Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically

From: Dennis Venema <>
Date: Mon Oct 05 2009 - 17:52:17 EDT


The point (biologically) is that there is a first population, not a first individual. Your logic, if I understand it correctly, doesn’t hold. Speciation for humans was a population event, not via a single individual or pair, as far as we can tell.


On 05/10/09 2:26 PM, "Gregory Arago" <> wrote:

George Murphy wrote: "Adam IS mankind."

If that is the case, George, and if you accept the logic *there must have been a first,* then do you accept that the 'first human' was ADAM, i.e. the first of 'mankind' or 'humanity'? If not, then why not? Are you a *degree, not kind* guy?

From: George Murphy <>
To: Dick Fischer <>
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2009 12:47:31 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically

When humankind (not just a single individual) is said to be created in the image & likeness of God in Gen.1:2, it's quite legitimate (IMO) to interpret the following words, "and let them [N.B.] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thin that creeps upon the earth" (NRSV). I.e., humans are to be God's representatives in ruling the other creatures of the world. The word "emissary" is really too weak for this. But more importantly, there is no suggestion that oen human being is commissioned to be an emissary to other human beings. So the point remains, there is no canonical texts that says - ot implies - "that Adam was God’s emissary to mankind." Adam IS mankind.


Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! <>

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 5 17:51:18 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 05 2009 - 17:51:18 EDT