Even assuming, ad arguendo, it is true we can come up
with an hypotehsis that comes up with an historical
Adam at a particular location. It does not make any
sense to me to either build either an apologetic
around this or a theology. For a couple simple
reasons.
First. Precisely placing Adam does not seem to me to
be critical to the Christian message. Indeed, Christ
is critical to the Christian message and he is
well-placed historically.
Second. The doctrine of original sin does not seem to
me dependent on identifying a specific, particular
Adam. It seems to me that the doctrine of original
sin can just as well be supported as a metaphorical
discussion of human nature, which at some point became
manifest in hominids when the knowledge of good and
evil came into their consciousness and their
subsequent rejection of the good.
Third. The doctrine of original sin as an exegetical
gloss stemming from the second century does not
receive equal treatment in all Christian traditions.
Christian faith and the saving grace of Jesus the
Christ do not depend on an historical Adam. To say
that it does is an exegetical gloss.
Fourth. Christ as the "second Adam" is not dependent
upon on identifying a particular, historical Adam in
the same way as Jesus is essential as an historically
identifiable person who is the Christ.
Fifth. As an apologetic, it is a weak tactic to use
against those who reject Christianity generally, since
they are unlikely to be swayed. It is likely to
appear to those outside the Christian tradition as an
ad hoc argument. Not that it might not be right, but
it is simply not persuasive to those outside the
tradition.
Sixth. It seems primarily concerned with supporting
the protestant view of sola scripture which both the
Catholic tradition and Orthodox tradition reject and
not all protestant or anabaptist traditions take in a
literal meaning, especially regarding the Old
Testament.
At the end of the day, I do not see what difference to
Christian faith it makes if we try to identify a
particular, historical Adam or not. It seems to me
that it is not useful as an apologetic either. It may
be edifying to those who want to literally reconcile
scripture with what we know about historical facts,
but not much more. So, what difference does it make?
Please enlighten me.
--- Jim Eisele <jeisele@starpower.net> wrote:
> Has anyone challenged Dick Fischer's research? If
> no one
> has disproved it, how can anyone in good conscience
> deny
> the historicity of Adam? Dick has placed Adam where
> the
> Bible does, with a heck of a lot of backup. God
> bless him.
>
> Jim
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 25 2002 - 18:08:09 EDT