Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically

Heya Dennis,

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me you're talking about something other
than Gregory is here. Even if speciation for humans was a "population
event", you're still going to have individuals with particular traits, etc,
within that population - and if a human is defined as having a certain
minimal set of given traits all at once, you're still going to have a "first
human". You can argue that the conception and birth of that "first human"
was not the "speciation event" in whole, maybe not even in part depending on
how you're defining such. That would be an interesting topic to discuss, but
it seems that it would be tangential to what Gregory (or, if not Gregory, at
least myself) is getting at.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Dennis Venema <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca> wrote:

> Gregory,
>
> The point (biologically) is that there is a first *population*, not a
> first individual. Your logic, if I understand it correctly, doesn’t hold.
> Speciation for humans was a population event, not via a single individual or
> pair, as far as we can tell.
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> On 05/10/09 2:26 PM, "Gregory Arago" <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote: "Adam IS mankind."
>
> If that is the case, George, and if you accept the logic *there must have
> been a first,* then do you accept that the 'first human' was ADAM, i.e. the
> first of 'mankind' or 'humanity'? If not, then why not? Are you a *degree,
> not kind* guy?
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> *To:* Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
> *Cc:* dickfischer@verizon.net; muzhogg@netspace.net.au;
> asa@lists.calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 6, 2009 12:47:31 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically
>
> 
> When humankind (not just a single individual) is said to be created in the
> image & likeness of God in Gen.1:2, it's quite legitimate (IMO) to interpret
> the following words, "and let them [N.B.] have dominion over the fish of the
> sea, and over the birds of the air, and over all the wild animals of the
> earth, and over every creeping thin that creeps upon the earth" (NRSV).
> I.e., humans are to be God's representatives in ruling the other creatures
> of the world. The word "emissary" is really too weak for this. But more
> importantly, there is no suggestion that oen human being is commissioned to
> be an emissary to other human beings. So the point remains, there is no
> canonical texts that says - ot implies - "that Adam was God’s emissary to
> mankind." Adam IS mankind.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm<http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Escitheologyglm>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Looking for the perfect gift?* Give the gift of Flickr!* <
> http://www.flickr.com/gift/>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 5 18:06:18 2009