Re: Kerkut

Dick Fischer wrote:
.........
> 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.

        Remind me again: Where is that verse that says "As in Adam some die, so in
Christ shall all be made alive"?

                                                Shalom,
                                                George

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sat Feb 7 13:25:08 2004