Re: ANCESTRY QUESTION?
Rick Sutcliffe (email@example.com)
Fri, 3 Feb 1995 22:32:54 GMT
In article <D3AnoB.firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (Thomas
> None - from a genetic standpoint. An allegorical view of Genesis considers
> Adam and Eve to be/represent the first humans with the "knowledge of good
> and evil," and not necessarily the first human beings. The statement that they
> were created from the "dust of the ground" is consistent with the temporal
> compression common among early Hebraic writing, (e.g. the compression of
> creation into the symbolic seven "days.")
A difficulty this view has revolves around the apparent acceptance of
Genesis by Christ as literal and historical in his making of doctrinal
> This view would posit that Adam & Eve were the first humans with *free will*,
> possibly the first members of Homo Sapiens as opposed to Homo
> his cousins. This is sometimes confused with "Scientific Creationism", but
> for all you hair-splitters out there, it is a broader (and fuzzier) concept.
The usual name is "progressive creationism."
I'll gladly accept the title of "cummines sectores" and point out that
H.N. and H. Cro Magnon are more often than not classed as varieties of H.
Sap. these days.
> To further confound the literalist view, in Genesis 4:13-17 (Cain's
> Cain went to live "in the land of Nod, east of Eden" where he found a
> was also afraid of being killed by "whoever finds me." Clearly there were
> other inhabitants of the fertile crescent at the time.
Cain lived a long time. I expect the population from two people could
have grown rather large in a few hundred years.
> Finally, note that in Genesis 5:1-2 (a recap of Genesis 2) the use of the
> plural forms in the creation of males and females. This is more obvious
> in the "original" (i.e. Masoretic) text; and could be overlooked if not for
> the prior substantiating text.
Interesting, but a little weak to base a major conclusion upon. It's like
basing the doctrine of the Trinity on the plurality of God in Genesis
alone "Let us create." The plurality there is interesting, but can
scarcely stand alone without considerable additional support -- which
support is there, but ignored by many.
PS I have removed sci.math from the crosspostings list of this message,
even though it's the only one of these I read. It scarcely seems relevant
So, if you want to reply to me, write firstname.lastname@example.org
Rick Sutcliffe Assoc. Prof. Computing/Math Trinity Western University
Canadian Chair, WG13. Not an official spokesperson for TWU or WG13