Re: [asa] Saving Darwin -- On the "Fall"

David O wrote:

>Karl finds unconvincing and contrived any effort to "save" the fall through some kind of federal representative view of "Adam".<

I doubt Karl would find my book “unconvincing” – more like unrelenting. Let’s assume from the get go that all we know about anthropology is correct. The Smithsonian in its “Human Origins Project” will begin in Africa roughly 6 million years ago. Through time these precursors became us, you and me. Genesis begins about 7,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. Thus it portrays, accurately I believe, the beginnings and the progeny of the Jewish race. From the first century Christians began reading Genesis as the start of the entire human race but we should be smarter than that by now. Well, some of us.

Recently I reread Langdon’s Sumerian King List. What he consistently translated as the city of Erech was the Sumerian word “unug” for Enoch, named for Adam’s grandson. Had the Sumerians intended the city of Erech they would have used “uruk.” But Langdon sidestepped what would have been sure controversy leaving for us latter day sleuths what he conscientiously avoided. Controversy. So he can rest peacefully while we struggle. Thanks, Stephen!

Adam of Genesis was first recorded as “Atum” in two Egyptian pyramids. He had a son named “Seth” according to the accounts, and both were “created” – whatever that means. I believe him to be a historical personality who moved from the Garden of Eden after the fall a short distance to the city of Eridu where he was in the company of a resident Ubaidan population until a Sumerian war party from Bad Tabira wrested the kingship and moved it to their city. Either before the war or after Adam and his family moved to Enoch, or immediately next door, where he lived out his days.

Adam was the first of the covenant, first of the Semitic race, first to be accountable, first to suffer the direct consequences of sin, and the first man in recorded history. He was not the biological head of our entire species, precluded by his late entry. Early Christians from the first century interpreted Genesis to be a record of the beginnings of humanity. We should know better but it seems most of us do not.

Whether Adam was created out of the dust biologically compatible with his neighbors or whether he had natural parents is a matter of conjecture. Theologically it makes little difference. Based upon all this we should be able to fit our Christian theology accordingly. I see no conflicts.

BTW, I will be presenting a lecture in Arlington, Virginia on “Historical Adam” at the National Faculty Leadership Conference sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ on June 27th.

Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
www.historicalgenesis.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jun 12 12:56:00 2008