The Bible itself supports this view. Cain is presented as the archetype of ancient rulers.
1 Like
Thanks for the link, but I don’t see the strong biblical support. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the argument. Cain is an archetypal sinner, to be sure.
I think you’re being charitable. I don’t see any support, biblical or otherwise. I don’t think ancient Egyptian is even a Nilo-Saharan language.
You are usung circular analysis.
I start with Gen 1 and Gen 2 not being compatible with each other. And THUS I conclude that Gen 1 is about one batch of humans and Gen 2 is about just 2 humans.
In order to conclude this, you have to start with the additional assumptions that the two stories are not contradictory and THUS must be reconciled. Your way to reconcile them is to suppose they talk about different things. I don’t start with those assumptions. If one reads Genesis 2 without the assumption that it doesn’t contradict Genesis 1, in fact without taking Genesis 1 into account, I maintain that the clear way to read the text without those assumptions is that Adam and Eve are indeed the first couple, exclusive ancestors of all.
I would also claim that the doctrine of original sin becomes even more bizarre if they aren’t.
Just because you can describe what you do doesnt mean it is the right thing to do.
Just look at your sentence:
“…If one reads Genesis 2 …without taking Genesis 1 into account…”
I can see why you werent moved by text-critical analysis. For textual critique to work a person has to be moved by an intuitive sense of sequence.
There is no rule book that says:
Step 2, Ignore the preceding chapter before analyzing the current chapter.
As i said in my prior post, it is the fact Gen 2 cannot sync up with Gen 1 that pushes the analyst to conclude there is a human population being discussed EARLIER than Adam & Eve.
That’s true only if you assume that the stories are intended to be sequential. I see nothing in the text to show that, and much to suggest that they are unrelated stories. I am not moved by an intuitive sense of sequence, whatever that means.
Ancient Egyptian is an ancient language in the Afro-Asiatic Family and is in the Nilo-Saharan group.You don’t provide much in the way of evidence for your declarations.
Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan are disjunct groups, last I heard. What is your source for Afroasiatic being within Nilo-Saharan? That certainly wasn’t Greenberg’s concept.
No sir. The 2 chapters dont sync up in any way… which means they HAVE to be sequential.
The 2 chapters are not different perspectives… the facts dont match up.
That doesn’t follow. They could just be different stories. The stories in Kipling’s Just So Stories don’t sync up in any way either, yet there is no sequence. The facts don’t match up because there are no facts. They overlap slightly in what they attempt to explain, i.e. in the origins of humans and animals, and in that overlap, they disagree. No big deal.
1 Like
Frankly, you are one of the most unequivocal “concrete thinkers” i’ve ever encountered on a religious board!
Try to imagine being able to view your body from OUTSIDE your body for just 30 seconds.
Then imagine you see yourself engaged in a debate about non-syncing stories being interpreted as sequential stories… but you are defending MY position… and i say to you:
“Or, they could just be different stories!”
So what is your reaction? It isnt " Why didnt i think of that yesterday?" No. Your reaction is: “This world class skeptic just implied that i could simply interpret Genesis as a lie… rather than interpret 2 stories as sequential! How incredibly helpful!”
My reaction is that you’re the one being condescending and arrogant here, not me. You need to acknowledge your assumptions. I’ve presented what I think your assumptions are, and you have denied it. But without those assumptions your conclusion doesn’t follow.
I’m not saying the stories are lies.But you can’t just assume that they’re true, and you can’t just assume that differences between them mean that they’re sequential. Try putting yourself in my place. I would require some evidence of sequence or connection. You haven’t provided any. Why should I credit your conclusion?
1 Like
You appear to be objecting to the Scenario based on the idea that it isnt convincing to a non-Christian.
I dont think there is any way to avoid that.
The scenario is designed fir Creationists… and so it shares a crucial aspect sharex by almost all other Creationist viewpoints:
The shared element is that most atheists and agnostics arent convinced by them!
However, if you are arguing that given what you know about Creationists, Creationists will not find G.A.'s interpretation convincing …
I would find your objection more useful!
And my response would be:
Growing up, a Creationist might be faced with accepting a SEQUENTIAL view vs. Rejecting the preponderance of natural evidence for Evolution.
I believe many Creationist would be inclined to accept the small leap of sequential chapters IN ORDER to avoid the huge leap of rejecting all of natural science!
@swamidass… this “choice” should be a featured element of tour writings!
Peaceful Science is not a religious board.
1 Like
Of course it is a religious board…
It’s this foolishness you periodically descend into that justifies my inclination that “hostile atheists” should be under full moderation (by me!).
1 Like
Not exactly. I object based on the idea that it requires unstated and unacknowledged assumptions. Absent those assumptions, it wouldn’t be convincing to anyone. And since the assumptions are unacknowledged, we can’t even talk about them.
I’m not arguing that here, but I am arguing that elsewhere. It’s not the sequence of chapters they would reject. It’s the implications of that sequence, that A&E are not the sole genetic and genealogical ancestors of all humanity. Of course they’re good at ignoring implications, so they might accept the sequence. Also, creationists don’t seem to have a problem with rejecting science; that’s how they can be creationists. Of course many of them convince themselves that TRUE science supports them.
What does it matter who the arguments are intended to convince? Shouldn’t a valid argument be valid, period? Otherwise it’s just propaganda. What you’re really saying is that the argument relies on premises (again, unstated and unacknowledged) that a non-Christian doesn’t already accept.
Yes, absolutely. However i dont find your assessment of G.A. to be very accurate. You charge:
G.A. requires unstated and unacknowledged assumptions.
I think you will find @swamidass is pretty conscientious about listing ALL assumptions as he comes to understand ehich assumotions need more coverage.
I wasn’t referring to Joshua. I was referring to your defenses of the biblical fit of G.A. That’s what requires the unstated and unacknowledged assumptions. The biological assumptions are clearly stated.