Re: Dick Fisher's "historical basis" remains no less doubtful

I want to be clear about my question.

I think there are two issues.

The first is what it means to be created "in the image of God". And how
Adam was, according to traditional biblical interpretation, the first of
this race that was created in "his image". This characteristic is unique to
Adam and his descendants. I dont see how other hominids in meopotamia, or
elsewhere that were not descendants of Adam, a part of this race in this
way.

I think that the issue of original sin, and the consequences of the fall is
a different matter.

Lets just say for a moment, that all members of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, are
created in Gods image, and have souls. I dont think I have a problem with
Adam's fall condemning all of that race, even those not of Adam's lineage,
including those that came before Adam. I also feel that saying this stops
at anatomically modern humans is reasonable. In the same way, Christ's
sacrifice covers all men, at least all that believe in him, whether or not
they are part of Christ's lineage or not.

The difficulty I have though is making all homo sapiens sapiens spiritual
creatures, in the same way that Adam was, and still maintain the historicity
of the Biblical text.
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
To: <dickfischer@earthlink.net>; <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: Dick Fisher's "historical basis" remains no less doubtful

>
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:18:29 -0500 "Dick Fischer"
> <dickfischer@earthlink.net> writes:
>> Jack Syme wrote:
>>
>> > Despite whatever Adams imputation to mankind is. My concern is
>> that Adam
>> > was somehow unique. Created in the image of God. If there were
>> other
>> > "humans" around at the time of Adam, but Adam was somehow
>> different. This
>> > would also mean that other human races that were around at that
>> time were
>> > also not of the same "image". And these others have direct
>> descendants to
>> > modern times which would lead to the conclusion, I think, that
>> they are
>> > less than "human" in the sense that Adam was.
>>
>> I wouldn't put it that way. But how would you feel if you had been
>> an
>> Amalekite? How did Esau feel knowing Jacob was chosen from the womb
>> and he
>> wasn't? Why worry about OT imbalances anyway? The important thing
>> is that
>> we have an even playing field today. Christ changed the equation.
>> All are
>> eligible
>> for God's kingdom. There is no more chosen race with other races
>> outside
>> the gate as was clearly the case before Christ.
>>
> Jack,
> I'm persuaded that you are right in your question and Dick has obfuscated
> in his answer. According to him only Adam was given the crucial choice,
> which would apply to him and possibly to his descendants. But his failure
> was transferred to all others, even to those who were totally isolated
> from him and his descendants. If the sinful nature were like a virus,
> transmissible from one person to another, those in contact with Adam and
> his seed might be infected. But this could not have been transferred to
> Americans and Australians, who were totally isolated from the Old World
> until the time of the Viking exploration for America, and about 3/4 of a
> millennium later for Australians. However, Dick seems to feel that the
> infection was transferred magically and immediately to everyone who
> looked like the soul-gifted and sin-damaged pair from Eden. Do you
> suppose there is a ghostly contagion in the very air we breathe so that
> no material transference is required? Then the consequences of Adam's
> fall would have reached the American aborigines a couple weeks later.
> Maybe souls are contagious, so that both traducianism and creationism are
> wrong, and every newborn gets its soul from the environment. Since the
> ancestors of the Adamites were religious, as Glenn has shown, I infer
> that they must have had some awareness of both deity and moral
> responsibility. Do you suppose that Dick can come up with a
> pseudo-justification for worship without any sense of accountability? I'm
> sure he can, but it will be as irrelevant as his response to you.
> Dave
Received on Mon Nov 15 18:06:22 2004