On Mon, 23 Oct 1995 12:52:36 GMT you wrote:
DT>Thanks, Glenn, for an interesting post on 21st October.
>
GM>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.
DT>Glenn has documented a mismatch: this harmonisation does not appear
>convincing.
Glenn has *not* "documented a mismatch". He set out to refute the
view held by Hugh Ross, Jim Bell and myself that modern man arose
"within 50,000 years" and then produced evidence that indeed
he did. Glenn then changed his argument mid-stream to claim that
"Adam arose 50,000 years ago", which is *not* what we believe.
DT>I think it has always been clear that Neolithic Man is
>true man, a descendant of Adam and Eve. (This thesis was developed
>by Victor Pearce some years ago in "Who was Adam?"). However, this
>leaves the genuine problems about where to fit Mesolithic Man,
>Palaeolithic Man, Neanderthal Man, CroMagnon Man, various ancient
>*Homo sapiens* and *Homo erectus* - all of which display features
>which we can recognise as genuine humanity.
Pearce believes that Adam was Gn 2 Adam and earlier hominid forms
were Gn 1 man.
DT>My contribution in this post is to suggest that, if we accept the
>verses Glenn discusses as relating to real history, it will be
>necessary to be RADICAL in our revision of prehistory.
>Harmonisations which generally go along with the consensus in the
>academic world will leave us with unconvincing stories which are easy
>to critique. There is a nettle to be grasped here! I think Glenn
>has shown a willingness to be radical - and for that I give him
>credit.
I would have thought that Pearce's "two-Adam" model was "radical"?
DT>My point in all this, is that a viewpoint which claims to harmonize
the data,
>should harmonize the data. 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?
Peace does not believe that Adam was "50,000 year old". If you are
going
to reject a view, then please first take the trouble to state it
properly! :-)
DT>I look forward to the time when harmonisers use Biblical data to
>GUIDE our understanding of the archaeological data. Do we
>really believe that the Bible brings light to our scholarship? Much
>of what passes for harmonisation today seems to lose sight of a
>positive view of the Bible as a resource.
Pearce (and I) *do* "use Biblical data to guide our understanding of
the archaeological data". You are being less than just in implying
that
we don't. :-(
Perhaps you should read Pearce? I have it at the moment from our
theological college library. Details are:
Pearce E.K.V., "Who Was Adam?", Paternoster: Exeter, 1969.
ISBN 0 85364 105 6
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------