Undoubtedly, the punch line is in the implications.
GM: "These facts also present a tremendous problem for Christian
apologetics. For the old earth people there is the problem of the
place of Adam in the human race."
This aspect is discussed by Davis A. Young in the _Christian
Scholar's Review_ Vol XXIV(4), 380-396, 1985. Terry Gray informed us
that it is on the Web at
http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/CSRYoung.html
After discussing various options, Young concludes:
"The biblical and scientific data pertaining to the antiquity and
unity of the human race force us toward positions that are fraught
with serious problems. The weaknesses of all these positions are
sending a signal that careful reexamination of some basic exegetical
and confessional premises is in order. ...
"Is Genesis 2-4 perhaps adapting ancient Near Eastern conceptions
about the beginnings of humanity and culture in order to make
theological points about the relationship between God and humans and
about the historical event of the fall without necessarily endorsing
all the details? This avenue needs to be examined more thoroughly by
evangelicals. I suspect that it will prove to be fruitful".
It seems to me that Glenn's position (that these fossil hominids are
post-Flood, not pre-Flood) has much to contribute to the debate.
According to Young, "the biblical flood is appropriately identified
with a flood that occurred shortly before the time of the Sumerian
king Gilgamesh who lived in the early 3rd millenium B.C."
Consequently, the whole of Young's discussion is couched in terms of
the fossil men being descendants of Adam and Eve, not Noah. The
tentative conclusions Young draws point in the direction of weakening
the historical character of the early chapters of Genesis - a
direction which I view with profound misgivings.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***