From: allenroy (allenroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Fri Nov 08 2002 - 23:13:19 EST
From what I've read, the typical archaeological concept of man is that
he has evolved upward in intelligence and capability until he was able
to learn to read and write. On the other hand, many propose that Adam
and Eve were created intelligent, capable of fluent communication with
each other and God from the moment of creation. The source-critical
dissection of the pentateuch is founded upon the former, as is the
typical archaeological interpretation of the formation of writing (and
the associated dating methods). The Wiseman theory better fits the idea
that Adam and Eve were intelligent from the beginning and that writing
may have been more widespread than current theories seem to think
(perhaps more so among the Biblical patriarchs than the typical
population). The problem lies in the foundational assumptions -- did
man kind evolve upward to being able to read and write? or was reading
and writing a natural outgrowth of intelligence from the beginning? If
you accept the former, then the Bible doesn't make much sense as an
ancient document. It will naturally be interpreted within dumbing-down
evolutionary assumptions as a much later redacted collection of myths.
After all, the patriarchs cannot be anything more than uneducated,
unintelligent, superstitious nomads or perhaps petty chiefs, right?
The question is, do we take the Bible at its word or do we accept
evolutionary assumptions first and then interpret the Bible within them?
The reason why Wiseman's theory is not accepted by many is because it
does not fit in well with the notions that man has evolved physically,
mentally, socially, religiously, and verbally. It use to be that
Anthropologists theorized that the concept of a single God evolved from
pantheism as societies evolved from primitive to sophisticated until
actual field research showed that there is no casual relationship
between the sophistication of societies and their religious beliefs.
The source-critical methodology of dissecting the Bible originated
before the field research came in. Even though Anthropologists no
longer consider the pantheism to monotheism concept valid, the study of
the Biblical source is saddled with the theoretically unsupported and
out moded "Higher Criticism" methodology.
Peter Ruest wrote:
>Paul Seely wrote (1 Nov 2002):
>
>> In addition to the
>> primitiveness of the language, one must also consider the
>>historical context:
>> At a time when society's financial, religious and political leaders, who had
>> every reason to exploit writing (as they did later) to advance their causes,
>> are doing nothing with writing except writing simple receipts and lists of
>> words for learning the language, it is not likely that someone else is using
>> this early stage of writing for writing involved advanced narratives about
>> origins.
>>
>
>Even if their writing system may have been "primitive" (which I still
>doubt), their language certainly was not primitive a mere 5000 or 5600
>years ago. And most certainly, Adam's language was not "primitive"! Nor
>were his capacities for planning transmission of revelations received
>from God, no matter how he did that. What "society's financial,
>religious and political leaders" did at that time may not be the key to
>what a man of God did. It may even be that Adam belonged to the line of
>the 10 pre-flood Sumerian "kings" found on a clay tablet. It seems that
>our disagreement focuses on the historicity of Adam as a person. I think
>this has theological implications, as well.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 12 2002 - 10:58:22 EST