Hi Bill. Don't get me wrong on this one. I am not one who takes the creation claims as allegory. Chapter 1:26,27 presents (to my thinking) a contextual consideration that allows (if not demands) the text to say that "mankind" is the view. I actually researched this one before drawing my conclusion and found that most scholars (actually, I am being too kind here; all scholarship in my possession) in my humble library call for "mankind" in the translation rather than "Adam" ("let us create Adam in our image ..." doesn't even sound right to me). There is much going on in the ancient world at the time of Adam and Eve. Populations are exploding and cities are being built. Adam and Eve are recorded because of the very point you mention below -- the bloodline, an excellent point on your part.
Beans !!!! My Sweetie just called me to breakfast. To be continued later.
a brother,
John Smithson
In a message dated 7/24/2004 7:10:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi John,
There are numerous theologians, some of whom are wonderfully Christian, who have read the creation account as allegory and have not taken it literally. And so you are not alone if you conclude that "Adam" represents collective mankind. For several reasons I do not agree with this account. The main is the bloodline. Jesus is go'el, the Seed promised in the garden. If all blood does not go back to the first Adam, then the Second Adam could not redeem all humanity in taking on the flesh of the first; for if he is not of our bloodline, he is not our Kinsmen Redeemer and thus could not represent us.
Nevertheless, John, I am thrilled that you are enjoying Kruger. And yes he has a wonderful vision of the inner workings of God. If only we all were willing to benefit from his insight! And I am very excited about what you are saying concerning fellowship and community. You are quite right about what it should have been. I think it just never got going like it could have had our first parents not rebelled.
Thanks,
Bill
