Re: Adam, Flood, etc...
Glenn Morton (grmorton@psyberlink.net)
Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:21:58 -0600>To: Dario A Giraldo <giraldo@wln.com>, grmorton@psyberlink.net (Glenn Morton)
>From: grmorton@mail.isource.net (Glenn Morton)
>Subject: Re: Adam, Flood, etc...
>
>At 11:46 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Dario A Giraldo wrote:
>>To Mr. Morton and all the subscribers I will like to say that I'm ashamed
>>at the tone of my messages. While generating some hardcopies of the
>>messages and re-reading them I can believe my lack of tact and inappropiate
>>tone. Please forgive me, it won't happen again.
>>
>
>No problem. There are only a few on this board who have not had to
apologize for something. I get to do it all the time.
>
>>On other topic, one thing I did was to ask a Christian Jewish Rabbi (traces
>>his bloodline to the tribe of Levi) if the way the Genesis text, as is
>>composed in Hebrew, left room to interpret it as if Adam was the first
>>spiritual being that evolved. Here is the question as I wrote it to him:
>>
>>> Does The Scriptures, as written in Hebrew, give a clear and concise view
>>of God
>>> forming Adam from the dust of the earth or do they leave room to
>>interpret Adam as
>>> the first spiritual human that evolved ?
>>
>>This was his answer:
>>
>>> Dear Dario,
>>>
>>> The text you refer to is Genesis 2:7 and in no way teaches Adam
>>> evolved spiritually or physically. The Hebrew says that from lifeless
>>> clay God formed the man and breathed into him life. Adam was a direct
>>> special creation from God formed from the ground of the earth. The
>>> Hebrew word is adamah and is a play on words with Adam in the Hebrew.
>>> Adam did not evolve over a long period of time. God created him on
>>> the sixth day (Genesis 1:27-31). This has been the standard meaning
>>> accepted by the ancient rabbis of Judaism and Bible-believing
>>> Christians for several millennia. Theistic evolution is nowhere found
>>> in Scripture and is completely antithetical to the biblical model of
>>> creation.
>
>There is a real tough difficulty that confronts Christians on the origin
of Adam as it relates to pseudogenes.If you really want to understand why
biologists believe man is evolved today, you need to understand the
pseudogene. I have posted this insertion before:
>********
>There are parts of the genome of man, gorilla, chimpanzee and gibbon which
>show every appearance of being a broken gene. A gene consists of
>
>control part--coding part A--junk--coding part B
>
>The gene is then converted to RNA and processed. The control part is removed,
>the junk is removed and the two coding parts joined. Then a tail is put on
>the RNA version of the gene. It looks like:
>
>coding part A--coding part B--tail
>
> It is this RNA version which directs the formation of proteins.
>Occasionally however, the processed RNA is back transcribed into DNA and
>re-inserted into the nuclear genome. But the re-insertion lacks the control
>part and junk of the original and has the tail. Thus, the pseudogene looks
>like:
>
>coding part A--coding part B--tail
>
>Fact: the two coding parts in the pseudo-gene are nearly identical to the
>original gene coding portions. The original gene is found sometimes on
>another chromosome. The fact that the pseudogene is a processed version of the
>original is quite clear. The control and junk regions have been removed. This
>is an insertion. The fact that the tail portion is not contained in the
>original would mean that if you want to explain the same pseudogene at the
>same location in man, gorilla, gibbon and chimp by independent common
>mistakes, you must assume that 8 deletions occurred independently at exactly
>the same place (deleting the control and junk regions in each species), and
>that 4 insertions independently occurred at a location nearby (inserting the
>tail sequence). The way I calculate this, the odds are 1 chance out of 3.3 x
>10^114. If you believe that this can happen then surely you can believe in
>evolution. :-)
>
>Without the control sequence, the pseudogene is totally useless and cannot be
>converted to a protein. Being useless, it can not affect the life of the
>animal. It becomes difficult to say that this portion of the DNA has a
>designed function. A subsequent deletion deleted half of the chimps'
>pseudogene so the chimp gets along fine with only half his pseudogene so it
>can't be doing anything really important.
>****
>A much better description of the problem can be found at:
>
>http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/molecular%2Dgenetics.html
>
>In order to solve this problem I have Adam's body be created via a mutation
from an apelike ancestor. God miraculously fixed him up. Since there was
no Eve, God needed to perform the surgury to create a mate. In this way I
can have a real Adam, a real Eve, Eve taken from Adam's rib (which
creationists say is incompatible with evolution but it isn't) and I can
account for the pseudogene evidence. Why do you suppose Creationists don't
talk much about pseudogenes?
>
>>
>>On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:53:34 -0600 post:
>>
>>> snip...
>>> I would bet that you beleive that the story of Noah represents a
>>historical event, and
>>> thus in your opinion the Bible matches your historical expecations.
>>Would you
>>> consider the Bible false if there was no global flood?
>>
>>Yes on the first question. And the more archeologists dig up Israel, the
>>more they rely on the Scriptural record and this builds my faith of the
>>accuracy of Scripture. My historical expectations are what I read in the OT.
>>
>So are my historical expectations. But one must distinguish between two
things.
>
>1 What the Scripture actually says,
>
>and
>
>2.What we interpret the Scripture to say.
>
>We can never be so bold as to be dogmatic that we have the interpretation
correct. That is placing ourselves on a pedestal we do not belong on.
However, we can be firm about what Scriptural interpretations violate
observational data. If what we say the bible says, requires us to believe
that the earth is flat, or the sun goes round the earth, then it is likely
that our interpretation is erroneous.
>
>>On the second question, if there was no global flood we have that the Gen.
>>6, 7, 8, 9, 11(tower of Babel), Heb. 11:7, 1Pet. 3:18-22 and 2Pet. 2:4-11
>>make no sense.
>>
>
>I have provided some alternatives to some of these verses. Burgy provided
quite a dissertation on the word kosmos. Lets look at the verses.
>
>Genesis 6-11occurred as written. No statement of when it occurred is
given. There are lots of surmises that it occurred during the 3rd to 10th
millenium BC but that is merely assumption and I have shown huge physical
problems for both the Mesopotamian Flood and the Global Flood. So I suggest
that the flood was the infilling of the Mediterranean basin at the end of
the Miocene, 5.5 million years ago. the geological data has shown that the
Mediterranean Basin was empty 5.5 million years ago, and was suddenly
flooded and filled. On the bottom of the basin are salt deposits and rocks
which only form when the temperature is above 35 deg C. Above these are
marine shales containing animals that only live below 3000 feet deep. The
Basin was about 3-4 km deep when empty so the flood would cover mountains on
the bottom of the basin which were up to 13 thousand feet tall. The only
thing required is that the word ERETZ be translated as LAND not EARTH. While
my interpretation disagrees with yours, it does fit the Biblical
description. So how can it be meaningless?
>
>Hebrews 11:7 Noah did this. He built an ark which saved his family. The
old order (kosmos) was condemned. What is the problem with that
interpretation other than that you haven't heard it before?
>
>1 Pet. 3:18-22 This says only 8 people escaped. I believe that. But since
man-lke beings have been spread around the earth for the past 5 million
years, I place the flood that long ago. If the flood occurred shortly after
the origin of humanity prior to the time they spread around the earth, then
only 8 people might have escaped and the verse could be true. Your
assertion that this verse would mean nothing is clearly not the case.
>
>2 Pet 2:4-11. I believe that God spared Noah, Lot and all the things
written here. There was an anthropologically universal flood which wiped
out everybody but Noah and his kin. So how does this make the verse
meaningless? Seems to me that I believe the same thing happened as you.
>
>
>
>>Why would God come and break humans' communications and scattered them ?
>>Scattered for what purpose ? The planet had human beings living elsewhere
>>and having a community in Sinar that spoke the same language would have no
>>impact.
>>
>
>At the time of the flood, there were no other humans living anywhere
because it was long long ago at the very beginning of the human race.
>
>>If every time one reads in the Scriptures earth or whole earth, and it
>>means only a local area and not the planet, then translators, interpreters
>>and theologians throughout the ages have been wrong. ('If the foundations
>>be removed, what will the righteous do ?').
>
>Not necessarily. they might have been correct in their interps. but wrong
in their science of how that interpretation fit the data.
>>
>>If the hebrew word is used to describe local land and not the planet, the
>>meaning changes completely. For example:
>>Isaiah 54:9 '...for I have sworn that the waters of Noah would no longer
>>cover the
>> earth...'
>> '...for I have sworn that the waters of Noah would no
>>longer cover the land...'
>>
>
>This is part of a prophetic passage, referring to the time that the
messianic work is done. Let's finish the verse rather than simply stop where
you did.
>
>"To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah
would never again cover the ERETZ. So now I have sworn not to be angry with
you, never to rebuke you again." NIV
>
>Look back to Genesis 6:13
>So God said to Noah, I am going to put an end to all people for the ERETZ
is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both
them and the ERETZ.( NIV slightly modified.)
>
>The people living before the flood were destroyed. Right?
>
>God also said he was going to destroy the ERETZ. Well the people were
destoryed and not revived. If ERETZ menas planet earth and God had said, "
I am surely going to destroy both them and the PLANET EARTH" then God lied.
He did not destroy the PLANET EARTH. If on the other hand, ERETZ means
LAND. then that verse reads, " I am surely going to destroy both them and
the LAND. With the Mediterranean scenario, God did destroy the LAND; it has
never again been dry land. Trivally, He will never again bring water over
that land again, meaning that Isaiah 54:9can also be true.
>
>Secndly, a look at the second part of Isaiah 45:9 shows that God is
promising not to rebuke anyone again. This has not happened yet. God still
rebukes us as individuals, and as Nations.
>
>>
>>If the flood was only local, why the need for specimens of clean animals ?
>>After all, just jump to the other valley and you'll find some more.
>
>Under what I am suggesting they can't jump to another valley. If youw had
read what I had asked you to you would know that.Twice I have asked you to
read what is on my web page and you have shown no interest in learning what
I am saying. Why? Is your mind closed and therefore you feel that reading
what an adversary says is unimportant? It doesn't seem fair in a discussion
to keep saying your opponent believes thus and such when you have been told
repeatedly that he doesn't believe that and tells you where to find the
information. Why so little curiosity?
>
>> Why
>>was Noah instructed to build the ark, if going to another region will spare
>>his life; like in the case of Lot with Sodom and Gomorrah. Why wait 80
>>years while the ark is being built ? Why the need of the rainbow as the
>>symbol of the Noahic covenant ?
>>
>
>Already answered. also ans the air left the basin the rainfall would have
extended hundreds of miles away from the Mediterranean basin. To find a safe
region would be tough.
>
>>The ramifications go far beyond that one may think.
>>
>>At this point I will like to say that I read mainly the Spanish version of
>>The Bible, as translated by Casiodoro de la Reina. This Bible was first
>>published in Switzerland in September of 1569 (1100 copies). Although it
>>had several 'modernizations' through the past 400 years, one could read the
>>original today and still understand over 90% of it. This allows me to
>>double check every concept and idea between English and Spanish.
>>
>
>But the Scripture was written in hebrew and Greek, not English and Spanish.
>
>>Lastly, the Biblical God is a being that gave some very precise
>>instructions on things He wanted. Will He be any less precise in the
>>narration of His story ? Will He allow
>>a wrong teaching to be passed through 5000 years without any correction ?
>
>God has allowed murder, robbery, rape, war and other sins to continue for
5000 years and I think that might be a tad worse than bad intepretation..
>
>[snip]
>>Moreover Jesus confirmed several times that The Scriptures were something
>>to be believed and trusted completely. He challenged His opponents and
>>encouraged His followers to read the Scriptural record.
>
>Agree.
>>
>>> snip...
>>> ... I know science and lots of it.
>>
>>I don't have any doubt of the truth in this statement. You won't find me
>>challenging you scientific knowledge. Will you call yourself a scientist ?
>>
>I am a geophysicist/gadfly. If geophysics qualifies as a science, then I am
a scientist.
>
>[snip]
>
>>What is the average human population growth for the last 5000 years ?
>>There have been ups and downs, but one can come up with an average. This
>>was the average I was reffering to. My point was the current global human
>>population. Could it have come from four couples during the last 5000-6000
>>years? Old earth vs. New Earth that is another topic in itself.
>>
>
>"Could have" is not the same as did.You presented the argument as if it
were proof of a young earth. It isn't. And if something can be described by
the word "could have" then it is not a very strong argument.
>>>>
>>>Denis would agree. But he probably wouldn't agree with your hermeneutics
>>>either.
>>>
>>I will love to one day read his point of view. We'll see. Maybe in Heaven
>>we can spend a couple of thousand years exchanging ideas.
>
>I will look forward to discussing things with Denis there also. Maybe then
he will see that I am not so unclean. :-)
>
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm