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

Seriously? Compromising the truth on this looks more to me like we are jumping onto a sinking ship. I really don’t see how that helps anyone.

1 Like

Again, I’d like to see some testimonials from all the biblical literalist Creationists who believe Genealogical Adam is all their science and faith dreams come true. I think you and some other people are being kind of naive about this “compromise” you think is going to happen. I don’t see it happening. The idea has been out there a while now, and it hasn’t exactly taken the Evangelical world by storm. Where are the excited blog posts on The Gospel Coalition? (Josh taking the opportunity to promote it himself in his Themelios review of the Theistic Evolution book doesn’t count in my book.) Where is the feature article in CT or World Magazine? What prominent Evangelical known for insisting on special creation of Adam and Eve, biblical literalism, and opposing evolution has endorsed this view as consistent with his or her view of the Bible?

3 Likes

I think it reduces but does not eliminate the problem. First, EC claims that eons of suffering and death preceded Adam, while the “plain reading” suggest these resulted from the first transgression. Second, it does little to assuage the sensibilities of those who assume that God must be teaching us the complete story of origins in Genesis. Finally, some who equate special creation of Adam and Eve with Imago Deo would never accept that there were other image-bearing humans made through evolutionary processes.

As an aside, my 10-year-old holds to EC plus special creation of Adam and Eve. She does not yet understand all the implications of this view but I have little interest in over-complicating things for her at this point.

3 Likes

Just to underscore this… I went through a years-long crisis of faith some time back, and when asked what the essence of it was, I didn’t say “the origins debate” or “how old is the earth?” but rather, “What is the role of death in God’s creation?”

This was a huge deal for me. I had worked out a lot of other pieces of the puzzle but just couldn’t get around this. Is death an unintended interloper to be defeated? Or a yin-yang part of the creative force that has shaped life as we know it over billions of years?

2 Likes

Of course it is the latter: death is a necessary part of the creative force that has shaped all life on earth. Even Jesus in Gesthemane feared the painful death he faced, but he still said: “Thy will be done.” Thus even Jesus had to be reminded that death was God’s will–His plan. It was what Jesus accomplished by his death that mattered.
Al Leo

Ill keep you posted, @Christy.

It seems intuitively obviously that Genealogical Adam is closer to the YEC mindset…

But the proof is certainly waiting for the testimonials…

2 Likes

At the presentation in Grand Rapids led by Richard Mouw, Deborah Haarsma, and Praveen Sethupathy, Dr Mouw mentioned his meeting with Bernard Ramm (also detailed at “How I changed My Mind About Evolution”).

He recounted how Bernard Ramm got into trouble for positing the possibility of evolution from popular opposition. However, in response to his question as to whether he ever regretted it, "Oh, no,” he said. "All the criticism I ever received was worth it, just to know that there would never be a student of mine who, after studying with me, went off to Harvard and lost his or her faith because I never allowed them to wrestle with the kinds of issues that I raised in that book.”

I suspect that the Haarsmas would think about putting it in as one of the wide variety of views in their “Origins” book; and maybe the Grudems, Moreland and Gaugers would also consider it, in an effort to give another option for young, struggling Christians to struggle forward and combine both science and faith.

God bless, as always.

this was a presentation–I was not a participant–in Lagrave church! Sorry I misrepresented it by mistake.There were 400 people! I did meet Jim Stump, Ryan Bebej, and Dennis Venema. They won’t remember me from Adam (allusion intended).

1 Like

this was a presentation–I was not a participant–in Lagrave church! Sorry I misrepresented it by mistake.There were probably 300-400 people! I did meet Jim Stump, Ryan Bebej, and Dennis Venema. They won’t remember me from Adam (allusion intended). The title was “Common Ground in Science and Faith.” There was quite a range, from children of 12 to college (some nonChristian) to elderly.

3 Likes

@Christy (@jpm & @pevaquark)

It is not my intention to over-sell, though I am sure my enthusiasm for the “theoretical benefits” of Genealogical Adam does incline me to be ahead of the curve. I hope I am only temporarily ahead of the curve. But I must confess that there is a possibility that @Swamidass’ efforts to find widespread acceptance for Genealogical Adam amongst Creationists may not go as far as any of us would like.

But I do stand firm behind my sincere belief that Genealogical Adam offers Creationists something they have not had in a very long time: a way for Christians who are engaged in professions of Science, and a way for Christians who generally support Evolutionary science, to accept Special Creation of two humans (Adam & Eve) without requiring all the fields of science to be overturned.

Pursuant to this unique accomplishment, Joshua has started to record Creationist endorsements. Below is a link to 2 OEC and 1 YEC scholars (so far) who are willing to take a stance on Genealogical Adam (Posting #1455 of this thread):

When we have more to add, eventually we’ll be able to set up a dedicated thread for these endorsements.

3 Likes

See, if you want to start appealing to the next generation, Randy, what you’re supposed to do in such a gathering is to turn around and use your selfie stick to take a picture just like that but with you in it. Then give us a link to your Instagram post about it… #nofilter

1 Like

@gbrooks9, @AMWolfe, I think that the mission of Biologos is to improve access to the Christian faith–both to those who might lose their faith when jumping from YEC to evolution, and those who already are in evolution and struggle with faith. So I would think that the target is not only YEC’s, but also evolution-believing atheists and agnostics. Thus, a more naturalistic point of view, like Lamoureux’ and Miller’s, is also valid to keep in mind in the big tent.

But again, the discourse is unrelated to Biologos itself. Talking to the directors is going to the horse’s mouth.

Thanks.

No need to “think” or “wonder”… go right here:

https://biologos.org/about-us/

Core Commitments

  • We embrace the historical Christian faith , upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible.
  • We affirm evolutionary creation , recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years.
  • We seek truth , ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible.
  • We strive for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views.
  • We aim for excellence in all areas, from science to education to business practices.

What We Believe

  1. We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God.

Followed by 10 more points!

1 Like

Thanks. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thanks for sharing. I think this kind of presentation is something we need more of. The problem in my part of the world, is that few churches would be comfortable hosting it. I know in my community, a pastor that hosted such a panel would a best get a lot of angry emails, and at worst would be looking for a job. I agree with the comment made in your link by Dr. Mouw, " I need safe places in which to explore with other Christians who are also willing to explore."
Unfortunately, it is difficult to find that safe place. For many of us this forum is one of the few places we can openly discuss these topics. Hopefully as time goes on, more of these discussions can take place in the areas that need them most.

4 Likes

A post was split to a new topic: Josh’s status on Forum

I believe Creation was revealed to the author (by oral tradition or writing) of Genesis in 7 calendar days, not the the universe was formed in a calendar week. Note that the sun was not even created until day 4 so there were no calendar day until day 4.

Jonah was dead and brought back to life after three days, Jesus said “A wicked generation asks for a sign, but they will only be given the sign of Jonah”. The Book of Jonah is a beautiful illustration of loving your enemy in the Old Testament, but all anyone talks about is the fish.

There was no magic in Samson’s hair. He was committed to be a Nazarene (like John the Baptist) from birth by his mother. He ignored all those commitments. When the Spirit of God finally left him, he didn’t even know it as he was so far gone. The story is analogous to Esau selling his birthright for a bowl of soup, because he placed no value on it. Samson’s strength was from the Spirit of God, not from his magic hair.

This was affirmed when Samson repented before his death and his strength was restored, even without his magic hair.

1 Like

@TGLarkin

Well… you do a nice job of writing, but you missed a detail: his hair HAD grown back! Here are FIVE (5) versions of Judges 16:22 - -

NKJV: However, the hair of his head began to grow again after it had been shaven.

NLT: But before long, his hair began to grow back.

NIV: But the hair on his head began to grow again after it had been shaved.

ESV: But the hair of his head began to grow again after it had been shaved.

CSB: But his hair began to grow back after it had been shaved.

His hair grew back but he received no strength from it. It was only when he prayed to God to restore his strength (17:28) did he become strong again. His hair was only an outward symbol to others of the covenant his mother made with God.

When Jesus spit into the ground, made mud and healed the blind man, was the dirt magic or was the spit? These are only mechanisms to facilitate the faith of the blind man. I think this is why Jesus healed in many different ways so people would not be caught up in the method but in the Man.

The brazen serpent, the crucifix and the Arc of the Covenant are other examples of mechanisms of faith and symbols of covenants, there is no magic in them. A good example is also in the Book of Judges when Israel marches against the Philistines with the Arc in front of them and they are soundly defeated and the Arc captured as their hearts were far from God. There is no magic in the Bible.

2 Likes

What!!? You mean the Indiana Jones, ummm, documentaries about the ark may have been stretching the truth and that it won’t melt people’s faces if they try to open it?!

3 Likes

The face melting scene is actually right out of the Bible (Zech 14:12), only it occurred a little bit before the end times. Zechariah 3 is one of my favorite chapters in the Bible.

1 Like

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.