RE: Adam from Dust

From: Dick Fischer (dickfischer@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 11:51:09 EDT

  • Next message: Dick Fischer: "RE: Adam from Dust"

    Hi Glenn, you wrote (to Bob):

    >Bob, I would agree with you. But you are not understanding Dick's position.
    >All humans alive 4000 years ago were not human. They were like dogs and cats
    >who had no soul.

    Not necessarily, but we are venturing in an area we know nothing
    about. There is no Scripture on this, or historic evidence, or
    scientific data, or anything. We are all shooting in the dark. I
    hate that. Nevertheless, if pure speculation with nothing to go on
    is in vogue, I'll venture in as in "fools rush in." But the sooner
    we get back to the stuff we can substantiate the better.

    Adam appears to have been God's first effort to bring humans into
    accountability, "save" them, if you like that terminology. If God
    went to the extent to afford them a means to be saved, they must have
    had something to save. Let's call it a soul.

    Surrounding human beings living at the time of Adam (Ubaidans,
    Sumerians) would have had "savable" souls. I have no idea when they
    got them. I have no idea what provision God made for them prior to
    Adam's appearance. If you like reincarnation or recycling, go with
    that. Next we will be discussing "Bridey Murphy." (No relation to
    George.)

    We can presume that Adam had life to give, perhaps through the "tree
    of life," and Adam had authority, being created "in the image" of
    God. So Adam had a mission and a means. And Adam had fertile ground
    6,000 to 7,000 years ago. Okay, he failed.

    In Glenn's scenario with Adam brought into the world over 5 million
    years ago, and being the first human with a surviving soul, he would
    have been surrounded by hominids with no souls and nothing to save.
    No sense witnessing to those guys.

    If you have real concern for hominids prior to Adam, posit an "Adam,"
    call him "Adam 1" if you like, bring him into the world whenever you
    feel like it, and since the Adam of Genesis 2 failed, probably this
    previous effort would have failed too. What good failed attempts do,
    I don't know.

    One thing I think is pertinent is that Christ entered the world at a
    time when He would do the most good. In Rome in those days there was
    good communication, written language, ability to travel freely, a
    system of laws, organization, division of labor, currency, a
    civilized society, etc.

    In ancient Sumer and Accad at the time of Adam and Noah there were
    similar surroundings. Christ was not wasted on barbarians, and Adam
    was not wasted on hunters and gatherers.

    Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orislol.com
    ěThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoî



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 18 2002 - 13:05:39 EDT