I thought I was fairly read up. From what I understand the prime directive is the hypothesis that Adam was created in an already populated world. All other considerations are then invited, theologically or otherwise, as to how this impacts things beyond this initial consideration.
Is there more detail that delves into finding cohesion between these events and known history? Or the question surrounding what was significant about Adam as to warrant the creation of a whole other line of humans?
These things are what Iām attempting to address.
If you just clarify where you differ from me, they have no legitimate complaint against you.
Iāve written quite a bit about the GAE at this point. Right now Iām going into radio silence till my book comes out. Iāll just say that some of what you have put forward seems to conflict with the evidence.
Determining whether or not what Iāve put forward conflicts with evidence is exactly what Iām after. Whether or not itās apparent, I am open to being wrong and corrected.
Geneological Adam is the beginning. But considering itās based within the past 10,000 years, thereās a lot thatās known about that span of time in that part of the world. So finding cohesion goes well beyond genetic/geneological consistency.
Ultimately, this will all have to be hashed out. Thatās what Iām hoping to address. And I hope having access to those here who are knowledgeable in the relevant areas of study will greatly advance that effort. Itās the closest Iāve found to potential peer review.
Iāve been at this for over 10 years, with every imaginable argument thrown at it.
So far most objections here have been subjective disagreements on interpretation, which are difficult to just outright establish as right/wrong.
I am open to otherās ways, but as Iāve said a few times I havenāt seen much in the way of āotherās waysā tackling the specific things Iām addressing.
Not sure, but by itās description it sounds like a large fish or reptile
Are we seriously going to have to dissect the Hebrew here to figure out what kind of movement ācreepingā is speaking of?
According to Google Translate using the Hebrew cited here ā¦https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm
It says, āAnd so did God make the living of the land for her right, and the beast to her right, and all the earth of the land, to appoint him; And he saw God, that he was good.ā
No mention of creeping things at all. In fact, the only type of animal it does specifically state is ābeastā, which I think we can agree refers to mammals.
Whatās been in dispute for the majority of my time here hasnāt been about that at all. So Iām not sure how youāve determined my premise differs. Other than the āfree willā stuff, which from what I can tell isnāt discussed at all in the model, the primary difference seems to be I cover it and the other doesnāt.
āThis newly found theological freedom in the scientifi c account is an invitation to science-engaged
theology. New evolutionary scenarios are possible.
Those who fi nd theological signifi cance in a genealogical connection to Adam are invited to consider
important questions. How should we think of beings
āoutside the garden,ā even if they remain in our
distant past? A genealogical Adam affi rms monophylogeny in the present day, but how theologically
coherent is a history with other beings alongside
Adam? It is also surprising that genealogical ancestors are not usually genetic ancestors. In what way,
then, could genealogical relationships, nonetheless,
be theologically meaningful for doctrines such as
original sin?ā
I see no mismatch. In fact I see an invitation for just the sort of thing Iāve been attempting to discuss.
Even the free will bits seem to come dangerously close to being on the same page ā¦
āWithout reliance on extra-Scriptural sources, he argues that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are sequential. God first makes āmankindā in His Image, and then later identifies, or perhaps specially creates, a single man Adam and a woman Eve, who together become important because of his Fall. Walton calls Adam and Eve the first ātrueā humans, who are both God Imaged and Fallen. In contrast, those āoutside the gardenā are God Imaged, but not yet Fallen.ā
With the only difference here being that Walton counts Adam and Eve both God Imaged and Fallen. My argument is that God Imaged and Fallen cannot be one and the same. Fallen means no longer an accurate image. But much closer than you would make it seem.
Very misleading. You dont just ācoverā the topic of Free Will, you require that one group has free will and the other doesnt.
Then, rather than say that the global flood is really regional, you then double down by insisting the the regional flood had to kill all of Noahās clan.
This parallels your earlier assertion that Genesis 1 isnt just a partially figurative narrativeā¦ you un-necessarily insist that Genesis 1 follows some stylized scientific sequence.
What is it that you think CS Lewis is speaking about in regards to fallen and unfallen humans? Unfallen, not because they were on par with Jesus himself and able to remain unfallen even with free will, but unfallen because they lack free will.
" Entirely consistent with the genetic evidence, it is possible Adam was created out of dust, and Eve out of his rib, less than 10,000 years ago in a divinely created garden where God might dwell with them, the first beings with opportunity to be in a relationship with Him." - A Genealogical Rapprochement on Adam?
Those first generations are depicted as walking and talking with God. So, in this context, they could very well have gotten the creation account first hand. Thatās how Iām treating Gen1. Again, consistent with the context of the hypothesis. Both mine and @swamidass.
That is false. Afterall, it was Noahās clan who then got dispersed in all different directions at Babel, then integrating with surrounding cultures, sparking into the first civilizations of the ancient world.
You write: āI see no mismatch. In fact I see an invitation for just the sort of thing Iāve been attempting to discuss.ā
And we have discussed them ā¦ but you seem to have forgotten that as we progressed through these topics, you
objected to virtually all the positions offered you and insisted that only yours was the correct one.
A second and even a third loop through all these topics will not change anything in your mind ā¦ so I will not join you
in a renewed visit to these topicsā¦