RE: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?

Sorry George, I just gave you some of the relevant historical facts.
Not enough to change your mind but hopefully enough to make you think
about it a little. We write for a broader audience and others read what
we post and I know these arguments make perfectly logical good sense and
may help others resolve difficulties with their method of apology.
Obviously you feel at home with what you believe, and even though it
won't stand up to reason, neither will any of the other presently
accepted methods. I offer a reasonable approach and back it up with the
kind of verifiable data and evidence necessary to substantiate it. No
one else has done that.

I asked you to offer a time and place for Adam and Noah which you
declined to do for good reason. Simply there is no time and place for
them to live within their historical context sketched out in Genesis
where they could be ancestral to all mankind. Full stop. You know it
and I know it.

You are absolutely correct in stating there was no global flood
historically. There appears to have been a regional or local flood in
southern Mesopotamia. My point, and others have argued it too, is that
the 2900 BC flood is THE flood in Genesis 6-8. I'm sure many New
Yorkers think of the tragic event that occurred in their city when you
say "911." Someone in Kansas may think of 911 as an emergency telephone
number. The flood was a big deal in the locality.

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

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

-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:34 PM
To: Dick Fischer; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?

Dick -

Your last comment about me supposedly running back into a burning
building indicates that you have badly misunderstood me. I have been
trying to be fairly irenic in exploring your claims but I think that
they are wrong. I think that the biblical pictures of Adam and Eve make
theological statements about the first of all human beings, not just the
ancestors of a part of the present human race. "All" doesn't always
have to mean literally "all" but it sometimes does, & I think that in
context it's highly tendentious to read "all" in the relevant places in
Genesis as if it means just "aome." I think it very unlikely that the
present human race descended from a single couple. I won't go into
detail arguing for those views - you know about my recent PSCF article.
By discussing your views I have not meant to imply that my own have
changed and apologize if I have not said "assume for the sake of
argument" enough.

While there was no global flood historically, what is presented in
Gen.6-8 is clearly a picture of a catastrophe that wipes out the whole
human race except for Noah & in fact the whole world. To note just one
point, the way in which II Peter 3:5-7 uses the story of the flood to
argue for the possibility of the destruction of "the present heavens and
earth" makes no sense if the writer of II Peter did not think of the
flood as affecting the whole world.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----

From: Dick <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net> Fischer

To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:59 AM

Subject: RE: [asa] Does ASA believe in Adam and Eve?

Hi George:

God provided for Adam. In turn, Adam had an obligation. To me that's a
covenant relationship. Today, we have a gorgeous day here in greater
Washington. All Washingtonians receive God's blessing equally as did
Noah's sons. Whether Ham and Japheth enjoyed a covenant relationship as
to salvation is an open question. I certainly don't pretend to know,
though I think not. The agreement from God's part was not to bring
another devastating flood. And that is true to this day in the areas
that they currently reside. Note the devastating tsunami that struck
Asia, for example, was not in an area occupied by Noah's kin. Which
further exemplifies my point.

When Shem's line (or at least some of it) resided in Babylon along with
Ham's line including Nimrod, who had a covenant relationship with God?
If you know I'll abide by your answer because I don't. However, I'll
agree that at least at the time of Noah, God did establish a covenant
with Noah's entire family. Salvation history working backward from
Christ seems to eliminate the branches, though to whom God grants
salvation is entirely up to him.

As to this part:

>>This doesn't invlidate your basic argument about the historicity of
Adam but it does mean that it's wrong to suggest that the stories about
Adam are just the family history of Israel. They belong equally to the
people of Tarshish in Spain, the Ionians, &c - & given what I said
earlier, to the Aztecs & in fact everyone<<

I feel like you just ran back into a burning building. The historicity
of Adam and Noah precludes the Aztecs unless you wish to establish a
point in time as does Hugh Ross when it would be possible. Do you have
such a point? C'mon George, climb down out of your ivory tower and take
a stand. Don't reach for the waffle iron. You want Adam and Noah to be
ancestral to all mankind, so Adam and Noah, when and where? And don't
ask us to go read something. Just cough it up.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Mar 29 11:00:56 2007