Just to set the record straight, I affirm the full historicity of Adam and the Fall. It’s as real and historical and event as ever was, but it’s related to us through symbols and allegory in Genesis, according to my reading.
In regard to this, as discussed and debated in the various posts and comboxes here on Triablogue, Touchstone has yet to explain some inconsistencies in his argumentation.
For the sake of the lurkers and others, although we’ve been over this ground before, I’d like to repeat one line of argument that Touchstone has attempted to employ, and point out its inconsistencies.
It might begin with the question, how does Touchstone reconcile his belief in a literal and historical Adam and Eve with his belief in theistic evolution? And by phrases such as “the full historicity” and “real and historical and [sic] event as ever was,” Touchstone does not mean what Steve means when he thinks of Adam and Eve. That is, when Touchstone talks about Adam and Eve, what he really means is Adam and Eve evolved from a proto-human or an ape-man since he believes in human evolution. So getting back to the question, how does Touchstone reconcile his belief in evolution and his belief in the Bible? By contending that God selected at least one male and one female proto-human (ape-man) and gave them a soul or spirit.
One problem with this is that the Bible itself does not teach this. It is just Touchstone importing his beliefs into the text. For example, the Bible teaches in , “then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”
Thus, if we are to believe , man was formed directly from the ground. There was no proto-human already in existence whom God selected and gave a soul.
But Touchstone evades this by saying that the Genesis account should be read as allegory. (Or myth.) That the verse should be taken to mean something like “the Lord God formed proto-human or ape-man of dust from the ground, and after several million years, took proto-human, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and proto-human became what we would today know as man.”
There are several problems with this. For one, there is no time lapse between when God took man from the ground and breathed into him the breath of life in . The time lapse must be read into the text. Which presumably is what Touchstone does. But it would be much simpler and much clearer — and much more in line with reading it as an ancient Israelite would read it — to read the text as stating God created man from the ground, breathed life into him, and man became alive, that is, a living creature.
Also, the verse states that the selfsame man which God formed from the ground, after God breathed into him the breath of life, became a living creature. It was not a proto-human who by virtue of God’s breath of life somehow became a man.
Again, Touchstone’s fallback position is that the Genesis account should be read as allegory. No differently than, say, a Babylonian creation myth. But on what grounds does Touchstone believe the Genesis creation account is analagous to, say, a Babylonian creation myth in the first place?
Moreover, Touchstone has stated that to not read the Genesis account is to read Genesis as “a science textbook.” But the one doesn’t necessarily imply the other. To not read Genesis as allegory is not then automatically reading it as “a science textbook.” Also, no YEC or OEC that I know of merely assumes that Genesis should be read as “a science textbook” without other considerations.
In any case, Touchstone has to import his ideas into the text of Genesis rather than reading Genesis on its own terms. Touchstone is reading theistic evolution into these verses. Furthermore he’s assuming without argument that Genesis is no different than a Babylonian creation myth. He has yet to back up his contention why Genesis should be read as allegory or myth.
I should also point out that Touchstone recently attempted to shift the burden of proof onto us. Since it’s his contention that the first few chapters of Genesis should be read as allegory, isn’t the onus on him to argue for this position? Of course it is. But as I pointed out in the post, it’s like he has accused me of murder and also asked me to prove that I committed the murder. Sorry to butcher Shakespeare, but it seems to me something is rotten in the state of Touchstone’s argumentation here.
What’s more, as you can see in the same post I link to in the above paragraph, Touchstone had been working with a mistaken understanding of allegory and symbolism. Originally, he thought the two were the same, viz. symbolism and allegory were interchangeable terms. As I point out in the post, they are not necessarily the same. I mention this because it may be an indication of a lack of familiarity of literary genres on his part. I hope I’ll stand corrected, but again the onus is on him to make a sound argument for his position.
At this point, however, and as Gene Bridges has astutely pointed out, and again this is not at all a personal attack but an observation based on his words thus far, Touchstone appears “ignorant of Biblical criticism.”
