RE: [asa] Glenn's views

Oops, that was Dave not Burgy who wrote:

>>Dick gives a different twist to scripture, with "men" ancient and Adam

created only a few thousand years ago. As a consequence, Adam's Fall had

to be passed without descent to all the rest of the "human" race so that

they could become truly human. He won't agree, but to me it plays hob

with redemption.

I will grant that they follow a strange kind of literalism, neglecting

the explicit language of the original, which has an "expanse" onto which

the heavenly bodies are placed. There is water above the expanse with

sluice gates to release it, and birds fly in front of (below) the

expanse. This biblical picture cannot be fit onto a contemporary factual

description. This came as a shock to me, for I began where Glenn began,
a

commitment to YEC. I swallowed hard and accepted the Hebrew text, where

Glenn looked for an event he could fit into his version, with stretching

of the text to fit his needs.

I like both Glenn and Dick, but I have to disagree with them and, on
this

point, agree with Michael, who has extra letters that he has to dispose

of.<<

I can't speak for Glenn, but I can speak for Dick. I'm locked into a
method of apology bound by data and evidence that doesn't allow me to
make wonderful interpretations to satisfy whatever method of apology
others may hold or even that I might like to hold. I wish I wasn't
connected biologically to chimps, but the data suggests otherwise. I
wish all men were created "in the image of God," but the stark realities
of Scripture are that Adam was, those prior to him and at the same time
as him weren't, and none of us today are - unless we come to Christ who
is in the image of God according to the New Testament.

I didn't just think that up. It comes as a logical extension of
Scripture itself once you come to the reality that Adam was not the
first biological human being. Of course I could be wrong about who is
and who isn't standing in God's image. Peter Ruest thinks I am. It's a
small point, however, and I'm not going to the mat over it.

Genesis 1 is from another source than Genesis 2:4 and following,
although they were strung together by Moses or someone else possibly.
To reach a conclusion about how Genesis 1 should be interpreted and then
apply the same rationale throughout the rest of Genesis and the Old
Testament is without warrant.

P.S.: Dave (not Burgy), a preposition is still a poor word to end a
sentence with.

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 12 11:52:41 2007