Re: Kerkut

Bill Hamilton wrote:

>Glenn Morton wrote:
>
>>GRM: I view Genesis 1 as the pre-planning for the universe. The 'and it
>>was so" after so many of the verses is not what God said but what the
>>Biblical narrator said. By viewing Genesis 1 in this fashion, Genesis
>>2, the supposed second account of creation is really several billion
>>years later at the time when mankind was created. Thus, the'evidence'
>>supporting YEC, could be merely the wrong conclusion coupled with the
>>fact that Theologians seem to never think out of hte box.

>I am also attracted to that view, with some caveats. One is that the
>creation of man is mentioned in Genesis 1. Maybe the division isn't
>between Gen 1 and 2, but somewhere in Gen 1.

Or maybe Genesis 1:27 isn't generic man at all, but Adam persona - the same
Adam who is the "son of God" in the Lukean genealogy
of Christ. That Adam you remember was the father of Cain who built a
city. I don't think the second biological man, who could have lived from
100,000 years ago to 4 million years ago, was capable of urban development.

With that in mind, Genesis 1:27 could read: "So God created man (Adam) in
his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created
he them (Adam and Eve)." Who was created in the "image of God"? "Adam,
which was the son of God" (Luke 3:38).

Not that I want to get into that argument all over again, now that
gentility has settled in on the ASA listserv, but from my perspective it is
the unwarranted presumption that Adam began the human race that starts
Bible expositors down the wrong path from which they never recover.

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Sat Feb 7 13:00:44 2004