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

Iain wrote:
>> 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.=20

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.=20
<<<
=20
I am always constantly amazed that people prefer the Bible to be
false. =
Even
if one were to be able to come up with a totally evolutionary old earth
interpretation of Scripture which made Scripture historically true (a =
goal
towards which I think I have made significant progress) people would =
prefer
that it be factually false. But then those people will turn around and =
think
it worthy of high praise because this false book teachs true theology. I
always am flumoxed by the lack of logic (at least to me) of this =
position.
=20
Iain, you are not looking at the Hebrew but merely looking at the =
English
and believing what the YECs tell you. Strong's says of yalad,=20
A primitive root; to bear young; causatively to beget; medically to
act =
as
midwife; specifically to show lineage:-bear, beget, birth ([-day]), =
born,
(make to) bring forth (children, young), bring up, calve, child, come, =
be
delivered (of a child), time of delivery, gender, hatch, labour, (do the
office of a) midwife, declare pedigrees, be the son of, (woman in, woman
that) travail (-eth, -ing woman).

Note the part where it sasy, SPECIFICALLY TO SHOW LINEAGE. In that
sense =
my
grandfather yalad me! It can mean birth, but it doesn't have to.

And while Yalad is believed to often be parent-child relationship, it =
isn't
always. Of an atheist friend who told me he used precisely your argument
with great success to lead people to atheism, I write:

"He would point out that yalad is used in the genealogies of Genesis =
1-11
proving that there were no gaps and proving that the Bible erroneously
taught that the world was created in 4,004 B.C.
             "This argument at first took me back. It was an entire =
reversal
in tone from the usual young-earth argument that viewed a complete =
genealogy
as positive evidence that God did create the world recently. What was =
the
solution? It turns out that yalad is used in at least one instance
with =
the
connotation of 'ancestor'. Genesis 10:15-18 uses yalad to indicate that
Canaan was the father of the Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites,
Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites. Since =
there
is no way that Canaan could possibly that promiscuous, yalad must =
indicate
an ancestral relationship in this case. Could it indicate an ancestral
relationship elsewhere in Genesis 5 and 11? Of course." Glenn R. Morton,
Foundation, Fall and Flood, (Spring: DMD Publishing Co., 1998), p. 23

Since atheists use the same argument to lead people away from =
Christianity,
I find it odd that we christians think these arguments are swell.

This is something I wrote a long time ago, but it shows that this is
NOT =
to
be taken literally.=20

Jesus used the term "Son of Man". My dictionary defines "Adam" and =
"Man".=20
  Thus Jesus was giving his genealogy with a gap of at least 4000 years.
And the Genealogies are most assuredly very incomplete. Assuming what =
you=20
say is true that the Flood was in 3000 B.C. David lived about 1000
B.C. =
=20
In Luke 3 there are 42 names between Jesus and David. This is an =
average=20
of 23 years per generation. If Abraham lived at 1800 B.C. there are
only =

13 names between David and Abe giving an average 61 year generation =
time.
Did the average man in 1600 B.C. have his first child at age 61? =20

=20
There are only 10 names between Abraham and Noah. Since you believe
that =

this represents 1200 years, that is an average generation time of 120=20
years. Are you willing to say here and now that post flood Sumerians =
lived=20
lives of several hundred years and that their first born were born on=20
average when the old geezers were 120 years of age?=20
=20
Assuming that people in the 1200 years between David and Abraham had
the =

same generation time as between David and Jesus, then the Luke
Genealogy =

represents 1/3 of the people who should be there. Between Abraham and=20
Noah, 1/5 of the necessary people. When you consider that people =
married=20
and had children younger these figures for the missing people should
be=20
considered conservative. =20
=20
That people are missing from the genealogies is no big surprise. The=20
question is how many people? Can you cite a verse that says no=20
geneological gap shall hold more than 5 people? The issue is not when =
the=20
people lived or how old they are. The issue is whether or not they
were =

real people.
***
=20
I think this counters your counter.=20

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

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
  =20

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Iain Strachan
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:58 AM
To: Glenn Morton
Cc: ASA List
Subject: Re: [asa] The Bible does not require a Neolithic Adam!

On 10/26/06, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:=20

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.=20

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.=20

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 Fri Oct 27 02:04:41 2006