On Wed, 1 Nov 1995 12:00:03 GMT you wrote:
>Glenn's ABSTRACT:
GM>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>Stephen's critique of Glenn's post makes many points, and I wish to
>comment on a selection of them.
SJ>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.
DT>The strategy of those seeking harmonisation must be to start with
>Biblical revelation. But we should not seek to play biblical facts
>against scientific facts: (a) all truth belongs to God; (b) "facts"
>are not always what they seem to be (see my earlier posting on this).
I agree, but I said "...IF a scientific fact disagreed with a Biblical
fact, then the scientific fact must give way." For example, that if
the Bible says man is sinful, and Psychology says he isn't then
Psychology must be presumed wrong. If Archeaology or History says
that Jesus never existed then the Christian assumes they are wrong.
If Physics says that the Resurrection of Christ was impossible, then
Physics must give way to Divine Revelation.
Of course, since both Nature and the Bible have the one one Author,
they will not ultimately be found to disagree. The problem is in our
understanding. But we must be clear that *in principle* Special
Revelation, rightly interpreted, has a higher truth priority than
General Revelation.
>Agriculture:
>GM>The Scripture clearly indicates that the children of Adam and Eve
>engaged in agriculture. Genesis 4:2-4 (NIV) The archaeologic
>record gives no indication of farming occurring 50,000 years ago.
>SJ > Here we have a gap of about 40 thousand years to be filled...
>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.
DT>We are not faced with a lack of data, where speculation is
>relatively unconstrained. We have plenty of data about Palaeolithic
>peoples: their lifestyles, diet, artistry, technology, etc. This
>comes from many parts of the world - which means that destruction of
>evidences by a local flood is not a defensible position. There is a
>clear contrast between their culture and that of the Neolithic
>peoples - who were clearly farmers.
Sorry, but you appear to miss the point? :-) Glenn was making the
point that in Genesis 4:2-4 Cain and Abel engaged in agriculture, yet
farming began in "9000 BC". Therefore Gn 4:2-4 cannot be "50,000
years" ago. (BTW I do not claim that Adam was created 50,000 years
ago, but rather probably within the last 10-50K years). My point was
that this does not prove that Gn 4:2-4 was not somewhere between 10
and 50,000 years ago, because Gn 4 was before the Flood, and it is
possible that the Flood obliterated this early evidence of farming.
Pun agrees:
"A theory by Buswell...suggests that the description of Cain and Abel
in Genesis is comparatively meager and that they may not really be
domesticators" of plants and animals. He says that they may appear to
be such due to the translation of Moses' language. Their respective
concern with vegetable and animal provision might have been vastly
more primitive This would date them to an early time. Buswell...
believes Cain could have lost his cultural attainment because of the
prevalence of sin based on Genesis 4:12. Thus a considerable part of
the economic culture as God gave it to humans before the Fall might
have been lost at an early date and then rediscovered gradually (see
(Gen 3:17-19). The advanced culture suggested by Cain's descendants
can then be attributed to the arrival of civilization after many
generations had elapsed and the human population had grown. This
interpretation is borne out by Genesis 4:17 that suggests the presence
of dynasties or tribes instead of individuals, and this necessitated
the building of a city." (Pun P.P.T., "Evolution: Nature and
Scripture in Conflict?", Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1982, p267).
And I do not understand what "Palaeolithic peoples: their lifestyles,
diet, artistry, technology, etc" has to do with it. Under the
two-"Adam" model it is the "Neolithic peoples" who are descendants of
Gn 2 Adam "who were clearly farmers".
SJ>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:
DT>Does Victor Pearce's view address all the data? There are so many
>indicatios that Palaeolithic Man was made in God's image. In view of
>the difficult environment they lived in, they did quite well: I think
>the eskimos provide an analogy (cultural aspects, anatomical
>specialisations, etc.) I for one am not prepared to reject the
>idea that these Palaeolithic peoples are descendants of Adam.
I think that perhaps you haven't quite grasped the "two-Adam" model?
It holds that "Palaeolithic Man" (ie. Gn 1 man) "was made in God's
image".
>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.
>SJ>"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.
DT>This type of logic is used several times in Stephen's response, but
>I don't find it helpful.
I am sorry that you don't find my "logic" "helpful"! :-) But again I
was answering Glenn's specific point. Glenn was originally arguing
against the view that Adam was created "within the past 50,000
years". His claim that "the first sheep are domesticated between 7
and 9000 years B.C." is "within the past 50,000 years".
DT>There IS a serious gap. But I'm not sure if it is necessary to
>use this kind of argument anyway - if he takes the same line as
>Victor Pearce. He places Adam in the early Neolithic - and the
>problem for him is what to do with the Mesolithic, the various
>Palaeolithic groups and Homo erectus.
What is the "problem"? The "two-Adam" theory would see pre-Neolithic
man as Gn 1 man.
>GM>My point in all this, is that a viewpoint which claims to harmonize
>the data, should harmonize the data.
>SJ> 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"! :-)
DT>Not if I am understanding Stephen correctly: all the evidences Glen
>is concerned about are understood by you in the context of an early
>Neolithic Adam. "Modern, spiritual man" must surely be a descendant
>of Adam. So we have both a mismatch between 50,000 years and 10-
>12,000 years, and a set of evidences of "modern, spiritual man"
>living in rather difficult environments prior to the supposed
>creation of Adam.
Glenn started of by trying to refute our view that Adam was "within
the past 50,000 years". The evidence he cited for modern man was
indeed "within the past 50,000 years". Glenn then changed tack to
argue against a straw man that claimed that Adam was "50,000 years".
There is in fact no "mismatch". I am quite happy with Adam having
been created within a range of 10,000 - 50,000 years.
DT>Stephen, I'm sorry If I've misunderstood your position - but I find
>the concept of Gensis 1 man / Genesis 2 Adam a difficult one to get
>my mind around.
My interpretation of the "two-Adam" theory is simply that Gn 1 man is
a category (as are all other "kinds" in Gn 1) and Gn 2 Adam is an
individual:
"The first two toledoths embodied in Genesis used to be taken as two
separate stories of creation, the second starting in Genesis 2:4. Now
that one can be regarded as a sequel to the other, many of our
difficulties concerning the Biblical origin of man can be solved.
This would mean that in Genesis 1, Old Stone Age man is described, the
Hebrew collective noun "adam" meaning mankind as a whole; but in Gen.
2:4, the second toledoth commences. This second toledoth makes the
characteristic brief Summary of the preceding toledoth, and then
speaks mainly about Eden. Here the noun becomes "The Adam" or "the
Man", with the article referring to an individual, and then becomes a
proper name ' Adam' . This man named Adam is the individual from whom
our Lord's descent is eventually traced. These themes will be
developed in the succeeding pages. We shall use the name Adam to
refer to this individual, a New Stone Age farmer of about 10,000 to
12,000 years ago." (Pearce E.K.V., "Who Was Adam?", Paternoster:
Exeter, 1969, p21)
This model seems to fit all the facts, both Biblical and scientific.
IMHO it has been too easily dismissed by consrvativesm, eg.
"Another theory suggests there were two Adams. This idea states that
Adam of Genesis 1 is not the same as the Adam in Genesis 2, the former
being the Old Stone Age Adam and the latter being the New Stone Age
Adam. This theory suggests that the rest of the Bible is about the
Fall and salvation of the New Stone Age Adam (Pearce, E. K. V. Who was
Adam? Exeter: Paternoster; 1969). The last two theories are not
exegetically sound and seem to impinge on the fundamental concept of
the unity of the human race." (Pun P.P.T., "Evolution: Nature and
Scripture in Conflict?", Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1982, p267)
"If we accept the view that it is language which distinguishes man
from other creatures and hence the first man appeared about 30,000
years ago, an additional problem, to which we have already alluded,
still remains: the problem of the Neolithic elements in Genesis 4. If
Adam was created 30,000 years ago, if Cain and Abel were his immediate
descendants, if we find genuinely Neolithic practices (e.g.,
agriculture) in Genesis 4, and if the Neolithic period began about
10,000 to 8,000 years ago, then we have the problem of a gap of at
least 20,000 years between generations, the ultimate in generation
gaps. Several suggested solutions have been offered:
1. The pre-Adamite theory savs that Adam was the first human in the
full biblical sense, but was not the first human in the
anthropological sense. There were genuine representatives of Homo
sapiens before him. (E. K. Victor Pearce, Who Was Adam? (Exeter,
England: Paternoster, 1970)
.. None of these theories seems completely satisfactory. All have
some hermeneutical problems, but they appear more severe for views (1)
through (3). In addition, in view (1) the pre-Adamites would seem to
be fully human. But if that is the case, how are we to account for
Paul's statement in Romans 5 that sin and death have come upon the
entirety of the human race because of Adam's sin? This seems to argue
for a monogenistic origin of the human race-all humans are derived
from Adam. For these reasons, I lean more toward view (4) or (5).
But this is an area in which there are insufficient data to make any
categorical statements; it will require much additional study."
(Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1985,
pp486-487).
It may be that Pearce has not addressed all the theological issues.
He is more an anthropologist than a theologian. The theological
problems that Pun and Erickson allude to against the "two-Adam"
model are real, but not, I believe, necessarily insoluble. It is up to
the theologians to solve it. I have already shown a simple phylogeny
where, due to mixing of Adamite and pre-Adamite (alluded to in Gn 4
and 6?), modern man could be *both* the descendant of Gn 1 man and Gn
2 Adam. If this problem is to be solved, then it will require some
imaginative thinking by Christian theologians that does full justice
to both the Biblical and scientific pictures.
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------