RE: Human origins and doctrine (was Definition of "Species")

From: Adrian Teo (
Date: Wed Feb 27 2002 - 13:22:29 EST

  • Next message: Adrian Teo: "RE: Human origins and doctrine (was Definition of "Species")"

    Hello John,

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: John W Burgeson []
    > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 1:47 PM
    > To:
    > Cc:
    > Subject: Re: Human origins and doctrine (was Definition of "Species")
    > Adrian
    > wrotee: >>One cannot deny the histority
    > of Adam. >>
    > Why not? If I do not think Adam was a real live single human
    > being, does
    > that mean I am not a Christian?
    > I'd assert that such is a very narrow view. And not particularly
    > biblical.

    No, please don't get me wrong. It is not my place to judge the authenticity
    of your Christian faith. My point is that I fail to understand how one can
    deny the historicity of Adam and explain the biblical understanding of the
    inheritance of sin/guilt/corruption (depending on your tradition), and also
    reconcile that with how Paul, in his letter to the Romans (Ch5), seems to
    assume that sin came through ONE man.

    Finally, I also fail to see how my view is "not particularly biblical",
    since this is the view held by the majority of Christians through the


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 27 2002 - 13:23:37 EST