I know I've posted this before, but it bears repeating.
In 1 Cor 15:45-47 we find an explanation for the 2 different accounts
of creation in Genesis. Of prime importance is Paul's statement in
verse 46, that the first man (first account) is spiritual, and then
'that which is natural'. Although the explanation gets a little
convoluted, his meaning is clear: The first man, Adam, of the earth,
is distinct from the last man, or second man, which is spiritual. Yet
he quite clearly states that Adam was not first, but that the
spiritual creation is first. This, for me, is the explanation for the
first account of creation in Genesis, which scholarship has shown was
written some 500 years before the second account in Gen. 2. They are
juxtaposed to reveal the distinction between the 'earthy' man and
the 'heavenly' man. The earthy man is Adam, the heavenly, Christ.
Christ is not only Jesus' identity, but it is the true identity of
all of God's children, whereby we are all blessed, 'For in Him, we
live, and move and have our being.' When yo!
u c
onsider 1 Cor 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall
all be made alive." in this light, you can begin to understand how
the spiritual creation in Gen 1 is the true creation and the material
account (Gen 2) is the false account. You can choose either account
to believe as being true, but only one really is true. When you
consider God's directive to Moses in Deut 31:19 to 'choose life' and
remember Pauls statement in verse 22 above, it becomes clear which
one is true.
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:51:33
MikeSatterlee wrote:
>Dick Fischer wrote: An early Adam works for Glenn, a late Adam works for me,
>and
>along comes Mike who prefers two Adams over one.
>
>I responded: I believe there was only one biblical man who was named "Adam."
>His creation by God is clearly described in Genesis chapter two. I simply
>believe that Genesis 1:26-30, which does not mention the man "Adam," is
>describing God's creation of the human race prior to His creation of "Adam."
>Such an understanding hardly amounts to believing in "two Adams."
>
>Dick then wrote: Whether you choose to translate 'adam as "Adam" or "man," I
>can assure it is the same 'adam throughout Genesis. In other words, 'adam in
>Genesis 1:27 is nameless in your opinion?
>
>That, of course, is what I mean. As you know, the Hebrew word for man, 'adam,
>is used in a generic way to refer to the entire human race several times in
>Genesis. That being the case, would it be either fair or accurate of me to
>tell people that you believe there was more than one Adam, with a capital A?
>You know it would not be. I took that comment as a cheap shot. But since I
>like you, I'll forget about it, this time. Just don't let it happen again or
>I'll have to change my plans to order copies of your book for all 5,000
>members my church. : )
>
>Mike
>
See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 24 2002 - 13:54:05 EDT