Rich wrote:
Dick, from your perspective there
is a real Adam.
There either was an Adam or there wasn't, regardless of my
perspective. It is a historical fact or a biblical myth. But
he is either one or the other. And since both Matthew and Paul
refer to Adam, I fall on the side of believing them. If you choose
to differ with these luminaries on this issue what other issues of
doctrine do you wager against?
I don't believe that is the case
due to the nature of the theology that underlies the Biblical story of
Adam and Eve. It's too psychologically perfect. A history that was never
history, but theology in the first place, can never be a false history
and has no bearing on the nature of the theology which was the intention
of the author in the first place.
You're mincing words, Rich. If Adam was a figment, and not a flesh
and blood, forbidden fruit eating, bona fide member of the
Homo
sapiens family, then on similar rationale we could call into question
the legitimacy of any and every Bible character without
exception.
The only one we could be certain about is Sennacherib, who was king of
Assyria, and that's because there is a relief of him in Ninevah.
Say, there is a trivia question for you. Who is the only Bible
character whose image we have today? I'll bet that would stump a
few thumpers.
Dick Fischer -
Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Wed Dec 8 16:08:21 2004