On May 4, 2008, at 7:16 PM, David Opderbeck wrote:
> Rich, this is very impressive, and apparently unassailable on its
> own merits, at least by someone like me, who really doesn't have the
> ability to study the primary literature and data intesively.
> Nevertheless, it conflicts with scripture, at least seemingly so,
> and many theologians of various stripes see it is a serious
> theological problem, much more serious than geocentrism or the days
> of creation. Is this not a place where we say, "thus far shall you
> go and no further?" Have we not reached here a place where the
> scientific method, which properly cannot admit miracles, is
> incompetent to deliver to us the Truth?
The question is whether Scripture requires Adam and Eve to be the
genetic forebears of all humans. I don't see that particularly since
Jesus isn't either. In the debate of the timing for Adam and Eve the
later, ANE context and the older African one have equal problems above
because even here you have a group of individuals. (Here's where the
name Mitochondrial Eve leads people astray there is not a single such
"Eve" either.) Therefore, there is no good reason to go with the later
dates. I suppose it could be real easy to go really far with this but
as you say why should we?
Rich Blinne
Member ASA
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 4 21:30:18 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 04 2008 - 21:30:18 EDT