so which sentence in hebrew would you like to translate with the word " common ancestry" ?
When I do that, my arm gets tired. (Iâm referring to the time-honored practice of beating a dead horse.)
Of course, it is easier if one denies all evidence and ignores questions.
3 Likes
Please quote me chapter and verse where the Bible says âAdam and Eve were the first members of the homo sapiens species.â
If you cannot, please back off your accusation with regards to âlying.â
3 Likes
If Batten was a scientist, he would be formulating experiments and predicting which excavations would best test his hypothesis.
1 Like
Iâm not clear on what âjustifiesâ means. Indeed, the Days of Proclamation view reminds us that the exact length of the days is irrelevant. Do you understand that it sees God as proclaiming in one time frame while the fulfillment of the commands is yet another, separate time frame (involving billions of years.)
Iâm a Molinist and that probably makes this viewpoint easier to grasp. God chose and commanded a âreality pathâ that was sure to unfold just as he commanded. No need for âinstantaneousâ fulfillment of Godâs commands.
I honestly canât figure out if you are being deliberately slow to catch on to what people are saying to your or if you just like to try and mischaracterize what people are saying. Frankly, it is both dishonest and offensive. (In other words, Iâve not noticed anybody saying that the Bible is lying. But Iâm beginning concerned that you are deliberately lying.)
One more time: when someoneâs interpretation of the Bible differs from yours, that doesnât make them a liar.
The Bible does NOT say that Adam and Eve were the first Homo sapiens. That is an anachronism fallacy at best. There is no evidence that the Bible has any notion of âHomo sapiensâ or âHomo sapiens sapiens.â The Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first Imago Dei creatures.
I wonder how you would react if every time you posted, someone responded to you in that same irrational, dishonest way. Do you think your tactic is winning anyone to your argument? Do you think nobody ever notices that you are being dishonest when you use that tactic?
If you ever decide to address any of the issues I raised in responding to you or if you ever decide to answer my questions to you, send me a message to let me know that youâve decided to actually engage the issues.
I would not even go this far: it relies on identifying Genesis 2 with Genesis 1, which I understand is very common, but Gen 1 says humankind was created in the image of God, and it is not until later, Gen 5:1, that the words âimage of Godâ are again mentioned, and even here they are carefully applied to mankind in general when they were created, male and female, NOT specifically to Adam.
Otangelo,
This line âSo the bible is lyingâŚâ is becoming quite tiresome.
I am saying that all Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. I am sure you do not have a problem with that.
It seems that you donât want to answer a simple question about the world of peoples that surrounded Cain. Why is that, Otangelo? Why can you give no answer? Are you repeating a silly rhetorical argument to me because you simply do not have an answer?
Itâs fine if you want to say you donât know. But accusing me of disrespecting the Bible is taking the low, low road. Your rhetorical approach is not honorable.
Best,
Yes, in Hebrew HAADAM is not so much the name of a man as it is the name of the species. Sometimes the term is applied to the man and sometimes it is applied to both!
Anyway, I took all of the passages in the aggregate to respond to Otangelo. I assert that the intention of the Genesis text is that a new creature has a special relationship with God. It is the first Imago Dei organism, even if it is not the first organism to possess that particular set of anatomical characteristics.
2 Likes
I share that frustration. He dodges evidence and analysis which challenge his position and resorts to false dichotomies and emotive accusations like misrepresenting every other position as âAre you saying that the Bible is lying?â
Ontangeloâs entire strategy is one of self-sabotage. It is as if he knows that his positions are indefensible so he resorts to the lowest of tactics.
1 Like
Yes, thatâs what I got from it. I suppose my confusion was that I expected some kind of connection to a literal six days, which I didnât see.
It is certainly compatible with six literal daysâif that is someoneâs preference. So if someone assumes that six literal days must always be in opposition to billions of years, the Days of Proclamation view can be given as a counter-example.
2 Likes
Here is a couplet in Genesis: it pretty much says there are two ways to look at how life was created.
Life âwas brought forth from the watersâ/âwas brought forth from the Earthâ:
The Earth brings forth the living creatures by kind!
Gen 1:24 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Immediately after, God restates the process, putting him in charge of the process.
Gen 1:25 - And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Do you think the use of the words "the earth bring[s] forth the living creature after his kind** is totally accidental or meaningless?
In fact, even before this, God says the Oceans do the very same thing for all the sea creatures. Instead of 2 sentences, both thoughts are put into a single sentence!
Gen 1:21 - And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
As you can see, there is the same two-way view of describing the process. God did it ⌠but he doesnât specify how. And God specifies that the Earth and the Oceans will bring forth all life, by their kinds!
1 Like
Which phrase do you think should be translated nuclear fusion? Oh wait, the Bible doesnât explain HOW the sun works so I guess it wouldnât be there. Kind of like common ancestry.
1 Like
you are of course entitled to believe whatever you want. Convince others however is a entirely different thingâŚ
Its plain and simple. Either Adam and Eve were the first couple created by God.
If you donât agree, what conclusion do you expect me to draw upon it?
or that particular interpretation is wrong. Does that work as a conclusion?
4 Likes
I started a new topic with further thoughts on this question: Were Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 the same day?
What are you two wrassling over? There are additional interpretations - - for example, I think a very reasonable one is that Adam and Eve are representative figures where God recognizes the first hominid of the evolutionary Primate line, to have become sentient and aware enough that he is affected by, and responsible for, moral choices.
In other words, the first hominid with âmoral agencyâ on the planet Earth. There is always the first one ⌠and in an early hominid community, such a moral man must have become a very striking presence amongst the other hominids . . . with the âglowâ of Godâs âmoralâ and ârighteousâ likeness plainly emanating from his face.
Interestingly, even the first moral man would also have had a moment in his childhood when he was no longer an innocent boy, but a man-child, who God perceived was now eligible to stand accountable for his increasingly adult actions.