On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 13:56:30 GMT, David J. Tyler wrote:
[continued]
DT>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?
I do *not* say that "Genesis 1 "man" and Genesis 2 "man" are the same
in terms of their humanity", except in the broad sense that all
members of the genus Homo are "human". What the TAM helps is relate
the scientific picture of a developing humanity (eg. brain size,
tools, shelter building, religion, art, rudimentary speech) starting
several million years ago with the Biblical picture of a
comparatively recent emergence of modern man in the Middle East. It
does this by recognising that Genesis 1 and 2 are from separate
source tablets and although both mention "man" they use different
meanings of the word. In Gn 1:26 "man" is Heb. "adam" without any
article, ie. generic, a category, just as we say "man is the measure
of all things"; and in Gn 1:26 it is "ha adam" = "the man", ie. man
as male and female. Only in Gn 2 does "Adam" become the name of an
individual. Therefore it is possible to relate the Biblical picture
of the emergence of humanity with the scientific picture of same as
follows using the Hominid FAQ diagram (ages are in millions of years,
with each character position representing 100,000 years):
5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| | | | | |
| | |robustus ******* | |
| | | boisei **********| |
| | aethiopicus * | | |
| | | | | |
ramidus * | | | | |
afarensis ************ | | |
| africanus *********** | |
| | | | | |
/=== Genesis 1 Man =============/
| | habilis *********** | |
| | | erectus **************** |
| | | archaic sapiens *****|
| | | | Neandertals *|
| | | | modern sapiens *
Genesis 2 Adam /=>
| | | | | |
|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
NOTES:
1. use monospaced font.
2. not exactly to scale.
3. end of Genesis 1 Man and Genesis 2 Adam may overlap.
>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."
DT>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.
No. I don't claim that the pre-Adamites were "true men, made in
God's image". I claim that they were *emerging* "true men" with an
*emerging* , "God's image".
Also, I draw a distinction between Genesis 1 man and Genesis 2 Adam.
Glenn regards the "man" of Genesis 1:26-27 and the "Adam" of Genesis
2 as one and the same. Therefore, when he finds evdidence of
tool-making in Homo habilis, he concludes that the Adam of Genesis 2
was a Homo habilis.
DT>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!
See above. I do not regard "Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neanderthalis,
and other named hominids" as "all true humans", except in a very
broad sense.
DT>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."
DT>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.
While I agree that "Interpretative frameworks are far more important
than we think", I cannot agree that they can explain away the
"scientific evidence that there is a succession of human-like beings
of ascending intelligence and spirituality going back millions of
years".
DT>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.
This is *not* my "distinction". "My distinction" is *not* "between
Genesis 1 "man" [category] and Genesis 2 "man" [individual]" but
"between Genesis 1 "man" [category] and Genesis 2 *Adam*
[individual]". That is, I claim that Genesis 1 "man" is the genus
Homo (from H. habilis to H. sapiens" and that Genesis 2 Adam is an
individual taken from the end-point of Genesis 1 "man". Kidner
suggests this latter possibility:
"Man in Scripture is much more than homo faber, the maker of tools:
he is constituted man by God's image and breath nothing less. It
follows that Scripture and science may well differ in the boundaries
they would draw round early humanity: the intelligent beings of a
remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear
status of 'modern man' to the anthropologist, may yet have been
decisively below the plane of life which was established in the
creation of Adam. If, as the text of Genesis would by no means
disallow, 2 God initially shaped man by a process of evolution it
would follow that a considerable stock of near-humans preceded the
first true man, and it would be arbitrary to picture these as
mindless brutes. Nothing requires that the creature into which God
breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in
every way for humanity, with already a long history of practical
intelligence, artistic sensibility and the capacity for awe and
reflection. On this view, Adam, the first true man, will have had as
contemporaries many creatures of comparable intelligence, widely
distributed over the world. One might conjecture that these were
destined to die out, like the Neanderthalers (if indeed these did),
or to perish in the Flood, leaving Adam's lineal descendants, through
Noah, in sole possession. Against this, however, there must be
borne in mind the apparent continuity between the main races of the
present and those of the distant past, already mentioned, which seems
to suggest either a stupendous antiquity for Adam (unless the whole
accepted dating of prehistory is radically mistaken, as some have
tried to show - e.g., Whitcomb and Morris, Op. Cit.) or the
continued existence of 'pre-Adamites' alongside 'Adamites' ."
(Kidner D., "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary"
Tyndale Press: London, 1967, pp28-29)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones |
| Perth, West Australia v (My opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------