Stephen replied
>>Glenn and I agree that everyone must stretch the genealogies. He
introduces a rather distasteful analogy of a "prostitute". It is not
a question of being "unseemly" or making it "small" so "no one will
notice", but what seems reasonable in light of the Biblical and
scientific evidence.<<
If anyone was offended by my analogy, I apologize. But it makes the point
very effectively. It is the act of stretching the genealogy which is the
main issue. The quantity must be determined secondarily.
On this Stephen, you and I can agree: It is what seems reasonable in
light of the Biblical and scientific evidence. My problem is that if we are
allowed to stretch the genealogies at all, the question then becomes not
SHOULD we stretch them, but how much MUST they be stretched to fit the data.
If we hold to your view that man must be less than 230,000 years (I get this
from your tentative acceptance of Neanderthal humanity), then you have a
non-human animal carving statues of the naked female form 100,000 years
before Adam (or the Neanderthal). This does not seem like an animal
activity. I choose to stretch the genealogy enough to accomodate this fact,
the fact that fossil man was not a vegetarian (which Biblically means he is
post flood), as well as to give a location for the flood which can fit
EXACTLY the description the Bible gives of the pre-flood world.
glenn