Not to an original reader – the physical form of an image (idol) had to declare something about the deity it stood in for – some attribute or aspect – but that doesn’t mean that the physical form is itself somehow related to the essence of the deity. The human physical form would not represent God’s character, but the way it functioned in relation to the rest of Creation would. So how much of our physical form is essential for being image(s) of God is an open question – for example, is bipedalism essential?
Our senses are basic functions that probably relate, but that would just mean that a creature that can see, hear, taste, smell, and touch fits the concept. Tool-using is pretty basic, as is locomotion, and those probably fit as well – both illustrate things about God.
Of course this kind of speculating trips over the fact of anthropomorphization in the OT.
Except that it doesn’t. Your failure of imagination is not a useful argument.
My brother the mathematician once criticized pantheons with the statement that any number of divinities other than one or infinity is ridiculous, and an infinity of deities is ludicrous.
It’s worth noting that Peter here equates the great t’hom – the chaotic deep – with the waters of the Flood. That right there excludes YEC because the waters of Creation were hardly just ordinary water.
Oh – just BTW & FWIW, the term Peter uses here for “world” does not refer to the planet but to organized society (it could mean the created universe but that is ludicrous).
True. I can’t see my way around regarding the Noah account(s) as mythologized history, which requires at least some history at the core, but there is a lot of room to work with outside that.
Indeed one could argue that the rebel angels referenced in the opening of Genesis 6 were all in one area, and that ares was the only one that needed wiping out.
I’m sure others have thought it but I honestly just connected these potential dots here in my own head for the first time. One of the issues with the flood has always been its universal scope with respect to humanity while humans were too spread out for a localized for regional flood to apply. But not if we subscribe to a genealogical A&E pushed back some then a flood could have wiped all full human beings. (as in those created in the image of God with supernaturally created rational souls) save eight. It is intriguing and allows me to just accept a plain reading of 1 Pet 3.
To get back to that small of a group of humans you have to go way, way back to Africa and you still have the problem of our DNA indicating homo sapiens mixed with other groups.
There is a very jaded view of them here, with lots of fraud and words like liar thrown around. I’ve been in that boat. I had to climb out. There was a time when I related more to non-Christians than Christians,. It took a lot of work from God to get over that. I still have work to do though. It’s that lingering deconstruction many have.
While we crap on YECs here, all the materialistic scientists and skeptics urinating on our faith are the cool guys and are given a free pass to worship at the altar of science and promote its dogma.
And as Christian who believes in Biblical inspiration, I honestly am not overly interested in how a Universalist Unitarian understands that passage. This is about the internal logic of Christian interpretation if you follow the discussion from Adam to Bill to Me.
I don’t even know what a universalist unitarian is, but the name alone makes me think I’d run across you in the tarot card section of a Barne’s and Noble. Sounds wishy washy and spineless.
My point was that for most of us Christians, I suspect we accept as true most of what is in this chapter being narrated by Peter or someone in his name except that one thing about the flood.
Did Christ suffer to bring us to God? Check!
His body was put to death but made alive in spirit? Check.
After resurrection he proclaimed to imprisoned spirits? Check.
Jesus has gone into heaven to sit God’s right hand? Check?
Noah built an ark and 8 people were saved? Nope.
I am not arguing we have to accept everything literally or that we can’t reject this. I understand these ancient authors had incorrect cosmoslogies and there appears to be no supernatural scientific knowledge in the Bible as far as I am aware. But it is curious to take a passage like this where we believe just about everything in it–including a bunch of supernatural claims-- but that one thing. That one things happens to be open to testing so I understand why but I think we need to cut the literalists more slack than we do. Most of us read our sacred scripture in faith accepting these things as true. This was about Bill’s comment there is no evidence. I agree, no physical evidence. it is clearly against a global deluge 4,000ish years ago as a very literalistically interpreted Bible describes, wiping out all humans. But for the Christian, that isn’t all we look for or the totality of our world. It’s not as easy to dismiss some of these stories as members on this forum sometimes appear to make it out to be. There is an option of pushing the flood back with a genealogical Adam and Eve. Even if I didn’t just think of this, it would be acceptable to say I don’t know and let two ideas we think are true sit in tension until more evidence or a different way forward comes along. All Christians don’t have to just bow down and worship science because some forum members grinding an axe on Biologos say so.
Yup, just far enough for all humans alive today to be genealogical descents of a couple chosen by God and given a rational soul (or a small group if that is your cup of tea). The mixing isn’t a problem. Whether humans with a rational soul had sex with those who did not (bestiality) or those others forced themselves on these metaphysical humans), it explains it. At this point there was sin in the world. Humanity had fallen. People with souls still have sex with animals and commit rape today (I think they have souls). Mixing is not an issue since God nowhere commanded it. Even if we accept a single couple, the belief is they were given preternatural gifts and access to immorality that they lost. We don’t know how their children were expected to procreate (with whom). They didn’t make it that far. The flood occurs due to sin as opposed to humans just being noisy like in the other stories.
Not really, since YEC basically uses the same concepts and views that materialists do – they are, after all, promoting a materialist understanding of the opening of Genesis (among other texts).
It’s why YECists are perhaps the greatest promoters of atheism around: they adopt the same viewpoint, then make Christians look like idiots.
I don’t think Biologos (or even just the forum here generally) lives “up to” either of those charges of yours. We happen to think truth matters, and we appreciate those here who are willing to engage with and promote attention to evidence - either scriptural or empirical, no matter what formal faith tradition (if any) they may happen to identify with. And here we are letting you crap all over us - but … you’re still here! Try the same thing over on their sites and see how long you last. But you wont. Because you can’t - they won’t let you. Truth is not a currency of much value in many places any more. We’ll remain one of those few where it is.
No. In the GAE scenario, the Pre-Adamite population may have a huge range,
while the insertion of the mated pair of Adam/Eve would start within the pre-adamite
population like a pebble thrown in the water. The small ripple expands outward in
a steady but finite amount of time. 1500 or 2000 years to reach into ALL of the
human population.
We look like idiots to who? Those who embrace materialism and think God does not exist? Seems like some stones are being thrown in a glass house. I used to think that way. Embarrassed by the beliefs of fellow Christians. But the Gospel is not a commodity or merchandise I peddle. It’s the power of God. How sad would the world be if someone’s eternal salvation ultimately depended on my ability to sell them something palatable about Christianity. A wretched sinner like me. Imagine that. In the end, there is a spiritual dimension to human existence and while the physical world is immensely important, as we are a unity of body and soul, it alone is not enough. I’ll just leave these two verses here:
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”
“The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God”
I think after 2,000 years of art, theology and iconography, statues, necklaces an so on, we forget the craziness of our belief in a God that was crucified by Rome. It’s about the most absurd thing you can think of for a religion to be based on from a worldly level.
The Biologos website itself is solid. It would probably be beneficial if we actually linked some of its articles in our discussions. The forum has its ups and downs like anywhere. There was a recent down funk. But there is a fair degree of YEC bashing here (I’m guilty as well) and you yourself have taken a large number of topics in that direction when you didn’t need to. It is a recurring theme.
I have a sweet tooth, but not with liquor. That sounds wildly sweet. Now if we take some dried apricot or wood chips and infuse some apricot smoke into a glass of bourbon…
Your version of pre-adamite humans makes them sound like Neanderthals…. or worse.
Secondly, even with such a portrayal, pre-adamites had not FALLEN anywhere.
In fact, prior to the spiritually superior Adam/Eve, they were at their evolutionary peak!
There is no reason that to think the pre-adamite population were physically different
from Adam/Eve - - which would have been made with a genome found within the
pre-adamite population.
I agree. If anything, the Catholic in me would say God extended them a rational soul and a bit of grace that they ended up losing for themselves and all of us. But God didn’t write us off. He showed up again on a Roman Cross.
This is a question my wife would ask. She can remember every line of every argument or conversation or incident we ever had. And she can recall every detail whenever she wants. It puts me at a very strong disadvantage
When something is over I’m mostly “out of mind out of site” aside from vague generalizations and remembrances. We have hundreds of discussions here. I remember things vaguely but I don’t dwell on what I deem specific “records of wrongs.” I move on but when they occur repeatedly they do trigger my a fuzzy memory (this again).
A lot of it is about the meta of how we present them. YECism is wrong and we all know why. But they are brother and sisters in Christ. I’m probably guilty of this with materialism which does stem from years of experience with militant atheists on the internet. Atheists are made in the image of God the same as me. The internet is a place where nuance dies and its easy to just see things as ideas battling without real people behind them.
And I apologize for my description of UU. It was rude and childish. I won’t lie, it sounds new agey to me but there is no excuse for the way I presented it.
Bow down and worship science? Not at all. Nothing could please me more than if YEC promptly and absolutely ignored science.
It is YEC that just cannot leave science alone. Somehow, from the simple story of the garden and of water going up, water going down, and the animals disembarking; we get to nonsensical technobabble of decaying planetary magnetic fields from primordial water, accelerated everything from nuclear decay to speciation, fire breathing dragons as dinosaurs, and slandering the work of scientists who are just trying to do their research.
Beyond the Nicene creed, I really am not distressed about anyone’s theological commitments towards baptism, TULIP, church governance, or literalism as concerns origins. I do not recall any post from any person in this forum demanding obeisance to science. I would be quite happy for science to be left in peace.
Calling them liars for one.
Calling them dishonest for two.
I would like to say that claiming they are wrong is another but that becomes a much more delicate matter.
The problem @Vinnie has highlighted is more one of attitude whereby certain views are clamped down upon and scientists are free to pass judgements and be assertive without comment or objection. If science is criticised then the hackles and defenses rise at a rate of knots as if by saying anything negative we are insulting their work ethics and integrity.
However people of faith are not allowed to hold that over any scientific view.
I am sorry, but there is a bias on this forum towards the scientific view.
The point of genealogical Adam and Eve is not all of mankind descended from these two but that they are in the family tree of every person. When you go that far back in a family tree the total number of “great” grandparents is immense (tried to estimate that number but my calculator can’t handle a number that large). The purpose was to retain the transmission of original sin but given there is no actual biological relationship for people that far apart the transmission would have to be spiritual. In which case why is a family relationship required?
Actually those stories are closer than you might think. In both, humans fail to measure up to a deity and are destroyed. Does it really matter what the measure was?
Vinnie wants to start with 8 people so you have to go way back in time.
Ripple of what? You could include them on your family tree but what do you actually inherit from them? Certainly not DNA.
Given " This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. I would expect a fair amount of “the scientific view” and I already know it is probably more than you would like.
