Glenn,
you wrote:
<< I have never held anything other than that Adam means man. God created the
man. It is later peoples that turned it into an actual name. >>
George said:
>>For all your useful compilations of data, we have no historical or
paleontological or other data so finely focussed on the first human beings
that enables us to say with any certainty that they were named Adam & Eve or
that they ate from a forbidden tree or anything like that. Thus your claims
to "accurate
history" are vacuous. It's "coulda been", "not impossible" history.>>
You answered:
<<The place we have one written record of Adam and Eve is from the Bible.
Now if that account inspires no confidence that it is accurate, then why on
earth are we bothering with it? It becomes merely another false tale by
another primitive society. Lets assume for the moment that you are correct.
We can't really be sure that there is an Adam and Eve from this account.
Why should we have confidence then that God created the earth? Maybe God
is a creation of the universe, or that God is a creation man? Afterall, if
the account, which tells us of Adam and Eve is not to be trusted to even
get the names correct, what else is wrong in that account? ..>>
Your last sentence implies that you understood Gen to be giving accurate
names for the first man and woman. That is what impelled me to send the
questions in the first place. I suspect now that your last sentence is a
hasty email not one you would put in a book and put your name on.
I asked (admittedly without first checking your book), if you think the story
about the creation of Eve is accurate history?
Your book indicates that you do regard that as accurate history. However,
what about the man? In the biblical account, it is not just "dust" that
becomes the first man, but that is "formed" into the man. Since "dust" is
dirt (Gen 26:15) and the verb "form" is cognate with the noun "potter," the
account is portraying God as a potter forming man's body out of the dirt. You
can, if taken in a very broad way, say that your scenario (a still-born ape
fixed up by God) fits the account; but, I do not believe that the original
writer or the original readers would have agreed that you are accepting the
account as accurate history.
I said,
>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?
You answered,
<Yes, once again, either read my book, read the web page or don't criticise
<what you are too lazy to read. I also have an article in the PSCF which
<approaches some of these issues.>>
As best I can tell you are positing a Neolithic revolution in 2 to 5,000,000
BC. However, I cannot find where this issue is clearly discussed in your
book, nor does the index help.
Best wishes even if you are temporarily mad at me.
Paul S.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 14 2000 - 20:44:33 EST