> ABASTRACT: There is a widespread belief among christians that mankind was
> created around 50,000 years ago. I will evaluate this view based upon the
> data from anthropology and the description of early man's life given in the
> Bible. It will be shown that this view does not match the Biblical
> description of life for Adam and his immediate descendants.
Glenn has documented a mismatch: this harmonisation does not appear
convincing. I think it has always been clear that Neolithic Man is
true man, a descendant of Adam and Eve. (This thesis was developed
by Victor Pearce some years ago in "Who was Adam?"). However, this
leaves the genuine problems about where to fit Mesolithic Man,
Palaeolithic Man, Neanderthal Man, CroMagnon Man, various ancient
*Homo sapiens* and *Homo erectus* - all of which display features
which we can recognise as genuine humanity.
My contribution in this post is to suggest that, if we accept the
verses Glenn discusses as relating to real history, it will be
necessary to be RADICAL in our revision of prehistory.
Harmonisations which generally go along with the consensus in the
academic world will leave us with unconvincing stories which are easy
to critique. There is a nettle to be grasped here! I think Glenn
has shown a willingness to be radical - and for that I give him
credit.
> My point in all this, is that a viewpoint which claims to harmonize the data,
> should harmonize the data. I do not really understand what the 50,000 year
> old Adam view accomplishes. None of the above data fits the Biblical
> description so what is the point?
I look forward to the time when harmonisers use Biblical data to
GUIDE our understanding of the archaeological data. Do we
really believe that the Bible brings light to our scholarship? Much
of what passes for harmonisation today seems to lose sight of a
positive view of the Bible as a resource.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***