From: Dick Fischer (dickfischer@genesisproclaimed.org)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 13:15:46 EST
Allen Roy wrote:
> 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?
Ah, the beginning ... Your "foundational assumption" is that Adam was
promoted by the writer of Genesis as the progenitor of our species. There
is the fly in your ointment. If you position Adam as the patriarch of the
Semites, and Fred Flintstone (my candidate) as the father of mankind as a
foundational assumption, then yours and Wiseman's pontifications are
without foundation.
>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?
We take the Bible at its word. You either have to understand what it says
or defer to someone who does.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 12 2002 - 14:09:36 EST