Re: Nature article on ID

Hi Dave, you asked:

>It's just that I
> insist that there is more to hman nature than the physical--which seems a
> necessary consequence of your theory that Adam received a soul from God
> about 7000 B.C. Am I misinterpreting your position, or are you shifting
> it for the purposes of argument?

(About 5000 BC for the time of Adam.) No shifting required. If Adam's mission was to bring mankind into accountabilty, as I believe it was, then I presume that men had something God wished to redeem. So I presume that at some point men had this redeemable aspect. At what time men were endowed with souls capable of being redeemed is beyond me. But at least from the time of Adam there was a means established to obtain forgiveness through repentence and animal sacrifice until Christ changed the equation.

And since I can't think of a way for a soul to get from parent to child today, I certainly don't have any bright ideas about when they came into play for human beings.

> Then you come up with a bunch of questions. If I were dogmatically
> pro-life or pro-choice (poor labels, but the ones used), I could give you
> an answer by spouting the party line. But I take your approach to be like
> that of the gang who asked Jesus about paying taxes. He had a sharp
> answer that confounded them. I'm not that clever. If I think of
> something, I'll happily skewer you. ;-)

I'm sure you will ;>).

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Wed May 4 10:28:40 2005