On Fri, 15 Dec 1995, Stephen Jones wrote:
>
> SJ>While you are right about the Heb. article in Gn 1:26-27, that is
> not
> >the two-"Adam" model argument.
>
> DL>I agree. But I made no reference to the two-Adam theory. I was
> just
> >confirming Glenn's position on Gen 1:26-27.
>
> Perhaps you need to clarify that with the Group. Most would see it as
> an argument against the 2AM.
>
> DL>Regarding the two-Adam theory, well I am sure you know what I
> >think of concordism.
>
> I don't think that the 2AM is "concordism". It is simply acknowledging
> that two valid pictures of reality can have an ultimate agreement.
I still think it is concordism, and most familar with the Hebrew
will agree it strains the Text. Stephen, (and I hope this does not sound like
I am "pulling rank") I did OT studies to the doctoral level at
evangelical schools, and no one ever talks about the 2 Adam theory.
Joyeux Noel,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------