Theo Todman's Web Page - Notes Pages
(Text as at 12/08/2007 10:17:46)
With regard to primaeval history, there is obviously a major discrepancy between the Bible (as literally interpreted) & modern theories of Palaeontology.
- Were not so much to rest on the doctrine of a literal "Adam and Eve", much of the tension between the Bible and palaeontology would be removed (as we will see later).
- In fact, although Adam appears in lists of names in Chronicles & Luke, and is referred to in Jude 14 & (possibly) in Job 31:33, the story of Adam & Eve is ignored after Genesis, except in the writings of Paul.
- The various theories of human evolution do not seem to be empirically well-founded. There is much that is speculative, based on very limited evidence. The objection to the Genesis account is not so much that there is clear evidence for the contrary reconstructions of the origins of mankind as that the Genesis account has the hallmark of legend and is best viewed as a theological statement only.
- Another major problem with Genesis is its record of a universal flood. That some form of major middle-eastern flood occurred in ancient times is probable from the existence of parallel accounts such as the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. However, the details of the Genesis account (though more sensible than the Babylonian narrative) are still incredible. Problems include the size of the ark, the gathering of the animals, the volume of water, the height of the mountains, etc.
- There seems, however, to be broad agreement that civilisation is of fairly recent origin, with the middle east the "cradle of civilisation".
Summary of Note Links to this Page
To access information, click on one of the links in the table above.
Text Colour Conventions
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2017