Buy new: $11.97
24 used and new from $10.43
Customer Rating:
First tagged "science" by Min Y Ro
Most Helpful tags Customer Reviews: christianity(3), evolution(2), science, religion, peter enns
Product Description
Can Christianity and expansion coexist? Traditional Christian training presents Jesus as reversing a effects of a Fall of Adam. However, an evolutionary perspective of beginnings doesn't concede for a chronological Adam, creation expansion clearly exclusive with what Genesis and a apostle Paul contend about him. For Christians who accept expansion and wish to take a Bible seriously, this presents a faith-shaking tension.
Peter Enns, an consultant in biblical interpretation, offers a proceed brazen by explaining how this tragedy is caused not by a discoveries of grant though by fake expectations about a biblical texts. Focusing on pivotal biblical passages in a discussion, Enns demonstrates that a author of Genesis and a apostle Paul wrote to ask and answer ancient questions for ancient people; a fact that they both pronounce of Adam does not establish either Christians can accept evolution. This thought-provoking book helps readers determine a teachings of a Bible with a widely hold evolutionary perspective of beginnings and will interest to anyone meddlesome in a Christianity-evolution debate.
Product Details
- Amazon Sales Rank: #12052 in Books
- Published on: 2012-01-01
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Binding: Paperback
- 192 pages
Editorial Reviews
From a Back Cover
Can Christianity and Evolution Coexist?
"This is a bold, honest, and proceed approach to a questions of origins and a interpretation of a Bible. Pete has conflict scars from a tour to his conclusions in The Evolution of Adam, though those battles have done him increasingly supportive to a predicament of a church's onslaught with grant and a Bible. Here is a theologically alert, pastorally sound, and exegetically sensitive book that will lead us onward."
--Scot McKnight, North Park University
"The doubt of a chronological Adam is an obligatory emanate in biblical interpretation and divinity today. Recent developments in biology have indicated with considerable justification that amiability does not go behind to a singular tellurian couple. Does that meant that a Bible is wrong or that grant is wrong? Or perhaps, as Peter Enns argues, we have been misreading a Bible. While not everyone, including myself, agrees with all that Enns suggests, his book is an critical grant to a contention concerning Genesis 1-2 and science."
--Tremper Longman III, Westmont College
"The Evolution of Adam not usually reflects a expansion of devout understandings of Adam, though it also contributes to new perspectives on Paul and a gospel of Jesus Christ. No one endangered with a beauty, glory, and law of a good news in a systematic universe will wish to skip out on this landmark book!"
--Amos Yong, Regent University School of Divinity
"The Evolution of Adam provides a sure-footed and enchanting demeanour during what a Bible says--and does not say--about a initial man. Peter Enns, one of America's many critical Old Testament scholars, provides a dictatorial and permitted consult of a applicable biblical grant from a past integrate of centuries. Enns combines a low appreciation of a Christian tradition with a bold eagerness to go where many evangelicals fear to tread. we rarely suggest this book."
--Karl Giberson, author of Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution
About a Author
Peter Enns (PhD, Harvard University) teaches biblical studies during Eastern University in St. Davids, Pennsylvania. He was before comparison associate of biblical studies for The BioLogos Foundation, an classification that explores a formation of grant and Christian faith, where he wrote a unchanging mainstay for their Science and a Sacred blog. He has taught during several schools, including Princeton Theological Seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary, Temple University, and Westminster Theological Seminary. Enns has authored or edited countless books, including Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and a Problem of a Old Testament.
Customer Reviews
Most useful patron reviews
16 of 18 people found a following examination helpful.
By Nathaniel Claiborne
Peter Enns considers his primary assembly to be initial Christians, and second people who cruise enlargement needs to be taken seriously. Because of that, his aim "is to pronounce to those who feel that a singularity between a biblically conversant Christian faith and enlargement is a dire concern" (p. x). He quickly sketches his possess Christian credentials before explaining his proceed to Scripture (which was summarized some-more wholly in Inspiration and Incarnation):
The many faithful, Christian reading of dedicated Scripture is one that recognizes Scripture as a product of a times in that it was combined and/or a events took place - not merely so, nonetheless unalterably so (p. xi).
In other words, many of what Enns argued in Inspiration and Incarnation, and reiterates quickly here, is a reconsideration of a human-ness of a Bible. In a same proceed Jesus was both God and man, Scripture is both a Word of God and a difference of man. This in short, is a incarnational analogy Enns proposes for reading Scripture. Enns draws this out (in Insp/Incar) by examining:
The ancient Near East informative context
The theological farrago of a Old Testament
The use of a Old Testament by authors of a New.
In The Evolution of Adam, Enns uses Part One to offer request his bargain of (1) to a doubt of Adam in Genesis, and afterwards uses Part Two to request (3) to a doubt of Adam in Paul's writings.
He initial finishes out a introduction with a contention of a attribute between science/faith and evolution/Christianity. He wisely records that "if enlargement is correct, one can no longer accept, in any loyal clarity of a word "historical," a immediate and special origination of amiability described in Genesis" (p. xiv). Because of this, any try to determine Genesis and enlargement engage difficulties, nonetheless adjustments are necessary. As Enns concludes, "The usually doubt is what sorts of adjustments best comment for a data," and afterwards he points out that this is an even some-more dire regard when it comes to what Paul says about Adam (p. xv).
There are afterwards 4 options for relocating brazen (parentheticals mine):
Accept enlargement and reject Christianity (the trail of Dawkins/Dennett et al)
Accept Paul's viewpoint of Adam as contracting and reject enlargement (many evangelicals)
Reconcile enlargement and Christianity by positing a initial tellurian camber (or group) during some indicate in a evolutionary routine (some theistic evolutionists)
Rethink Genesis and Paul (Enns, and he hopes we a reader by a finish of a book)
Interestingly, for what follows, we would place myself in a fourth position as well, nonetheless I'm doing so eccentric of systematic concerns. Enns and we both wish to rethink Genesis and Paul and make adjustments that best comment for a data. But, as we remarkable yesterday, Enns has already sealed off a trail that a information can't lead down since of his systematic commitments. Since we miss some of those, we competence have a opposite viewpoint on how to best comment for a data.
On that note...
Chapter 1 surveys a landscape of 19th century suspicion and a ramifications it had on a bargain of a Old Testament in ubiquitous and Genesis in particular. Three factors rose to inflection in that time duration that perpetually altered a landscape of biblical studies:
Darwinian science
Higher turn biblical criticism
Archaeological discoveries associated to ancient Near East papers and context
These are sincerely uncontroversial, during slightest in terms of watching they did have utterly an impact. Whether or not they should change how we examination Scripture is one question, and accurately how we should let these discoveries change how we examination Scripture is nonetheless another.
Chapter 2 afterwards asks when Genesis was combined and seeks to request insights from 2 of a before 3 factors into a discussion. Enns presents an comment of a Documentary Hypothesis or a JEDP speculation per a authorship of a Pentateuch (which radically posits several sources, and late date of non-Mosaic composition). He does a good pursuit explaining it to a lay audience, that is a both a certain and a disastrous aspect of his book. Positive since many readers who have never listened of it will be means to know it clearly, nonetheless disastrous since he fails to discuss many of a counter-evidence to a theory, nor does he proceed a reader to a many sources on a Pentateuch that offer a utterly opposite take on a compositional story (e. g. John Sailhamer's The Meaning of a Pentateuch or C. John Collins Genesis 1-4), display that a improved fit for a accessible information is that Moses wrote a bulk of a Pentateuch and it was scribally updated in a post-exilic period.
Personally we do not cruise a Documentary Hypothesis is a best proceed to comment for a accessible information per a combination of a Old Testament. Given that information always under-determines theories, a Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP) would be tough to ever infer conclusively. we comprehend this also relates to proof Mosaic authorship, nonetheless we usually wanted to make transparent that both Enns and we are on identical belligerent and have to benefaction an interpretation that is a best illusive reason of a data. He presents his box nonetheless as fact of a matter, when in reality, it is usually one proceed to interpretation a accessible data. Even arguing that it is erudite accord (which, depending on your preference of scholars, is generally true) is not justification in preference of a effect of a interpretation so many as an interest to management during best (e.g. many sensitive intellectuals thinks this is true), or an interest to tension during misfortune (e. g. you're not retrograde lesser rascal are you?)
Chapter 3 surveys a start stories of Israel's neighbors. While we determine with Enns' finish that Genesis 1 has a rarely vicious polemical duty (p. 41), we cruise he has a context wrong for who a polemic is against. Most of his analogous work is between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish, a Babylonian start story. But, for reasons we explain here, a Egyptian origination accounts/origin stories yield a improved together and some-more expected polemical ring partner. Though it wasn't accessible to Enns during a time of his writing, John Walton's Genesis 1 As Ancient Cosmology provides a many richer consult of a backdrop to Genesis 1.
In a rest of territory 3, Enns surveys analogous novel per a inundate story as good as Genesis 2 before finale on a defence to rethink a ubiquitous proceed to Genesis. In some ways, Enns and we are on a same group here, nonetheless for opposite reasons. Enns is assured that a verbatim reading will usually not do and provides his reasons for that. Interestingly, we would cruise myself someone who reads Genesis 1 literally, nonetheless as became apparent in a march of reading this book, Enns and we meant opposite things by a tenure literal. we cruise Enns is arguing opposite a "literalistic" reading, or what we competence cruise "over-literalizing" Scripture. If that's what he means, afterwards we totally agree, and many of what I've pronounced about Genesis is pulling for people to stop reading it that proceed as well.
Chapter 4 afterwards finishes out Part One by sketch connectors between a Adam story and Israel's story, that we found utterly engaging and helpful. His work on origination and refuge is a image of some-more endless work in Walton (see above). In annoy of a disagreements over a accurate context of a essay of a Pentateuch, we cruise there is many to be gleaned from this section. To some extent, we was already on house with this theological connection, nonetheless for opposite reasons than Enns provides (e. g. we don't see Israel regulating a tie to figure Genesis, nonetheless rather see a causation going a other way).
It is during this indicate that book is orderly divided, and in Part Two a examination shifts to how to know Paul. Much like he was doing with Genesis, Enns wants to set Paul in context. Chapter 5 focuses on exploring Paul's theology, utterly as it pertains to Adam. It is also here that he presents connectors between Adam and a knowledge literature, utterly Proverbs. This is another underline of Enns' book that we found both utterly engaging and helpful.
The bulk of territory 6 afterwards is clinging to sketching out how Paul not usually fit into his context, nonetheless how that made his meditative and interpretive practices. Enns provides a few box studies of how Paul interpreted Old Testament passages (remember (3) above from Insp/Incar?) as a setup for last how to best know Paul's use of Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. we wouldn't determine with all a sum as Enns presents them, nonetheless we found this territory a laconic authority on Second Temple Jewish interpretive approaches, and a good credentials context for Paul (I could tell from reading we're both lustful of N. T. Wright).
All that brings us to territory 7, that culminates in examining Paul's theological bargain of Adam. Here, we cruise a ubiquitous mis-step involves his use of a incarnational analogy. If we are to use a criteria of a incarnation to improved know Scripture, afterwards it seems we should be clever we don't use a heretical chronicle of a incarnation in a applications. In this case, Enns seems to roughly be requesting a Docetic indication of a incarnation to his reading of Paul. In Docetism, a heretical bargain of a Incarnation, there is too pointy of a subdivision between a tellurian and a divine, such that we could observe one behaving eccentric of a other. To me, a proceed Enns interacts with Paul is roughly like this. While we have no doubt Enns' personal Christology is approved and his bargain of a incarnational analogy is not indispensably Docetic, we found it tough to equivocate a finish that when interpreting Paul we have to detached informative assumptions from desirous truths, that verges on a Docetic application.
In a end, we unequivocally usually didn't find his finish satisfactory. we found many things to praise in his contention of Paul and am fervent to go behind to Scripture myself and confederate some of what he has said. But we was left feeling like we were simply re-reading Paul since scholarship tells us Paul can't have gotten it right when he says a singular male is obliged for a opening of impiety and genocide into a world. Certainly we should re-read Scripture in light of new information, and Enns does start a contention about how to improved know Paul. While he does assistance us shade some-more delicately what Paul is privately saying, we saw unequivocally small room for a finish that maybe a Holy Spirit desirous Paul to interpretation Genesis that proceed since it is a scold interpretation of that story. For me, it seemed like that wasn't an choice since Enns believes scholarship says a not an option.
While we wish that The Evolution of Adam is not merely discharged by some-more regressive scholars who will remonstrate like we have, we suppose many of them will likewise find his conclusions unsatisfactory. we roughly will revisit this with a destiny post unpacking some-more of since we didn't cruise he gives a best reason of reading Paul, nonetheless to do so, we need to do a bit some-more investigate on Paul, and thankfully, that's on a calendar for this summer.
I've usually unequivocally scratched a aspect here, nonetheless hopefully, if you're interested, you'll puncture some-more into this subject yourself. If we do, we ought to make Enns during slightest one of your examination partners in a process!
[A examination duplicate of this book was supposing by a publisher for examination purposes]
33 of 41 people found a following examination helpful.
By J. Thomas Campbell
One can't nonetheless deeply admire what Peter Enns has managed to furnish within a camber of reduction than 150 pages - not counting his endnotes. Kudos as good for his perspicacious exegetical insights...to contend zero as regards his courage: few regressive evangelicals (and even fewer fundamentalists) will find a pretension "The Evolution of Adam" something that warms a heart. And nonetheless what Enns has constructed here not usually is insubordinate (in a unequivocally genuine clarity - see below) nonetheless competence good infer to be one of a some-more argumentative books on a science/theology discuss of new years.
Why so? Primarily since (according to Enns - Part Two of his book) Paul's artistic use (in Romans) of a Adam and Eve story in Genesis was essentially for apologetic purposes...a matter that will be discussed in larger fact below. But we start with Part One.
Essentially Part One (four chapters) represents Enns' bargain of a essential significance Ancient Near Eastern influences exerted on a biblical writers - a writer/s of a Genesis origination comment in particular. Enns (correctly in my view)hammers this indicate regularly for a reader to cruise - i.e., a bible (the whole of it) was not combined in a informative opening chaste by a surrounding culture/s of non-believer eremite thought, presumably ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, or Greco-Roman. Indeed, to do differently would have been an stupidity - rather like perplexing to travel along a Tibetan foothills while refusing to breathe a soiled 'pagan' air. None of us ever wholly escapes a surrounding influences of enlightenment - and a bible was never dictated to do so; rather, God (if one believes in biblical inspiration...as Enns does) works wholly within a unpractical categories of culture. Hence, a dual origination accounts in Genesis come to us wholly embedded with a concepts of Ancient Near Eastern suspicion patterns. Perhaps a many we can contend here is that a Genesis accounts paint (in varying ways) a "demythologizing" of before Ancient Near Eastern accounts: a God of Israel is not to be identified with any aspect (sun, moon, stars, etc.) of a combined order.
So distant so good. There's zero unequivocally new here that hasn't been pronounced already by any series of regressive devout scholars. Part Two, however, is something wholly different. Here Enns focuses his courtesy on Paul's artistic use of a Old Testament, saying as how a genocide and rebirth of Christ has caused Paul to demeanour during a OT papers from a radically opposite viewpoint - Romans 5:12-21 in particular.
These verses have a long, prolonged story in a Christian Church as providing a church's bargain of how impiety and genocide entered a universe of tellurian existence:
we all "inherited" impiety and genocide in and by a insubordination of Adam behind in Eden. Not so...says Enns. And here is where his comment veers off in a instruction wholly opposite from normal approved faith - for, according to Enns, Paul gave a sold 'Pauline spin' to these verses that can't be found presumably in a OT itself, or in a Second Temple Judaism of that Paul himself was a part. Because a genocide and rebirth of Christ radically altered Paul's bargain of God's redemptive work in a universe he (Paul) "found" in a Adam story an ideal reason for since it is all Jews and Gentiles comparison share in a concept knowledge of impiety and death. Therefore, Adam's insubordination in Eden is NOT a means of a concept tellurian knowledge of impiety and genocide (per Enns); rather, a story of Adam's insubordination served Paul's apologetic purposes...quite detached from whatever a story's strange goal competence have been. The loyal "origin" of impiety and genocide stays a mystery, for a answer is not to be found (indeed if it can be "found" during all!) in a early Genesis comment of Adam and Eve.
And here is where we confront a book's argumentative nature, for Enns' viewpoint represents a thespian depart from a normal viewpoint - a normal viewpoint that has a abounding theological birthright that passes directly by a Reformation all a proceed behind to Augustine.
As formerly stated, we deeply admire and honour what Enns has finished here. For a many partial we cruise he is on a right track. Furthermore, he creates discuss of a fact that new developments in biology have strongly indicated that we can't presumably snippet all complicated humans behind to an strange "Adam and Eve." However, we knew that already...quite detached from complicated biology informing us of a fact. Anthropology and paleontology had already amassed substantial justification that proto-humans and complicated humans were widespread opposite a earth prolonged before any fathomable Adam and Eve could have existed. Apparently, however, complicated biology speaks with a some-more absolute voice than anthropology; thus, we are saying a spate of books recently on a subject of presumably or not Adam and Eve were chronological - Enns' book being usually one of a flourishing number. (Due to a geneologies in early Genesis we are rather singular in "how distant back" we can place an Adam and Eve. Placing them 25 to 40 thousand years into a past in sequence somehow to concede them to be a loyal ancestors of all complicated humans does a grave misapplication to a geneologies that plain and simply do not concede for this arrange of radical time annulment - a matter that any series of evangelicals, who have finished this arrange of thing, seem reluctant to appreciate. The early Genesis geneologies, even permitting for some "gaps," offer as a control opposite such uncalled-for time expansion. An Adam and Eve of maybe 6 to 8 thousand BC appears to be about a extent of what we can pretty expect). In any case, Enns has lifted a troublesome and formidable emanate in a proceed before books on a doubt have not, and we trust his book will minister roughly to some-more open theological contention (one hopes though exhilarated rancor) on a debate. In a meanwhile, some final thoughts.
Personally, we find it some-more than a tad extraordinary that David Rohl (a rather argumentative Egyptologist) has recently authored a book (From Eden to Exile, Greenleaf Press) in that he strongly defends an chronological Adam - and nonetheless Rohl acknowledges that he is an atheist. All this is many strange: an devout academician arguing opposite an chronological Adam while an unbelieving historian argues for one! ("What fools these mortals be!")
I occur to determine with many of what Enns writes. However, we cruise Rohl has a point- even nonetheless how he fleshes his chronological Adam out is rather bizarre. For one thing, I'm not wholly gentle (despite some of Enns' absolute arguments) with a geneology of Jesus in a Gospels that would embody "fictious" characters who never even existed. (I competence as good surprise we that my great, good grandfather was Dr. Jekyll and my great, great, good grandfather was Mr. Hyde). we don't see since removing absolved of an chronological Adam is during all necessary. Enns himself offers a probability that OT Israel noticed Adam as their comparison partriarch - a male who creatively started a "clan." we privately see good possibilities here around withdrawal Adam within chronological existence as Israel's original, grand patriarch.
The start of impiety and genocide around a Adam and Eve story is another matter entirely. Biology and anthropology together seem to usually plain and simply sequence it out - and adhering Adam behind into a age of a Cro-Magnons and Neaderthals in sequence to "save" a doctrine is a transparent instance of an act of perfect desperation. But we see no reason since we indispensably have to interpretation that a "origin" of impiety and genocide (if that's a right word even to use...which I'm not even certain about) can usually be regarded as mislaid in a cloudy past. we cruise there is a probable proceed brazen here, and even around an chronological Adam, while during a same time embracing what Enns is articulate about. we cruise there competence good be a proceed to keep a personal Adam (perhaps 6 to 8 thousand BC), while also display how impiety and genocide had their start in him...but with an wholly opposite bargain that is sensitive by Enns' book. Unfortunately, spelling all that out is - like "The Evolution of Adam" - a book unto itself. And Amazon explanation is not a place where one is authorised to "write a book" - utterly detached from how extensive my possess explanation here has been. When Hell Freezes Over: Online with Legion and Abaddon
In a meanwhile...kudos again to Enns for his truly provocative and rarely judicious grant to a cause. His powerful invulnerability of a incarnation, a atonement, and a rebirth is profoundly gratifying. Because of his organisation position here no one can credit him of being unorthodox!
(NOTE: Readers meddlesome in a vicious research of David Rohl's "From Eden to Exile: a 5000 Year History of a People of a Bible," and since this book is of such vital significance for Old Testament studies - scholars in particular, can simply entrance my new examination of this book (titled "David Rohl: A "Maverick" in Search of History") by clicking on "See All My Reviews" directly above, or by going to a book's Amazon website. From Eden to Exile: The Five-Thousand-Year History of a People of a Bible Hope we suffer a read!
7 of 8 people found a following examination helpful.
By Gustav von Hohenhein
In The Evolution of Adam, Peter Enns relates his perspicacious insights into a Old Testament with a artistic mind of a world-class exegete. In TEOA, Enns lays out scriptural arguments that make inroads during reconciling enlargement (mostly tellurian evolution) with scripture. He calls Christians to re-examine Paul and viewpoint him by a eyes of a Second Temple Jew who interpreted scripture with a full bargain of Jesus as Messiah. The book is divided into dual sections - a initial traffic with Old Testament Scripture, and a second with a New Testament.
At a finish of a day, we remonstrate with Enns on many points, nonetheless we am shamed by his Christ-like opinion that is apropos increasingly singular in a Genesis debate. Even if one disagrees with Enns, it is roughly unfit to not get anything out of this book unless one's opinion is hardhearted or hateful.
Buy new: $11.97
24 used and new from $10.43
Customer Rating:
First tagged "science" by Min Y Ro
Most Helpful tags Customer Reviews: christianity(3), evolution(2), science, religion, peter enns
No comments:
Post a Comment