Adrian wrote: "My point is that I fail to understand how one can
deny the historicity of Adam and explain the biblical understanding of
inheritance of sin/guilt/corruption (depending on your tradition), and
reconcile that with how Paul, in his letter to the Romans (Ch5), seems to
assume that sin came through ONE man."
I accept that. Having been trained as a physicist, and that came a long
time before I became a Christian, I tend to think of things in terms of
metaphors, not literalism. You appear to take scripture much more
literally than I do -- and that's fine -- I have no wish to "convert" you
to what is usually thought to be a more liberal view.
Suffice it to say that I do not DENY the historicity of Adam -- I just
think that (1) it is not a very likely thing and (2) historic or not it
is also not of much importance. So, (3), for me, the question is simply
not very interesting.
In a second part of the message, Adrian continued: "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 centuries."
Really? I think not. Only certain fundamentalists have held this. Even my
friend, Dr. Gish, of ICR, has stated to me privately that he does not
To refresh the issue, I said: "If I do not think Adam was a real live
being, does that mean I am not a Christian? I'd assert that such is a
very narrow view. And not particularly biblical."
I'll stand by that. It is not "biblical" to read someone out of
Christianity because they do not give assent to some particular
statement. It is as simple as that.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, philosophy and much more)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 27 2002 - 18:56:32 EST