Re: How to interpret Adam (was: Re: Kerkut)

I have been asking Dick these same questions, and his response, as I
understand it is that the Bible doesnt say anything about the preadamites or
their descendants.

But, I see severe implications for his view. I think that the Bible teaches
that to say that one is "human", is equivalent to saying that one is a
sinner. There were no "humans" before Adam, and no sinners before Adam.
All "humans" are sinners and condemned, unless they believe in Christ, who
saves all "humans" who believe. I dont think that we can define what it is
to be human in biological terms at all. It is a spiritual definition.
"Human" means able to communicate with God? Maybe.

Somehow, there needs to be a connection, between Adam, and the rest of
humanity. Not only are we all condemned through Adam, but somehow, he
imparted the quality of being "human" to all of us as well.

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Dick Fischer" <dickfischer@earthlink.net>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: How to interpret Adam (was: Re: Kerkut)

> Dick Fischer wrote:
> >
> > George wrote:
> >
> > >Dick Fischer wrote:
> > >
> > > > A "picture of" Adam? No real Adam though? I frankly don't know how
a
> > > > parallel can be drawn between a non-existent figurehead and a flesh
and
> > > > blood Christ. The first Adam was non-existent, the other really
was? Then
> > > > how does this work: 1Cor 15:45: "And so it is written, The first man
Adam
> > > > was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
> > >
> > > Please stop trying to make me say things that I didn't say. I
> > > think that
> > >there's very little doubt that St. Paul understood Gen.2-3 as an
account
> > >of an
> > >historical figure Adam & used that idea to express a belief in the
causal
> > >effects of
> > >the the sin of humanity in its origin & the general sinful condition of
> > >humanity.
> >
> > Okay, St. Paul and I agree. But then, neither he nor I have a Phd in
> > theology, so what do we know?
> >
> > >In a similar way, the author/editor of Gen.1 thought that there were
> > >waters above the
> > >heavens and used that idea in expressing the belief that God is the
> > >creator of the
> > >entire universe.
> >
> > Well, which is it? Is it water, or is it solid? I have heard both on
this
> > list.
>
> It isn't period. There are no waters above the heavens - liquid, gas, or
any
> phase of ice. & there weren't a few thousand years ago. The writer of
Genesis is using
> the concepts of cosmology prevalent in his culture, which we have no
reason to think
> he didn't accept, to speak of God as the creator of the universe as he
knew it. The
> fact that he was using what we now see as an obsolete picture of the
physical universe
> doesn't invalidate the creation theology of Genesis, which helps us to
understand God as
> the creator of the unievrse as we know it today - which will probably
differ in
> important features from the way people will understand it in 2104 if the
world lasts
> that long.
>
> Similarly, Paul used the concepts of the history of the human race
prevalent in
> his culture to speak of the problem of human sin. & the fact that we know
now that
> humanity didn't originate with a single couple a few thousand years ago
doesn't
> invalidate that theological understanding of sin, which helps us to
understand the
> situation of the human race as we understand it today.
>
> & to respond to your earlier question: Do I know more about some aspects
of
> biology & human history than Paul? Yes. Does that make me a better
theologian than
> Paul? No.
>
> You said there that you & Paul agree. Kind of. If I can put it this way,
you
> agree with Paul about the historical picture he assumes & I don't. But I
think
> that I agree with his theological description of the problem of sin & you
don't.
>
> ............................
> > >My point was simply that your Adam-Hitler parallel doesn't work very
well.
> >
> > My only reason for using that analogy is that we don't need to be
directly
> > related to someone to be impacted by the sin of someone. I don't think
> > there is a genetic coding for sin in our DNA. We have free will, that
> > allows us to make wrong choices, and the choices we make that are
> > displeasing to God, we call sin. Adam brought accountability into the
> > picture where humans had not been accountable before, and messed it
> > up. Simple.
>
> Nor do I think that sin is coded for in DNA. But it seems much too weak
an
> interpretation of what Paul says in Romans 5 simply to say that those not
descended from
> Adam became "accountable" because of him. You would have a situation in
which person X
> in Mexico circa 7000 B.C., before Adam sinned in the Middle East, was not
"accountable"
> but in which X's son X', born after Adam sinned, was accountable. That
seems entirelt
> arbitrary. Could God have held X' accountable & X not? Sure. But is
that really what
> you want to argue?
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
Received on Sun Mar 7 14:35:24 2004