Re: [asa] Created Humans

I also thought he had better sense!

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: George Murphy
  To: Debbie Mann ; Asa
  Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Created Humans

  Schneider's view seems superficially to be much better than that of those whose simply deny evolution but in fact he does deny it in the way that is most important theologically. In his scenario "created humans" are cut off from the evolutionary process so, among other things, the Incarnation has no connection with the non-human part of the world. In fact, his distinction between "created" humans and "evolved" Homo sapiens really comes down to the naive "creation or evolution" dichotomy. We are "created" but all those other species are only "evolved."

  Just one more attempt to avoid serious theological work.

  BTW, the Robert C. Schneider who wrote the article is not the Robert J. Schneider who participates on this list & who has better sense.

  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Debbie Mann
    To: Asa
    Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:24 AM
    Subject: [asa] Created Humans

    I have been reading Robert Schneider's article in the current ASA magazine.

    He overviews living conditions for mankind in the ancient world - they are pretty awful - and suggests that there could be created humans vs. evolved humans.

    I like the premise. However, if the Y chromosome is the same in all current races, does this mean that all evolved humans have died?

    Years ago, a literallist preacher who was not a YEC said that in Genesis 1:1 the word 'was' could as easily be translated 'became' - The earth became without form and void.

    Also, Adam and Eve were told to repopulate the earth - this indicates a previous population.

    There is no Earth without form between the evolved humans and the created humans according to Schneider's premise - however, all of these things do give food for thought.

    People frequently claim that things are mutually exclusive when they are not.

    I have often thought that both sides of a particular Biblical argument just lacked imagination. I can frequently come up with a number of scenarios in which they could both be correct.

    Example: The Bible said that there could not be books enough to contain all that Jesus said and did. Then, it is very likely that he did almost the same thing on numerous occasions. 'Contradictions' could arise because one writer was talking about one of these occasions and another writer was discussing a different occasion. The discrepencies in chronology then would not be a second contradiction, instead it would be confirming the fact that there were two separate events.

    Debbie Mann
    AKA Joan Saunders, author of 'Doors of the Megdalines'

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 27 13:04:05 2006