<<Of course, even if we grant a 2 million year range, that still leaves an
enormous gap of 3.5 million years vis-a-vis Glenn's flood. That, it seems to
me, remains a significant problem.>>
To which Glenn replied:
<<Well as I see it, I have incorporated this into a historically true view of
the Bible.>>
Perhaps I am dense (please don't answer this one) but I haven't seen the 3.5
million year gap (giving all benefit of doubt re: language to Glenn) dealt
with at all, let alone "incorporated" into a "historically true" view of the
Bible. For a flood 5.5 million years ago to be part of diverse ancient
cultures, we have to have oral tradition or revelation (please forget this
last one!).... And the oral tradition scenario runs into the gap problem.
In what way has the 3.5 million year gap been "incorporated"? What "true view"
of the Bible mentions anysuch gap? And what happened during that time to pass
along the flood account, when there were no human beings around?
<<If you want man being created only a few thousand (or up to
100,000 years ago) you have not dealt with the issue at all!>>
Hmmm....I've cited, among other things: genetic evidence, cultural evidence,
language evidence--quoting extensively from books and articles and experts far
more knowledgeable than I. I don't know what more I can do to "deal with the
issue."
<<Thus while I might have a lack of evidence in favor of one aspect of my
view...>>
We now agree a problem remains for the 5.5 million year flood.
But it also seems to me that man "exploded" onto the scene, and this appears
to me to line up with the Biblical account much more accurately. Man was God's
special creation at a point in time...just like the universe and the animal
phyla were!
Jim