Burgy wrote:
>Dick wrote: "Or maybe God told Adam to fill those post holes left
>carelessly by Homo erectus some 500,000 years earlier."
>But that leaves unanswered the question "Should the living organisms who
>dug those post holes be considered, along with all current humanity,
>Imago Dei?"
Sometimes I wonder if Scripture wasn't written just obscure enough so that
those who can't quite grasp it can still get a free pass through the pearly
gates if they claim they didn't become Christians because they couldn't get
passed Genesis.
I think the question has been answered, but you don't believe it. In plain
English, I believe a proper translation would be: "Let us appoint a man we
will call 'Adam' who can represent us to the rest of humanity."
>As I understand Dick's position, he argues they should not. Glenn argues
>that they should.
>To me, Glenn's arguments appear both reasonable and more likely, while
>Dick's position appears "ad hoc."
Genesis says the garden of Eden was "eastward," that is, east of where they
were rummaging in the desert after leaving Egypt, or perhaps east of the
"promised land." So do I. Glenn places it westward. Genesis places the
garden of Eden near the junction of the Tigris and Euphrates. So do I.
Glenn places it in the Mediterranean basin. Genesis says Adam was created
out of the dust. So do I. Glenn says Adam had natural parents who were
apes. Genesis says there were ten patriarchs from Noah to Abraham. So do
I. Glenn says there were hundreds or even thousands of unnamed,
intermediate descendants.
So whose position appears "reasonable and more likely," and whose position
appears "ad hoc"?
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 22:27:51 EST