Glenn wrote: "a village rather than a man and a woman"
Is this not the generally accepted view in (archaeological) anthropology? Are you suggesting, Glenn, that a Christian anthropologist (should) profess 'a man and a woman' rather than 'a village'? Most Adam and Eve-believing Christians would probably agree.
The statement/charge that, "You 'correct' the Bible and make it a village" (made to George M.), seems to be a significant one. Whether or not the 'reality' of either 'a man and a woman' OR 'a village' can be left open to doubt, for example, if a person doesn't make the first chapters of Genesis as the edifice upon which their entire theology is built, remains a point in George's favour. I don't suppose a physicist/theologian would wish to profess on this issue giving an appearance of certainty unless they were a biblical literalist, which George is obviously (thankfully) not.
I would ask Glenn 'what empirical evidence' he might use to contradict the vast majority of (archaeological) anthropologists who accept the 'village theory,' but I do not wish to pander to his use of neo-empiricism. So I won't ask him. This social scientist combines empirical and non-empirical indicators, which Glenn claims doesn't do the trick.
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 19 11:50:59 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 19 2007 - 11:50:59 EDT