Access Four Views On The Historical Adam Written By Ardel B. Caneday Hardcover

arguments, supportingdifferent views on Adam and evolution, John Walton has the most unique position and is convincing but Collins and the old earth view still gets my vote.
The other views seem to force literal understanding of scripture that is not warrented or gives too uncritical view of the problems with origin of life scenarios.
While the book was a nice survey of positions, it didn't address all the positions or points of disagreement that many readers will hope to find answered in a book of this title Four Views on the Historical Adam

Overall, this book was a good read.
I have already given summaries on the specific views so this post will only be regarding the book itself, For my review of theviews go to peridei, wordpress. com The book begins with an article by Barrett and Caneday on the rise of liberal theology and evolution in the church as well as the reaction of the fundamentalists.
This article is very helpful for a fuller understanding of theviews and should not be skipped,

Next, the four views are explained, My only complaint is the order in which the views were listed, They seem backwards compared to how the books are normally arranged conservative to liberal, I wish that Enns had contributed to the book, His understanding of Adam would have been a greatth view to examine, Though it is closest to Lamoureuxs out of all of them, Collins and Barricks views are very similar and so I do not believe this to be a problem.
I also wish that Ken Ham had been featured in some way,

After a view is explained the other three authors comment on it, Then, different than other counterpoint books I have read, the first author responds, This is a wonderful inclusion to this book,

The book ends with two articles on the necessity of historical Adam, Boyd argues that “whether or not there was a historical Adam, our faith is secure, ” Ryken argues “we cannot understand the world or our faith without a real, historical Adam, ”

This book is an essential read for any theological student, The historical Adam is an argument which will only increase in popularity as time progresses, At the end of the day allauthors present their views well and contribute to a discussion which not much has been written on at this time.
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 firstchapters: 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 chapter.


To 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 fairness,

Lamoureux 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 more appropriate context,

As John Collins OldEarth 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 question 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 Genesiswith 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 Waltons book, I would agree that Genesisdoesn'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 inadequate, 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 MessageIncident 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 Genesisdoes not record the "forming of a single, unique 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 role/significance.
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:and Paul's reference in Romans:and.
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 questing is Jesus is trying to make a theological point.
In otherwords, 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 nonhistorical adam detracts from the "overarching narrative element of the bible".
While I currently take Waltons 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 allornothing 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 adequate to produce human beings with their distinctive capacities, " I admit that this has always baffled me and I would be curious to do more 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 Barricks 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 text,

In chapterJohn Walton sets forth his view on Adam as an Archetype, The gist of his argument is founded in Genesisandbeing read from the ancient near east ANE perspective, and in particular, the ANEs 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, 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.
He then turns to the verb “Yasar” lacking a material context in “formed from dust” Gen:, I found his lexical analysis here essential to thoroughly dismiss the material context of the verse, yet I found it wanting after only a quick reference to Zechariah:is discussed.
Again, this is most likely a byproduct of the space requirement imposed of the author, The significance of dismissing the material basis for “yasar” is found in the argument that Genesis: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.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 Adams mortal body to achieve immortality.
Basically my question 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 doesnt 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.


Waltons 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:and First Corinthians:, In Romans, we see the basis of imago dei hominids Gen:being subject to death, but not morally responsible for their actions.
I find this hard to believe, and as proverbs:suggests, I look to research what others read from Pauls statement in Romans:.
This is of particular significance in Waltons 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:and Genesis: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 question assigning two individuals origins of homo sapiens, in light of molecular biologys 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 Waltons Archetypal view.
Lastly, the issue of First corinthians in Waltons 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 Genesisbeing an account that follows Genesis.
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:, 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 question 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 dont necessarily agree with collins attempt to keep Genesisandcomplementary AND synoptic, but I do think they should be view as complementary as noted vigorously cf.
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,individuals had to be present during theMillion 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:, 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 biological/genetic 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 more satisfactory answer to the problem.


The last problem I found with Waltons hypothetical scenario, is the lack of functional food source until Genesis:.
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 question of how could any life be supported without a functional food system, As noted before a minimum population of,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,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 Waltons view as a whole in question.
I would note that I would enjoy further research into Collins chiastic structure of Genesis:as a foundation for the synoptic nature of Genesisand.
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 Waltons view the most acceptable of theviews 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 Adams historicity

The only thing that I can say about John Collins 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.
”.