I hope you got it, but my Brit spelling in the edit was missed by these rabble rousers. I do object to favourite, though I embrace the Oxford comma. (AP Style be damned.)
3 Likes
Nah, you can keep your comma over there – do you hesitate verbally at the end of a series? (I was taught it that way though, over half a century ago. ; - ) I do like the New Yorker diaeresis, however. And the Brit way of single and double quotes as well as their being inside of a period or a comma if appropriate (which is frequent) are appealing too (and not dissimilar to the parentheses and operators hierarchy in maths ← (that last s is out of respect for the east end of the warming Gulf Stream – we get the subsurface chill in return XD)).
1 Like
God the Son will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.
2 Likes
I too prefer the Oxford comma. Punctuation saves lives.
1 Like
Merged and contacting.
It’s the only thing that separates us from the animals.
1 Like
Nanoo nanoo.
(And yes the body is clear and a complete sentence).
Not all of us Brits embrace the Oxford comma.
2 Likes
What?! This is 1642 all over again.
1 Like
Not all of us Americans embrace grammar as a whole.
It’s a feedback loop between biological evolution, social/cultural evolution, and language evolution. But ultimately, yes. Language allowed large-scale cooperation, i.e. trade networks, which appeared about 1 mil years ago. A common misconception is that language sprang into existence all at once. That’s (one of) William Lane Craig’s error. It began with spoken words ~1 mil years ago, but that was a protolanguage not much different than the early language efforts of toddlers. Trade networks expanded from 100 km to 300 km around 100,000 yrs ago. That’s about the same time that the sapiens globular brain started appearing in the fossil record, as well as Blombos in S. Africa. So by converging evidence, I conclude that a second language breakthrough happened around 100,000 years ago. The most likely candidate is fully modern, recursive grammar.
Just some bonus learnin. 
2 Likes
And what is His ‘judgement’? That’s rhetorical if course. God has no business judging anyone but Himself. If He’s real, He is nothing like us, obviously. He’s competent. Not bound by our projected inadequacy.
So … Did the S African Blombos of 100K years ago use the Oxford comma or not? 
5 Likes
Of course, and they spoke the Queen’s English.
4 Likes
As every good believer with a biblical worldview knows, the Bible was written in English by Moses and Jesus.
4 Likes
I’d have to refer to my other writings for the answer to that question. And no one really wants that … haha.
“So what is the source of the illusion of the self? Well, for Wittgenstein, your delusional idea of your self arises from the conceptual defects in our language. Language is just not able to grasp reality as it is. This not only permits vagaries but worse, welcomes confusion over the true nature of thought and its objects.”
https://bethlaceyswingler.medium.com/was-wittgenstein-a-solipsist-b510b5d773e1
Language (bad grammar)? Or is it the self? This cannot embrace or grasp (the possibility of) reality alone. As an infinite being, or a thing?
There is an infinite being, but not an infinite number of things. And the cause of the world is aware, not aware, or not yet aware of its action.
In my view, Adam and Eve are historical figures—real people in a real past. Nevertheless, I am persuaded that the biblical text is more interested in them as archetypal figures who represent all of humanity. This is particularly true in the account in Genesis 2 about their formation. I contend that the formation accounts are not addressing their material formation as biological specimens, but are addressing the forming of all of humanity: we are all formed from dust, and we are all gendered halves.
If this is true, Genesis 2 is not making claims about the biological origins of humanity, and therefore the Bible should not be viewed as offering competing claims against science about human origins. If this is true, Adam and Eve also may or may not be the first humans or the parents of the entire human race. Such an archetypal focus is theologically viable and is well-represented in the ancient Near East.
I would also argue that the nature of the biblical material should keep us from being too literalistic in our reading of Adam and Eve, leaving room for an Earth that is not young, but that the biblical material along with good critical thinking provides certain freedoms and limitations for connecting the Bible’s creation account to a scientific and historical account of human origins.
9 Likes
We share a lot of common ground here.
2 Likes
I agree – Adam and Eve re still treated as archetypes most of the time, and so I can understand why some people don’t see them as real people, even though I believe they were.
I also think of Adam and Eve as historical-ish figures. I don’t think that was there actual names. Or that I believe at some point Yahweh ruched out to some person, couple of tribe a 10k years ago. I believe he’s reaching out to all creation through the Holy Spirit in ways we can’t detect. When a deer is dying by a wolf I think the Holy Spirit is there. So I think about species evolved he’s been reaching out to us in a way that accommodated where we were. But that in the last 10k or so years he reached out and made a covenant with them by leading the to a “promised” land on earth.