Walt,
I don't normal jump to defend Glenn's views because I think that the
culture of the early chapters of Genesis is Ancient Near East (ANE)
and not in the 100,000's of years ago. Thus, I am sympathetic with
the questions raised by Davis Young in his Antiquity and Unity of the
Human Race: Revisited
(http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/CSRYoung.html). These sorts of
observations are what I believe have led Dick Fischer and Mike
Satterlee to their belief that Adam appeared at this time.
But the problem with all this, which I still don't believe Dick and
Mike have really adequately answered, is that the scripture seems
pretty clear that Adam is head, not only covenantally but also
biologically, of the whole human race--I don't find the attempts to
see two different human creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 to be
convincing and a significant reconstruction of Biblical theology
would have to follow. Glenn, I believe, is zealous to preserve the
scriptural teaching concerning the unity of the hunan race in Adam
more than the other harmonizing that others are attempting. He cites
much evidence for human-like activity that is much more ancient than
the historical record of the ANE; he also notes the recent
out-of-Africa vs. the multiregional debates and the impact they have
on our views here. Either view puts a last common ancestor of all
humans long before ANE, where Dick and Mike have placed Adam. The
recent out-of-Africa view seems a bit more palatable, although even
here we're talking 100,000 to 200,000 years--still quite far removed
from ANE civilization. If you accept the multi-regional view, then
we're talking 1-2 million years ago and maybe more.
While Glenn seems to be open to a local flood (his Mediterranean
flood is local) he wants a more cataclysmic event than appears to be
recorded in the ANE historical records and physical geographical
records for this time period.
Now, for Jim Eisele: it is this state of affairs that has led some
such as Paul Seely to the accomodationist perspective. They conclude
that it is simply not possible to have a satisfactory solution to
these problems and thus the creation of Adam account is God's
revealing his creative work in terms of the prevailing science of the
day. I struggle with this position as well because I think this move
tends to lower Biblical authority considerably.
So what are we to do? What do I do? I guess I'm willing to have some
loose-ends in my system. My confidence in scripture does not depend
on my ability to harmonize all the difficulty passages (either Bible
to Bible or Bible to science/history). My confidence in science is
rooted in a Biblical perspective as well. (Science is a "Christian"
enterprise rooted in "Biblical" presuppositions.) While we must
always be on guard for anti-Christian biases in all areas of life
where we share the world with non-Christians (and with our own sinful
and biased tendencies), as far as I can see, non-Christians practice
science pretty much the way I do, and I would (and do) make the same
conclusions that they make about the issues at hand. If Jim thinks
that Glenn's views are unsatisfying to the masses, I can hardly wait
to hear what he says about this. The masses seem to want certain,
simple answers which young-earthers and Biblical literalists are
eager to dish out (that's why their web sites get so many hits), but
life isn't always so simple and cognitive dissonance is sometimes
required. This may seem like an apologetic disaster, but I would
suggest that apologetics and evangelism doesn't start with Genesis,
but with the cross and the empty tomb. Once there is faith in Christ,
a personal relationship with Him, and submission to His Lordship, we
can have confidence in scripture in the face of apparent scientific
and historical conflict.
Groping along,
TG
>I don't want to sound critical Glenn, but it will be hard not to come
>across that way given my question.
>
>I have read number of your posts and your articles. In just about every
>one there is a discrediting of many beliefs that people extract from the
>Bible -- all in the name of science , of course. Yet I know that you are
>a sincere Christian and I wonder if any of web pages are written with a
>positive outlook towards the "history" of the Bible.
>
>I have a Jewish friend, for example, who does a lot of archaeology (As a
>hobby.) he talks repeatedly about aspects where the Bible is shown to be
>accurate in terms of ancient settlements, idols, etc. Don't you have
>anything along these lines?
>
>No offense intended.
>
>Walt
>
>
>Glenn Morton wrote:
>>
>> I have updated my page on the Black Sea Flood based upon the
>>article by Aksu
>> et al., which David Campbell mentioned. The page is
>>
>> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/bseaflod.htm
>>
>> glenn
>>
>> see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
>> for lots of creation/evolution information
>> anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
>> personal stories of struggle
>
>--
>===================================
>Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
>In any consistent theory, there must
>exist true but not provable statements.
>(Godel's Theorem)
>
>You can only find the truth with logic
>If you have already found the truth
>without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
>===================================
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 30 2002 - 23:25:34 EDT