Glen wrote:
You can have the last word on this twist to my post. It isn't particularly
relevant to the interpretation I presented and I want to discuss that. Does
this allow Adam to live whenever the archaeological evidence indicates?
Don writes:
As I stated before this went off track, your interpretation would allow for
an Adam of any period, though the interpretation and verse would still not
mean that it must be supported archaeologically. Even from a physical
perspective, increases in neural function of the mother may be what causes
the increase in pain and not the child's cranium. My point as you seem to
have missed is that your interpretation does not support a million year old
Adam no more than Dick's interpretation supports a neolithic one.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 22 10:45:52 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 22 2006 - 10:45:52 EDT