This is a repeat because I wasn't sure the original message went OK.
Sorry if you get two of this! :-) Stephen
On Sat, 21 Oct 1995 06:58:08 -0400 you wrote:
>ABSTRACT: There is a widespread belief among christians that mankind
>was created around 50,000 years ago. I will evaluate this view based
>upon the data from anthropology and the description of early man's
>life given in the Bible. It will be shown that this view does not
>match the Biblical description of life for Adam and his immediate
>descendants.. Since one of the reasons for adopting this view is in
>an attempt to harmonize the Biblical record with the scientific
>record, the failure of this view to accomplish its purpose should be
>enough to cause a reappraisal of how to harmonize science with
>Scripture.
Glenn makes an revealing mis-statement of PC views. PC does not, like
TE, "attempt to harmonize the Biblical record with the scientific
record". It attempts to harmonise the scientific record with the
Biblical record. The Bible, being the unique revelation from God,
must have the priority. Ultimately if a scientific fact disagreed
with a Biblical fact, then the scientific fact must give way.
For example, if the Bible says that man has a spiritual nature and
science says that man hasn't, then PC's would believe the Bible rather
than science.
However, it is also important to understand that God did not intend
the Bible to be a scientific textbook (ie. the Bible makes no such
claim about itself), and the points where the Bible and science claim
something about the same fact *in the same way* are rare, to
non-existent.
The Bible makes no claim how old the Earth or man are, so PC's are
need only defend a general range of tens of thousands of years that
broadly fits the scientific evidence.
GM>On Date: 95-10-18 17:47:57 EDT Jim Bell arguing that modern man
had was created around 40-60,000 years ago, Jim Bell wrote:
JB>Thus, from the perspective of modern paleontology, modern man
>"exploded" onto the scene....
>On Date: 95-10-03 18:50:04 EDT Stephen wrote:
SJ>I don't know exactly when Adam was created or when the Flood
>occurred, but I would expect it was in the last 50,000 years.<<
And Hugh Ross wrote:
GM>"However, the dates for these finds are well within the biblically
>acceptable range for the appearance of Adam and Eve--somewhere
between 10,000 and 60,000 years ago..." Facts & Faith 9:3, p. 2
GM>This view that modern, spiritual man arose within the past 50,000
>years has been used to try to account for the anthropological data
>and the Biblical accounts. Because three such eminent people as
>Stephen, Jim and Hugh all accept such a view, it is obviously rather
>widespread. I would like to examine the implications of this view
>and show why it won't solve the problem.
I do not claim to be "eminent" and nor do I necessarily claim that
"modern, spiritual man arose within the past 50,000 years". Hugh Ross
believes that pre-Adamites were "spiritless", but I do not necessarily
believe this, since The Bible claims that the whole man is in the
image of God, not just his spirit.
Under the "Gn 1 man - Gn 2 Adam" model, Gn 1 man was made in the image
of God. I propose that Gn 1 man was the category Homo and represented
an emerging image of God, culminating in H. sapiens. Gn 2 Adam, under
this view, was a chosen individual taken from an existing Gn 1 man
population (cf. Gn 4:15,17) and placed in a Garden (Gn 2:8,15) where
he could receive training in agriculture (Gn 2:8,15) and language (Gn
2:19-20).
My claim therefore is not that "modern, spiritual man arose within the
past 50,000 years" but that *Adam* arose within the past 50,000
years".
GM>My views have been criticised for the gap in the fossil record
>between the earliest fossil of the genus homo and the time I place
>the flood. I have argued that the fossil record is imperfect and
>gaps are a documented part of the record. In spite of this
>documentation, some have found these gaps unsatisfactory and have
>demanded that the gap be filled now.
We all agree with Glenn that the fossil record is imperfect, but
not to the extent that Glenn claims, ie. that human beings existed
5.5 MYA, but there is no record of them until 2 MYA, a gap of
3.5 MY. No one in the scientific world believes this AFAIK.
>On Date: 95-10-10 00:50:53 EDT Jim Bell wrote:
JB>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. <<
>And Stephen wrote:
SJ>So Glenn's argument that the Flood occurred 5.5 million years ago
>has a minor problem in that there were no human beings (apart
>from "Australopithecines") around at the time? :-)<<
GM>This is offered in the spirit of "What is good for the goose, is
>good for the gander". If this demand is made of my view, then
>consistency and fairness would suggest that it ought also to be
>applied to other views. Let us see how well the views advocated by
>Hugh Ross, Jim and Stephen fare under an examination of the
>archaeological record. And let's apply the standard that if the gaps
>in the record are not filled now, we should reject their view.
Agreed, but it should be noted that Glenn apparently thinks that a
50 thousand year "goose" is the same as 5,500 thousand year "gander"?
:-)
>Agriculture:
GM>The Scripture clearly indicates that the children of Adam and Eve
>engaged in agriculture.
>Genesis 4:2-4 (NIV) "Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.
>In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as
>an offering to the LORD."
>The archaeologic record gives no indication of farming occurring
>50,000 years ago. Nor does it support the concept of farming earlier
>than around 9000 BC.( "Agriculture, History of", Encyclopaedia
>Britannica 1982 1, p. 325.)
The last time I was in school, "9000 BC" was indeed "within the past
50,000 years"! :-)
Here we have a gap of about 40 thousand years to be filled. Glenn's
gaps is 3,500 thousand years (ie. about a 90 times more) between
his flood and h. habilis. If Noah was not a H. habilis, then Glenn's
gap is about 5,400 thousand years, or about 135 times more.
Glenn makes a major issue of the fact that the first appearance of
something in the fossil record, is not necessarily the first actual
ocurrence. Most would agree with this, but within limits. Our view
only needs to account for a gap of *tens* of thousands of years,
between first appearance in the archaeological record and the proposed
actual first appearance, whereas Glenn's theory must account for a gap
of *thousands* of thousands of years.
Glenn also overlooks that the Flood intervened between Cain and Abel
and now. What evidence of Genesis 4 farming may well have been
largely obliterated. I would regard the "9000 BC" date above as
probably representing post-Flood activity.
GM>Agriculture brings a whole basketfull of technologies with it. One
>needs sickles to harvest with and pottery to store the grain and
>protect it from rats. Buildings are required for large harvests.
>When are these associated technologies found? While ceramic
>figurines are found from deposits as old as 27,000 years, the first
>pots are found in sites dated at 8,000 B.C.(see J.Guilaine,
>_Prehistory_, Facts on File, 1986, p. 82) If Adam was created 50,000
>years ago, then I am sure those who do not believe in gaps in the
>historical and archaeological record would not want to claim that
>pottery occurred earlier.
Again, "27,000 years (ago)" and "8,000 B.C." are "within the past
50,000 years".
There is no statement in the Bible about Adam or his descendants
inventing pottery. On my "Gn 1 man - Gn 2 Adam" model, I would have
no problem with Gn 1 man inventing tools, shelter, art, and even
pottery, since the latter is either a type of tool or art.
GM>The first flint sickles occur in Palestine among the Natufians
>around 9000 B.C. ("Agriculture, History of," Encyclopedia
>Britannica, 1982, 1, p. 325) Thus the view that Adam was created
>50,000 years ago, means that Cain and Abel, the first farmers were
>not born for another 40,000 years. After all, we couldn't claim that
>there might be material in the gaps which had not been found. That
>wouldn't be reasonable. :-)
Glenn shifts his argument subtly. He originally set out to test the
"view that modern, spiritual man arose within the past 50,000 years."
The evidence he has provided to date fits within that parameter. Glenn
presumably realises this because now he shifts his challenge to "the
view that Adam was created 50,000 years ago".
No-one I know claims that "Adam was created 50,000 years ago", so
Glenn has set up a straw man. Most old-Earth/young-Adam theorists
claim a *range* of between 10-50 thousand years ago. Indeed, the
originator of the two-"Adam" theory, E.K.V. (Victor) Pearce
believes it may have only been 10-12 thousand years ago:
"Nowhere in the Bible are we told how long ago Adam was created.
Archbishop Ussher of the early seventeenth century made a calculation
based upon the genealogical tables of the Bible. Some anthropologists
love to quote him to infer the ludicrousness of his dates, but forget
the many revisions that anthropologists have had to make of their own
calculations. Early this century William Solus' time for the
appearance of early man, for example, was only 65,000 years ago.
Zeuner in the 1950's extended this to 500,000 years, and now those who
follow Leakey give 2 million years. These estimations are for the age
of the same creatures. Actually, the much-maligned Ussher might be
less wide of the mark than anthropologists in view of the evidence
that Adam was Neolithic Man of 12,000 years ago. Ussher placed Adam
6,000 years ago, thus making it a matter of thousands of years rather
than millions." (Pearce E.K.V., "Who Was Adam?", Paternoster:
Exeter, 1969, p33)
Again, Glenn himself claims that the first finding is no the same as
the first occurrence. The record of first farming in the Fertile
Crescent "around 9000 B.C." (ie. about 11,000 years ago), is in fact
impressive confirmation of the view that Adam was created within the
last 50,000 years.
GM>Abel could not have kept sheep if Adam was created 50,000 years
ago. The first sheep are domesticated between 7 and 9000 years B.C.
See above. "between 7 and 9000 years B.C" is "within the past 50,000
years". This is just more confirmation of the old-Earth / young Adam
model.
>Cities:
GM>Genesis4:17 NIV "Cain was then building a city and he named it
>after his son Enoch."
GM>The first cities are from around 10,000 B.C. (J.Guilaine,
>_Prehistory_, Facts on File, 1986, p. 80). Thus unless Cain was
>40,000 years after Adam, he could not have built a city.
Glenn continues to confirm the view he originally was trying to
oppose! Once again, "around 10,000 B.C." is "within the past
50,000 years".
GM>Tents:
>Genesis 4:20 NIV "Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of
>those who live in tents and raise livestock." The first documented
>case of a tent was from the very earliest time of when Adam would
>have been created (60,000 years ago.. It is the tent at
>Molodova.(Stringer and Gamble, _In search of the Neanderthals_, 1993,
>p. 157) But the problem with this is that it was Neanderthal who made
>the tent. So either Jabal was not the father of those who lived in
>tents, Jabal was a Neanderthal, the events described were much longer
>ago than we currently advocate, or the Bible is wrong. Take your
>pick. I would choose my view over the last possiblity.
It doesn't say that Jabal made the first tent, any more than it says
he was the first to raise livestock. The Bible clearly teaches that
Abel kept livestock (Gn 4:2,4). All the verse says is that Jabal was
the ancestor of a group of people who lived in tents and raised
livestock.
GM>Musical instruments:
>Genesis 4:21 NIV His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of
>all who play the harp and flute."
GM>Apparently the first musical instruments known of in the
>archaeological record come from pictures in Sumer from 3,500 B.C. So
>the view of a 50,000 year old Adam leaves a huge gap between Adam and
>Jubal a gap of several tens of thousands of years. Remember, we
>can't say that there were musical intruments prior to 3,500 B.C.
>because there is no evidence of them. We want to be consistent with
>the criticisms of my views.
Glenn has now well and truly converted the *range* of "within the past
50,000 years" to an absolute "50,000 year old Adam"! :-)
The verse says nothing about "musical instruments" in general. It
only mentions *two* instruments, namely "the harp and flute". Indeed,
it does not even say that Jubal invented "the harp and flute", just
that he was the ancestor of a group of people who *played* "the harp
and flute."
GM>Metalurgy:
>Genesis 4:22 "Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds
>of tools out of bronze and iron."
>The first copper tools occur around 5000 B.C.(J.Guilaine,
>_Prehistory_, Facts on File, 1986, p. 186). Thus Tubal-Cain must
>have not known his ancestor Lamech.
Again, "around 5000 B.C." is "within the past 50,000 years". I don't
understand Glenn's point here about "Tubal-Cain" not knowing "his
ancestor Lamech". Since these genealogical tables are not necessarily
father-son, it is quite possible that he didn't.
GM>My point in all this, is that a viewpoint which claims to harmonize
>the data, should harmonize the data.
To date, Glenn has done a good job of showing how a view that holds
that "modern, spiritual man arose within the past 50,000 years" does
indeed "harmonize the data"! :-)
GM>I do not really understand what the 50,000 year old Adam view
accomplishes. None of the above data fits the Biblical description
so what is the point? Whatever the 50,000 year old Adam view does,
it doesn't harmonize the data.
This might be so, but no-one necessarily believes in a "50,000 year
old Adam view". All the views cited by Glenn believe in a *range* of
"within the past 50,000 years", plus or minus 10,000 years.
GM>My view allows for the events to be correct, merely very long ago.
>It explains why we see the archaeological record that we do.
None of the above evidence cited by Glenn above fits his 5.5 MYA Homo
habilis Noah!
GM>Oh yeah, those who believe that writing was what carried the story
>of the flood down to Abraham should know that there is no evidence of
>writing prior to about 4,000 B. C.
As Glenn has often reminded us, that there is no evidence for
something, does not mean it didn't exist. Early writing might have
been on skins or wood and have perished. The earliest writing that
has survived was on clay tablets and pottery, but there is no reason
to claim this was the first form or medium of writing. Indeed, the
early chapters of Genesis are thought by many to indicate an early
period of oral transmission:
"Further, by insisting on a complete succession of named tablets the
theory implies that writing is nearly if not quite as old as man.
Genesis itself, read in any other way, does not require this: it
leaves it perfectly tenable that while the genealogies were committed
to writing at an early but unspecified stage the rest of the family
history may have been passed down by word of mouth, as its manner
often suggests. Some of the characteristics of oral tradition listed
by E. Nielsen bring Genesis to mind, e.g.:
`...recurrent expressions, a fluent, paratactic style, a certain
rhythm and euphony which are particularly noticeable when one hears
the account...' (Neilsen E., "Oral Tradition", Studies in Biblical
Theology, No. 11, SCM Press, 1954, p36)
It is worth pointing out that this kind of transmission can be
exceedingly accurate where it is regular use."
(Kidner D., "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary" Tyndale Press:
London, 1967, p24)
Indeed:
"Writing in the broadest sense is universal in its territorial
coverage, and its beginnings date back tens, perhaps hundreds, of
thousands of years. Full writing-that is, writing that reproduces
language -arose for the first time only 5,000 years ago in Mesopotamia
and Egypt. Full writing appeared at a time that was characterized by
a simultaneous growth of all of the elements that together comprise
what is usually called civilization. Whenever writing appeared it was
accompanied by a remarkable development of government, arts, commerce,
industry, metallurgy, extensive means of transportation, full
agriculture, and domestication of animals, in comparison with which
all the previous periods, without writing, give the impression of
cultures of a rather primitive character."
Glenn's set out to refute the "view that modern, spiritual man arose
within the past 50,000 years" which "has been used to try to account
for the anthropological data and the Biblical accounts." He has
failed to do so, and indeed has only tended to confirm that view!
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------