I’m still new here and trying to get my feet on the ground. I began re-examining my hermeneutical and isagogocal approach a couple years ago. More recently, Lamoureux and Walton helped me recognize I had to work out Gen 1-11. So, here I am.
Is there a Peaceful Science “Primer” thread for newbies? I’ve been looking around and haven’t quite found something like that (likely user error). I’m a trained theologian…not a trained scientist. So, the water gets deep for me relatively quickly when the science is the topic (thank God He’s given us some of you scientists!).
I’m having difficulty making sense of the genealogical Adam (I’ve read some of the articles here). I’m having difficulty making sense of what the significant differences and issues are between Biologos and Peaceful Science, and other groups that are mentioned here frequently. It seems to me that some of it is rooted in biblical hermeneutics (theology). However, it also seems that there are differences in the science.
Perhaps it’s not possible to have such a “primer.” In any event, I’ll keep digging around here and other sources and learning from you here and adding what I am able in discussion. I have appreciated what I’ve found here already.
What are the topics you are most interested in @Mlkluther? One question on my mind is how to provide better “on-ramps” for people. I hope this will be possible soon, especially if we are funded in the long run. Until then, we’ll have to make due .
How interesting! I’m sure with your background you’re able to add much to the discussion. If you’re a Dawkins/Hitchens atheist then you must necessarily also discuss theology in addition to science. It is clear that Dawkins and Hitchens are clear thinkers (as is Sam Harris, IMO) - it is also clear that they make claims that go beyond science and into the metaphysical and ethical.
I grew up in a non-religious home. So, I understand that worldview as well.
In summary, I’d say my main question at this point is working out Adam and Noah when understanding Genesis 1-11 in a non-literalistic, fundamentalist way.
I’ve appreciated Denis Lamoureux’s work. However, I’m not sure from his work that it necessarily follows that there was not an historical Adam or Noah. I’m still working that out. As I’ve picked up around here - a lot of people are working that out.
I also have appreciated John Walton’s work and find his hermeneutical approach fits well within a Lutheran context (even my conservative group…though many within my group would be uncomfortable). He approaches the text with respect and allows the ANE context to shine light on what is really being said. He talks about an archetypal Adam and I’m still working that out.
I’ve also found NT Wright to be helpful in some areas as well.
Absolutely. I will give it a read this evening as soon as the 2nd period of the Oilers game ends. I’m sure I’ll be able to finish reading before the 3rd begins. Gotta watch the hockey game. I’m Canadian, eh.
@Mlkluther, there are a few Lutherans here, glad to have you in the mix. I myself haven’t strayed too far from that, although now I go to an Anglican church. Lutherans have a lot of good tools in their hermeneutical toolbox, and this should help in dealing with difficult issues. For example, the idea that Genesis is rich in liturgical meaning (this goes beyond saying it uses symbolic language) is something Lutherans should feel at home with.
Sometimes the clearest reveal of where to better explain ourselves is obtained by reading a critic’s thumbnail objections to Genealigical Adam.
The misinterpretations are sometimes stunning in missing the points we once thought were oerfectly clear.
My top points for clarification on Geneal.Adam:
1] The deadend details of Cain, which could habe been left out completely seem to have a purpose: to make ancient readers wonder who did Cain fear, who did he marry, and who lived in his city?
2] a careful reading of Gen 1 vs 2 suggests a possible answer: there was a larger group of humans created by God in Gen 1. Gen 2 was about a test run with 2 more humans, especially intended to care for Gods garden.
3] This setting is available to sustain Evangelical views on Romans 5 (Original Sin), but does not REQUIRE these views.
4] Genealogy simulations show that a single mated pair, released into a larger population of the same “kind”, shows that almost any modest factor for migration or wandering is enough to assure that all those humans alive some 2000 to 3000 years in the future can claim the mated pair (as well as multiple other couples) as Universal Ancestors.
Enough time exists for all humanity to have Adamic paternity in their ancestry by the time of the birth of Jesus.
Image Bearing is explicitly connected to the pre-Adam population in Gen 1. While Gen 9 implies it for all generations after Noahs sons have married into the humans of Gen 1 origins.
De novo Adam/Eve can be placed most easily in an Old Earth timeline, anytime between 6000 ya to 25,000 ya… in connection with agricultural evolution.
it is scientifically obvioys that there is a difference between finding no evidence of an Elephant in a living room vs. finding no evidence of a fly in a living room: Christians who support science can accept the miracle if the birth or the resurrectiin if Jesus without conflict. Adding the special creation of 1 man and 1 woman is no different; the science if Evolution is not overturnef by a few divine miracles here and there.
Yes, from science we know that several species of evolved humans were living and advancing across the entire landmass of Earth for about two million years. And then a few thousand years ago a De novo Adam and Eve appears. Yes this is a really convincing read of Genesis.
.
