>Hayward's solution is like the Gap Theory or the Revealed Days
>theory. It purchases peace between the Bible and science by removing
>Genesis 1 from actual historical reality. Everything in Genesis 1
>becomes something forseen in eternity and nothing in Genesis 1
>actually happens *at the time* in time. Yet Genesis 1 strongly
>indicates that what is uttered by God in eternity actually happens in
>time *at the time*. The repeated pattern of command, fulfillment and
>inspection, eg. "And God said, `Let there be light,' and there was
>light. God saw that the light was good..." (Gn 1:3-4), argues for
>God actually acting in time *within Genesis 1*.
>
>Indeed, if "Genesis 2 is...the last, and greatest, of God's
>descriptions of the way one of his fiats was brought to pass", where
>is the descriptions of the way the other fiats were brought to pass?
>
Is there some sort of cosmic law that says that all the days must be outlined
in detail? I know of none.
>Having said the above, I do not want to get sidetracked into a
>full-scale debate of Hayward's or Glenn's Days of Divine Fiat
>theory, since I regard that as a diversion from Glenn's 5.5 mya Homo
>habilis Adam theory. But I would remind Glenn of what he wrote on 18
>Aug 1996:
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Stephen, To have a real theory that explains scientific data, there
>must be some discovery which would disprove the view. Can you name
>one thing which would disprove your two-Adam theory? It seems that
>your 2-Adam view is as plastic and flexible as you often claim of
>evolution.
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>and again on 28 Aug 1996:
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>By the way, I will ask this again. Is there any fact which would
>disprove the 2-Adam theory? If you don't answer I would presume that
>nothing could disprove it.
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>I did answer Glenn's challenge. Now perhaps Glenn could explain how
>his Days of Divine Fiats (or Proclaimations) view could be disproved?
>:-)
>
One could disprove them by showing a one to one temporal correspondence
between the events of Genesis 1 and those of the fossil record. This means
providing a detailed exposition of how the events described in Genesis 1 match
the order of the fossils in the geologic record. Proving that plants were
here on earth before the sun would disprove them also. Doing that would most
certainly seriously destroy the need for the days of Proclamation view.
glenn
>GM>The Genesis 1 Adam refers to the Genesis 2 Adam in the same sense
>>as a prophecy refers to the future. One Adam. That is all there
>>was.
>
>The only problem with this is that there is no "Genesis 1 Adam". The
>Hebrew word in both Gn 1:26 and 27 is "Adham" which is rightly
>translated "man". No translation that I am aware of translates the
>Heb. "Adham" in Genesis 1:26-27, as the personal name "Adam".
>"Adam" as a personal name of an individual does not appear until Gn
>2:19-20:
>
>"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the
>field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man
>("Adam" KJV) to see what he would name them; and whatever the man
>called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave
>names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts
>of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found." (Gn
>2:19-20 NIV).
>
>But even on Glenn's own view of Genesis 1 as a "prophecy", there is
>no reason why it could not have been referring to *the total process*
>of developing the image of God through hominid ancestors,
>culominating in Homo sapiens sapiens who appeared only 50-100K ago,
>as the Pre-Adamite model proposes. What Glenn has to show is that
>the part of the alleged "prophecy" in Genesis 1 that refers to "man"
>(ie. Gn 1:26-30), uniquely refers to his 5.5 mya Adam = Homo.
>habilis theory and not other theories, including my Pre-Adamite
>model.
>
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm