RE: The death of the RTB model

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Wed Feb 15 2006 - 15:19:54 EST

Hi Rich, you wrote:
 
>The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory. It does not refer to a real
person.
 
Assigning Genesis to the whims of allegorical interpretation gets you
out of the frying pan into the fire. You have Christ, a living person
at one end of a direct line of descent from a non-living forefather.
Where do the non-real persons dovetail into flesh and blood human
beings? What living patriarch had a fictitious father?
 
Saying Adam wasn't a real person only makes sense if you don't think
about it. Luke dutifully recorded the genealogy of Christ back to Adam.
Luke 3:38: "... which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth,
which was the son of [non-existent] Adam, which was the [non-existent]
son of God."
 
Did Seth have no father? Maybe Seth was non-existent too? How about
Enos? We could ask that question all the way to Christ himself. At
what point could the real persons be phased in with those who had no
life, but only fill some hypothetical, theological niche?
 
Romans 5:14: "Nevertheless death reigned from [non-existent] Adam to
Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of
[non-existent] Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was
to come."
 
How can death come to a non-existent life? Plus, how did he sin if he
was never born? How can an Adam who never was be the figure of Him who
died for us? By implication, this calls into question the legitimacy of
the death and resurrection of Christ himself.
 
And once you have decided that Genesis isn't history but allegory, then
your interpretation is no better than any others. Who has established
standards for allegorical interpretations? What are the tests we can
apply?
 
Dick Fischer
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
 
In a message dated 2/15/2006 10:13:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dickfischer@verizon.net writes:
I think we have been looking at Jewish history for so long now thinking
it was human history, and so much has been written about Original Sin
based upon this error in interpretation, that it is difficult to
extricate ourselves.
I don't see how Adam's sin has any more deleterious effect upon those
related to him than it does for those who are not. As a representative
of God whose mission was to bring all mankind into the knowledge of the
Deity and into accountability, Adam failed.
It refers to the birth of self consciousness and the ability to do good
and evil which ALL men inherited from Adam. Prior to Adam's fall his
behavior was instinctive, like the animals. This is what is meant by
"his eyes were closed." When your behavior is instinctive, God's law is
written on your heart. Your eyes need not be open. You cannot deviate
from God's will. When your eyes are opened to good and evil and your
behavior is no longer instinctive, you need a written law because you
have to learn to do good. It does not come naturally. The written law is
given to Moses because the law is no longer written on men's hearts.
They can do good or evil. Jesus demonstrates how a man lives who has the
law written on his heart. He behaves intuitively (does God's will) even
unto death.
 
You are right. It is not history. It is the establishment of the actual
human condition which Jesus specifically addresses. It is both
scientifically and theologically accurate.
 
This is a rational, scientifically explicable theology.
 
No need to reply. I know this is unfamiliar. My paper is still available
for any requestor.
 
rich faussette
Received on Wed Feb 15 15:20:59 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 15 2006 - 15:20:59 EST