I agree with you and Russ: the man became a living being. And I agree
that, taken by itself, the text may mean that God made the physical form of
a man from dust, that that physical form was not alive in any sense at all,
and that when God breathed on it, it then became a living man. However,
there is another interpretation which IMO has better continuity with the
New Testament. Consider the possibility that "living" really means having
the kind of life that is referred to in New Testament passages such as I
John 5:12:
He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does
not have life.
Then "living being" takes on a different -- and in my view more significant
-- meaning: That when God breathed on the man, the man became aware of God
and capable of living in fellowship with God. If you take the view that
the man was not even physically alive before God breathed on him, you have
the conundrum that something that is not a man, not even (physically)
alive, is being called a man.
>
>Also, Scripture says none of the animals was found to be a suitable helper for
>Adam, and only then did God create Eve out of a MALE (Adam)--which is not what
>would have happened under the animal pre-cursor view.
Since I am not a strict, doctrinaire TE, this is not a problem for me. A
God who creates from nothing could make Eve in a variety of ways that would
satisfy the Scriptures. Being a TE does not mean yu have to rule out
direct acts of God. I would be quite interested in how other TE's deal
with this issue.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)