Hello Mike,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MikeSatterlee@cs.com [mailto:MikeSatterlee@cs.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:18 PM
> To: ateo@whitworth.edu; asa@calvin.edu.
> Subject: Re: Men before Adam
> You responded: Actually Verse 45 says "the first man Adam" in
> contrast to
> "the last Adam".
>
> I guess you didn't read the entire passage. I referred you to 1 Cor.
> 15:45-47. There, as you pointed out, verse 45 calls Christ
> "the last Adam."
> But there, in verse 47, Paul also refers to Christ as "the
> second man." He
> wrote: "The first man was of the dust of the earth, the
> second man from
> heaven." That being the case, you cannot use this passage of
> scripture to
> prove that Adam was literally "the first man." For to do so
> you would also
> have to say that Jesus Christ was literally "the second man."
> But, as I
> recall, those who believe that Adam was literally "the first
> man" believe
> Cain was literally "the second man."
AT: It seems to me that one needs to read verse 45 in its own immediate
context before comparing it to a different sentence later on in the passage.
That is simply how human language works as far as I understand. In its own
immediate context, the contrast is between "the first man Adam" and the
"last Adam". Later, in verse 47, the contrast is between the "first man" and
the "second man", which is basically reiterating the previous sentence
contrasting the natural and the spiritual. The parallel fits perfecting in
verse 47, but not in verse 45, as if Paul, as a side note, was saying that
beyond the main point of contrasting the natural and spiritual, Adam was in
fact the first man. Otherwise, it would seem redundant, given that adam also
means man in Hebrew - "the first man man" Therefore, I firmly disagree with
you on this.
> 1. In your attempt to reconcile what science tells us about
> how long man has
> lived on earth, I take it you must believe that the "Adam" of
> Genesis 2 and 3
> lived a long time ago. Why then does Bible chronology
> indicate that only some
> 4,000 years passed between the creation of Adam and the birth
> of Christ?
I've read that the biblical genealogy tends to be incomplete, because the
point is not to document the generations in a scientifically precise manner,
but to prove a theological point. Others who are more knowledgeable may wish
to comment on this.
> 2. If you say there are "gaps" in the Genesis 5 and 11
> genealogies, what was
> the point in the author of Genesis recording all that chronological
> information?
That is a great theological question (not scientific)! It is to show that
there are two lines of ancestry, representing the people of God (Sethites),
and the people who turned away (Canaanites). In Gen 11, it makes it even
clearer that the Abrahamites can be traced back through Shem (hence Semites)
to Seth. The family of God has been splintered, and out of the various
lines, only one is chosen to bring in the Messiah, which is the line of
Abraham, Isaac, and then through Jacob (Israel).
> 3. When do you think Adam was created?
I have no idea.
> 4. If later than 30,000 years ago, how do you answer
> scientists who say that
> men just like ourselves have continually inhabited places
> like Africa, Asia
> and Australia for at least that long?
If later than 30,000 years, then doesn't it make sense that the people who
came before could have migrated?
> 5. If more than 10,000 years ago, how do you answer
> scientists who say that
> nowhere on earth did men raise crops and heard animals,
> activities that the
> Bible tells us Adam and his children engaged in, more than
> 10,000 years ago?
Again the absence of evidence cannot be used to prove one's case. Yes, there
may be no discovered evidence of earlier agricultural activity, TO DATE
(Morton dates agriculture to 13,000). The case isn't closed.
> 6. Who were the people living in the land 'east of Eden' whom
> Cain was afraid
> might kill him? (Gen. 4:14-17)
Aren't you assuming that this account is most correctly to be interpreted
literally by asking that question?
> 7. Though the Bible tells us God does not hold children
> responsible for the
> sins of their parents (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6;
> Ezekiel 18:20), the
> doctrine of "the fall" of mankind says that all who have not
> accepted Christ
> as their Lord will be eternally condemned by God because of
> something Adam
> did. How do you explain this apparent contradiction?
I know that God desires that all be saved. I don't claim to fully understand
how the actual sin of Adam could have such drastic effects on me, but
neither do I fully understand how the obedience of Christ could have such
drastic effects on me.
> 8. The science of genetics has determined that information
> coded within the
> nucleotide sequences of human RNA and DNA is fully responsible for
> determining what characteristics will be inherited by a
> couple's children.
> And this branch of science has proven conclusively that a
> human being's
> genetic code cannot be altered by actions as ordinary as
> those performed by
> Adam in the garden of Eden. However, advocates of "the fall"
> doctrine say
> that Adam and Eve's original nature somehow changed at the
> time of their
> disobedience and that their altered nature was then passed on
> to their
> descendants. How do you believe the act of eating a piece of
> fruit was able
> to alter Adam and Eve's genetic codes?
I think you may have a different understanding of human nature than I do.
The change that has taken place was a spiritual one, not necessarily a
physical one. I understand that to be a lost of original righteousness. I
think of the human person as a duality of body and soul in a hylomorphic
sense.
I'm sure this doesn't answer all your concerns, but it's a start.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 26 2002 - 18:11:22 EDT