You walk like a YEC, you talk like a YEC, you think like a YEC.
But you telll me that you are really interested in understanding Evolution…
I guess that puts you one notch ahead of @NonlinOrg.
It’s called the One Seed theory. Basically the belief was men “planted” a seed that grown into a human. So all that really mattered were the men. Women were just fertile fields.
Sure there is a genealogy in Genesis, but this is Genesis 4:1-4 which is supposed to be literal history. Which said literal history does mention women just not in the genealogies. So if you are taking Genesis as literal history that Cain and Able were the first two children born. If you want to start adding history to the text where do you come up with that history?
As Jon pointed out there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there were other people, not related to A&E, around which resolves a lot of the problems with the story.
Not what I was saying at all. You implied that our moral sense came from the Law. A law that was only given to the Hebrews. And yet other cultures in the ancient world which weren’t given the Law had prohibitions against incest. Where did this come from if not from God? And if it came from God why was it withheld from the first x generations of Adam’s kids?
1 Like
I am familiar with this.
Yes, like it mentions cains wife in history, but not genealogy.
No, literal first born son, it doesn’t mention daughters. That doesn’t mean they didn’t have any.
I wasn’t saying for sure this is what happened and adding history. I am saying a plausible explanation for the unknown or unwritten text could be that his wife came from his parents offspring who had offspring.
These “evidences” would resolve a lot of those problems, I agree. But I think they would raise problems of their own.
One being that eve meant mother of all life. why would it say that.
Or the fact that Adam could’t find a mate. Why not if there were others.
Or the original sin from man, and the second Adam/Jesus that atones us from this sin.
His theory 3 I think it was was that Adam was a sin representative? And all man received sin from his mistake? But all do not receive righteousness from Jesus. All receive the ability to ask for forgiveness and attain righteousness throu Jesus, but it isn’t automatic, like Adam, the sin representative.
theory 4 is the one I would find the least issues with. But that one doesn’t even have Adam representing all sin, yet the Bible clearly speaks of sin through Adam, and redemption second Adam.
1 and 2, I have the least issues with, but the flood complicates all of that as we have to start over with a few people and incest occurs again.
Why did Adam and first generations live 900 years?
I don’t know all the answers, but things were obviously different then.
Well yea, I have said I believe in yes. But I also believe in the Big Bang etc. I am not convinced either way with evolution yet, but I need to learn more about what it is or means.
You call having Cain’s sister agreeing to marry the person who murdered her brother a “plausible explanation”? I call it stretching a story to fit your preconceived idea of what the story should be saying.
No interpretation is perfect. Including yours BTW.
They didn’t. The ages reported in the genealogies appear to be honorific or symbolic ages. The genealogies don’t conform to the rules of a Western genealogy.
3 Likes
Look up plausible. I didn’t say likely. All of us are required to stretch our stories to fit our preconceived paradigm, that is backed up by other things. Plausible, meaning, it COULD have happened that way.
I will never hide that fact. And hope I don’t come off as saying I know the 1 and only truth.
So they were symbolically limited to 120 years? and as it slowly phased down from 900ish to 120’s after it was said that a new average norm would be 120?
And the guy that didn’t die, lived a symbolically third time as the rest?
What greater honor to stop being, and to go with God, like Elijah? And to symbolically honor him, they gave him 365 years, while bad people like lamech he got 777 years?
Find all the other Bible passages which cite the genealogies and see how they treat the ages.
1 Like
-
There is no reason to reject the Big Bang. It works for both groups.
-
There are only two things that can prevent what you call Macro-Evolution:
[A] a short timeline makes evolution impossible;
[B] God literally saying “Uh-uh-uh” whenever a population starts to branch off into striking changes of color, size, shape, feeding behavior or mating practices.
The reason it takes God for B is because gene pools are not taught YEC rules for what can or can’t be possible.
(Just to throw it out there, whether or not a woman actually “agrees” to a marriage has not always meant very much, historically. Not sure what it would have been like at this time, but considering Eve had just been told her husband would rule over her…)
1 Like
There is some good food for thought in this article on the life spans in Genesis. Whatever those numbers represent, it probably isn’t literal number of years a person lived. Long Life Spans in Genesis: Literal or Symbolic? - BioLogos
1 Like
Funny, but likely is a synonym for plausible. Which BTW means “seeming reasonable or probable”.
So that would make it Adam who told one of his daughters she had to marry Cain who had killed Adam’s son. Still not a very plausible way to read the story.
Without consulting a dictionary, I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that “probable” is a slightly stronger claim than “plausible” – and I would be surprised if dictionaries didn’t reflect this distinction.
When somebody makes a claim that I don’t have any reason to see as objectionable (and am in a position to know potential objections), I would say their claim seems plausible to me. “Probable” indicates that not only do I think it plausible, but I have some independent information available to me that makes their claim likely to be true.
If Joe tells me his cousin holds the high jump record for his school’s track team, I would consider the claim plausible since I have no reason to think such a thing couldn’t be. But I can’t evaluate Joe’s claim as “probable” unless perhaps I independently know something of his cousin’s athletic prowess or maybe heard the same news from other sources as well.
So as I would put it:
“plausible” – nothing to prevent it from being true, but this doesn’t necessarily imply it is probable.
“probable” – more than 50% chance it’s true. (which requires plausibility)
So I did.
I did and that was the definition given. People often use words that don’t exactly match the definition.
The argument that the incest was wide spread and considered “normal” isn’t plausible or probable. It is repulsive any way you want to take it. Sort of like death before the fall for a YEC.
2 Likes
Wow, that is quite the complex theory…and some say numbers can be used to make anything fit if you make it complex enough.
But I do get that theory. But then a hole/ challenge in that theory, is gen 6:3. What does that mean? The best theory I have heard on that is that that was the new norm, and it had to get “phased” down slowly to 120. And versus like honor you parents adds years to life or other versus, is what allowed a few to go over 120, but 120 was the new max…unless augmented.
It seems I read an article someone links me to, which makes great sense, but then a hole/challenge is discovered and the thing that backs up that theory has a hole, and the one that backs that one has a hole. Lol
That was what I meant by it. Most of the theories here are plausible in that sense. They all have holes which make none of them likely, but many have logic which makes them plausible.
I guess that confirms that I am not yec, because death before the fall makes perfect sense to me.
But the thing that makes incest bad, is the probably results of deformation. We don’t know if there was deformation like that back then, and if there wasn’t any, then it wouldn’t be repulsive.
I saw that as a synonym too, but not the first definition from m-w.
“superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious”
I am almost convinced on many of these EC lines of thought. But other things come up that I don’t want to branch off too far from topic, but they hang me up. It’s like I am in the middle almost even on both sides as far as level of plausibly, but if it is even, then the previously believed theory wins out…for now.
@stilllearning A learning process, such as you describe, is a joy that almost defines what it means to be human. One piece of evidence sends you in one direction, almost to the point of conviction; but then an opposing bit of evidence reverses your course. Searching thru all the varied interpretations of Genesis 2-6 to find the most “reasonable” scenario of how the first humans began their long journey to become ‘masters of the planet’ is certainly an intellectually challenging and satisfying enterprise.
But we should not lose sight of the one important objective: How does this part of the Old Testament instruct us in accepting Christ as our Savior and lead us to lead lives that are more productive and pleasing to our Creator? In deciding just how literal we should take Gen. 4: 16, 17, science can be of assistance. To choose between a purely literal interpretation where (1) Cain has an incestuous relationship with his sister; or (2) with a woman of the people of Nod living east of Eden, modern science guides us to the latter. Cain is descended from the family who had already been chosen by God–whose brains had been 'programmed into Minds–but whose genetic heritage still matched those Homo sapiens whose brains still lacked that gift. The latter were the People of Nod who needed to be taught complex language and how God had chosen them to something special. Thus, initially, True Humanity was spread thru education and NOT thru sexual reproduction, and thus it spread much more rapidly than it could have thru some ‘magical’ mutation.
This scenario does NOT accommodate the specific genealogy of the rest of Genesis nor does it accommodate a world-wide Flood with only Noah’s genes surviving to repopulate the earth. This is to its advantage, in my opinion. But if we really concentrate on Jesus’ message–what is required to be Saved–the “truth” of any particular Genesis scenario is of small consequence.
Al Leo
1 Like
A post was split to a new topic: Eve, the mother of all living
I think that trying to claim a literal truth of much of Genesis is a destraction when it comews to helping many outside the church come and a meaningful relationship with Jesus Christ. The point I wanted to make at the beginning twhen I started this thread, and that I repeatdd, was that I though the early stories of Genesis should NOT be taken as a literal history. We don’t need elaborate explanations about incest etc. We don’t need explanations of the very long years given to some persons lives.
The thing that convinces and helps people find faith in Jesus is Jesus, not Genesis. Only He matters, and He is our gospel and reason for any kind of faith. The world needs His words of peace, His searching words that makwe us look at ourselves and society and words that even judge the church when it fails to to follow him and peacmaker, being humble and meek, hold ontgo our wealth in the face of povertyy etc. Jesus judges the church when it is not the church of the Beatitudes (Mattew 5).
1 Like
I think the discussion kind of went off the rails. I will fess up that when I read your OP I thought you were asking an actual question and not a rhetorical question so I apologize for my contribution to the derailment.
Back now to your regularly scheduled program.
I wholeheartedly agree! That is why on my 1st post to the forums, I said that, and why I am here. I enjoy debating and learning from those who will generally remain civil beacause they know that insulting is not from God, but edifying, and more importantly, that we know this is just fun free tie activities. It doesn’t in any way change the meaning of life of the goodness of God or the firm foundation we have in Jesus because if the truth of what Jesus did for us by atoning for our sins.
The only important thing is life is as Jesus said, to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. And to love your neighbor as yourself. The Bible clearly and repeatedly says this over and over and over again and parallels it over and over again before these words were spoken by Jesus even.
However knowing there are some atheists that frequent these sites, to share with them the love of God and to shine His light to them that are truly seeking Him (or to fill a void in heir life that nothing else they have found yet can fill), that they will find Him.
I fully agree. Very small consequences, but interesting and fun to ponder none the less.
I mostly agree with you on this. Especially if it is an atheist who’s foundation/God is man and his intelligence and if you try to challenge that, he will defend with frightened veracity like a cornered animal. But also, to a believer who also builds their foundation on the literal genesis account (many, not all YECs), and not the more important gospel of Christ, will also defend their foundation/god with that same frightened veracity.
If we can show that our foundation is on who God is and the truth, light, peace, and joy, and fulfillment that only He can give us, and the rest of these debates are just an extremely small part of our lives, that can help edify som elf the YECs, and glorify God, and lead an atheist to know God, it is all for Gods glory!
That is why I joined this forum. Jew for the Jews a biologos, for the biologos…1 cor 9:20.
God has given me a real interests in these things, so as to participate in dialogue and make relationships with. If I just came on here and shared the gospel…as good as it is, would not resonate with many. This is why Jesus always related to those and healed people and ate with people first, and THEN, shared the gospel with them. We were created to be a lovimg people, that make relations with others and relationship with God. I enjoy all the education from others, I am learning a lot, I still have my own theory on other things, but that is just how I relate ( genuine interest thoug, not false relations or interests), and share the love of God to all.
If God uses me or my words or insights to help an active member or a casual internet browser and uses my words to reveal Him to them, amen. If not, I still live my life for the means, not the ends. God is in charge of the results/ends, it’s my job to attempt to honor Him and give Him glory with my means/present actions. I feel to often people want to control the ends, and (possibly unintentionally) make themselves or their logic a god, thinking they can and should convert people and live by the ends.
Sorry for the thread derailment.
I had the opportunity to review Joel Hoffman’s book “The Bible’s Cutting Room Floor”. In this book, Dr. Hoffman presents some Bible stories that never made it into the Bible. The early editors, for reasons we’ll probably never know, cut these stories from the text.
Anyway, one story that never made it into the Bible was the continuation of the story of Adam and Eve. The point in posting this is that the author of this sequel (different from the original author, however) populates this story with other people.
Blessings,
Michael