You wrote to Peter concerning his belief and mine that Gen. 1: 27,28 refers
to God's creation of the human race prior to His creation of Adam and Eve.
You told him, "The YEC crowd will laugh at you. They know that just about all
of the evidence points to Gen 1:26-27 being Adam."
The only "evidence" I know of which can be used to support the YEC
understanding and Dick Fischer's "only Adam and his line were made in God's
image" understanding of Gen. 1:26,27 is that Gen. 5:1,2 seems to identify the
"man" of Gen.1:27 with the "Adam" of Gen. 2. However, as I and Peter have
both pointed out, there are ways of understanding Gen. 5:1,2 in which we see
no such identification being made.
You wrote: The Bible is Hebrew history.
As Peter correctly pointed out, the Bible, including Genesis, is far more
than Hebrew history. God's covenant with Abraham was made for the purpose of
blessing "all the peoples on earth." (Gen. 12:3)
But let's say that your narrow view of the Old Testament is correct. Were not
the many nations of people who interacted with the Jewish people for the
thousands of years which passed between Adam and Christ as much a part of
"Hebrew history" as "every living and moving thing with which the water
teems," "every winged bird," and "all the creatures which move along the
ground"? Certainly they were! Yet in your opinion and that of some others the
writer of Genesis felt God's creation of tuna, chickens and lizards deserved
to be mentioned in his "Hebrew history" but not God's creation of non-Hebrew
Why would any historian have written such a "Hebrew history" in Genesis 1?
Certainly people like the Egyptians who enslaved the Israelites for hundreds
of years played a bigger role in early "Hebrew history" than "the great
creatures of the sea." Yet, according to you, the writer of Genesis felt the
origin of sea monsters was a more important part of Hebrew history than the
origin of the Egyptians.
Properly employed, Gen. 1:27-30 is a powerful teaching tool to help show
young earth creationists that they misunderstand the Bible and the history of
the earth. By reading Gen. 1 and 2 chronologically we can show them from the
scriptures themselves that Adam was not the first man and that there is no
conflict between science, which tells us that men just like us have been on
earth for many tens of thousands of years, and the Bible which clearly
indicates that Adam was created by God only several thousand years ago.
Why you cling to your, "Gen. 1: 26,27 is referring to Adam and Eve," position
I have no idea. I understand why Dick does. He thinks Adam was created "to
bear God's image" to the world. I disagree with him. But I understand his
position. However, I don't understand why you hold onto this belief.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 17 2002 - 23:14:53 EDT