01/23/evolution-death-adam-wright-rjs/ 
The way I see it is that there were many hominids or similar creatures, part of the long slow process of God’s good creation. And at a particular time God called a particular pair for a particular task: to look after his creation and make it flourish in a whole new way. 
http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2014/06/02/n-t-wright-bible-isnt-inerrantist/

There's an obvious problem with that position. That's not something you find from studying the Bible, and that's not something you find from studying evolutionary biology. On the one hand, Genesis doesn't have "a world of emerging hominids, part of the long slow process of God’s good creation." On the other hand, evolutionary biology doesn't have Adam and Eve. It's a makeshift combination that's unsupportable from either source. It arbitrarily splices together two independent, divergent narratives. 

6 comments:

  1. To play the devil's advocate, couldn't one claim that position as a way to systematize/harmonize two sources? We don't get the full doctrine of the trinity any any single text, but you can piece it together from different sources.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even assuming (ex hypothesi) that the two sources are compatible, Wright can't legitimately pour Darwinism into the vessel of Gen 1-3, as if Gen 1-3 is a half-empty vessel waiting to be filled up by that extraneous source. That isn't exegetically valid.

      Delete
  2. "The way I see it is that there were many saviors, part of the long slow process of God’s good revelation. And at a particular time God called a particular man for a particular task: to be a role model for mankind and make it flourish in a whole new way."

    "OK, I know what the text actually says, but I still think that what I want it to say trumps what it actually says, so that’s the way I read it."

    There's something rotten in Denmark.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey! I resemble that remark.... Yes I have considered this idea of a mashup of Theology and natural biological science. So I acknowledge that Darwinism is a popular belief to describe a conjectured natural process that is defined to be without God. That is out of bounds in origin of humans. But DNA population science is really happening to us and our families now. So I in my speculations, I add a modern gloss on God's creation.

    The more I learn from you reformed guys, the more I peel back my modern speculations. The trouble is, I am a guy from this time. I could say words to conform and mimic a 4,000 year old recounting of creation. That shows my sin to my heart. I have told my friends that God made the world that seemingly is deceptive to my modern rationality. The workings of God is too great for me. There is a paradigm shift this is too much for me.

    God did it. Then I flounder with words from the Bible and naturalistic descriptions. I am forced to realize I am in the meta, and cannot come down. So if I am with others with a scientific naturalistic interpretation, I speak with their worldview noteing some exceptions. With Christians, I affirm God's truth of His creation. --Sometimes I may talk with a little naturalistic descriptions, but still point to God.

    Do you think this tears at the faith?

    Rob.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "OK, Genesis one, two, and three is wonderful picture language, but I do think there was a primal pair in a world of emerging hominids, that’s the way I read that."

    This quote from Wright certainly casts into a new light various of his complaints that, for some strange reason, some of his critics persistently misread him by inserting some of their own ideas or battles into their reading of his prose.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've never understood the diversity of opinion in Anglican circles. Within the one denomination, they have theologians as diverse as CS Lewis, NT Wright, JI Packer, John Stott, and (if we include Episcopalians) John Spong. I get that there's no "pope" of Anglicanism, but their congregation doesn't really seem like they feel the need to set up boundaries.

    ReplyDelete