At 05:36 PM 11/12/98 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
> It's well known to this list that I don't agree with Glenn on the way in
>which he tries to read Gen 1-11 as history but he is certainly correct in
>insisting that it is intended to have universal (i.e., for all humanity)
>significance. The very term Adam is, of course, the generic word "human
>being" before it is a proper name. Furthermore, the name Eve is interpreted
>as meaning "mother of _all_ the living."
I am disturbed by the trend I see in theology for making Adam not the
father of the entire human race and making him the father of only one part.
Given mankind's penchant for racism and playing the us vs. them game, I
find it scary to think of what it will be like when religion takes on this
us vs. them aura. While I have no concerns about the views of the present
advocates of the limited Adam as father view, I have a confident assurance
that future followers will use this view badly.
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information