RE: How to interpret Adam (was: Re: Kerkut)

Dick:

Your sarcastic tone recently on this list has made it very confusing to
understand what you are arguing for or against. Please be more
straightforward and gracious in your posts. I think Guy was asking some
honest questions here. Isn't he (and all of us) better served by you (and
all of us) being more clear about our perspective before unloading a bunch
of arguments one way or another? For example, I still can't figure out
what your fundamental stance is about the Hyers article, etc. Obviously
you do not like his article, but is that because you do believe in an
historical, literal Adam? Why not give a more clear introductory sentence
in the form of "In my own view, I believe that the evidence is sufficiently
strong for an historical Adam that it is not necessary or warranted to
unload the Creation story of all historical fact" or something like that.

Sincerely,
Douglas

                                                                                                                                        
                      Dick Fischer
                      <dickfischer@eart To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
                      hlink.net> cc:
                      Sent by: Subject: RE: How to interpret Adam (was: Re: Kerkut)
                      asa-owner@lists.c
                      alvin.edu
                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                        
                      02/26/04 08:03 AM
                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                        

Guy wrote:

      My question: If Adam and Eve weren't historical figures, then how can
      Jesus
      be descended from them in a meaningful way?

He couldn't be descended in any way. Nonexistent fathers don't have flesh
and blood sons (or Sons).

      Isn't the whole life, death and resurrection of Jesus related to the
      fact that he is descended from Adam?

Where do you get these ideas? Have you been reading the Bible, Guy? In
essence, this is the equivalent of a tautology, a perpetual motion machine,
the idea you can get something for nothing. We don't permit such nonsense
in our science, but in our religion - that's okay! Everybody knows you
have to have a little nonsense in your faith, else wise, why would we call
it "faith"? That's what makes science and religion so much fun. What group
of scientists ever gathered together and drank lethal Kool Aid?

So what you do is learn science, and then abandon all you know when it
comes to religion. After all, it is only the hope of eternal life hanging
in the balance for those who choose to not believe, not anything really
important like who wins the Super Bowl or something.

      If I am not descended from Adam, how have my sins been atoned for in
      the way
      the bible says?

Christ told his disciples to "Go ye into all the world" and preach to
"every creature" (Mark 16:15). His disciples didn't ask which ones.

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Thu Feb 26 09:31:30 2004