Re: Apologetics and Genesis

Dick Fischer (
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:10:37 -0500

Paul Seely wrote:

>I was only answering Dick's construction of Pre-Adamitism: He says
>plainly on p. 194, "Thus, Catal Huyuk must have been a pre-Adamic
>city, and the residents there were not in 'the image of God.'"

I wonder how many on this list are getting sick and tired of our
discussions. Of those who think they are, how many are running
a fever, or are bed-ridden? Oh, by "sick" we all know that in this
context, it is not synonymous with "ill." That's something we know
because we all know how we talk and what our idioms are.

I might say that here in Washington we are talking about one thing,
there is one subject on the lips of the people. The writer of Genesis
to convey a similar thought might say: "the whole land was of
one speech, and of one lip." Now the translators without knowing
in 1611 the history or the context might translate it: "the whole
earth was of one language, and of one speech." Then we mistakenly
believe it has something to do with a common language spoken by
everyone on earth.

Genesis 1-11 was written at least over 2500 years ago, maybe even
3500 yrs ago. We only guess at what some of their meanings are.
And just because we make the same mistake in translation and
interpretation for centuries doesn't make it any closer to original
intent. Mistakes in perpetuity are still mistakes.

I only know some of this stuff because I spent many years studying
the history of the region. The "image" of a god was a representation.
The image of Baal represented Baal, but they knew, of course, that the
image or idol was not the god itself. In that context - a context that
only the writer knew for sure and I only guess at - Adam was God's
representative on earth. He was the one, created in the image, to
bring the heathen to the knowledge of God, into accountability, and
into a relationship with the Almighty. And he failed.

I don't think that early man was accountable. There was a time God
"winked at" it says in Acts. In that context, I don't think that human
precursors or even early humans were representatives of God. That.
I believe, is the context of the expression. If you follow that expression
through the Bible you will see that it falls on only four individuals: Adam,
Noah, Abraham, and Christ. Each in his day was God's representative.
We can only be in the image of God when we conform to the image of
Christ. Which in turn means that the "image" does not automatically
fall on biological man.

I could be wrong, but at least this is consistent with an historical Adam.

Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution,
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."