glenn morton wrote:
....................................
> > There are a number of ways of understanding the work of Christ & while
> some of
> >them may be commonly expressed in terms of a literal interpretation of
> Genesis 3, they
> >are not really dependent upon that. So one can't start from what Christ
> did & argue
> >back unambiguously to a knowledge of how sin originated.
>
> But one doesn't have to argue backwards from Christ to how sin started. The
> entire point is that the Bible purports to tell us how sin started LONG
> BEFORE CHRIST WAS ON EARTH. To dismiss the Genesis 3 account as if it was
> a post facto deduction ignores about 20-30 centuries of JudeoChristian
> thought.
You previously said that there was a connection between Christ & the historicity
of Gen.3 because if that text couldn't be understood in terms of an historical fall then
the work of Christ was unnecessary. That isn't the case. OTOH I have no interest in
dismissing Genesis 3 & realize of course that it was written B.C.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 10 2000 - 19:42:33 EST