<< Due to a discussion with a young astronomer who supports Hugh Ross, I did
some research on the RTB site. Unfortunately, I found an anthropological
article which simply doesn't represent anthropology correctly. >>
It doesn't represent the Bible correctly either.
They cite Genesis 1:26-27, "Let us make (asah) man in our image, in our
likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the
air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that
move along the ground. So God created (bara) man in his own image, in the
image of God, he created (bara) him; male and female he created (bara)
them,." where the words asah and bara are used interchangeably with reference
to making man in the image of God (and used interchangeably elsewhere also
(e.g. Gen 1:21 bara the sea creatures, but 1:25 asah the land animals; 2:4;
Isa 41:20; 43:7). In spite of the fact that the meanings of the two words are
obviously synonymous, they try to distinguish their meanings in order to
distinguish the hominids from homo sapiens.
Then they say, "The fossil evidence clearly shows that at about 40,000 years
ago, there was an explosive appearance of Cro-Magnon man. Cro-Magnon man is
indistinguishable from modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens)….The sudden
appearance of modern humans in the fossil record at 40,000 years ago is in
complete agreement with the biblical date for the appearance of mankind"
How do they get the "complete agreement"? They say, "Biblical dating of man's
origins using genealogies in Genesis puts his first appearance at tens of
thousands of years ago, but no later. These genealogies are incomplete but
adequate for their intended purposes in the text."
What? How do the genealogies put the creation of man "tens of thousands of
years ago"? Gaps may allow for more than 4000 BC or 5000 BC (LXX), but
scarcely for tens of thousands of years. Noah lives just nine generations
after Adam and not long before the Tower of Babel which cannot be dated
earlier than c. 3500 BC. Does the genealogy in Gen 5 really allow for an
average of approximately 4000 years between each person? Is there a genealogy
anywhere in the world now or ever that had such gaps in it? This is not to
mention that Adam is clearly Neolithic and hence cannot antedate c. 10,000
BC. They are not just stretching the genealogy. They are stretching the truth.
On what possible basis could they think that Cro-Magnon man 40,000 years ago
was tending a garden, using irrigation to raise crops, and herding sheep and
goats as Cain and Abel do within 130 years of the coming of Adam (Gen 5:3)?
The differences between the Paleolithic Cro-Magnon and the Neolithic
Adam-Cain-Abel is so great that their conclusion, " The fossil and
archeological records are both consistent with the biblical scenario and
biblical date for man's beginnings" is laughable.
What's the problem with concordism? The same problem that underlies creation
science: A false assumption about the nature of Scripture, namely, that
Scripture is not just inspired (which is a biblical doctrine) but that it is
also a revelation of science as well as of theology. Hence, science and the
Bible are supposed to agree as to the scientific facts. So, creation science
and concordism force them to agree---even if it means ignoring or distorting
either the Bible, scientific data, or both.
But, the Bible never claims to be a revelation of science. And when you look
closely at Scripture and its historical context, you find that the science in
the Bible is the science of the times--not just in Genesis but all the way
through. God accommodated his revelation of theology to the science of the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 19 2002 - 18:49:12 EST