The Big Tent ... and Genealogical Adam!

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Randy

Right, but hermeneutically with the Augustinian error of Romans 5: 12, implying that Paul wasn’t referring to Adam’s sin–that really influences how we say Adam’s role really is (as in the[other thread about significance of original sin)]

@Randy

Maybe you can explain to me why i shoud be MORE realistic than millions of American Evangelicals who are perfectly willing to dismiss vast swaths of science VIRTUALLY ONLY because of what they think Paul says about Adam?

Postscript:

@Randy, for your consideration…

Were we defending Evolution?, not Hermeneutics 'Per Se'?

In other words, is the modern impasse between Biblicists and Evolutionists the fault of the former? Lots of people at BioLogos seem to think so … Otherwise, why would they fault Genealogical Adam because it doesnt requre a re-generation of Creationist views on figurative interpretation. It most certainly still does. There is still the question of 6 days… the 3 days in a fish… Samsons magical hair. Isnt the list almost endless? What Genealogical Adam does is eliminate Evolution as a problem.…