On Tue, 10 Oct 1995 22:55:43 -0400 Glenn wrote:
>JB>....I haven't seen the 3.5 million year gap..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...
>And the oral tradition scenario runs into the gap problem. <<
GM>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.
It depends on Glenn's standard of "proof". On the balance of
probabilities (or even beyond reasonable doubt), the similarities
between the Genesis Flood story and the Babylonian Gilgamesh,
prove that they are based on the same event or tradition. Unger
lists the resemblances between the Biblical and the Babylonian
Flood accounts:
(1) Both accounts represent the flood as definitely planned, by the
one true God in Genesis; by numerous quarrelling deities in the
Babylonian version... (2) In each case the judgment is revealed to
the flood hero. (3) Both accounts set forth defection in the human
race as the cause...(4) In each case the hero is delivered with his
family and with animals, although the number surviving in the
Babylonian account is larger than the Biblical count. (5) A huge boat
appears in both cases, the Babylonian vessel having a displacement
about five times that of Noah's ark. Both are pitched to make them
water tight. (6) Both stories indicate physical causes of the
catastrophe. Violent wind, rain and electrical storm constitute the
causes in the pagan account... (7) The account of the duration of the
flood is given in both stories-a total of 371 days in the Biblical
account; only six days in the Babylonian account. Both give similar
striking details which are almost sensational. The sending out of the
birds and the landing of the ship on a mountain are examples... (8)
In both cases the hero worships after his deliverance...In both cases
the deity "smelled" the soothing fragrance (Gen. 8:21). (9) Both
heroes are recipients of special blessings aft the catastrophe..."
(Unger M.F.. "Unger's Bible Dictionary", Moody Press: Chicago, Third
Edition, 1966, p372)
>You wrote:
JB>In what way has the 3.5 million year gap been "incorporated"? What
>"true view" of the Bible mentions any such gap? And what happened
>during that time to pass along the flood account, when there were no
>human beings around? <<
GM>Maybe if you read my book you would see why the present views don't
>work....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.
I agree with Glenn that those belong to the genus Homo may be "human"
in the sense of and emerging humanity, I would not see them as "human"
in the full sense of the word, and nor would anthropologists:
"What then is "human"? There may well be as many definitions as there
are human beings! We suggest, however, that a sound explanation of
the term be based on the two criteria previously mentioned: first, a
body structured for standing upright and walking on two legs
(bipedalism), thus leaving the arms free for functions other than
locomotion; second, a complex brain that provides the abilities for
abstract thought, symbolic communication, and the development of
culture as a way of life. The term "human," then, is not synonymous
with hominid. Early hominids (Australopithecines) possessed only one
of these criteria-bipedal locomotion. Although H. erectus is
included, anthropologists usually reserve the human designation for
Homo sapiens." (Nelson H. & Jurmain R., "Introduction To Physical
Anthropology", West Publishing Company: St. Paul, Fifth Edition,
1991, p13)
GM>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 point is that the Bible mentioned the Hittites about 47 times.
The Bible says nothing about Noah not being human (in the normal sense
of the word).
Glenn is claiming that Noah was H. Habilis, who the Hominid FAQ says
"existed between 2.5 and 1.5 million years ago", and who had ab
"average brain size" of 650 cc", and was only "capable of rudimentary
speech".
GM>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.
The above argument could be used to justify anything. The whole
reason Glenn's rejects the usual Mesopotamian location of the Flood is
because geology has not discovered sediments of it! This is despite
Biblical (eg. Gn 10:10) and extra-Biblical evidence (eg. Gilgamesh
epic) for a Mesopotamian location of the Flood.
GM>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
Jim Foley's Hominid FAQ says of Australopithecus ramidus: "This
species is a recent discovery, announced in September 1994 (White et
al.1994; Wood, 1994). It is the oldest known hominid, dated at 4.4
million years."
However, this has recently been reclassified to a separate genus
"Ardipithecus ramidus" (Dorfman A. & Ngala J., "On Its Own Feet",
TIME, August 28,1995, p68).
The next oldest proven fossil hominid is, according to the FAQ:
"Australopithecus africanus" which "existed between 3 and 2 million
years ago."
GM>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.
The point is that according to evolutionary theory, when we find
fossils we are not only finding individuals. We are finding the
remains of a large central population:
"If evolution almost always occurs by rapid speciation in small,
peripheral isolates-rather than by slow change in large, central
populations-then what should the fossil record look like? We are not
likely to detect the event of speciation itself. It happens too fast,
in too small a group, isolated too far from the ancestral range. We
will first meet the new species as a fossil when it reinvades the
ancestral range and becomes a large central population in its own
right." (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin", Penguin: London, 1977,
p62).
Therefore if Glenn is consistent with evolutionary theory, he
presumably must be claiming either that: (a) large central
populations of H. habilus existed for 3.5 million years (5.5 - 2 MYA),
but as yet no evidence of them has not been detected; or (b) H.
habilus existed as "small, peripheral isolate" populations for 3.5
million years but it was only when these grew into large central
populations that fossils of him were found?
The problem is that: (a) is difficult to believe, considering the
instensity of the search for fossil hominids and that fossils of
Australopithecines have been found from from 4 MYA; and (b) conflicts
with evolutionary theory in that small peripheral isolate populations
are thought to be relatively short-lived.
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------