Re: How to interpret Adam

From: jack syme <>
Date: Sat Feb 28 2004 - 07:36:43 EST

So, you are saying, I think, that the evidence points to a recent Adam, and that he was a true historical figure.

Putting scientific evidence aside for a moment, can you show me the biblical support for your view that Adam is not the first "genuine human"? I am trying to accept what you say, but I am having theological difficulty with the implications of "genune humans" being around long before, during, and after Adam's time.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dick Fischer
  To: ASA
  Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 7:46 PM
  Subject: Re: How to interpret Adam

  Jack wrote:

    LOL, my last comment that you mentioned is based on my understanding of the Bible alone, what other evidence is needed?
    Actually Dick I was just reading your article on the asa website, on the search for the historic Adam. And I am in agreement with you for most of what you say, and will use it a reference for data and evidence. I have long thought that the evidence of the first agricultural communities probably coorelated with Adam's time.
    I even agree with you about the nephilim, and I think that the "genuine humans" the adamites if you will, and the "others" the preadamites, probably coexisted and interbred up until the time of Noah. And, in fact, this interbreeding was one of the reason that the flood occured. Now, I know you will claim that there is no evidence that there was worldwide flood, and that it was regional only. But, I think it is clear, from biblical evidence alone, that something worldwide and significant happened during Noah's time, and Noahs descendants, then repopulated the Earth, and the "others" were no more, at least that is how I see it. It is possible I suppose that the interbreeding up until that time, was enough to account for the genetic variation we see today. I think this is more acceptable than the idea that some of current peoples are descendants of the "others"

  This is exactly what I thought in 1986 when the Washington Post published my article, and I promptly got the left foot of fellowship from McLean Bible Church. Undaunted, and buoyed with sudden, unearned literary success, I launched headlong into Christian apologetics. About five years later, I hit a brick wall of stark reality. Not only does Adam appear too late in human history to start the human race, Noah appears too late to terminate it. Bummer. And it sounded like such a good idea at the time.

  I have to admit I like your way better, but I have been guided consistently by the weight of data and evidence. And although I might prefer it your way, I feel compelled to stick with an explanation that can be supported. We don't get it the way we like it, we have to like it like it is. And if we don't like it initially, it might grow on us, which is what happened to me. Hope I saved you five years.

    BTW, as a Calvinist I have to disagree about the infant thing. We are born sinners. We may not hold them accountable, but God does.

  All analogies break down at some point. But I would be surprised if any Homo erectus reside in heaven or hell.

  Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
  Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
Received on Sat Feb 28 07:38:19 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 28 2004 - 07:38:21 EST