Re: [asa] Was Adam a real person?

From: Denis O. Lamoureux <dlamoure@ualberta.ca>
Date: Wed Apr 09 2008 - 22:42:15 EDT

Hi Bernie,
Everything you ask/state in your note is perfectly logical.

Did the writers of Genesis believe in an Adam? Yes.
Did Paul believe in an Adam? Yes
Is young earth creation the closest understanding of the Biblical view of
origins? Yes.

So how can I as an evangelical Xian open the concluding chapter of my book
with the following sentence:
    My central conclusion in this book is clear: Adam never existed, and
this fact
    has no impact whatsoever on the foundational beliefs of Christianity.
It takes me some 400 pages to get there, and obviously I can give a
satisfying
answer in one e-mail.

However, the 'quick & dirty' answer is that the de novo creation (quick &
complete)
of humans is an ancient understanding of origins. In starting the
revelatory process,
the Holy Spirit accommodated to the origins science of the day. The Holy
Spirit used de novo creation as an incidental vessel to deliver the Messages
of Faith: the God of the Bible is the Creator, the creation is very good,
and humans
are created in God's Image.

Another way of looking at it is to remember when we first met Christ. Did
the
Lord not come down to our level? So to with the ancient Hebrews. They
would never have understood Big Bang cosmology or evolutionary biology.

So one word: Grace.

Hope this helps.
Denis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 10:36 AM
Subject: [asa] Was Adam a real person?

> Hi all-
>
> I still have a question. For those who think that Adam was not a real
> person in history, how do you answer the critic that says this idea
> undermines the whole Bible, since likewise if Adam didn't exist then
> other characters maybe didn't exist either (Noah, Jonah, Abraham, &
> Moses). If the Bible is undermined, then the faith is on shaky ground,
> since it is difficult to know what is true and what isn't.
>
> I've asked before, but don't think I've gotten any straight, crisp,
> answers. Can someone point me to some references or sources for the
> answer? Is this a straight-forward question that is being routinely
> ignored or shunted or re-directed?
>
> I'm not looking for answers as to why Adam must have been real, but
> looking for answers to the criticism of those who say he was not a real
> person.
>
> Here's what I think the answer is-- tell me if it looks reasonable:
>
> The Bible must be studied with what we know of nature. If a Biblical
> story conflicts with natural science, then we must pick the clearer over
> the foggier; and if science is clearer, we must accept that. Example,
> those who read the Bible with ancient science thought the sun revolved
> around the earth. Now we know the earth revolves around the sun, so
> science is therefore used to interpret Scripture. Likewise, we know
> that evolution works on groups of people, and there was no "first,
> unique" man... man evolved like all other life-forms, over vast amounts
> of times within populations. Therefore, we know from science there was
> no first man named Adam, as there is no such thing as a "first" man.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Apr 9 22:43:48 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 22:43:48 EDT