RE: [asa] The Bible does not require a Neolithic Adam!

On 10-21-06 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.
 
GRM:
 
I would disagree. If the verse is talking about metal, one has only one
approach to deal with this in the context of an old Adam. Metal work was
here and then lost as an art. But, reinterpreting this verse means that the
archaeology can say what it says, and the Bible can still be historically
true.
 
I think you misunderstand the role this verse plays in theory building. The
verse in and of itself doesn't say when Adam is, and I never said that.
This verse can be used to weaken my case and strengthen Dick's. If it is
about metal work, it does make it more difficult but not impossible, to move
Adam out of the Neolithic. If it is not about metal work, we have some
freedom to move without having to do as many do, proclaim the bible
historically false but theologically true at least in this regard. The
reinterpretation also weakens Dick's case for an amazingly recent Adam.
 
As to the cranium and pain, I think you are really on a stretch there to say
that the cranium and shoulder width doesn't cause the pain but that it is
merely psychological. And since both male and female hominids underwent
increases in neural function, it seems odd that we wouldn't feel the pain as
well if it is due to that. These concepts, as I understand what you are
arguing for seems almost absurd to me. Would any women like to jump in and
say that the pain in childbirth was all in their head or due to higher
neural functioning? I suspect they will say that the baby is just too big.
Indeed, quite often, with out epesiotemies [sic] women can rip down there,
causing even more pain. Of course that is probably only due to their higher
functioning or in their heads as well. Rips really don't cause pain at all,
it is those higher neural functions that do it.
 
The reason women's hips are wider than male hips is because we men don't
have to give birth to a BIG baby. Anthropologists note that women's hips
are as wide as they can be without forcing them to waddle all the time but
still allowing passage through the birth canal. Efficient bipedal walking
limits the width the hip sockets can be.
 
Frankly, I don't understand why this subjective, pain in the head, approach
is so appealing to you. It makes absolutely no logical sense to me.
 
 

glenn
They're Here: The Pathway Papers
Foundation, Fall, and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
 

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 12:36:25 2006