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

Jack wrote:

>So you think that there are "genuine humans" i.e. those created in the image
>of God, theologically defined Man, that were around tens of thousands, or
>more, years before Adam could have existed?

If being "in the image" means being a representative of God, then that
honor falls first to only one man - Adam of Genesis. Biological human
beings can extend back in time a hundred thousand, or even a few million of
years depending on how we wish to define various mammalian bipeds.

>Do you believe that Adam was a true historical figure? Lets assume that is
>the case for a second, and Adam was "created" 7000 or so years ago.
>
>The theological problem with this view, is that sin entered the world
>through Adam, and death through sin. I dont think you believe that all the
>preadamites were immortal or sinless do you? Your scenario would require
>that.

An infant is fully human. We don't hold them accountable or punish them
for misdeeds until they reach an age where they can begin to understand the
consequences of their actions - right from wrong. Humans in their infancy
were unaccountable, in my estimation. Adam began the era of
accountability, being in the "image of God." It was Adam's mission to
bring the heathen into the knowledge of God and teach them the virtues of
righteous living and obedience to our Creator. Then Adam himself disobeyed
- and you know the rest of the story.

>So, to summarize what I think the bible clearly tells us: Adam was a true
>historic figure, he was the first "genuine human", and he brought sin and
>death to all men.

I'm glad to see someone pays attention! Check out our web site, and get
all the supporting data and evidence.

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Thu Feb 26 20:52:02 2004