The intelligentsia, including the speakers, would have always known they were making it up.
The only item that a 200,000 year Adam can stand on is mtDNA. Until last year that was considered when Anatomically modern Sapiens appeared on scene, in spite of Milford Wolpoff and Rachael Capari’s warning that there is no criteria by which modern man can be included and archaic man excluded in anthropology. Anyone, from Swamidass to Hugh Ross who places Adam at 200,000 years has to be dealing with mtDNA because Nuclear DNA clearly shows we are much older as a species.
I will stand corrected and believe your protest that mtDNA has nothing to do with the age of your Adam. And I am aware that Craig is willing to move Adam back pretty far, which is a good thing and what I do, only farther. It is written:
"Here’s where it gets interesting: Craig, of course, wishes to deny that notion due to its obvious theological problems, but he is persuaded by the mounting scientific evidence that Neanderthals were human . In fact, he is willing to place humans, made in the image of God, in the category of homo heidelbergensis .
This means Craig is willing to put Adam as far back as 750,000+ years ago.
For my part, I know that if we are to have an Adam, he must be older than 750kyr–a thing Christians hate to think of–it brings that horrible thing called evolution. It means Adam didn’t look like us(another scary thing), it means we put God in a box where he must have an age of Adam we approve of first!!!
I disagree strongly that science can tell us with epistemological humillity that Adam was part of a group. As you know, the further back in time a population goes, the smaller the diversity of genetics can be and still give the speices time to recover sufficient diversity in its genome. Here is a picture of the genetics of a refugia with plants who 5 million years ago, dropped to about 15 breeding pairs in Neff.
As everyone can see, the population got pretty small back then. It is at that kind of time frame one must look for Adam and Eve. And here are the reasons.
- Adam and Eve were not living in a materialistic world. They had an active theistic God who could help them over the diversity problems. That is, unless you too believe God does not act positivitly in this world.
- I do beleive God’s help would be minimal so we can expect a close tie in with the materialistic math you use for effective population size. We can’t deny that this mathematics does not include God’s involvement–nor should it, but we can’t claim that God never involves himself in this world or we don’t have a religion worth anything in my view.
- The species succession, of which anthropologists are so proud might not be species succession.
'Observations of regional continuity have been difficult to explain when considering that the fossil record shows evidence of common evolutionary trends across the entire geographic distribution of human ancestors. The best example of this is the clear increase in brain size starting 700,000 years ago. There is evidence of the same trend occurring across the Old World. If, according to multiregionalists, all human fossils belonged to a single evolving species, then how could the same trend occur in different regions? For concerted changes within a single species, the answer is gene flow." John H. Relethford, “Genetics and the Search for Modern Human Origins,”(New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001), p. 58
Richard Leakey also agreed that we are a single evolving species, not a ginsu chop chop of different species. We just have racial differences all the way back:
“I am increasingly of the view that all the material currently referred to Homo erectus should in fact be placed within the species sapiens and be distinguished from our modern form merely as an earlier stage in what seems to have been a single evolving lineage.” ~ Richard Leakey, “Recent Fossil finds From East Africa,” in J.R. Durant ed. Human Origins, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) p 57
All of this is supported by, well, genetics!. Consider these issues. We have so much introgression from archaic hominids that muchmore, the entire out of Africa view will collapse:
“If the AMH genome contains any degree of dual ancestry (that is, archaic and modern) the single origin model must be rejected. Although most of the AMH genome might descend from a single African population, if further studies confirm a non-negligible contribution of archaic genetic material to the AMH genome, it would imply that the evolutionary lineage leading to AMH did not evolve reproductive isolation from other archaic hominin subpopulations and, therefore, cannot be considered a distinct biological species.” Daniel Garrigan and Michael Hammer, “Reconstructing Human Origins in the Genomic Era,” Nature Genetics, 7(2006), p. 677
**
“The diversity of these genomes indicates that the Denisovan population had a larger long-term average size than that of the Neandertals ( 6, 7), suggesting that the Denisovans were formerly widespread across mainland East Asia. However, interbreeding with modern humans only appears to have occurred in remote Island Southeast Asia, requiring marine crossings and raising questions about the distribution and fossil record of Denisovans in Island Southeast Asia. The distribution of modern human populations containing detectable amounts of introgressed Denisovan DNA is surprising, as none have been detected in mainland Asia (introgressed DNA refers to small amounts of DNA from one species found in another species). Denisovan DNA has only been found on islands east of Wallace’s Line (see the fi gure). The modern human populations with the highest percentage of Denisovan DNA are the geographically isolated New Guinean and Australian aborigines (~3 to 4%) ( 4), whereas smaller percentages have been detected in a range of populations in Island Southeast Asia. Groups in this area are thought to be descended from early Southeast Asian hunter-gatherers and later Neolithic farmers ( 3).” A. Cooper and D. B. Stringer, “Did the Denisovians Cross Wallace’s Line?” Science, 343(2013), p. 321
**
ghost ancestor ghost population population x
"Four West African populations carry genes from what may be an undiscovered archaic hominin. This archaic group of humans seems likely to have diverged from the shared ancestor of Neanderthals, Denisovans and modern humans before these lineages split about 800,000 years ago."
…
Similar patterns were seen in the genomes of Mende people in Sierra Leone, Esan people in Nigeria and those in western areas of Gambia. The four populations are estimated to derive between 2 and 19 per cent of their ancestry from an archaic group of genes.
…
" This mystery hominin is most likely to have diverged from the ancestors of Neanderthals, Denisovans and modern humans before that lineage split into these groups, according to the researchers. They estimate this divergence took place at some point between 1 million and 360,000 years ago, and interbreeding between the archaic population and the ancestors of the modern populations occurred at some point in the past 124,000 years." New Scientist, Feb 12, 2020,
Here is the Key, Dennis. If we are a mish-mash of genetic interbreedings between archaics and more ‘modern’ versioins of humans and this has been going on for 3-4 million years or so, then Adam was a person who lived much much longer ago than Craig’s acceptable 750kyr ago. Adam is old. We are one evolving species from the time of Eden (which my science of geology has provided great evidence for its time and location), If we are one evolving species, labels go out the window and we need to consider that Adam was a small brained hominid. That is what I am writing up now in my last book ever.
YOu asked me, what I consider a ‘bully’ question. Why? because I was and am a bit of a bully myself. So I will ask you if you have ever read my books, Foundation, Fall and Flood, and the other one Adam, Apes and Anthropology?
Don’t answer, I know the answer. Wild non-consensus ideas are ignored by academics because they think there is no value in them. My books have been out there 20 years+ and you show no sign of knowing of my views. And yet, nothing in the last 20 years of anthropology has changed a whit from what I wrote in A^3.
Life is “fun” in the bathyal regions of academia
Currently I am on hospice with who knows how long to live. If you still think I should read your book and that it will convince me that there is no Adam, then just give the word. I will buy it. I presume there is a kindle version because I need to enlarge it as I am going blind in one eye and no one will fix it because I am in that great catch 22–you are on hospice therefore we won’t fix you up on anything else. lol
3 Likes
Mister gbob. i found very interesting the view that you shared with us, with different charts and evidence, t about the historical adam and eve(you helped me in the past again in my Exodus question) .But i have to ask if those evidence are irrefutable why dodnt scientists agree with them
The data on Eden’s river was published last year in in 2019 in some conferences on the Eastern Mediterranean. there had been major natural gas discoveries over there about 10 years ago, and oil companies hold their information very close to the chest because it is valuable. Only when they think the geologic data has little value will they let it lose into conferences and papers. The authors being muslim didn’t realize the theological significance of what they had mapped, and I doubt a single prof from any theological seminary was even aware of these conferences.
Now, the implicit part of your question concerns the fact that few here read geological journals and frankly even fewer geologists are christians. The geologists who are Christians are quite happy with the Bible being historically false. At this point in time it is less of a question of why they don’t agree with that data than that they don’t know of the data. They were not looking!! I was. No OT scholar who studies the language and culture of Israel is going to know much geology and frankly is unlikely to recognized the importance of data from my field of expertise.
I have shown this to several geologists. 3 were amazed and 2 whom I know like the accommodationalist approach, went totally silent. They didn’t criticize what I had, they ceased commenting. Indeed one called me and we spoke about this data, but, he didn’t take any stand on it. He has spent lots of time going to seminaries taking about how we mustn’t take this part of the Bible literally. A change is going to be hard for my friend.
As I said in my first post in this thread, people come here for help with their biblical problems, like with the flood. The flood is a geological phenomenon, but doctors, missionaries, plumbers and everyone else gives their opinion on what they see, even when they have never dealt with this kind of data in their careers? . How many geology courses do you think are taught in seminary? My son went to seminary and had zero courses in geology. This is a big weakness in Christendom when only those who know the language are seen as experts in areas such as the Flood and the deposits it would leave and the physics that would control it. It is sad, but unless someone like me spends his life searching for evidence, like I did, none would be found.
I am writing my last book, and hoping the pain I had today won’t slow me down too much but I am going to throw this book to Amazon and let God determine the outcome about whether the book is good or bad., or the ideas are good or bad.
Always remember when you ask questions, does this guy know anything about the field? Don’t ask me how to remove your pancreas. I would say get a knife, dig around a bit until it quit hurting. I am sure doctors would do better than that. lol. John Walton, who cited my work in one of his books, thinks I am a nut and won’t respond to emails from me anymore. How am I to get my message out when our leaders are so closed to any new ideas?
We have had 200+ years of geological ‘leaders’ in Christianity do nothing but YEC (and I put leaders in quotes because they are not leaders or thinkers. They go along with the herd). Their lack of actually digging for solutions has made it look as if there are no solutions. and so everyone accepted that there are no solutions.
At the very least I am offering a solution to where Eden is and it is from brand new 2019 information. To my knowledge no one else offers anything except to tell you it is all historically false.But in the end, it is your decision what to believe. That God had a way to do this? or that these accounts are false. If God had a way and you don’t like mine, better get to hunting for a better way!
You will have to decide whether you believe this work (which was done by others, but those others missed the theological importance of their own work). Many of those who did the work were Muslim and the flood is not a biggie on their to-do list.
One thing of interest to me, I asked my very secular sister how this information got into the Bible–information no one could have known until at least 1970 and maybe not until last year. No neolithic could have known of this either. She surprised me by saying it had to be divine revelation. You too will have to take a position as well. Blind chance or divine revelation. It is your choice. I am just telling you that that the work I see out of these guys is top notch geophysics, showing fluvial deltaic sands where the Rivers of Eden were likely to be. I can’t prove Adam was down there, but that data does put a stop to our theological leaders saying with intellectual honesty that Eden HAS TO BE a never never land of fantasy.
2 Likes
Why though?Isnt the author that defended a historical adam in his book if i remember correctly?
I hope you provide some good arguments in your book mister gbob.As i said before i do believe adam and eve to be real.I will check it out
I will do my best not to let you down. It brings tears to my eyes to think that might happen. I don’t think he had thought about it in ages, and when I contacted him with the geological data, he commented that I knew good journals to get my data from. Then I gave him a bit more and he went silent He quit listening. That is my problem Nick. People don’t listen long enough to know that I know what I am talking about geologically. It is so frustrating to me to be nearly a solo geologist arguing my discipline in front of people who don’t know my discpline and are not inclined to be charitable enough to listen for a bit.
If you look at my resume, you would see that my employers thought rather highly of my abilites and promoted me to levels of high responsibility. But I was dealing with geoscientists there, Here I deal with laymen and language experts, who, as I point out, took no geology courses, so how could they know? It isn’t their fault.
When he quoted my flood, in the NIV application it was clear he didn’t like it but he did quote the correct timeframe for the flood at that time. If he didn’t like that, he could have cut it out entirely.
He said:
'Scientists have identified a number of different occasions during which massive flooding in the Near East occurred. These include a flooding of the Mediterranean and one of the black Sea. In a theory proposed by Glenn Morton, a variety of geologic data show that until 5.5 million years ago the Mediterranean was not a sea at all. The water was dammed up at Gibraltar. Morton’s evidence suggests a fairly sudden collapse, causing a break of more than 3000 feet deep and fifteen miles wide, filling the Mediterranean Basin in less than nine months.
'As the waters rushed in-easy to account for.
’ The Mediterranean Flood, p. 247-48
John H. Walton, Genesis: The NIV Application Commentary Series, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001) pp. 329-330
Nick, because it is you, I will put my resume out again. I did it once before because Pevaquark was questioning me like you. This was my career’s last resume and you will note that I ran two different companies for about 5 years, my consulting company and Geos-eyes, which was an invention my partner and I made and we got a decent amount of money off of it.
I do this also so that you will know that I do know what I am speaking of geologically!!!. Trouble is, most geologists have become accommodationalists.
This is not the resume of someone who doesn’t know geoscience–his work field of 47 years. I know how those guys made those maps and the sands are right where the Edenic sands should be at the right time.
It is sad to me that someone like Walton wouldn’t listen very long, and it disappoints me that you would use the judgement of someone who has never taken geology courses (Walton), to assess my value as a geoscientist. But then you have nothing to base your judgement on either so this isn’t your fault either. I want to scream so often because I am nearly the only evolutionary geoscientist who wants a real historical Bible, and I have to convince people who doubt I even know what I am talking about. Sometimes I think I should never have started this search years ago–I was happier back then.
Here is my resume on this list for the 2nd time trying to defend my expertise! As you read this, realize that big oil companies do not give $40 and $50 million dollar responsibilities to know-nothing geologists. Yes, my biggest seismic contract was for $50 million. It was not listed but was when I was manager of the Gulf of Mexico.
Glenn R. Morton
Address and phones deleted
Geophysicist: Proven oil finder with extensive management experience able to generate new trends and sell prospects, both domestically and internationally. Strong creative and leadership skills on line or in management. Able to work at all levels as needed. Excellent technical skills in acquisition, processing, potential fields and interpretation
Accomplishments
34 discoveries on 3 continents
3 patents pending—2 Petrophysical, 1 GTL
8 publications
Sold $40 million dollar international and domestic farm-outs for full carries.
Socially fluent in Chinese; Read some.
Experience
2010-present President Geos-Eyes, LLC .
Founded Geos-eyes with Danny Phillips. Invented new seismic inversion method which can analyze reservoir size layers for rock properties. Useful in geomodels and prospecting.
2007-present Glenn R. Morton, Geophysical Consulting .
Generating and mapping development and exploration opportunities. Building reservoir simulation geomodels on assets in GOM and offshore Canada (Hibernia/Terra Nova) for large independent oil company.
2005 –2007 Director of Exploration, Beijing China , Anadarko/Kerr-McGee China Petroleum Limited
Opened new Bohai play: CFD 22-2-1 was the first successful exploration well in China in 5 years
Funded program from outside,
Involved in government and contractor contract negotiations
Sold two prospect packages for over $30 of million, each
Worked closely with deputy minister level officials to achieve goals
2003 – 2005 Director of Technology , Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corp
Three patent applications: 1 in gas-to-liquids, 2 in petrophysics
Managed petrophysics, and reservoir simulation, Visualization,.
Integrated reservoir simulation G&G/Engineering processes
2000 – 2003 North Sea Geophysical Manager, Aberdeen Scotland , Kerr-McGee North Sea Limited
Significantly upgraded geophysical technologies used in exploration, negotiated contract
9 Discoveries: Tullich, S. Gryphon, Bluesky, Deep South 2, Deep South 3, Affleck, Plada, James, Dumbarton
Managed North Sea Reservoir simulation, well operations, and technology application
Saved 2% of total district costs by changing interpretive pkg.
On UK governmental geoscience data retention committee
1991-2000 Geophysical Manager, GOM, Oryx / Kerr-McGee
17 Discoveries: Conger, Boomvang, Nansen, Penn State, Penn State, Deep, Hi A 576, Gunnison, Durango, Red Hawke, GB 140/184, GB 152, HI A 553, Merganser, Pompano Subsalt, Horseshoe, Navaho, and Baldpate appraisal.
Invested budgets up to $24 million, negotiated contracts
Managed permit applications for drilling operations
1989-1991 South Texas Geophysicist – South Texas Geophysical Manager , Oryx Energy
Discoveries: Mickey Meadows, Starr Co. field( name forgotten)
1986-1989 Owner , Geophysical Consulting Company
6 Discoveries: North Carmine, Baby S., Namken, Banana Peel, Valentine Deep Pool, Cesare
Areas worked: Alaska, Algeria, W. Texas, New Mexico
1986 Manager of Marketing , Professional Geophysics Inc.
Doubled sales each month for Dallas office
1981-1986 Area Geophysicist, U.S. Atlantic Coast and Louisiana , ARCO
1979-1981 Manager of Geophysical Recruiting and Training , ARCO
Recruited 15% of U.S. geophysical graduates for ARCO
1973-1978 Seismic processor , ARCO, Pexcon and Seismograph Service Corp.
Education: B. S. in Physics, University of Oklahoma, 1972; Grad work in Philosophy
Publications of Glenn R. Morton: (Note, I didn’t list my creationist publications)
Prieto, Corine, and Morton, Glenn, (2003), “New Insights from a 3D Earth Model: Deep Water Region of Gulf of Mexico,” The Leading Edge, 22(2003):4, p. 356-360
Morton, G. R., Conway, Paul. and McHugo, Steve. (2002), “Reversing the Earth Filter: Thin-sand Detection Using Single Sensor Data,” Petrol. Expl. Soc. of Great Britain’s, PETEX 2002 Meeting Abstracts given in London, Dec. 10, 2002, CD from Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain, London.
Morton, G. R., Dobb, Angela., Conway, Paul. and McHugo, Steve. (2002), “Acquisition of High Frequency Seismic and its Implications for Reservoir Management of the Murchison field, U.K. North Sea–A Case Study,” 72nd Ann. Internatl. Mtg., Soc. Exploration Geophysicists Expanded Abstracts. p. 548-551.
Knighton, Terry, Steve Western, Glenn Morton and Robert Fleming (1999), “Development of Alternative Interpretation Models and Discriminating between Them Using a Borehole Gravity Survey and a Walkaway Checkshot Survey,” Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts with Authors’ Biographies, 69th Annual Meeting, Oct 31-Nov 5, 1999, Vol.1, p. 228-231.
Morton, Glenn; Schlirf, Paul; Chang, Mark; and Kriechbaum, Victor, “The History of Seismic in the Gulf of Mexico,” Presented to and published by the American Association of Petroleum Landmen, Jan. 22, 2004, Woodlands, Texas.
Morton, Glenn; Miller, Steve, 2005. “Knowledge Management via the use of Collaboration Tools in the Oil Industry,” The Energy Forum, Houston, Texas.
Simons, Gordon, Yao, Yi-Ching, and Morton, Glenn, 2003, “Global Markov Models for Eukaryote Nucleotide Data,” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, Volume 130, Issues 1-2, 1 March 2005, Pages 251-275
Simons, Gordon and Morton, Glenn, 2003 “The Gene-Orientation Structure of Eukaryotes,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 222:4:471-475.
5 Likes
2 Peter is part of the standard New Testament Canon. But it probably wasn’t written by Peter himself. Let’s see what the HarperCollins Study Bible, by the Society of Biblical Literature, has to say about this book:
"The Second Letter of Peter is presented as Peter's testament; i.e., an account of Peter's teaching as he wished it to be remembered after his death (1;12-15). If Peter himself wrote it, he must have done so shortly before his martyrdom in Rome in 64/65 C.E. Most scholars, however, now believe it was written after Peter's death, with the writer following a literary convention of the time that allowed an author to atribute a "testament" to a great figure of the past. 2 Peter was probably sent from the church of Rome and therefore attributed to the apostle who had for a time played a role in the leadership of that church. By writing in Peter's name, the author was able to restate and defend Peter's teaching in a situation in which opponents were criticizing the apostolic message. He also expressed the normative value of the apostolic teaching for the period after the death of the apostles."
What–wrote it after his martyrdom? or before? 
I always have trouble with that habit of assuming the identity of someone posthumously. The Book of Enoch, for example…
Not much I find of great importance in 2 Peter, anyway…
thanks.
1 Like
Sorry-- fixed.
1 Like
Here Nick, you look at the original articles with the original drawings. The Nahr Menashe sands are just before the flood.
That map merely points to where the Pison would be. I used figure 2 to emphasized where the PIson was and you can find figure 2 in this article:
I used Yossi Mart and William Ryan’s paper to be sure that the Afiq canyon was indeed draining Havilah (part of Arabia) View PDF
You can look up the Zanclean flood on Wiki–it is there regardless of my qualifications–Indeed, so is all this other data there regardless of my qualifications. All I did was recognize that those sediments in the eastern Med matched what was said in the Bible–That was no great intellectual jump so long as one believed, like I did, that the Zanclean flood (acknowledged by Wiki) could be said to be Noah’s flood (acknowledged only by me so far), and that the four corner rivers were due to the Edenic rivers.
I have given my reasons for calling the northern blue sediments as being from The Euphrates. The Euphrates starts to the west of the Tigris and flows straight towards the Mediterranean today–it gets within 62 miles of the Med before turning south today. Any river ruining along that course has to be part of the Euphrates. The Yellow Abu Madi Messinian sediments are those from the Gihon, so long as one agrees that the Nile is the Gihon. The Bible clearly says that Havilah is in Arabia and Mart and Ryan say at this time, the Afiq channel was draining that area. I didn’t say that, they did. And that leaves the Tigris in between. I showed a large 3 km or so wide channel entering the Med south of the Euphrates and north of the Pison. Since all I did was give names to these rivers, one can agree or disagree with that.
As to my anthro data, I once had about 500 anthro books and 3000 anthro articles in my house, all having been read all for the purpose of figureing out when Adam could have lived. If one doesn’t like what I have done, I am sorry, I have done my best given the education and experience the Lord gave me. And yes, it frustrates the Heck out of me that preachers and language scholars would not listen very long to hear out my case. Even criminals in this country are supposed to be able to present their case. Don’t get me wrong, the moderators here have been very kind to do that for me. It is the isolated academics who have not given me the chance. But my life seems to have been a test of that old childhood song, “Though none go with me, I still will follow”.
Im going to go do other things. Got a book to finish even if only my family reads it…
3 Likes
Thanks. It was a good explanation, by the way.
1 Like
2 Peter is not in the standard New Testament canon that I accept, the canon of the Church of the East.
The fact that no early church leader mentioned it until more than 100 years after Peter died does give evidence that it is a forgery.
I think calling it a forgery is a little harsh. I may have well been written by followers of Peter following his oral teachings and traditions. If you look at the Bible as a whole, outside of Luke?Acts and Paul’s undisputed letters, do we really know who first put ink on the paparus?
1 Like
Hello Christopher, Richard here.
Where does Jesus describe Adam as a real person? He never says the word, “Adam” in scripture. He does mention in Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6, respectively :
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator
‘made them male and female,’
“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’
Not many people today take these 2 passages as references to Adam and Eve. In fact, no English translation that I know of translates the Hebrew as, “Adam and Eve”., but, “male and female”, as Jesus seems to site in the Mark verse.
2 Likes
@jpm
Phil, I don’t think forgery is too harsh of a word.
If people that were disciples of Peter had written it, then it would have been mentioned by some church leader by 100-120 AD. But no one mentioned it until about 200 AD!
May i ask what cannon is that? Because if its the orthodox eastern cannon then i too accept that. Im fact i said before that a lot of things that are not “original” are not included in the canon of the east
Mister gbob in your previous response you said that
Sorry sir if i got misunderstood that wasnt my intention. In fact i read with great care your answer on the flood you gave me before and i didnt doubt for a second you beign a geologist.
@NickolaosPappas
Nick, the New Testament canon of the Church of the East only has 22 books. It excludes the books that were still disputed at the beginning of the fourth century: 2 Peter, Jude, 2&3 John, and Revelation.
The Church of the East is not The same as Eastern Orthodox.
The truth of the gospel can be found in all the standard canons.
Yeah i got confused sorry. We as well dont have some things the western churches have. Like the ending of the mark.Our original evagellion doesnt have it,and neither the dead see scrolls and other gospels had it. But people just added it. Anyway yes the core message is found in all of Christianity in general. (Although i dont agree with the Nestorianism the church of the east teaches but thats another topic)
1 Like
One way to avoid getting all tangled up on canonicity (a worthy enterprise to have tackled - make no mistake - and that worthy labor produced its necessary fruit) is to ask instead about the content and how well it continues in and is true to the well-accepted testimonies of less disputed gospels and letters. In doing this, we are merely following the practice that was also used by the councils at the time as they were addressing canon status of books. I think I remember reading that Hebrews was wanted in the canon, not because it may be attributable to Paul, but because of what Hebrews teaches … and its alleged Pauline authorship was more of a way to lend it the desired canonical status rather than vice versa.
2 Peter includes some quite good passages that stand on their own - and that I’m glad we didn’t lose - even if the book wasn’t literally penned by Peter. There is no bogus content in it (like Jesus cursing his childhood playmates or other such nonsense) to give us cause for concern. We do have recourse to the larger narrative arc.
So just as we should be able to easily brush aside the ‘concern’ that the passage of Jesus and the adulterous woman wasn’t in all the ancient manuscripts - this doesn’t prevent us from seeing (and learning from) what was known to be in Jesus’ character and what the early church fathers considered to be apostolically faithful teachings.
3 Likes