Interesting following this one and I hope you don't take it that I'm
interloping into your
discussions. The discussions bring some questions to mind.
George: How do you handle Rom. 5:12-21 where Paul explicitly states
that "sin came through
one man (Adam)"? Paul develops this theme quite extensively-- v.12 is
the crucial verse in this
passage (as the commentators I've read state). An "explicit" Adam is
NECESSARY if Paul is
right. One man, Adam, seems to require more literality in Gen 3 than
you seem to imply.
How do you correlate these? Also, how do you tie to your line of
reasoning to the "implicit"
Adam that we see so much evidence of (archeology, etc.)?
Glenn: You write much on this, and your responses to Dick re imago dei
make a great deal of
sense. I too feel Gen 3 is a literal necessity. The question: If God
created homonids
--certainly no one else did-- which "Adam" (homonid) was guilty of the
sin in Gen 3 or is
this beyond the scope of knowing, either directly and/or in your
construction?
One final thought along these lines. God specifically called Abram out
of Ur, making a
covenant with Him. Could God have just as specifically--though not
explicitly recorded for
our edification--called one specific homonid (i.e. Paul's Adam in Rom
5--above), and breathed
within him the breath of life (a spiritual rebirth), and placed him and
his mate, Eve (leaving
her genesis aside for the present!), in the Garden--from which we have
the Gen 3 account?
Hope I make sense!
Howard
George Murphy wrote:
> glenn morton wrote:
> >
> > At 08:53 PM 3/11/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
> > > Of course I am not "rejecting" Genesis 3 as you well know if you have paid
> > >aattention to what I've said.
> >
> > I have paid attention to what you have said. You obviously think that it
> > doesn't have to be historical to be valid. I simply can't see how that can
> > be. Its the same discussion we have had innumerable times.
>
> The fact remains that I do not "reject" Genesis 3. "Don't believe to be an
> accurate account of historical events" is not equivalent to "reject".
>
> > >>>But you seem to be arguing that _logically_ the NT claim that Christ
> > atoned for sin requires that sin be understood as having originated
> > historically as described in Gen.3, & thus that we can conclude that if
> > Christ really atoned for sin then Gen.3 must have really happened that
> > way.<<<
> > If Genesis 3 didn't happen the way it is written, then clearly what is
> > written is absolutely false. It happened in some other way that is not
> > written. And if it happened in some other way, then Adam didn't sin at all.
> > Someone else did in some other way.
>
> There IS nobody else!!
> Adam is "human being". Adam & Eve are the first humans. Genesis 3 is a story
> of the first sin of the first humans, and of the sins of all humans. The claim that all
> humans are sinners is true also of the first humans. Genesis 3 is a true story of how
> humans (including the first humans) transgress the limits God has set. It is a true
> story of how humans (including the first humans) put themselves & other things ahead of
> God.
> If you think that saying that is a "rejection" of Genesis 3 unless I also add
> that there was a real tree & a real snake, I just throw up my hands!
>
> Either we allow the Bible to
> > communicate about its events and accept or reject them as being either true
> > or false or we are forced to believe that what didn't happen really
> > happened and what really happened wasn't written about. This is all like
> > Alice in Wonderland to me. George, I am not trying to mock you. I simply
> > can't see how what didn't happen as was written about, can be real and
> > important to the atonement of Christ. If what is written didn't happen,
> > then what is written is false. That is simple logic.
>
> By the same simple logic, Psalm 23 is false. No, don't do all your dodging &
> weaving about poetry. Don't try the "it's a different kind of thing from Gen.3" gambit.
> Ps.23 is a part of the Bible that says things which are false. I'm not a sheep & I
> don't eat grass. It's simple logic.
>
> > I would rather follow Provine, my former boss, Templeton and Farrell Till
> > than believe what is false is really true and what is true is described by
> > a false story. I really mean that.
>
> I think it's really sad that someone who obviously is very intelligent can
> be so blind to the possibility of truth being conveyed by something other than a
> listing of historical events. How can you sing "Rock of Ages" with a clear conscience?
> When someone says "My heart is broken" do you hand them a roll of duct tape?
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 19:53:32 EST