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.
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?
I do not see how that is germane. There is much evidence in scripture of God speaking everything in creation into existence; in an instant out of nothingness
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?
Again, I do not see how that is germane. There is much evidence in scripture of God speaking everything in creation into existence; in an instant out of nothingness. That does not even remotely sound like evolution
It is my opinion that the two creation stories in Genesis are sequential and the second creation story is not a further clarification, but a distinct and separate event, which would be consistent the the MRCA data. I feel this is more consistent with the rest of scripture for three reasons:
The sequence of creation in the second story (earth, sun, moon and stars already created, then man, then the plants and animals, contradicts the first creation story.
In Genesis (and in Chronicles), the line leading to Jesus is always given first, always with one exception, which is that of Adam. I believe the first creation story fulfills the purpose of providing the line of men and women not leading to Christ.
In Genesis 6, we are told of the “sons of God” (descendants of Adam) and the “daughters of man” (descendants of the first creation) and how it was very important that Noah was “pure in his generations” meaning he maintains the integrity of the line leading to Christ.
With this approach, scripture can be viewed as accurate while eliminating any perceived conflict with evolution.
The Theory of Evolution came after the findings of Geologists suggested that the earth was much older than 6,000 years.
Google this sentence: "Geologists were just beginning to gather evidence for a much older Earth, and this knowledge had a great influence on Darwin, who took Charles Lyell’s classic Principles of Geology with him on the voyage "
