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

There is simply not enough details in early Genesis to make any conclusions of real value, but a literal or strongly historical understanding points to something fairly recent.

Should one do what Sir Walter Raleigh did while waiting for execution when he wrote The History of the World? He drew some lovely maps of the four rivers of Genesis two .

That is the logic of both Glenn's and Dick's position and I cant accommodate them

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Iain Strachan
  To: Glenn Morton
  Cc: ASA List
  Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:58 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] The Bible does not require a Neolithic Adam!

  On 10/26/06, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
    Dick, you are avoiding the issue. There is nothing in the Scripture that says Adam was living at anytime within the past 150,000 years either. Do you agree?

  I don't know what Dick has to say on this issue, but I don't agree. It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it. You don't want the bible to be "wrong", so you try to push back Adam to huge times in the past. But if you want to take the Bible literally, then the Genealogies from Adam to Noah (around 1650 years) and from Noah to Abraham (around 400 years?) would indicate that either Abraham also lived millions of years ago, or that Adam lived only a few thousand years before Christ.

  I'm not saying that I take these genealogies literally, but they do counter your claim that there is nothing in Scripture that says Adam was living anytime in the past 150,000 years. These genealogies clearly say he only lived a few thousand years ago.

  I'm wondering you you reconcile this?

  Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 26 21:29:39 2006