Re: The puzzle of Adam

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Perrett" <donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: "ASA Discussions" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 1:28 PM
Subject: RE: The puzzle of Adam

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> George wrote:
> Unless I'm misreading you, you still seem to be arguing that the 2d
> account
> presupposes the 1st. I don't see any reason to think that's the case.
> For
> that matter, I don't know that the 2d account presupposes _any_ account
> of -
> or even reflection on - cosmic origins. Our modern view of humanity's
> place
> in the world kind of demands that human origins be placed in a larger
> context, but the writer of Gen.2:4b-25 may just not have been concerned
> about such matters.
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Don P:
> I don't know if I'm miscommunication, but what I have stated is:
> "Also I am NOT saying that the 2nd account is part of the 6th day or some
> sort of detailing of said event. I am stating that the 2nd account is not
> a
> second account but rather a subsequent event which took place after
> creation, just as Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc came after the creation. Each
> of which were stages in a religious evolution. Adam, IMHO, is the first
> stage in an ongoing religious development with YHWH."
>
> What I meant is what you have stated above with:
> "but the writer of Gen.2:4b-25 may just not have been concerned about such
> matters."
>
> More or Less. I don't see the writer of Gen2 as having made an attempt to
> connect the dots. The writer may not have even known about the writings
> of
> Gen1. That is what I meant by suggesting that Gen2 was an oral tradition
> handed down through the "generations" as suggested by Gen2, versus Gen1
> which I believe was a revelation given to Moses. Regardless however of
> their sources, I take them as being in a "sort of" chronological order. I
> realize this makes sense in our "modern view" and may not have been the
> concern at that time. But if they were not concerned about chronology
> then
> it is not evident.

OK. Sorry I didn't get your point the 1st time around.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Thu Dec 2 20:36:28 2004