David and other ASAers:
See my comments below.
On Thursday, February 10, 2000 11:06 AM, David Campbell wrote
(Russ wrote)
> > I understand your general point. But my general point is that we must
begin with
> > the idea that those who bear God's image are those who descend from
Adam.
>
> Physical descent, as opposed to spiritual descent, would be hard to prove
> necessary. Spiritual continuity is much more important Biblically, as in
"it is
> those who are of faith that are sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7). I am
inclined to
> think physical descent from Adam of all those in God's image is correct,
but am
> not convinced that it is proven.
What you mention gets us into another matter. But I do have to say that I
do not accept body-plus-soul dualism. I believe the thrust of the biblical
message is that man is a body-soul unity. So when we are talking about
Adam, I have difficulty in separating physical from spiritual descent. Yet,
the Holy Spirit moves wherever He will, and so Paul can say what he says in
Galatians 3:7. But that movement is within the human family.
> > I'm claiming that going in the reverse direction, that is, relating
some of
> these consequences to beings not otherwise known to be human, and then
claiming
> that they are therefore human, is fallacious.
>
> But they are not otherwise known not to be human, either. Also, what
prevents
> Adam from having been ancestral to all these early hominoids?
Perhaps Adam could have been ancestral to those early beings referred to as
hominids. That may raise problems, of course. My main point, however
remains: Don't assume that soemthing assocaited with a fossil proves that
the fossil derived from a human being.
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 - 16:55:35 EST