Thanks Josh, but with respect to the notional idea of a “genealogical Adam” who would be genetically indistinguishable from any other homo sapien but somehow the first “true” human that mattered and for whom only his descendants would likewise be considered “true” humans, you run into all sorts of incredible propositions. Such as the Native Americans who would have migrated over past 10KYA then not being “true” humans. If we can find any today of pure ancestry should we tell them they’re not truly “human”? Or what of the Aboriginal Australians? And others? This seems on its face a little absurd don’t you agree?
As far as literal vs figurative for Genesis 1 or 2-3, neither of those categories really map well onto the ANE world. They’re more modern categories of literature that we should be careful of forcing upon ANE texts. Genesis 2-3 seems most closely aligned to an etiological story. Why is there chaos in the world? Why is there death and pain? It could be in part a theological argument in that same mode in opposition to other cultures’ explanations employing other mythic events or narratives. Or it could be an attempt at such an explanation in it’s own right. Or something in between. That said, I worry that going too far down that rabbit hole could get a tangent for this thread. But I do want to clarify though that the genre I was suggesting wasn’t “figurative.” I don’t think most ANE scholars would see it that way.
In any event, I like you, prefer open dialogue and engagement rather than exclusion or marginalization. As long as it’s acompanied by intellectual honesty and transparency. So I enjoy this conversation
The quote I provided was explicit about his sympathizing with the YEC community. I didn’t lift the quote out of that context, the quote stated that directly.
Of course I intended to include that in my section. The point I am making is that I provided a quotation saying we should find ways to interpret the science in a manner harmonious with YEC beliefs, and you gave the impression that the quotation was actually talking about something else.
You don’t have to read the entire post in order to know that “Honestly, I think it would be really great if we could find a way for YEC time scale to work with the evidence without abusing. I’m rooting for them” actually means “Honestly, I think it would be really great if we could find a way for YEC time scale to work with the evidence without abusing. I’m rooting for them”. Shifting the focus away from this quotation to a discussion of his motivation for this quotation, doesn’t change the meaning of the quotation.
My point is that in doing the latter, he is going to facilitate the former. And I’ll repeat my previous point. The reason why a 6,000 year ago Adam is so important to YECs is that it underpins their entire theology. In order for that theology to work, their Adam must be a de novo creation, must be the universal progenitor of the entire human race, and must have lived no more than 6,000 years ago (though that mythical date is becoming increasingly stretched). This is hopelessly unsupportable, both theologically and scientifically. We cannot offer them scientific support for the Adam that they want. Even scientific evidence for a homo sapiens bottleneck as little as 100,000 years ago, is not going to do anything to support that.
I fail to see how telling YECs “I have great news, science cannot rule out out the possibility that the human population didn’t dip down to two individuals in the last 500,000 years, as long as we use a definition of “human” which includes not only homo sapiens but several of their ancestor species, and as long as we accept evolution as a fact”, is going to offer them anything but false, hollow hope. Giving them the impression that they can have a 6,0000 year old Adam which is like their Adam, when in fact the Adam you’re providing is not like their Adam at all, is just a bait and switch.
I would be a lot more happy with the idea of going to YECs with the statement “The Adam you want is theologically and scientifically impossible, but let me show you why theologically that doesn’t matter, and how the science supports an Adam which is theologically sound”. Encouraging them to hold onto the Adam they have and want, is not going to help them. Sooner or later they need to face the uncomfortable truth that they are wrong. This is something everyone has to face in their lives at some point. It’s just part of being a mature human being.
I think the term “missionary” was being used with the sense of “someone who introduces people to a new idea” rather than “someone who helps convert non-Christians into Christians”. I would say most YECs are Christians of some sort, if we’re fairly liberal about the definition of “Christian”. I would say that some aren’t.
Well that’s great, I look forward to seeing how you’re going to do that.
I agree.
I agree with that as well. I am actually one of the people for whom the common solutions offered by TE / EC Christians are unsatisfying. Remember, I’m someone who believes in a historical Adam and Eve who really did live in the last 10,000 years (though I don’t believe they were the first humans who ever existed, or that they were the universal ancestors of every human who has ever lived). I’m far more conservative in my understanding of Genesis 3 than a lot of people here. I don’t believe it’s Genesis 3 is a non-historical allegory, metaphor, parable, myth (in the common non-technical sense), or spiritual tale.
Of course it doesn’t. That wasn’t in dispute.
I agree. We can do that by first requesting the evidence for the hypothesis. When that arrives, we can test it. To date, it has not arrived.
This isn’t in dispute either.
But once you start moving to the distant past, you have abandoned the proposed model.
First, aboriginal Australians and Native Americans would also descend from Adam. It only takes a few thousand years for ancestry to become universal. Surprising but true. Have a paper coming out PSCF detailing this. Its well accepted in population genetics.
Second, even if they did not descend from Adam, that does not make them less “human” in a biological sense. They could still be in the Image of God and have souls,e tc. It just means they are not descendants of Adam, and perhaps are not affected by the fall in the same way as us.
In general, I oppose the use of the term “human” in these conversations without qualification. I would not say “true” humans versus “not-true” humans. Rather, I would just say that those before Adam were “human” in a different way than us. They were biologically like us, and were likely in God’s Image and with souls. However, they were also in a different theological era than us, and therefore had a different theological status. It is possible that descent from Adam brought us into a new theological era by way of descent from him. The point here is that “mankind” in Scripture (literally “adams”) is a distinct concept from the taxonomic category of Homo sapiens. Equivocating the two just creates confusion.
The real question is whether a coherent theology of the fall can be developed. I’d say that several theologians think the answer is “yes,” and that this might be a game changer in their context. I think there could be a great deal of consilience with this approach.
But I am saying something different. I’m saying we should read other’s points of view as sympathetically as possible, and do what we honestly can to accommodate their values. There is just no reason for instigating conflict where it does not exist. There is plenty of places of real difficulty, so we need not invent difficulty where it does not exist.
That is all I mean when I said:
Honestly, I think it would be really great if we could find a way for YEC time scale to work with the evidence without abusing. I’m rooting for them”
And, in fact, that is what I think a genealogical Adam does on several key points (but not all). So why not present science in a manner that is most welcoming to their point of view?
It is fun. =). The invitational rhetoric ends up being more effective in the end too.
I don’t know how many times I need to say I agree with this. But this honesty requires telling them that they can’t have the Adam they want.
But we can’t make the YEC time scale work with the evidence in a way which gets them the Adam they want, and we need to be direct about that.
How many times do I need to say that we should present science in a manner which is most welcoming to their view? The issue I have is when that shifts to prioritizing “most welcoming to their view”, over being honest with the facts.
I take your point on how quickly universal ancestry can spread. However, what I was driving at were populations geographically isolated from interbreeding with others. It may be the Aboriginal Australians would be our best bet for that. And one would then have to posit, what, that they were some “different” type of human throughout potentially most of human history until someone comes along on a boat and has liaisons with a daughter in one of their tribes and the community over the course of a few generations becomes a “different” type of human? No differences genetically or ostensibly behaviorally. But it’s there “theologically.”
This seems very much like the Seventh-day Adventist rationalization following the “Great Disappointment.” It’s not that the prophesy was wrong since it completely failed to manifest on earth, it’s only that it all happened in heaven and you can’t say it didn’t because you can’t observe what happens in heaven can you? No you can’t, I win and I’m going home
Now, on to tone and rhetoric and all that. I think what you’re doing does have a place and is useful. However, my own immediate surroundings deal more with people who are more concerned with evading issues when challenged, but more than comfortable preaching when not, than feeling misunderstood or not given their fair chance to be heard out. That’s why, for instance, I think it’s important to ask Richard about whether the evidence presented thus far rules out a 10KYA ancestral bottleneck to 2. Since he’s been reluctant to say anything to contradict YEC doctrine, a small amount of holding one’s feet to the fire to give an honest answer may not be the worst thing in the world.
This is much less problematic than biologically different types of "human (e.g. Homo sapiens and Neanderthals) interbreeding.
Once again, language here creates problems where there is none. How about still “human” before and after, but now in a different theological era, because they are now under the fallen headship of Adam. There need not be a theological problem here, but it does depend on the full theological system invoked. That is all under development, so it is premature to make judgements at this time.
The God we find in the Bible is making theological distinctions all the time, and the word “human” is not in Genesis. Rather it is “adams” of which Genesis speaks. It is not unreasonable to think that Genesis is telling us the origin of adams from Adam. The fact that we translate this to “human” and “mankind” in our heads may just be confusing everyone. Maybe. In this reading, adams were a subset of Homo sapiens during Genesis, but become everyone by the time of Paul (or earlier). Scripture (and the Gospel) is given to all us adams, so it’s not surprising that we conflate this with “human.” That is a perfectly fine mistranslation for the present, but might fall apart in the distant past.
So all we really need is a willingness to wonder why God might make a distinction between Adam’s descendants and others. That is where things get most interesting, and are least considered. Give it time. =)
When I read this, it reminded me of the idea that Adam and the Genesis account is centered on the ancestors of Israel and their immediate neighbors, and perhaps does not have the same application to the people of Australia and South American natives, until that time that the headship of Adam and Abraham was applied to all, and as expressed in Galatians, all those of faith became children of Abraham, and thus now fall under the headship of Adam if your interpretation leads you that way. That would be of course a spiritual rather than genetic or even genealogical connection, but is consistent with how the Bible uses the connection in Galatians3:
7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[d] 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
I think @Swamidass was saying to “drop” the “human” distinctions - - which I interpret to mean drop the “True Human” vs. “Non-True-Human” nomenclature as well.
The scenario that seems most successful is the one where Adam & Eve are created to carry a special influence to rest of the “existing population”. Most likely, this is a “human couple” amidst a pre-existing population that is also human.
Interesting in that while watching a video referenced on another thread about Newbigin, the speaker discusses what makes a “missionary act” and seeing things through the other culture’s perspective is an integral part of that, relevant to what we see in this case.
I do not question theistic evolutionist salvation, but there can be NO built bridges. Evolution goes against the very character and nature of God that we see in scripture. To accept evolution will turn scripture on it’s head. That is just not acceptable to us.
Unfortunately, your views are probably common in the YEC community. However, there are many who either have left that community or who are on the outskirts of it who may remain in the fellowship of Christ if feel they can do so without losing integrity. Also, it also reminds us that while we may hold to one view or the other, we are frail and broken humans who do not have all the answers, and should look at these things with humility.
And I feel sad for them. Because there is nothing more peace filled and liberating in spiritual growth then knowing one can ultimately trust ALL of the word of God. Furthermore there is nothing more humbling to me then putting aside my own pride, my own understanding, my own logic and intuition and receiving God’s word and wisdom as ultimate truth. You think I don’t struggle at times with the age of the earth, because it was ingrained in me since I was a child. So then scriptural authority shifts my presupposition that God’s word is true, and even if I were wrong. The safest bet will still be the word of God. I would rather be a fool for Christ than a fool for man.
Your adamant comments have all the music of a zealot’s intractability. How could you possibly be so sure?
Do you agree that God sometimes uses evaporation to make it rain? I would hope so.
So how is it that you can only imagine God making humans with a >POOF<, and would never ever use genetics to intercede at one time or another?
If God would leave all this Geological information to show us how old the Earth is (which you have to admit is odd to say the least, right?), then don’t you think it’s premature to conclude that God would never use genetics and natural selection to work his miraculous ways?
That is the direction I am leaning. If you look at Genesis, and the descendants of Adam and later of Noah, it seems to relate to Israel, rather than the global earth. We tend to think of earth as the planet, but that was nowhere near what the original author believed. Here is a definition from an Adventist publication that seems appropriate:
•’eretz: land (1543 times in KJV), earth (712 times), country (140 times), way (3 times), ground.
To follow Tyndale and translate ’eretz as “earth” is to mislead the modern-day reader into picturing “Planet Earth,” for this is what the word “earth” inevitably conjures up for us in the context of a cosmology. As before, what Tyndale could get away with (without doing injustice to the Hebrew text) is no longer possible for us. “Land”—the most frequently used English equivalent for ’eretz—is much less likely to mislead. This, however, is not merely land as in real estate, but also (and often) land as in “promised land” or “land of Israel” (’Eretz Israel is now the state of Israel).
To look at it in that perspective makes a difference in how you look at the creation and flood accounts.
Your adamant comments have all the music of a zealot’s intractability. How could you possibly be so sure?
Because the bible tells me so.
Do you agree that God sometimes uses evaporation to make it rain? I would hope so.
How is that germane? Evaporation does not taint the character and nature of God, nor does it cause someone to question the truth of the gospel in Genesis.
So how is it that you can only imagine God making humans with a >POOF<, and would never ever use genetics to intercede at one time or another?
I can easily see genetics in creation i.e. the forming of Eve from Adam’s rib. What I do not see in creation is evolution.
If God would leave all this Geological information to show us how old the Earth is (which you have to admit is odd to say the least, right?), then don’t you think it’s premature to conclude that God would never use genetics and natural selection to work his miraculous ways?
Geological information does not reveal to us an old earth. People’s beginning presuppositional bias that the earth is old reveals to us an old earth. Again, I see nothing of natural selection being mentioned in scripture; not a whiff, not even a hint. But I see evidence of supernatural special creation in scripture. I can only go where scripture takes me pertaining to creation. You want to convince me otherwise, then show me evidence of natural selection in scripture.
The first men to conclude the Earth was much older than 6,000 years were devout Christian geologists. They had no such presupposition… and no doubt they were hoping they were very wrong in their discoveries. But more discoveries piled up onto earlier discoveries.
There is nothing in the Bible about stars being giant balls of burning gas; in fact the bible suggests that “falling stars” can hit the earth, being the approximate size of a horse or maybe a horsecart.
Do you reject the existence of stars as gigantic burning balls of gas?
There is also nothing in the Bible about using radioactive rocks to power heat and power cities.
Do you consider atomic power to be imaginary?
There is nothing in the Bible about microbes causing disease. In fact, the Bible talks about demons causing disease, and prayer and righteousness as cures to disease… and never even mentions measles, which so contagious that someone with measles can sit in a room for 30 minutes … and then leave the room. And anyone entering the room for the next several hours are at risk of catching the disease just by breathing the air.
Do you consider measles to be an imaginary ailment?
The theory of evolution brought about the new finding that the age of the earth was older, because evolution needed the earth to be billion of years old to be a viable concept. It had little to do with evidence and more so to do with presupposition, the presupposition that evolution was true.
