GAE does not require the premise of Original Sin. But it is expected that those who invest the most importance in Romans 5 (interpreting Paul’s words as an assertion of Original Sin) will be the ones most interested in GAE’s allowance for de novo creation of Adam/Eve.
The same basic theodicy issues arise in any system that adopts the doctrine of Original Sin.
And ANY system that allows for BOTH Original Sin AND evolution has the same rhetorical challenge regarding theodicy.
@Jay313’s attempt to say @swamidass’ GAE has a special theodicy burden is nothing but special pleading nonsense.
Let hope they don’t get a tummy ache! Blessing to you too!
Who are these sapiens chosen for personal education by God? I don’t see any indication of a “school of God” in the garden narrative. I endorse evolution, but I don’t need to explain something that’s speculation and eisegesis.
I don’t have to go over the top to find problems with GAE. It’s as easy as finding shells at the beach. Just look around. They’re everywhere. But you’re right about one thing: I’ll never be able to appreciate the idea. I honestly think it’s a bad one. Sorry if that offends you.
This is how I explained it in the review:
The logic of Genealogical Adam and Eve is entirely circular and makes God a monster. If sin didn’t exist and “biological humans” lived in peace with one another, why introduce Adam and Eve into the equation? And once they failed the supposed test, why have mercy on those two people and thereby condemn millions of others to hell? Worse, now Jesus becomes the solution to a problem that God created, and that only a few thousand years ago. What sort of God is this? I would have a hard time calling such a God righteous or good, if the Genealogical Adam and Eve were true.
No, there’s a huge difference. God called Abraham out of idolatry and the mass of fallen humanity in a rescue mission. If humanity was not yet “fallen” 6,000 years ago, then God’s “call” of Adam and Eve introduced sin and resulted in everyone’s condemnation. This is the opposite of God’s call of Abraham. It makes Jesus the solution to a problem that God created.
Not true, and it’s not just a rhetorical challenge. It’s an actual problem.
That is hilarious. Even as an allegory, you aren’t going to allow for some sort of sustained revelation between your “figurative Adam/Eve”?
Does your allegory expand on the notion of the Trees? Or is it a still-birth allegory where Adam and Eve are figurative, but the Trees have to be REAL trees?.. but Eden has to be figurative.
You are “special pleading” your objections to GAE like your career depends upon it.
So how do you explain the theodicy issues to someone who embraces Evolution AND original sin? How is that conventional situation meaningfully different from GAE’s situation?
My own concern has to do with how the proposal seems to identify the non-Adamic humans with the nephilim but maintains they were quite peaceful before Adam came along. I mentioned some of why that bothers me in an earlier thread.
Basically, if God commanded the other humans to be wiped out by Adam’s line, but Adam’s line failed to do so, I think we’ve scaled the theodicy problem up quite a few notches. It seems to combine the worst of fall interpretations with the worst of conquest interpretations.
Maybe someone who’s read the book can tell me how much the nephilim factor into the proposal?
Edit: Dr. Swamidass informed me that the nephilim don’t really factor into the book, and certainly not in the way I expected.
Genesis 1 discusses Humanity, and that it bears God’s image.
Genesis 2 discusses de novo Adam and Eve.
When the couple are expelled, they begin to co-opt the rest of humanity with the genealogical progression of Adam’s offspring. Within 2000 years, or by the time of Jesus, all humanity then alive has Adam/Eve in their ancestry.
The GAE scenarios dont require any participation of the Watchers or Nephilim.
Yes, I know the general idea of the GAE. It was the article in USA Today promoting the book that linked the nephilim with the “people outside the garden.” That piqued my interest: both Adam and the conquest are topics I’ve invested a lot of time into, and it looked like the book was tying them together.
But, it seems the Nephilim are only mentioned in passing without trying to bring all the biblical references to the Nephilim (in which it seems like God wants them exterminated) into the picture. That lessens my concern, but also lessens my interest in the book.
This is a discussion that often needs to be closely moderated, so it has been moved to unlisted, so that those of you who wish to can continue to participate. The same gracious dialogue guidelines still apply. Please be mindful of these. Here is a link if you need a refresher.
If you are interested in the Conquest, here is an off-thread heads up:
Exodus, Joshua and Judges describe a Canaan devoid of Egyptian hegemony for generations … until the time of Solomon’s wedding present.
The only time frame this fits with is when the Philistines became ensconced on the Coast of the Levant… prior to 1130 BCE… after which they became populous enough to bar Egypt from reinforcing the frontier in Northern Syria.
The context of the Conquest has to be AFTER 1130 BCE… which does have an affect on interpreting the conventional timeline thereafter.
Here’s a good article… but not very new. That’s why it is surprising how few people appreciate the 1130 BCE date for the rise of the Philiistines as a BLOCKING presence to Egypt entering Canaan.
Ever since the ejection of the Hyksos, roughly 400 years, the Egyptians pretty much had the run of southern Syria… which meant troops and couriers traversing Canaan all the time. Ironically, the Amarna letters are evidence of this hegemony … and not evidence of Egypt’s ABSENCE from the region.
I agree, I’m not sure I’m following the argument about God being a monster.
@Jay313 Since you point to the John Walton “archetypal” A/E in your podcast, I rewatched one of his YouTube videos to better understand his model. Walton clearly states that he believes that there was a historical couple, but that they act as representatives for all of humanity, kind of like the priests of Aaron’s line did in the tabernacle/temple. As priests, their actions (whether they sin or whether they obey God) affect the whole community.
Likewise, I don’t think I’m quite understanding the point you are making about Jesus being a solution to a problem God created. In the A/E model you discuss in your podcast (particularly episode 3), humans seem to evolve into the point of becoming sinners. Couldn’t we also say that God created that problem by setting up (or guiding) evolution to a place where people would sin?
And if people simply evolve into becoming sinners, don’t secular humanists just think that humanity will continue to evolve to the point where we will stop being horrible to each other? How would we explain the need for Jesus and Redemption to a secular humanist in the evolving A/E model?
BTW: I’m not picking sides yet in this debate: just trying to better understand the potential issues of either position.
@gbrooks9 and @Jay313
Its great and helpful to debate these ideas. While doing so, lets try to keep the tone polite and free of belittling comments. Our best witness to nonbelievers of Jesus’s work in our lives is how we treat one another.