Re: [asa] Was Adam a real person?

From: <>
Date: Fri Apr 11 2008 - 01:26:24 EDT

If Scripture seriously teaches that man was made from a pile of dirt and not other animals, then there are consequences we would see in the genome.?

I'm going to use your quote above as a case-in-point for how someone can impose foreign ideas onto the text rather than allowing the passage to mean what the original author intended.

When Genesis 3 teaches that God formed man out of dirt, it doesn't say "from a pile of dirt and not other animals."? Obviously you added that part to what Moses had actually said.??You did so?because you want to remake the text into something that is important to you as a Westerner.? It is important to you because you are ignoring the limited nature of the original viewpoint.??The ancient audience was?concerned with the connection of man to dirt for reasons that are not in any way related to evolution or to any origins processes.?

Consider:? At first there are no plants in Gen.3 because there is no man to cultivate the _dirt_.? Then Adam was formed and placed in a garden so that he could be the one to cultivate the dirt.? Indeed, the word "Adam" even refers to the color of dirt.?He is charged to cultivate the dirt and to care for the plants that will be food for the animals.? When Adam was cursed, the very dirt was cursed to bring forth thorns.? When Adam dies, he will turn back into dirt.?? His son Cain the farmer brings an offering of what he grew from the dirt.? When Cain's offering was rejected, again it was the _dirt_ that was cursed.? When Abel was killed, his blood called out from the dirt.? When the flood came, it washed the dirt.? The role of "dirt" in Genesis is not to teach about the method by which man was made from dirt.? Whether God made man directly from dirt or whether there were other processes in the path from dirt to humanity is not something anybody would have ever asked or even car
 ed about when they read that text.? Instead, they wanted to understand that man was intimately connected with the dirt, that man was a creature of the dirt, and therefore that man ultimately _consisted_ of dirt in his physical body.? So the text tells us that God made man out of dirt _only_ because the author wanted to establish that connection.? In fact, if we want to be concordist about the text, it is scientifically correct on this point.? We are in fact composed of dirt.? It was _nowhere_ in the author's mind to describe any sort of process by which God made man's body from that dirt.? It's a statement of our composition, not of the process that achieved that composition.

But IMHO you are not reading Scripture the way Moses intended it to be read.? You are discounting the genre in which Moses was writing and its set of interpretive assumptions as irrelevant.??I feel compelled to say this in love to you so that you might try to hear what David O. and others are saying.? I sense that every time they reply you just discount what they say and never deeply apprehend the force of their points.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 11 01:27:49 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 11 2008 - 01:27:49 EDT