RE: [asa] biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent?

From: George Cooper <>
Date: Tue Sep 02 2008 - 10:25:39 EDT

Before something can fall, it must rise. I think the focus should be much
greater upon the second half of the "dust" verse, where God breathed into a
very special person (made from dust, mud, clay, ooze, or whatever) that did
something fantastic - gave him (Adam) a "living soul". This established
an all-important relationship between man and God. God is spirit, and
spirit is necessary for eternal life. Man was elevated far above evolved
form, even if prior man had reached a point describable as to appear "in the
image of God".


Bethany said: As for how other people think about it, some go to a "federal
headship" model like Denis Alexander. He thinks that about 6-7000 years ago
a couple in the middle east were made "Adam and Eve" through an intervention
of God, and they subsequently fell and all humanity fell with them. I feel
a little awkward about that because I think it is entirely unfair to the
Aboriginals known to be in Australia at that time, or to the Chinese in
Asia, because this would say that they were not human, or say that they
suddenly began to sin due to the sin of the A&E in the middle east.

It is unfair and unlikely; 6000 years is far too short a period. Because
this limited time frame is based on genealogy from scripture, and the
genealogies do not match (eg Ezra compared to Chronicles), this affords some
favorable consideration that the 6000 years could be far short of the actual
number of years to Adam. They had better memorization skills than us, I
assume, but memorizing a hundred begats would be quite a burden upon each
new generation. It seems fair that only certain names would be advanced
for whatever "rhyme or reason".




To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 2 10:25:51 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 02 2008 - 10:25:51 EDT