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

Hi George, Sorry, I'm not clear on your meaning. You wrote "No" to which question (or to both):  *degree, not kind* or *the first human was ADAM*? The two possibilities offer somewhat different scenarios. Thx, sleepy G. ________________________________ From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> To: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>; Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> Cc: dickfischer@verizon.net; muzhogg@netspace.net.au; asa@lists.calvin.edu Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2009 3:28:06 AM Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically  No, what I accept is that "Adam" - "the man" - in Gen.2 & 3 is a theological representative of the human race.  My statement "Adam IS mankind" is a bit strong but deliberately so to set it off from Dick's claim that Adam was "an emissary to humanity."   Shalom George http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm ----- Original Message ----- >From: Gregory Arago >To: George Murphy ; Dick Fischer >Cc: dickfischer@verizon.net ; muzhogg@netspace.net.au ; asa@lists.calvin.edu >Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 5:26 PM >Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically > > >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 >________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift?Give the gift of Flickr! __________________________________________________________________ The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/

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 19:43:50 2009