Re: [asa] Isolated humans

That is certainly an interesting set of questions. I'm wondering what the
typical YEC position is on human migration and isolation. I assume most
would reject the 14,000 YO American arrival timeline, but even assuming a
compression of this to 6000 years, and assuming a literal "out of the Tower
of Babel" rather than "out of Africa" dispersion, I guess most would have to
acknowledge a lengthy period of isolation from the Gospel,* in which case
the same questions arise whether the time period is 10,000 years or only a
few thousand.

*assuming they don't buy the Mormon idea of Jesus appearing in the New
World.
 
__
Louise M. Freeman, PhD
Psychology Dept
Mary Baldwin College
Staunton, VA 24401
540-887-7326
FAX 540-887-7121

-----Original Message-----
From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 16:59:13 -0400
Subject: [asa] Isolated humans

I'm enjoying listening to a 36-lecture course on human pre-history by Brian
Fagan from U. Cal at Santa Barbara. It is fascinating, filling in lots of
details that I hadn't appreciated. (If any of you are interested, you are
welcome to come to the ASA office and borrow a set).
 
The last few lectures left me with a question (a very old one) that touches
on several of the recent threads on this list. Fagan described the migration
of humans to the Americas around 14,000ya. Within only a few thousand years,
they had spread throughout north and south america. During that time, with
the ending of that ice age, the ocean levels rose about 300 feet,
effectively cutting off all human travel and communication between the
Americas and Asia or Europe. Similar stories hold for Australia, New
Zealand, and other places.
 
The question I have is not a new one, and has been hashed around a lot, but
it does still bother me. Hitchens referred to it in his book and debate as
well. How do we understand the notion that the gospel of Christ's
incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection, with all its soterial
implications, is the unique path for reconciliation to God when a
significant portion of the human population did not even have the
possibility of hearing about the gospel?
 
Coming from a very mission-minded church, I've always heard pleas for
"reaching those who have never heard" the gospel, with the responsibility on
our shoulders to heed the great commission to share the good news. Somehow,
the fact that a significant part of the world could not be reached for many
centuries with any technology available no matter how zealous we may be,
seems to put a different twist on it.
 
If "original sin" dates back to the common human ancestral community,
however that occurred, how is it that there is no commonly available gospel?
The thread on natural theology revealed several different views of whether
and how much we could learn about God through nature. I didn't hear anyone
argue that we could learn about salvation from nature.
 
The standard answers I grew up with seemed to revolve around God's
accountability for humans being set relative to the amount of
information/revelation we had so that all were without excuse. That's where
Romans was usually cited. That of course led to the inevitable retort that
we should leave indigenous people in their ignorance. Which didn't help
matters.
 
Far be it from any of us to question why God did it this way or claim "God
surely wouldn't have done that" or the like. Yet, I confess it does leave me
with a most uncomfortable feeling. Yes, I suppose I should just be content
with "that's the way it is" but....
 
Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 2 17:18:09 2007