Re: A question for TE's (fwd)

GRMorton@aol.com
Tue, 28 Nov 1995 23:18:46 -0500

Russ Maatman wrote:

>> the nonnegotiable position I take re evolution is that
human beings were created de novo.<<

and

>> Glenn's idea and the two-Adam idea
seem to me not to be allowable. But there may be something there I
do not see. Concerning our origins, the one thing that I think must
stand is that Adam and Eve were created de novo. <<

I am curious about the de novo part. Where in the Scripture does it state
that Adam must be created de novo. Eve clearly was not created de novo and
was taken from Adam. Thus to be strictly consistent with Biblical data, it
would seem that you should amend your statement to read,

"I think... that Adam was created de novo."

But all I see in the scripture is that God created Adam from dust and
breathed life into him. As long as the harmonization fits that in regard to
Adam then what else is the problem. You and I are indeed made from the dust
but God Himself did not breathe life into us. Everything we have eaten in
our lifetimes ultimately was produced by plants which got their mineral from
the dirt and air. Through their intermediation, it can be stated that God
made us from the dust also!

My view of Adam is that he was a very rare mutation, a chromosomal fusion.
If our bodies came from the apes a chromosomal fusion was necessary. The
apes have 48 chromosomes and we have 46. I presume Adam did not survive this
fusion and was still-born. God took pity on him, fixed the defects and
breathed life into him exactly as the Scripture says. Being the only
"survivor" of this type of mutation, he would not have been able to find a
bride anywhere. That is one reason why God showed him all the animals.(the
other reason was to teach Adam to speak) Once again, exactly as the scripture
states. Eve's creation from Adam was essential or Adam was not going to
leave any offspring.

But I do not see that the Scripture requires de novo of Adam's body at all.
Can you give support for this?

glenn