Yes, fascinating article. I can see why a nontheist would still advocate for a way for more religious people to not feel compelled to fight mainstream science. Lents argues his case well.
On the central claim of people outside the garden, I’m intrigued by how he states that “the Bible itself hints at the existence of these people when it speaks of the ‘Nephilim.’ ” Usually people just go to Cain’s wife or how he built a city as evidence there were more people around. Using the Nephilim is a bold move, especially since the Bible seems pretty harsh towards them.
Michael Heiser suggests that the extreme violence towards Canaan can be explained because the Nephilim were in the land (Numbers 13:32–33) and God had determined to wipe them out. To associate this group with the other humans alongside Adam and Eve isn’t naturally going to fit with both groups of humans being equal. Even though the genealogical Adam proposal ends with everyone descended from Adam by 1 AD, before then it would seem to describe two genetically compatible human races, one that receives God’s favour and the other that God uproots like a stubborn weed. I’m curious how the book will deal with this.
Me too, but I guess we’re not the target audience. Maybe the genealogical Adam will become this generation’s gap theory (the idea that Satan’s fall, earth’s corruption and a huge chunk of time reside between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2). Both are ways for more literal-minded Christians to accept more science without making serious changes to how they read Scripture. Since I held to gap theory for a while on my way from YEC to EC, I don’t mean that as a slam. It was helpful to have an intermediate position to let me catch my breath, even if I suspected it wouldn’t hold up to a close look at Genesis. And for many the genealogical Adam need not be an intermediate position on the way to something else, especially if they see Adam as the only challenge to reading Genesis literalistically.