>In lieu of a FAQ, I'll quickly summarize here 11 ideas which I've
>encountered in various books and articles. All of them are suggestions
>for dealing with the biological and paleontological evidence while
>maintaining the doctrine of Original Sin and the need for a savior.
>For this post, I won't comment on which ones I believe probable or
>improbable, acceptable or unacceptable (theologically), or the problems
>faced by each idea. (Quite a few of these have already been discussed on
>this group and in the pages of _Perspectives_. It might be useful to
>develop a reference list for these various ideas.)
I believe you covered most of the approaches I'm aware of. However, it
seems fair to ask: Is knowing that men are under the curse of sin dependent
on knowing _when_ sin originated? The Bible asserts throughout that men
are sinful and that the only remedy for sin is Jesus' finished work on the
cross. No one has ever explained to me why it is not possible to accept
the fact of the sinfulness of men withuot knowing preciesly when it began
and who committed the first sin.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)