There does appear to be an issue here for debate. I am trying
to avoid the idea that the "Bible is a textbook of science" yet
at the same time wanting to do justice to the record of history
which appears (to me) to be prominent. Steve, you are allowing
me to draw theological conclusions (ie that when humans are
creative, we are imaging God), but you do not seem to be allowing
me to draw the conclusion that wherever we find hominids being
creative (in this case, designing, constructing and playing a
musical instrument) we can infer that they were made in God's
image. I can't yet see why the latter is not an acceptable
conclusion for a Christian scholar. At this stage, I've
intentionally avoided reference to the Two-Adam model, as my
point applies even if the TAM is correct.
In your earlier post, you said:
SJ: "From a two-"Adam" model perspective, I would have no problem
with the development of musical instruments in the genus Homo
(ie. Genesis 1 "man") which were then taken over and perfected
by the descendants of Genesis 2 "Adam" (just like other arts and
technology)."
My comment then is - why then do you suggest that there is
"probably limited *anthropological* meaning, in Genesis 4:21"?
If both Genesis 1 "man" and Genesis 2 "man" are made in God's
image, there should be no problem making the inference that
Genesis 4 has anthropological significance. Surely it can be
used as an input to the debate about the status of Neanderthal
Man? (Aside to Paul Durham - yes, I agree with your post re the
quality of the information on the Neanderthal flute).
I said: "The impression this makes on me, Steve, is that the
two-"Adam" model is getting rather contrived."
Steve replied: "David, I have answered all this before both to
you and to others. I should not have to re-state it from scratch
every time I mention it! :-)"
Sorry to come across in this way. I was not wanting to start
from scratch with the TAM but to explore how it handles this
particular scenario. Put at its bluntest, if Genesis 1 "man" and
Genesis 2 "man" are the same in terms of their humanity, what
does this model contribute to our understanding?
SJ: "Briefly, I have previously explained that Genesis 1 "Adham"
= "man" (Heb.) refers to a *category*, whereas Genesis 2 "Adham"
= "Adam" (Heb.) refers to an *individual*. ....
The two-"Adam" model (2AM) would see the "man" in Genesis 1 as
representing the *category* man (all other items in Genesis 1 are
categories). In scientific terms, this would probably be the
genus homo. IOW Genesis 1 "man" scientifically is homo erectus
leading up to homo sapiens. Genesis 2 Adam picks up where
Genesis 1 leaves off and describes an *individual* who came from
the endpoint of this Genesis 1 man homo sapiens stock."
If this is so, then both you and I and Glen are agreed: that true
men, made in God's image, predate the Neolithic farmers. If Homo
erectus, Homo sapiens neanderthalis, and other named hominids are
all true humans, this should revolutionise our thinking about
cultural evolution, etc, etc. Our predictions/expectations
regarding the archaeological record will differ markedly from the
evolutionary archaeologists - there are many more artefacts like
the Neanderthal flute waiting to be found!
Steve wrote: "Those who reject the two-"Adam" should come up with
a model which relates the following:
1. scientific evidence that there is a succession of human-like
beings of ascending intelligence and spirituality going back
millions of years.
2. Biblical evidence that there was an Adam and Eve, the
ancestors of all modern mankind, who lived in the ANE no more
that 50,000 years ago."
Regarding (1), is this what "scientific evidence" really shows?
This is where I echo Paul Durham and Glen Morton to point out the
fragmentary nature of the record. Interpretative frameworks are
far more important than we think. And, if your distinction
between Genesis 1 "man" [category] and Genesis 2 "man"
[individual] is valid, I would not expect you to argue for
ascending intelligence and spirituality among any of the stone
age groups of hominids.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***