swamidass
April 25, 2018, 10:02pm
5
There are interesting relationships between Kemp’s proposal and polygenesis.
In the past every pre-Adamite proposal was also a polygenesis proposal that denied the unity of all mankind. For this reason, I do not consider it a pre-Adamite proposal. This is not what it is. Likewise, Kemp’s proposal is not a pre-Adamite proposal, because it is not a polygenesis proposal. A few of the key differences:
Pre-Adamite proposals deny that we all descend from Adam right now, while a Genealogical Adam asserts the opposite, that we do all descend from him.
Pre-Adamite proposals teach that Adam was biologically better than others around him, while a Genealogical Adam affirms monophylogeny, affirming alongside modern science and theology that we are the same biological type.
Pre-Adamite proposals teach that Adam was theologically better than others around him, while a Genealogical Adam teaches (at least in some proposals) that he was the first one Fallen; it would be better not to be in his line.
Pre-Adamite proposals necessarily deny sole-progenitorship and monogenesis, while Genealogical Adam affirms theological sole-progenitorship and monogenesis by way of genealogical descent from Adam.
Pre-Adamite proposals usually (if not always) presume that Adam is the first person with the Image of God, and that those before and alongside Adam are not in God’s image, while a Genealogical Adam (at least as I personally put forward) emphasizes that those outside the garden are in God’s image too.
With this in mind, we can see that Kemp’s proposal is just an adjustment of the polygenesis model. He takes (alongside the pre-Adamite models), #2 , #3 , #5 . Kemp does not make a distinction between genetic and genealogical ancestry (most likely conflating the two), so his notion of descent is genetic.
I think the key point is that when we make a key distinction between genetic and genealogical ancestry, and recognize that the Image of God can arise before Adam, it becomes clear that much more of polygenesis can be disputed. Though Kemp’s view is not polygenesis, it does seem insufficiently distinguished from it.