<<Obviously, I need to become a better writer. In both books I talk about
God planning things into the fabric of the universe in Genesis 1. Why
people miss it must be because I cain't writ no werds.
>>
Glenn,
It's not because you "cain't writ no werds" but because you're not consistent.
The chapters on "Adam and Eve-olution" and "Design in the You-niverse" in
_Foundation Fall and Flood_ and other chapters, clearly show that you believe
God plans things into the fabric of the Universe in Gen. 1. However, your
depiction of God acting on the spur of the moment, out of pity, not a plan, to
create Adam in the transition from apes isn't consistent with that general
background, nor is it consistent with the majestic view God's creation of
humans found in Gen. 1. Moreover, whether the resuscitated man was
Australopithecine is not the question. The question is: Was he the Adam of
Gen. 2? As I wrote earlier, I think not.
You also wrote, "Christian theology has traditionally believed that Adam was
the first of the human race." Quite true, and traditional theology is wrong,
as Dick Fischer took great pains to demonstrate. His conclusion: Adam was
created into a peopled world. Who were the people? Those descendants of the
man (adam) created by God in his Image in Gen. 1.
More from your post, "But if one prefers concordism, which I do, then I have
to
explain why unique pseudogenes are found at the same sites in man, gorilla,
chimp, and gibbon, but not on other primates...This data clearly indicates
that
we DO have ape genes in our bodies."
I agree. I too prefer concordism. Your resuscitated hominid had these
pseudogenes. Does that demonstrate that he was the Adam of Gen. 2? Not at
all. Your argument is with YECers, not me.
Then you continued, "So, back to the original question. Do I believe that it
is possible to use E.V.K. Pearce's suggestion that Adam of Chapter 2 is not
adam of Chapter 1. No. It raises racial concerns with me. Are any of the
adams still alive and if so, how should we treat them. The entire slave system
of the US was
partially based upon the working belief that blacks were not human and
could b. For this reason, I think it is best for Christianity to maintain
the biological unity of the human family."
You raise questions that are no longer relevant or helpful since Jesus Christ
came to earth to live, die, and be raised again for humanity's salvation.
Your questions are pre-Christian questions that have already been answered.
A large part of the answer is given Paul's letter to the Ephesians 2: 11-21.
He says there was once two groups: "the circumcision" (Jews) and "the
uncircumcision" (Gentiles, = the rest of humanity). Let me quote what Paul
wrote further, because it is so beautiful, "But now in Christ Jesus you (the
uncircumcised) who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of
Christ. For he is our peace; _in his flesh he has made both groups into one_
and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He
has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might
create in himself _one new humanity in place of two_, thus making peace, and
might _reconcile both groups to God in one body though the cross_...."
(vss.13-16).
Moreover, in Galatians 3:28. Paul wrote, "There is no longer Jew or Greek,
there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all
of you are one in Christ Jesus."
These passages from Paul form the biblical answers for your concerns for the
unity of humanity. They preclude all racism, ehtnicism, sexism, gay-bashing,
and all things that disunite people. The unity of the human race is found
basically in Christ, and on that basis we can call for racial and social
justice for all.
By the way, do you have a reference to E.V.K. Pearce's work. As you can
imagine, I would like to get my hands on it. Thanks.
Bob