By an inadvertent series of mouse clicks I completely lost Dick
Fischer's reply to my post below. Let me gather my wits & make a brief
general reply from memory -
I think Dick's approach is a valiant attempt at a concordist
interpretation of early Genesis, but I also consider such
interpretations in general to be futile & unnecessary. Adam & Eve are
theological figures who represent the first human beings, as part of the
fact that in a broader sense they represent all humans. That doesn't
mean that they are simply wax images that can be made to represent
anything at all. 'adham means "human" and Eve is given her name because
she is "the mother of all living." This makes it clear that they are
representatives of all humanity, not simply some subset of humans.
There is similar inclusive language in Paul's use of the Adam
image: "In Adam all die" (I Cor.15:22). I.e., Adam is the
representative of mortal humanity.
The need to find "the real Adam" which drives a lot of
concordist effort is removed if we realize that the pattern of genuine
humanity that we are given in scripture is not Adam & Eve but Christ.
The Incarnation is not simply a "Plan B" to fix what Adam & Eve botched
but is itself the purpose of creation - e.g., Eph.1:10. This doesn't
mean that the scientific understanding of human origins is of no
theological interest, but it needs to be viewed in the light of Christ.
If this be "liberal snobbishness", make the most of it.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
george murphy wrote:
> Dick Fischer wrote:
>> Peter Ruest wrote:
>> > > Doesn't Scripture
>> > > tell us He creates [bara'] individual human beings (Is. 43:7),
>> > who are
>> > > fathered and borne by natural procreation?
>> The "bara" you refer to pertains to "Israel" (Isa. 43:1), descendant
>> Adam, who was created (bara) in "the image of God." Generic human
>> beings, outside of Israel, not descendant from Adam, are not
>> in this verse. This has been the tendency for Christian apologists,
>> extending to all of humanity what was written for only one nation.
> I have probably said this before but in case there are any
> newcomers to the list who may think that this idea is widely accepted
> here I'll note again that
> a) there is no basis in the OT for this notion, &
> b) it makes nonsense of the Adam-Christ connections Paul uses
> in Romans & I Corinthians.
> George L. Murphy
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 27 2001 - 10:57:30 EST