George said,
<< No. Saying that there is a context in which Genesis 3 might have happened
is
not the same as having evidence that there was a real couple named Adam &
Eve, the latter made from a rib of the former, who were tempted by a talking
serpent &c. That is what would be required in order for you to say that you
had evidence for Gen.2 & 3 to be "Historie wie es eigentlich gewesen ist." >>
This is essentially the question I have: Does Glenn accept early Genesis as
accurate history or is the pot calling the kettle black?
The account says Adam named his wife (literally) Hawah because she would
become the mother of all the Hay, a Hebrew word for "living. And Adam's name
is a Hebrew word for "man." Does Glenn believe these are the historically
accurate names of the first two human beings even though the Hebrew language
did not come into existence until the late second millenium BC?
The account also says that the first woman was made from the rib of the first
man. Does Glenn believe this is accurate? If he thinks women evolved
alongside of men, how can he think this story about the creation of Eve is
accurate history?
Also, the account says Adam raised food in a garden;and that in his
lifetime, one of his sons did the same, and the other raised domesticated
animals. This is clearly Neolithic, that is to be dated no earlier than
10,000 BC. Does Glenn believe this is accurate history?
Paul S.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 14:08:21 EST