To Dick and other ASAers:
I make some comments below.
Dick Fischer wrote on Wednesday, February 09, 2000 9:42 PM:
>Russell Maatman wrote:
>>God created human beings in his image.
>God created 'adam in His image. That could be "man," but more likely is
Adam,
the person.
>>Adam and Eve were the parents of all human beings.
>Probably not. More likely the parents of the Semites. Luke didn't trace
the
>ancestry of Christ back to Homo erectus.
The Bible indicates in several places that Adam was the first man. See, for
example, I Chr. 1:1 and Luke 3:23.
>>When they sinned, they broke but did not destroy that image.
>If Adam was God's representative, I believe he remained His
representative,
>only not as effectual as he could have been had he refrained from sin. He
>became a flawed messenger.
>>Christ's salvation consists of restoring that image.
>Christ is in God's image. He is God's representative to man. We are "in
the
>image of God" when we conform to the image of Christ. (In my humble
opinion.)
Everyone bears the image of God which was, however, broken when Adam
sinned. This broken image is restored in God's people when God conforms
them to be in the likeness (image) of his Son (Rom. 8:29).
>>This understanding of the origin and nature of the human
>>race enables one to understand the "problem" biblical passages which some
>>say indicate the existence of "human" beings which were either
pre-Adamites
>>or contemporary with Adam.
>I don't see a "problem"? Psalm. 8:4 says, "What is man ('ish), that thou
art
>mindful of him? and the son of man (bene 'adam), that thou visitest him?"
God
>may be "mindful" of all his human creatures, but he actually visits those
who
>He holds in a special relationship - in this case, the "sons of Adam."
Today,
>God is still mindful of all mankind. For those who are in Christ,
however,
>God
>holds in a special relationship.
>>For Point (10), some "problem passages" are the following: Gen. 4:13-17:
>>Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you
>>are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I
>>will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill
>>me." But the LORD said to him, "Not so ; if anyone kills Cain, he will
>>suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so
>>that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the
Lord's
>>presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain lay with his
>>wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then
>>building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.
>And the Sumerian king list carries kingship from Kish to "E-Anna(k)" after
the
>flood. This is a section of Sumerian "Uruk," called "Erech" by the
Accadians,
>also named in Genesis 10:10.
>In tems of being "in the image," the Accadians probably would not be, even
>though they spoke a Semetic language and were likely descendants of Adam.
Descendants of Adam who did not bear God's image? Biblical proof?
>The
>image of God rested with Noah after the flood, and was part of the
Abrahamic
>covenant which passed to the Israelites and finally to Christ. The
Sumerians
>would not be "in the image" by any measure as they spoke an unrelated
language
>and likely came from somewhere other than from Adam.
Sumerians did not bear God's image? Because they spoke an unrelated
language? Do you have biblical proof?
>>Perhaps Cain knew of these candidates and so was worried. There
>>is no evidence he "married" one of them. Is there an objection to the
idea
>>that in fact he married his sister?
>The sister/wife argument overlooks a scriptural limitation - God forbids
it in
>no uncertain terms. (See Lev. 18:6, 9-14.) Such an incestuous union is an
>abomination that defiles not only the participants, but the very land
(Lev.
>18:24-30).
I know there are many theories concerning the incest taboo. For Christians,
this taboo must rest on passages such as you cite. But how do we know there
was such a taboo at the very beginning? I think we do know that there would
not have been a genetic reason for such a taboo at the beginning. As I
understand it, the geneetic reason for avoiding brother-sister marriage is
related to genetic imperfections, imperfections which would not have
existed at the beginning.
Russ
Russell Maatman
e-mail: rmaat@mtcnet.net
Home: 401 5th Avenue
Sioux Center, IA 51250
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 10 2000 - 12:37:34 EST