Unlike some others, I don't really see a need to have a
naturalistic explanation for this hypothesis. I think it is quite
possible that God may have concealed this knowledge from Cain and Seth's
descendants.
It's true that this hypothesis cannot be backed up with
scripture, but I sometimes feel as if this is unnecessary (see below).
> > The genealogies of Seth and Cain are incomplete. The word "begat"
> >may also mean "became the ancestor of." It is also possible that
> >throughout early human history God selected some individuals to live a
> >very long time to accomplish some task(s) that God appointed for them. If
> >this is true, then it is only these special, long-living individuals who
> >are recorded in the genealogies.
>
> I do not see biblical basis for such a conclusion. I
>
You're right. Such a conclusion is pure hypothesis. There is no
biblical evidence for it, but it does fit better with the scientific
evidence.
Which brings me to a point about hermaneutics. In my view, God
reveals himself in basically two ways. General revelation, which is
revelation through the created world, and special revelation, or
scripture. I think that it should be taken as a given that these two
forms of revelation will never conflict with one another. Our God is not
a double minded God.
But what if an apparent contradiction does exist? Then the fault
must lie in our interpretation of either the scientific data or the bible.
In cases where there is so apparent conflict, I think it is
important to interpret the bible as literally as possible and to try to
discern the thoughts of the original authors. When an apparent
contradiction with science occurs, then I think we should first examine
the science. See if the data has been misinterpreted. If it is apparent
that the data is correct, then we must examine
our interpretation of scripture, and then I think whole new hermaneutical
principles apply.
For instance, when Joshua wrote about the sun standing
still, he probably actually believed that the sun moved and not the
earth. He would have no reason to think otherwise. But that should no
stop us from reinterpreting the scriptures based on our current level of
understanding of the universe.
> Well, I really enjoyed reading your ideas. My point, as I have
> written a few days
> ago, the explanation for the Fall is missing. It is one of the most
> fundamental concepts
> of the traditional theology and I think we should seek an plausible
> explanation of it.
Thanks for the kind words. If I decide to revise my views, I'll
certainly include my opinion of the fall.
God bless.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Marcio Roberto Pie
> Departamento de Zoologia
> Universidade Estadual de Campinas
> Campinas SP Brazil
> piecio@obelix.unicamp.br
> http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6777
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Travis E. Doane
tdoane@runet.edu