Glenn writes
>Biblically, it states that God made man from the dust of the ground, that
He
>breathed the breath of life into the man, and that the man was alone--no
>Eve. This would appear to contradict evolution. God is also described as
>being actively and supernaturally involved in the creation of man. And that
>man's spirit is somehow different from that of the animals. Is there a way
>to put all this together? I believe there is.
I may as well first say that I checked your "A Theory for Creationists"
link.
I give you credit for having the courage to tackle such a big issue. (Not
that I agree with you).
Your biblical interpretation severely suffers from lack of Hebrew knowledge,
however. The Bible says that God made Adam, or "the adam" from the dust of
the ground. "Ha'adam" is the Hebrew transliteration. That's all it says.
There are (and were) plenty of good Christians who take this as an allegory.
They underestimated the Bible.
>From the Genesis in Question site
>1Cor 15:45 speaks of the first man, Adam. It also speaks of the last Adam,
>Christ. Adam is the first man in the family tree. The Bible is the story
>of Christ and His line. No need to infer more than that from the text.
>Adam is the first man to have a special, covenant relationship with God.
>Also, Americans call George Washington the first President. We are not
saying
>that he is history's first head of state.
Further in your post to Dick
>Nothing worthy of either conversion or agitation has occurred in this note.
>But, if I were to convert to your views, Dick, I would become an adherent
of
>the Sumerian religion. You always give precedent to Sumerian accounts over
>the Judaic accounts of human history. If the Sumerian religion is the one
>which is true, and the Judaic account always seems in need of correction by
>the Sumerian, it seems logical to me to beleive the sumerian religion.
I have read Dick's excellent book. He gets it right. The Bible is Hebrew
history.
Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 13 2002 - 15:41:53 EDT