Hi Mike. Thanks for all of your contributions to the list. I VERY MUCH
like how you stay within the science/faith framework of the ASA.
>Paul made a good case.
And thus a discussion was born...
>Paul says that the writer of Gen. 5:1, 2 combines "the Adam" of Gen. 1:26,
>with "the Adam" of Gen. chapters 2 and 3. And he says that by doing so the
>writer was clearly indicating that the man 'adam of Gen. 1 was the man Adam
>of Gen. 2. However, this is only an assumption on his part which is
>based on the fact that the writer of Gen. 5 uses the same phraseology to
>refer to both of these creation accounts.
Well, Mike, that sounds like a good assumption (I still wish we were looking
at the Hebrew, here).
>However, I believe that the writer of Genesis 5 deliberately used the same
>phraseology to describe two separate creative acts. Why would he have done
>so? Because those two creative acts were so similar in content,
I agree (although there was something VERY SPECIAL about Adam's line, thank
>and because the second one described in Gen. 2, God's creation of Adam and
>Eve, was intended by God to dramatically reenact the first one described
>in Gen. 1, God's creation of the human race.
Um, Mike, that's an assumption. Just wait until I get my hands on the
>God created the man He named "Adam" from preexisting life, the dust of the
>ground, which when viewed under a microscope is seen to be filled with
That sounds good.
>just as He had previously created the human race from preexisting life.
That sounds both Biblical AND scientific. Nice job.
>God made all the animals in Eden subject to Adam and Eve,
Kind of makes me think the Bible is about Adam and Eve, not Australians,
Native Americans, or other people who don't have anything to do with Adam
>Just as God Himself had earlier made provision for covering over the
>shameful (sinful) condition of the entire race of man ('adam) He had
>previously made. A provision He made by means of a "Lamb slain from the
>foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8)
Aha! I looked up Rev 13:8! It just says that God knew from the foundation
of the world who was in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
Nice verse showing that God is always in control. It has nothing to do
with your case that I can see.
>I could elaborate much further on this same theme.
Where's the Hebrew?
>For by naming that man "Adam," God would have been making an unmistakably
>clear connection between His creation of the man "Adam" He created and
>placed in the garden of Eden and the race of man ('adam) He had previously
That sounds good. I give you credit for that. Hardly proves your case,
though. Seems like it just makes you feel good :).
Generally speaking, it makes sense to me to think of the Bible as Hebrew
history. It seems that the Hebrew words for man (plural) and Adam are
practically identical. (Maybe that's why your Hebrew was sparse ;).
But thanks for the discussion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 14 2002 - 14:16:06 EDT