If the Fall is historical in space and time, then it is fair game for one to
ask questions like:
Where did it happen? What was the effect on behavior? What evidence can be
found of this behavioural change? What kind of hominid was Adam? etc, etc.
These are the questions that lead to concordism. It is one thing to believe
that something is historical it is another to give a successful explanation
incorporating the observational data into that historical framework.
I am going to ask another question that made a lot of people mad at me when
I asked it elsewhere. It is the question "When did the creation of man and
the Fall happen?"
If mankind recieved the spirit at 10,000 years ago, 35,000 years ago, or
even 60,000 years ago, it means that there were human-like animals walking
the earth from 120,000 to the time of the creation. Anatomically modern man
is found 120,000 years ago at Klasies River Mouth Cave. I do not like the
implications of human-like animals because it raises the posibility that
some of them might still be walking the earth today. Given mankinds' ability
to de-humanize those that don't look like us, this is a very bad position to
take.
But if we move the creation/Fall back to that time frame, it raises some
interesting theological questions.
In short I agree with you Dr. Pun that the creation and Fall must be
historical, but if they are historical then it is incumbent upon us to
answers the above questions. Ignoring these questions makes the event
non-historical.
For the date at Klasies, see James R. Shreeve, The Neandertal Enigma, (New
York: William Morrow and Co., 1995), p. 214-215
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm