Dean Olhman wrote:
I like to think of the Genesis account as a low resolution picture
by the Holy Spirit to all people as a good representation of what
happened. It is not false, but it is not highly detailed. And it must
the level of understanding of all people at all times.
I believe I understand what you are saying, but I am not satisfied, and
with all due respect, think this is a bit of a cop out. If we cannot
see details but any number of theories fit the few low resolution facts
which have been revealed, then there would be no problem. The problem
is that even the existence of Adam or the flood is extremely hard to
well established scientific facts. People (or at least their children)
are actually becoming atheists because we have not given them a
believable interpretation of Genesis.
Lets look at Adam. I can think of only about four possibilities that
are consistent with the scientific evidence:
1) Glenn's view that he was not Homo Sapiens and lived more than 5.5
million years ago. While this view is hard to refute scientifically,
and, perhaps, Biblically, I really doubt that Homo Erectus will ever be
found on the bottom of the Med Sea. It is an ingenious theory, but all
the confiming evidence is buried where it may never be found. And he
can ALWAYS say "We haven't looked hard enough." Glenn has provided a
last retreat for Concordists, but not a theory that is persuasive until
someone finds evidence on the med bottom. Nevertheless, I greatly
appreciate his work.
2) Dick's view that Adam fits into the obvious historical setting of
Mesopotamia. Adam in this view is not the first Homo Sapiens. I love
this theory and want it to be true, but some Bible Scholars have to at
least admit what he is saying is possible. None have, as far as I
I would love for more of them to comment. Dick relys heavily on the
"bad translation" argument. Who can evaluate this? Can we recruit
more Bible scholars to this list or will they run away in horror?
3) Literal Adam never existed. Very few Evangelicals can stomach this.
I am open to it if someone can defend it and explain how they interpret
the numerous relevent Scriptures. I've never seen this done. Mostly
these folks say "Genesis is not a science text". Another cop out.
4) Adam was the first human and we are all descended from him, but he
lived hundreds of thousands of years ago. I have not heard a clear
presentaion of this view. Can someone give one? If I understood Glenn
correctly, Hugh Ross's 60,000 year limit is contadicted by
mitochondrial DNA evidence. I am not impressed by the cultural
evidence Glenn cites.
Are there other views? Terry, could you sketch yours, which I think is
OK, which view do you support? Low resolution would mean that the data
is consistent with more than one view. This is not our problem. Our
problem is choosing even one of the above views to really believe in.
Further the good Dean Wrote:
The second thing I can hear the Father say is, "Why do they spend all
their time debating something they cannot hope to fully understand,
when what I have asked them to do -- to develop the Creation's
wonderful potentialities for my honor and glory -- has been so
First, almost no one "spends all their time on it". I am daily
involved in church planting among unreached peoples. But I fear I do
not even have a
good answer to my six year old son's questions, let alone the
Scientists at the Academy of Sciences. Sure I can, and have, bluffed
them as I know more about this topic than they ever will, but I'm not
satisfied with my own answers.
Therefore, the search for truth must go on or sincere people must
abandon the faith or believe in spite of contrary evidence. Please
us to stop debating origins. And, I must admit, I enjoy ALMOST every
bit of it, despite the pain in having to strugle so hard.