RE: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity

From: Donald Perrett (E-mail) <donperrett@theology-perspectives.net>
Date: Tue Feb 28 2006 - 10:23:34 EST

Glenn wrote:

>>>>>>>>

I suspect it is the only workable approach. Then the question becomes how
old is Adam. Genetics says he can't be recent if he is the progenitor of
all humanity. One either ditches progenitorship, or move Adam way back.
There is no other option that will fit the data. In this regard, the true
answer either does lie with Dick or with me. In my opinion, all other views
are hopelessly contraobservational.

>>>>>>>>>

[Don Perrett]

Assuming that one first holds to Dick's view of Adam, then the idea I
expressed would account for the age problem you mention. But while this
might make the age issue more palatable, it can't address your issues on the
flood. The idea I had was mainly to find a possible common ground for you
on the age issue. Being one that holds the view that Dick does on Adam as
first "Godly" man, the age issue has been one I too have wrestled with. The
only solution for me was either they had very unique DNA and perhaps a
Christ like ability to heal themselves or the ages referred to family reins.
While not sold on myself, due to lack of evidence, there is some ancient
sociological evidence that the family rein was likely. On the other hand
there is no evidence of long life spans, as you have pointed out.

As for Adam as the first actual human, I guess you would have to first
define (based on biblical interpretation) what a man is. Then you might
have luck working the time frame out. I do not believe that H.S.Sapiens are
by default a man as termed biblically. Besides if Adam is the first man and
Christ was the last man, then using logic one must conclude that there have
been no humans since Christ if Adam was the actual first human. So
biblically and logically speaking just as there have been humans since
Christ, then there too were humans before Adam. The idea that the
patriarchs were spiritual messengers has never been denied. So why should
the idea that Adam was here for the same reason not be implied, whether
mentioned or not.

As for humans prior to Adam performing worship of some sort, of course there
was, just as you have pointed out. The citations you have given in the past
have been things such as bear worship. All animals worship or cower to
anything greater than themselves. Most everyone is aware of the animal
alpha/beta male relationship. God through Adam was trying to get us away
from this animal behaviour, to a better understanding of his creation and
our purpose in it. Worshipping animals, nature, and other created things,
is not the same as worshipping the creator. Adam of course failed and
Christ had to come and make it right. While there are a few out there that
still worship other things, etc, the vast majority now worship the creator
alone. Which also fits into my interpretation of brother fighting brother.
Spiritually, a creator-theist fighting a nature/animal/man-theist is not a
brother fighting brother. One is a child of God (spiritually) the other is
a child of something else (that which he worships). The future will be
brother against brother because those fighting now and in the future worship
the same God (creator).

The only difference between the creator-religions is that with the exception
of Christians, most everyone believes God redeems us directly in the end (at
judgement) and Christians believe that we can be redeemed before the
judgement comes.

Sorry if some of this is off track. Not trying to start another thread.

Also, I realize that some like yourself Glenn would have issue with the idea
that some people are biblically man and others not. This does not mean that
they are less human. Racism, or any ism, is an excuse for not accepting
people who are different. And rather than try to bring those others into
ones culture or religion (not forcing) they will simply suppress, denounce,
and destroy. All of which is against God's will. Even if everyone truly
believed that we were related directly from Adam 1,000,000,000,000,000 years
ago or from yesterday, siblings always fight. If we cannot teach our own
children to love each other, then how can we ever think that hatred for
non-family will ever be stopped. So, regardless of whatever biblical or
scientific conclusions are formed and supported, there will always be those
who hate. All we can do is ensure that our own children love and respect
one another so that their love and respect will be passed on to the next
generation and perhaps one day everyone will learn to accept people who are
different physically and culturally but who can share their love of mankind
and God.

Don P

Don P

   -----Original Message-----
  From: glennmorton@entouch.net [mailto:glennmorton@entouch.net]
  Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 08:10
  To: '' Dick Fischer ''; 'Donald@broadbandsupport.net; E-mail)'
<donperrett@theology-perspectives.net>
  Cc: 'ASA@broadbandsupport.net; E-mail)' <asa@calvin.edu>
  Subject: RE: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity

      This is for Dick and Don Perrett

      Dick Fischer wrote:

>>>AbrahamR17;s bones are in the tomb of the patriarchs. Dig them up
and check him out.

      Look, Glenn, Genesis says Noah lived 500 years and begat three sons.
Okay, so we say that isn't possible he must have been younger than that.
Fine, make him younger. Then the flood came 100 years later. Too long we
say. So we shorten that up. Next, he lived 350 years after the flood.
Again, too long so we shorten that up. Let's just divide through by a
factor of ten and make Noah 95 when he died. That works. Now Abraham lived
to 175. Too long, so we divide that by ten and get 17.5. Oops! That's too
young. We have to choose a different factor to get a reasonable age for
Abraham. In other words, we would have to decide how long is a reasonable
age for each patriarch and just give him that age disregarding whatever age
Genesis reported.<<<<

      GRM: See my note to Terry this morning on how to handle the
Genealogies. It is a bit different. You are correct that one can't do a
simple division and expect to have things turn out right.

>>>>But that isn't really what the issue is. What you want is missing
generations. By questioning their ages you are saying there must be missing
generations. A half dozen or so unnamed patriarchs would make the average
age a more reasonable number, perhaps. But you then have a precedent for
positing missing generations. If there are half a dozen missing there may
be several thousand, it's only a matter of degree. Glenn, you might be able
to sneak a swallow or two of the old man's whisky without him noticing, but
you can't just drink the whole bottle!<<<<

      GRM:Precisely. If there are some, there can be lots. I know that one
guy in my genealogy (which I don't have with me in Boston and thus can't
quote) lived over 300 years before his son took over the throne. But I also
know that no one in the 2-400s lived that long, so, there must be extra
guys. I also know that there is not a shred of evidence for hyperlongevity
in the Sumerian period. How are we to resolve this? My suggestion to Terry
seems reasonable.

>>>>Furthermore, the Jewish scribes were far more careful than that.
Up until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD the temple held the
genealogies of every Jew. It was public record. It might be possible to
miss a few names over the centuries when you consider periods of bondage,
wandering in the desert, wars, and so on. But omitting thousands of
generations? Uh, uh, somebody would notice. <<<<

      We are not talking about the genealogies during the kingdom. We are
talking about a time before the Jewish nation. There seems to be a hole in
your argument here because prior to Joshua's time, there was no place to
keep such records in such detail.

      Donald Perrett wrote:

>>>Not that I hold one specific way on the issue of patriarch ages,
but both of you could be right. While I do agree with Dick's view that Adam
is the spiritual (monotheic) first man, Glenn may also be right about the
age problem. If one were to consider that the ages are not necessarily the
person but rather the family line. [snip]

      For Dick or Glenn:Does this idea have any specific evidence against
it?<<<<

      I suspect it is the only workable approach. Then the question becomes
how old is Adam. Genetics says he can't be recent if he is the progenitor
of all humanity. One either ditches progenitorship, or move Adam way back.
There is no other option that will fit the data. In this regard, the true
answer either does lie with Dick or with me. In my opinion, all other views
are hopelessly contraobservational.
Received on Tue Feb 28 10:24:49 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 28 2006 - 10:24:49 EST