Re: Apologetics and Genesis
Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:50:24 EST

In a message dated 11/13/98 1:33:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, Dick Fischer

<< Also the cities are all Mesopotamian or Assyrian in Genesis 1-11.>>

I am sure it is just an oversight, but Gen 10 mentions cities in Palestine
(vv. 15, 19) as well as Tarshish, somewhere across the Mediterranean to the
West of Palestine (v. 4; Jonah).

And Glenn Morton wrote:

>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.
to which Dick answered,

>>If there is a trend, all I can say is hallelujah, my message is not falling
deaf ears. Glenn and George notwithstanding.>>

I don't see a trend; but I do agree with Glenn and George on this basis:

According to Dick's theory, only Adam and his descendants were created in the
image of God. Prior people, even Homo sapiens such as at Catal Huyuk (p. 194)
were not in the image of God. This means that people today who are descendants
of "Pre-Adamites" and not in the Adamic descent do not have the image of God.
This means they are lesser beings whom one can kill with impunity because the
basis of capital punishment in Gen 9:6 is that (according to Dick's theory)
only those in the line of Adam are in the image of God. Since some people
such as the Bushmanoids, the Australian aboriginals and native Americans have
been isolated from the Adamic gene pool for thousands of years, they could and
can be killed more freely than if they had the image of God. I think that
logically follows from Dick's construction; but, I do not think it is

I think it is much more biblical to interpret Gen 1:26 in the light of the
preceding context, a context of universality. There is no place in the
account for two creations of man, one without the image of God and one with
the image of God. This is the only place in the account that the creation of
any homo sapiens can be found. If the residents of Catal Huyuk are not
covered by Gen 1:26 they will have to be covered by an earlier verse and hence
just be animals of some kind. In that case, of course we can kill them
freely. The context of Gen 1:26, however, compels us to agree with I Cor
15:45 that Adam was the "first man." Accordingly, all of homo sapiens were
descended from him: the residents of Catal Huyuk, the Australian aboriginals,
native Americans. We cannot afford to let these people be classified as
animals, as not part of mankind..

Paul Seely