As it so happens, I finally got the library to send me a copy of Pearce's
_Who is Adam?_ Friday. I read it yesterday and found some interesting
things. Pearce says,
"The Hebrew word adam supports such an interpretation. It
is a generic noun meaning 'man' or 'mankind' in Genesis I. In
chapters 2 to 4 the definite article is added and it becomes 'the
Adam' or 'the man' (or individual). From Genesis 3:17 onwards
the noun also becomes an individual's name 'Adam'.~E.K. Victor
Pearce, Who was Adam? (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, Ltd.,
1969), p. 21
This is the best thing I have learned from this book. If this is true that
"adam" in Genesis 1 is different from "adam' in Genesis 2-4, then it would
indeed fit with Stephen's two adam theory. It would also fit with Hayward's
days of proclamation, which I advocate. The proclamation by God at the
beginning of the universe that he would create man would not necessarily need
the name. Thus the occurence of a name in Genesis 2 on could imply a
separate event from Genesis 1.
Stephen wrote:
>>Glenn says that "real floods do leave evidence" but seems not to
believe that a real God can ensure there is no evidence. I have given
good reasons why there was no sedimentary evidence for Noah's Flood:
(1) The parallel between the wind that caused the waters to abate in
Gn 8:1 and the Spirit of God in Gn 1:2. (2) The total lack of *any*
continuing physical evidence for *any* Biblical miracle. (3) The fact
that: (a) our geological sediment today would have been Noah's metres
thick carpet of stinking disease-carrying mud, covering the bodies of
Noah's former countrymen and their animals, and making life impossible
for most of the animals; and (b) there is no mention of that carpet of
mud in the Biblical account.
I see no point in continuing this Flood debate with Glenn, since he
simply ignores what I say.<<
If you didn't want to continue a debate about the Flood, why did you bring
it up again and spend the next 11 paragraphs on it? I would grant that if
God wanted to produce Flood by pure miracle He could surely do it. But
then we would have nothing to say about it. Similarly if God wanted to
create everything and make it look like it evolved, he could surely do that
also. The problem is that when science supports our position, we use the
evidence in our favor. When it doesn't support our view we resort to
concepts like the Flood for which there is no evidence. Why is this immediate
acceptance of a miracle to solve any problem we have a valid procedure for
Christians?
Stephen wrote of my position:
>> He seems hooked on the following
syllogism:
1. All floods leave sediment
2. Noah's deluge was a flood.
3. Therefore Noah's deluge must have left sediment.