This is one of the more objective posts that I EVER seen on the ASA
list. Someone with a partially open mind ----- to add to a rather meager
collection of others..
We all have to deal with the fact that Jesus Christ came to save all men
and women (at the least). Certainly it was not all those who happened to
hear a particular Gospel Message" ("New Birth", YEC, Anti-YEC, OEC, ID,
Eisele, or otherwise) 2000 years after the birth of Jesus.
What about Abraham, etc.?
Jesus Christ is the final authority of who is "saved" and who is not. It
is presumptuous for anybody to make judgment on this score -- for
whatever reason they might have. That must include Adam, Eve, The "Real
Eve", pre Adam, etc.. How about even birds, dogs and whatever?
IMHO
Walt
MikeSatterlee@cs.com wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> My position on this is a cross between that of Glenn's and Dick's.
>
> I believe Adam was a historical person who was created by God and inserted
> into an already populated world. I believe Bible chronology dates this event
> to 4,000 years before the birth of Christ. However, I do not believe that
> Adam was the first man who was created "in God's image." I do not believe
> that Adam differed in any way "spiritually" from the indigenous populations
> which surrounded Eden, other than being put under "law" by God. (Romans 5:13)
> I believe God simply used Adam, as a representative of the human race, to
> illustrate the fact that no human being is worthy of eternal life. His
> inability to obey one simple command demonstrated that fact and brought
> condemnation upon all men. His actions served to provethe fact that the human
> race had long been unworthy of eternal life and had thus been deserving of
> the deaths they had long been suffering.
>
> It seems that some here feel that Adam must have been the first man created
> in God's image because Gen. 5 seems to connect the "man" of Gen. 1:26,27 with
> the "Adam" of Gen. 2. However, I think this is not necessarily the case.
> Especially when we consider the fact that in Gen. 9:6 God says that it is
> wrong to shed "man's blood" because "in God's image he made man." God is not
> here forbidding the shedding of Adam's blood. Adam was then no longer living.
> Those who take your position must maintain that when this verse uses the
> Hebrew word "adam" for "man" God was then only condemning the killing of
> Adam's descendants. I don't buy it. If that's what God had meant I think
> that's what He would have said. I think the context of this verse makes it
> clear that God was saying that ALL human life was sacred to Him since all men
> were created in His image.
>
> I also have to agree with Glenn that animal sacrifice is animal sacrifice.
> How did Adam and his descendants sacrificing the lives of domesticated
> animals show that they had "God's image" any more so than those who
> sacrificed the lives of bears and other animals to God in earlier times? I
> don't understand this at all. Maybe you can explain it to me.
>
> Mike
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 22 2002 - 15:52:50 EDT