On Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:28:12 -0800, Dario A Giraldo wrote:
SJ>Glenn's basic assumption is that there must be a naturalistic
>explanation of the Flood and supernatural explanations are just
>ignored. This is simply theistic naturalism. He assumes that
>Noah's Flood was just an ordinary Flood, yet the Biblical evidence
>is that it was definitely no ordinary Flood.
DG>I agree with Stephen here. I have been to Glenn's web site and
>began reading his material. I found many items to be contradictory
>to Scripture and although he doesn't think so, they are.
Agreed. While some lattitude must always be allowed in
*interpretation*, Glenn's 5.5 mya Australopithecine/Homo habilis/Homo
erectus Adam/ Noah theory has little (if any) connection with
Biblical (or even anthropological) reality.
DG>I have approached Jewish rabbis and graduated Scriptural Teachers
>and ran some of his (and other's views in this list) by them to see if
>there is room for thier type of views. There is room, if one throws away
>the concept of infallibility of Scripture. This isn't a position that I will
>follow or accept.
It is not even an "infallibility of Scripture" issue. Even if
Genesis was taken to be just an ancient Eastern creation-account,
Glenn's 5.5 mya Mediterranean Flood bears no resemblance to it.
DG>Moreover, I have found that people who have never seen the
>supernatural power of God function before their eyes, have a very
>tough time believing that He is capable of working supernatural
>acts. They still try to fit The Maker of the Universe in a box,
>their box, without any room for deviation.
Agreed. Glenn's entire Mediterranean Flood theory is an attempt to
find a fully naturalistic explanation of the Flood, even if it does
risk "wresting the scriptures" (2Pet 3:16) in the process.
[...]
DG>One item on the flood. It was an event of epic proportions. We
>find that men lived before the flood:
>
>Adam 930 years
>Seth 912
>Enosh 905
>Kenan 910
>Mahalalel 895
>Jared 962
>Enoch 365 - God took him so he never died
>Methusaleh 969
>Lamech 777
>Noah 950
>
>After the flood:
>
>Shem 600 -Born 100 years before the flood
>Arpachs 438
>Shelah 433
>Eber 462
>Peleg 239 -the earth is divided (Gen. 10:25)
>Reu 239
>Serug 230
>Nahor 148
>Terah 205
>Abraham 175
>Isaac 180
I have no problem with these ages if they are to be taken
literally. I would put it down to the absence of disease and
genetic defects in the descendants of Adam. But I am not sure they
can be taken literally without creating major problems, eg. Adam
being a near contemporary of Noah:
"Whether the large numbers describing human longevity in the early
chapters of Genesis are literal or have a conventional literary
function-or both-is uncertain. Some believe that several of the
numbers have symbolic significance, such as Enoch's 365 (v. 23)
years (365 being the number of days in a year, thus a full life) and
Lamech's 777 (v. 31 ) years (777 being an expansion and multiple of
seven, the number of completeness, cf. the "seventy-seven times" of
Lamech's namesake in 4:24). The fact that there are exactly ten
names in the Ge 5 list (as in the genealogy of 11:10-26) makes it
likely that it includes gaps, the lengths of which may be summarized
in the large numbers. Other ancient genealogies outside the Bible
exhibit similarly large figures. For example, three kings in a
Sumerian list (which also contains exactly ten names) are said to
have reigned 72,000 years each-obviously exaggerated time spans."
(Barker K. ed, "The NIV Study Bible", Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1985,
p13)
"Our present knowledge of civilization, e.g. at Jericho, goes back
to at least 7000 BC, and of man himself very much further. When
Ussher dated Adam at 4004 BC he assumed that the generations in this
chapter were an unbroken chain: but the chapter neither adds its
figures together nor gives the impression that the men it names
overlapped each other's lives to any unusual extent (e.g. that Adam
lived almost to the birth of Noah) . If it has selected ten names
(and in 11:10ff. another ten from Noah to Abraham) as separate
landmarks rather than continuous links, it has genealogical custom
both within and without the Bible to support it. Within Scripture,
note the stylized scheme of three fourteens in Matthew 1 (involving
the omission of three successive kings in Mt. 1:8). Outside it,
anthropologists and others have drawn attention to similar
genealogical methods in the Sudan, Arabia, and elsewhere." (Kidner
D., "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary" Tyndale Press:
London, 1967, p82)
DB>Something changed the environment on the planet that reduced the
>human lifespan considerably. Strong global impact from a local
>flood.
The Bible makes no such claim, so I would prefer not to speculate on
this.
DB>And if the Mare Nostrum basin was the one filled, then a whole
>lot of water must have come from somewhere. There is the Atlantic
>Ocean, Mediterranean, Aegean, Ligurian, Tyrrhenian, Ionian, Adriatic
>and Black seas that are connected. Yes sir, lotsa water.
What is the Mare Nostrum?
[...]
SJ>declare his 5.5 mya Australopithecine/Homo habilis/Homo erectus
DB>This position contradicts the 3rd chapter of Luke vs. 23-38 where
>the reader is taken from Jesus to Adam.
Good point.
DB>And there aren't that many thousands of years between them.
Yes. One could argue that there are gaps between these genealogies,
of hundreds and even thousands of years. But somewhere in the
following names between Luke 3:34 and 3:36, Glenn has a gap of *5.5
million* years. To date he has ignored my invitation to state where
he thinks it is:
Lk 3:34: Jacob Isaac Abraham ...
------------------------------------------- 3.5 kya
Lk 3:34: ... Terah Nahor
Lk 3:35: Serug Peleg Eber Shelah
Lk 3:36: Cainan Arphaxad Shem ...
------------------------------------------- 5.5 mya
Lk 3:36: ... Noah Lamech
Lk 3:37 Methuselah Enoch Jared Mahalalel, Kenan
Lk 3:38 Enosh Seth Adam God.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------