RE: The wrong horse in evolution education

At 10:11 PM 3/30/2006, Dick Fischer wrote:
>Hi Peter, you wrote:
>
>a) to dissociate the biblical Adam
>(Gen.2:7) from the first humans created in God's image (Gen.1:27)
>
>You and I are so close to being of like minds on
>this entire issue, Peter, that I am almost
>tempted to concede a minor point, bite my
>tongue, and climb on board so we can present a
>united front and go out and kick the tar out of
>YECs and OECs – almost. Then I think, hey,
>Peter could make the concession. Why should I?
>
>Okay, let me just make this small
>recommendation. We can articulate our
>differences on what I really believe is a minor
>point of interpretation. Let’s see where the
>audience falls. Everybody chime in. You will anyway.
>
>As you know (some don’t) I believe that the
>“man” (‘adam) of Gen. 1:27 is the Neolithic Adam
>(man) of Gen. 2:7. IMO, they are the same man
>who started the covenant race roughly 6800 years
>ago, not the head of our biological species that
>extends beyond a million years. This means that
>“Adam” is Adam, not there is a “man” of
>antiquity who is called ‘adam because ‘adam and
>“man” can sometimes be synonymous.
>
>The advantage to Peter’s approach is that it
>allows all mankind to be “in the image” which is
>what people prefer to think. It fits in with
>their prejudices. When pastors preach from the
>pulpit, “we all are created in the image of
>God,” they could be right on this point,
>whereas, under my approach, they are
>wrong. Adam was created in God’s image, the
>rest of us blokes evolved from apes.
>
>That’s an advantage Peter has with his
>hermeneutic and I acknowledge that. On the
>other hand, in my heart of hearts I don’t think
>the writer had Homo sapiens in mind. I think
>the writer of Genesis was writing purely for the
>Israelites and couldn’t care less what gentiles thought about anything.
>
>When Christ is queried about divorce he
>answered: “But from the beginning of the
>creation God made them male and female. For this
>cause shall a man leave his father and mother,
>and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be
>one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh” (Mark 10:6-8).
>
>Essentially, Christ links the two verses of Genesis.
>
>Gen. 1:27: “So God created man in his own image,
>in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
>
>Gen. 2:24: “Therefore shall a man leave his
>father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
>wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
>
>Does it seem logical that Christ would put these
>two verses together if the “man” in Genesis 1:27
>lived over a million years ago and the ”man” in
>Genesis 2:24 lived 6,800 years ago? At least we
>would have to agree that the word “beginning” is nebulous.
>
>The second point I would make is that in the New
>Testament Christ is “in the image.”
>
><http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=col+1:15&version=kjv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1>Col
>1:12-15: “Giving thanks unto the Father, which
>hath made us meet to be partakers of the
>inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath
>delivered us from the power of darkness, and
>hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear
>Son: In whom we have redemption through his
>blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the
>image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.”
>
>That is, Christ represents God. Does every
>human being born into the world since man and
>chimp parted company represent God? If so, then
>what would be the distinction between the way
>Christ is a representative and Sadaam Hussein is a representative?
>
>Let me restate: I believe the “image of God”
>rests with Christ. He represents God. We are
>in God’s image when we conform to the image of
>Christ. It is not a birthright. ~ Dick Fischer

@ I think Scripture backs you up.

"There is no brotherhood of man without the fatherhood of God." - H. M. Field

"We have come to a time when we talk glibly about
the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God.
We imply that everybody loves everybody else and that all men are saved. We
think of God as a great big beneficient Santa
Claus, smiling down upon all. But God is not the
father of all. He is the Creator of all, but not
the Father of all. Jesus said in John 8:44, "Ye
are of your father the devil...." He was thinking
of lost people. John 1:12 tells us that "as many
as received him, to them gave he power to become
the sons of God....." These are the ones who can
claim God as Father. .." ~ Dr. W. Herschel Ford

Only through Jesus do we become God's Children:
He was in the world, and though the world was
made through him, the world did not recognize
him. He came to that which was his own, but his
own did not receive him. Yet to all who received
him, to those who believed in his name, he gave
the right to become children of God -- children
born not of natural descent, nor of human
decision or a husband's will, but born of God. (John 1:10-13, NIV).

Only those who receive Jesus are Born of God, and
therefore are brothers and children of God. Those
who do not receive Jesus are not born again by
the Holy Spirit. And although they are creatures
made by God and loved by God, they are not yet
his children and therefore there is no
"brotherhood of man," outside of rebirth into Jesus Christ.

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no-one can
enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of
water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh,
but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should
not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.' (John 3:5-7, NIV).

"...Furthermore, Shanbour considers his
interpretation to be consistent with what he
calls Jesus’ teaching that “all men and women are
brothers and sisters,” yet he does not provide a
Gospel verse to back up his claim that Jesus said
something to this effect. And it is no wonder,
for no such verse exists in the canonical Gospels.

In fact, none of the canonical Gospel verses in
which Jesus uses the word “brothers” (Matt. 5:47;
12:48,49; 19:29; 23:8; 25:40; 28:10; Mark
3:33,34; 10:29,30; Luke 8:21; 14:12,26; 16:28;
18:29; 21:16; 22:32) supports the notion that
Jesus either recognized or promoted the “brotherhood of man.”

They instead refer to either biological sibling
relationships or the exclusive family of believers.

Conversely, many of the verses quoted above
(Matt. 10:34,35; Luke 12:49; John 6:38-40; 9:39;
12:46) indicate that Jesus came to separate, to
judge, and to save the elect. This
interpretation is consistent with the verses Mr.
Shanbour has cited, in that Jesus is the means by
which mankind is saved. Therefore, the only
consistency his interpretation has is with his
own preconceived notion of what that
interpretation should be. ..." ".. by Dale E.
Essary Copyright © 1999 http://www.tektonics.org/qt/shanbour01.html

~ Janice
Received on Sat Apr 1 13:52:47 2006