>Perhaps I am dense (please don't answer this one) but I haven't seen the 3.5
million year gap (giving all benefit of doubt re: language to Glenn) dealt
with at all, let alone "incorporated" into a "historically true" view of the
Bible. For a flood 5.5 million years ago to be part of diverse ancient
cultures, we have to have oral tradition or revelation (please forget this
last one!).... And the oral tradition scenario runs into the gap problem. <<
>
I don't see in the Bible anywhere that the flood traditions of other cultures
must be due to Noah's flood. You assume that, but you can't prove it.
You wrote:
>In what way has the 3.5 million year gap been "incorporated"? What "true
view" of the Bible mentions anysuch gap? And what happened during that time
to pass along the flood account, when there were no human beings around? <<
Maybe if you read my book you would see why the present views don't work.
E-mail is so inefficient. Why do you think there were no "humans" around?
I do not see that the Bible declares that humans are people that look like
Abraham, so looks do not determine humanity. Being made in the image of God
defines humanity. In my view there was NO time that there were no humans to
pass the message around. Any logic course will tell you that absence of
evidence is NOT evidence of absence. I was discussing this with another
gentleman privately. The 19th century critics of the Bible based part of
their rejection of the Bible on the ABSENCE of EVIDENCE for the existence of
the Hittites. You are basing your rejection on the current ABSENCE of
EVIDENCE for fossils of Homo Habilis from prior to 2 million years ago.
The 19th century critic failed because the Hittites were discovered. You
can not be sure that something won't be discovered in the future supporting
my view.
Besides, while I really would prefer not to include the Australopithecines in
the human family, it is quite interesting that the oldest Australopithecine
fossil IS from 5.5 million years ago. See Bernard Campbell, Human Evolution,
1974, p. 95
The Australopithecus was the first stone tool maker. But I do not prefer to
go that route. I feel better with the evidence for Homo habilis being human.
But the oldest H.Habilis fossil IS NOT THE VERY FIRST EVER EXAMPLE OF HIS
KIND. You constantly assume that the earliest fossil found is the earliest
in existence. Do you have any idea of how little of the volume of the fossil
bearing rocks have been examined? I can cite all sorts of cases where the
oldest example of any given historical artifact was superceded by something
much older. To suggest that what we have is absolutely the oldest one
ignores the past recent history of archaeology.
glenn