On Sun, 12 Nov 1995 22:09:35 -0500 Glenn wrote:
>Stephen Jones wrote:
>SJ>The conclusion is that the Heb. supports (or at least allows) the "Gn
>1 man - Gn 2 Adam" theory. In Gn 1:26-27, the Heb. adam and ha adam,
>cannot be translated "Adam", and in fact they are not so rendered in
>any translation AFAIK. OTOH, from Gn 2 onwards, the Heb. adam, ha
>adam, and le adam are translated as both "man"and "Adam", depending
>on the context.<<
GM>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.
Agreed. I thought I had already posted this quote from Pearce.
Perhaps not all my posts get to the Reflector?
I am pleased that Glenn seems to accept that the two-"Adam" model is
at least a possible explanation. I would expect to see Glenn
mentioning
this as a possibility in his future posts arguing for an ancient Adam.
I plan to write a paper on my understanding of the two-"Adam" model.
I also plan to write to Victor Pearce with some questions I have about
his book.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>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.<<
GM>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 was still answering the points in the message in question. I
intended not continuing after that message. I intend to make this the
last message on the Flood sediment topic.
GM>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?
As I said, "I see no point in continuing this Flood debate with Glenn,
since he simply ignores what I say". I gave good reasons why we
should not expect there to be sediment from Noah's Flood, but Glenn
just ignores them.
>Stephen wrote of my position:
SJ>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.
>
>>From that follows another syllogism:
>
>1. All flood sediments are detectable by geology
>2. There are no flood sediments in Mesopotamia.
>3. Therefore Noah's Flood did not happen in Mesopotamia.
><<
GM>I think you understand my position well and you have laid out the
logic
>fairly well.
>STephen wrote:
SJ>The problem is in the first premises of the above. Glenn does not
>know that all floods leave sediment. Firstly, geology only knows the
>sediment it finds. It has no way of knowing if there were floods in
>the ancient past that did not leave sediment. Secondly, Noah's Flood
>was no ordinary Flood. It was a flood in which God was directly
>involved supernaturally. If there is no geological evidence for the
>Flood, then, to the theist it is at least possible that God has
>arranged that there is no sediment remaining from Noah's Flood.<<
GM>Let's look at this in another light.
I note that Glenn does not directly answer my points, but changes the
subject! :-)
GM>When Jesus turned the water to wine,
>there is no current evidence for which we can point. But if you had been
>there at the wedding 20 minutes after the wine was produced, would there
>have been evidence in the form of drunk people? Could you have taken a
>sample of the wine and tested it for alcohol content? Or did God ensure that
>the alcohol would have no effect on the human physiology and that no modern
>test would have detected it? If God ensured that there was no evidence of
>the miracle occurring, on what evidential basis did the guy comment about the
>quality of the wine? If there was no evidence of a good wine having been
>made, why did that guy make that comment?
I am not saying that miracles in general don't leave evidence. I am
not even saying that *Noah's Flood* did not leave evidence. There is
evidence for the Flood in the various Mesoptamian Flood traditions.
What I am saying is that Noah's Flood did not leave *sediment*. I
have given good reasons for this above.
GM>In the case of the flood, the product (sedimentary layers) is much
>more durable than wine and should be expected to exist today.
Agreed, but only if they existed when Noah left the Ark! There is no
evidence in the Biblical account for such a thick layer of mud
covering the bodies of Noah's former countrymen.
>Stephen gives me 3 choices:
SJ>1. Afirm that it is at least possible that God has ensured there is
>no sediment from Noah's Flood.
>
>2. Deny that it is at least possible that God has ensured there is no
>sediment from Noah's Flood.
>
>3. Neither affirm or deny that it is at least possible that God has
>ensured there is no sediment from Noah's Flood.<<
GM>I chose 1 but deny your conclusion that I must allow your view of
>the flood. God gives evidence many times in the Bible that he wants
>historical markers supporting the events listed in the Scripture.
I am pleased that Glenn admits that "it is at least possible that God
has ensured there is no sediment from Noah's Flood." :-)
GM>Joshua 4:5-7 [Joshua} said to them, 'Go over before the ark of the
LORD your
>God into the middle of the Jordan. Each of you is to take up a stone on his
>shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the Israelites, to serve
>as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, 'What do
>these stones mean?' tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before
>the ark of the covenant of the Lord."
>
>If God likes to hide miracles, why this?
I do not claim that "God likes to hide miracles", in general. I am
arguing only for the lack of sediment *from Noah's Flood*. I have
given good reasons for this and Glenn has not challenged these
reasons.
GM>Genesis 28:18 Early the next morning Jacob took the stone he had
>placed under his head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on top of it.
>
>Once again, why leave a historical marker? My point is that God seems to
>encourage such things. Why would he change when we come to issues for >which the answers are not easy? Thus I agree that God can do what He >pleases, what you suggest seems against what He has done elsewhere.
I am not denying that God left "historical markers" for some of His
miracles. I am only arguing that in the case of *Noah's Flood* that
there
would have been no *sediment*.
Glenn has not addressed this specific point so, I see no point in
wasting
time endlessly repeating what I have already written. :-)
I intend this to be my last post on this particular topic.
God bless.
Stephen