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

I get frustrated that my replies are not appearing in a timely fashion and
when they do, they have all sorts of weird characters and are almost
illegible. Yesterday I put a reply to three people in one note. I sent it.
It doesn't appear. I tried again. It didn't appear. So I will break this
into 3 and it is not going to count against my 4 email per day limit cause
this is yesterday's limit.

Maybe one of these will appear.

This is to Michael Roberts: who wrote:

>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.

But Michael, there is lots of definitive evidence to know that
 
1. tents were not invented recently,
2. living off of a single species as herders do was not invented recently
3. flutes go back at least to 80,000 years ago, and those are the bone
variety. Plant made flutes simply decay away
4. One can know that brass and iron is a euphemism in Jeremiah and it at
least one has to be aware that you can't use that as evidence for a recency.
5. that the genealogies are NOT complete. Even Yeled can't be said to be
always a father-son relationship unless people fathered whole tribes of
people.
 
I would point this out to everyone. Insanity is doing the same thing over
and over expecting novel results. Christianity has been engaged in doing
the same thing over and over (YEC, accommodation, Gap theory) each side
expecting to solve the problem. Maybe we should try something new--like a
new interpretation which maintains historicity while allowing science to be
true at the same time?
 
I think I will post a parable today.[note added, of course, the parable got
posted but this reply didn't--grm]
 
 

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 29 14:28:54 2006