Re: Re: How to interpret Adam (was: Re: Kerkut)

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Tue Feb 24 2004 - 23:31:35 EST

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:58:33 -0500 Dick Fischer
<> writes:
Dave wrote:

If we are all descendants of a late Adam and Eve, you need a clear
explanation how the more ancient populations of the Americas (>12Ka) and
Australia (>40Ka ?) were replaced, or, failing that, how they can be
converted to Christ without being members of the truly human race. This
last seems to be required as being "spiritually different."

And "Drsyme" wrote:

What do you mean by genuinely human here? If you mean biologically
human, ok, but couldnt there be more to being human than just biology?
Could a 4th possiblity be that Adam and Eve were true historical figures
that God created in his own image around what 7000 years ago, give or
take a few thousand. There were other homo sapiens around then of
course, and prior to this, but somehow Adam and Eve were different,
spritually only perhaps, a difference that science is unable to discern.
And we are all descendants of Adam and Eve only.

The rub here is that we know there are existing populations who have been
here longer than 7,000 years. As Dave points out, the Australian
aborigines have resided comfortably in the land down under for over
40,000 years, and the remains of American Indians have been found in
Clovis, New Mexico dated to about 11,000 years ago, and so on. The
temptation is to slide Adam back in time to make all our dreams come
true, and we could all enjoy Adamic ancestry. Ah, it would be so simple

But since humans are connected genetically to higher primates, only an
evolved Adam, with natural parents, could have been father to us all.
And only if he lived far enough back in time, say 100,000 years ago or
more. If a created Adam, with no natural parents, was father to us all,
we would have to find a way to explain the genetic markers which tie us
to the phyletic tree of life.

You are overlooking the possibility that God placed a human soul in a
pre-human being, and all _Homo sapiens_ derive from that transformation.
Some will say this was 50 Kya; others, earlier, even 5 Mya. But this does
not fit your chronology. But it gives a historical Adam and Eve, and it
fits all the genetics which tie human beings to other mammals.

A created Adam, who had no parents, could have existed had he been
introduced into a populated world and started his own group of
descendants. Glenn Morton's wife says she belongs, Glenn and I probably
don't. However, a lot of intermarrying has happened in the last 7,000
years. So no one could be 100% sure of being either related to Adam or
being unrelated.

This is a truly remarkable explanation for the humanity of all
"featherless bipeds with flat nails" anywhere on earth: "no one could be
100% sure." What has come out, to the consternation of Mormons, is that
there are none of the Semitic genetic modifications to be found in
American aborigines. Of course, so far as I can tell, perhaps some
renegade Semite got to Australia and impregnated all the native women and
rendered all the native men impotent. But I would bet that this will be
disproved as soon as the genomes are tested. But this kind of inanity is
what is produced when somebody gets hold of an idea and has to bend, warp
and splinter all the evidence to fit his nonsense.

If Adam is seen as the federal head, and not the biological head of the
human race, we are all held accountable by Adam's sin as he sinned for us
all. Just as we are saved by Christ (even though we are not related to
Christ) when he died for all.

If Adam's sin passed to all then living (and back to previous generations
?) and from them to all their descendants, and this is the model for
being "saved by Christ," then our Lord was wrong when he said that the
gate is strait and few find it (Matthew 7:13f), for salvation must pass
automatically to all--or is this one of the many passages that were not
in the original?

For those who believe that a real live, flesh and blood, biological Adam
didn't exist, there is no problem placing him at all. A man who doesn't
exist can not be anywhere he chooses not to be. Real people have fewer
options. Real people are stuck in time and place.

Right! But you are faced with two possibilities with a live Adam. Adam
may have lived at least an order of magnitude earlier, as Glenn thinks
(actually more than 2). Or you may have universalism, the inexorable
consequence of your late creation of the first fully human being. I
recognize that you will try to deny this result, but, if guilt is
inexorably transferred to all, salvation must also be transferred with
the same necessity. So the Great Commission is irrelevant.
If you want out of the consequences I draw, you need to present clear
reasons why the translation of guilt to all human beings is essentially
different from the translation of salvation to all human beings. For this
you cannot simply quote scripture, for your position does not rest on a
proof text but on an idiosyncratic extension of a narrow range of verses.
Of course, if you want to tell me that you expect to walk arm in arm with
Satan in the New Jerusalem...

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
Received on Tue Feb 24 23:35:46 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 24 2004 - 23:35:47 EST