To the List:
I hope you don't mind if I share this exchange.
I received this initial email.
hi, my name's lisa, i'm 19 and i'm talking an anthropology class in school. i
was just wondering what you believe about how the fossil record
(australopithecines and early homos) fit in with adam and eve. i believe
strongly in adam and eve, because i believe the bible is God's infallible
word, but i'm having a hard time getting the fossil record to "fit in" with
my faith. It's always been real easy in the past because i went to a
christian school and summer camps where we learned that evolution was wrong
because all they really had to prove it was a jawbone. Well now that i've
seen the bones and learned about them, i see that if i didn't have my faith,
i'm sure i would also believe i and the apes came from a common ancestor. But
i certanly don't see how that would fit with my faith at all. Anyway, if you
have have any spare moments to reply back to me i'd sure appreciate it.
thanks. -lisa
To which I replied:
Hi Lisa, you wrote:
>hi, my name's lisa, i'm 19 and i'm talking an anthropology class in
school. i
>was just wondering what you believe about how the fossil record
>(australopithecines and early homos) fit in with adam and eve.
Well Lisa, you are exactly where I was, asking the same question about 16
years ago. Only I was in my 40's. I had no one to ask, and so spent 12 years
of my life, two of those years in the Library of Congress in Washington,
DC. I
have what I consider to be the answer to your question. But I only have
confidence in that answer because I did the hard research no one else would
do. Now I fully realize it is a lot easier to ask me than it is for you to do
what I did. And I have no problem just telling you in a few sentences what
you
could find out if you followed the same path I did. But I doubt you will have
the same degree of confidence I have. So I would ask you to go to your
library
and get an interlibrary loan to get a copy of the book. Or put it on your
Christmas list.
The short answer is that it appears Adam was an historical personality who
actually lived about 7000 years ago in Southern Mesopotamia . He was the
first
of the Jews - the first to be accountable and answerable to God. We
Christians
just somehow got it into our heads that he was the first human being. That's
where we went astray. Moses was giving his people the history of the Jews.
So
when we read it we should understand for whom it was intended.
>i believe
>strongly in adam and eve, because i believe the bible is God's infallible
>word, but i'm having a hard time getting the fossil record to "fit in" with
>my faith.
If you believe in the historicity of Adam now, you will really believe it
after
you have read the book.
>It's always been real easy in the past because i went to a
>christian school and summer camps where we learned that evolution was wrong
>because all they really had to prove it was a jawbone.
We have an unfortunate situation where well-meaning Christians are putting out
terribly misleading information. It is too bad.
>Well now that i've
>seen the bones and learned about them, i see that if i didn't have my faith,
>i'm sure i would also believe i and the apes came from a common ancestor.
Even that poses no problem to a literal Genesis when accommodations are made
for the original Hebrew text. The problem is not the Bible. The problem is
how we translated and interpreted Genesis.
>But i certanly don't see how that would fit with my faith at all.
There is no problem with God's word when compared with God's works, Lisa. The
entire problem can be laid at the feet of humans who should have done their
homework, but just did not. Ignorance might be an excuse for the translators
who produced the King James Version in 1611. But there is no excuse today. -
Dick
This was her response:
Hey thanks for your reply. That's an interesting thought, which i've never
heard before. i'll definitely check out your book. -lisa
And I ended with:
Hi Lisa, you wrote:
>Hey thanks for your reply.
Where was someone like me when I was looking for an answer ...
>That's an interesting thought, which i've never heard before.
My legacy I'm afraid. - Dick
If only I recieved such an enthusiastic response from the members of this
list. Ah, but who among you is only nineteen?
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
--=====================_1518685==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
To the List:
I hope you don't mind if I share this exchange.
I received this initial email.
hi, my name's lisa, i'm 19 and i'm talking an anthropology class in
school. i
was just wondering what you believe about how the fossil record
(australopithecines and early homos) fit in with adam and eve. i believe
strongly in adam and eve, because i believe the bible is God's infallible
word, but i'm having a hard time getting the fossil record to "fit
in" with
my faith. It's always been real easy in the past because i went to a
christian school and summer camps where we learned that evolution was
wrong
because all they really had to prove it was a jawbone. Well now that i've
seen the bones and learned about them, i see that if i didn't have my
faith,
i'm sure i would also believe i and the apes came from a common ancestor.
But
i certanly don't see how that would fit with my faith at all.
Anyway, if you
have have any spare moments to reply back to me i'd sure appreciate it.
thanks. -lisa
To which I replied:
Hi Lisa, you wrote:
>hi, my name's lisa, i'm 19 and i'm talking an anthropology class in
school. i
>was just wondering what you believe about how the fossil record
>(australopithecines and early homos) fit in with adam and eve.
Well Lisa, you are exactly where I was, asking the same question
about 16 years ago. Only I was in my 40's. I had no one to
ask, and so spent 12 years of my life, two of those years in the Library
of Congress in Washington, DC. I have what I consider to be the
answer to your question. But I only have confidence in that answer
because I did the hard research no one else would do. Now I fully
realize it is a lot easier to ask me than it is for you to do what I
did. And I have no problem just telling you in a few sentences what
you could find out if you followed the same path I did. But I doubt
you will have the same degree of confidence I have. So I would ask
you to go to your library and get an interlibrary loan to get a copy of
the book. Or put it on your Christmas list.
The short answer is that it appears Adam was an historical personality
who actually lived about 7000 years ago in Southern Mesopotamia .
He was the first of the Jews - the first to be accountable and answerable
to God. We Christians just somehow got it into our heads that he
was the first human being. That's where we went astray. Moses
was giving his people the history of the Jews. So when we read it
we should understand for whom it was intended.
>i believe
>strongly in adam and eve, because i believe the bible is God's
infallible
>word, but i'm having a hard time getting the fossil record to
"fit in" with
>my faith.
If you believe in the historicity of Adam now, you will really believe it
after you have read the book.
>It's always been real easy in the past because i went to a
>christian school and summer camps where we learned that evolution was
wrong
>because all they really had to prove it was a jawbone.
We have an unfortunate situation where well-meaning Christians are
putting out terribly misleading information. It is too bad.
>Well now that i've
>seen the bones and learned about them, i see that if i didn't have my
faith,
>i'm sure i would also believe i and the apes came from a common
ancestor.
Even that poses no problem to a literal Genesis when accommodations are
made for the original Hebrew text. The problem is not the
Bible. The problem is how we translated and interpreted
Genesis.
>But i certanly don't see how that would fit with my faith at
all.
There is no problem with God's word when compared with God's works,
Lisa. The entire problem can be laid at the feet of humans who
should have done their homework, but just did not. Ignorance might
be an excuse for the translators who produced the King James Version in
1611. But there is no excuse today. - Dick
This was her response:
Hey thanks for your reply. That's an interesting thought, which i've
never
heard before. i'll definitely check out your book. -lisa
And I ended with:
Hi Lisa, you wrote:
>Hey thanks for your reply.
Where was someone like me when I was looking for an answer ...
>That's an interesting thought, which i've never heard before.
My legacy I'm afraid. - Dick
If only I recieved such an enthusiastic response from the members of this
list. Ah, but who among you is only nineteen?
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
--=====================_1518685==_.ALT--