Sure. But of course the ancient Hebrews had not concept of “mammal”, and whales were thought of as fish until quite recently. The point is, really, that whatever the word means, it doesn’t mean dinosaurs.
As a general case, that’s true. But in the actual case at hand, that’s not what happened.
And yet you are not conscious that your entire case is based on you projecting your ideas onto what the text is saying.
No, it doesn’t mean “dinosaurs”. But in sequence, if dinosaurs were to be included anywhere, it would be right here.
You sure about that. Because it’s language as far as “multiply” to “fill the earth” makes it pretty apparent.
No, I’m evaluating the text in light of modern knowledge. Not projecting. Comparing.
You write:
“Yeah, as far as I can tell, if I don’t just say, “Oh, okay” and
accept whatever you say then I’m being difficult. All I know to do is
tell you what I think and why. This is the position and viewpoint I’m
coming from. I talk to other well educated and informed people so that
anything I have wrong can be corrected. As I try to show, there’s
reason I think what I think. Yes, it’ll take some convincing. Yes, I’m
going to bring up why I think this and why whatever alternative
doesn’t fly in my mind. You’d think that would be expected.”
Look… Jeremy, lots of people disagree with me. Lots of people
disagree with @swamidass. Joshua and I even disagree with each other.
But you bring a really unusual chemistry to @PeacefulScience.Org. I
tell you why I can’t accept your position. Then you start telling me
why your position is either “the same” as Genealogical Adam … or
even better.
Then I explain to you why it is not. At this point, you should
accept the explanation. But then you counter - yet again - with
surprisingly little or zero academic support… digging your hole even
deeper.
Then I tell you, again, why there are differences. Then 2 weeks
elapse, and you write that you don’t see any real differences.
Example: " I have been convinced of being wrong on a couple of points
in discussions here on this site. And I mean things I’ve had that way
for a decade. When convinced, I dropped it. For example, I used to
think free will was spread from Adam and Eve into humanity
genetically. But it was made apparent that one mating pair in the
population, their genetic code would be diluted into nothing within a
handful of generations.That makes sense. I was wrong. I appreciate the
time you’ve invested in dealing with my stubbornness."
This is a very nice anecdote. But what the the story fails to point
out is that all you have done is gone on the hunt for some new
mechanism for spreading Free Will. Your position on Free Will and
the Pre-Adamites is still diametrically opposed to Genealogical Adam.
And the fact you blithely ignore this is part of your problem. But it
is not part of my problem.
Jeremy, who are you? < This is my nice way of saying, "You got a
lot of nerve for someone who can’t find his way around a Strong’s
Dictionary. Please leave me alone.
The “waters” of Earth are fertile sources of creation. The waters below heaven produce sea creatures. The waters above the Firmament produce birds.
It’s not good science… but it appears to be what the scribe(s) of Genesis had in mind.
@Jeremy_Christian ( cc: @John_Harshman )
Your theory for how the birds are mentioned on the same day as the sea creatures is completely off-based, is scientifically inaccurate, is lacking in ancient parallels, and fails virtually every text-critical method of analyzing the texts.
This is where you are supposed to stop hounding correspondents by your purportedly superior logic. What you have is excellent powers of imagination. But you really should use that imagination the way L.Ron Hubbard used his: write your story, found a new religion, become wealthy. Then die, leaving a rogue organization to plague the Earth.
This is your true calling…
I disagree. I can see the logic, but it’s a bit of a stretch considering the text doesn’t directly make that correlation.
No, actually it isn’t. I quoted directly from Joshua’s article illustrating that. It uses different language, choosing instead to speak of “fallen” and “unfallen” people, but it’s the same thing.
Yoir understanding of free will is big reason many seem to object to your proposal.
If I agree I stop. If I disagree I tell you why. Never said my logic was superior.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Nice illustration, @Jeremy_Christian. But not realistic, even for the mythical 6 days of creation!
I get that. And as I’m sure you’ve encountered in your efforts, when you’re dealing with this text and these theological ideas and concepts, you’re dealing with a lot of preconceived notions. And, like with Genealogical Adam, those preconceived notions are often rooted in old world understandings where you’re trying to introduce new thinking.
It’s often a bumpy road. Same thing applies here.
Can you point to anyone else who has endorsed the legitimacy of your innovation?
The GAE is not a new idea and it is not innovative. It is a return to an old idea.
The mention of birds in the same verse doesn’t jive with this idea that all non-sea animals are represented in day 6.
Wow… since you apparently were there to witness these amazing things… you no doubt have some selfies you can share with us?
No pics? Didn’t happen.
As you know, it’s a unique view, and has only been discussed/considered to the extent that my reach allows, so the sample size is relatively small.
But yes, there’s a whole slew of people in the comments attached to each of these articles that fall into both camps, pro and con…
Comments on a thread by non experts don’t count, especially because they are not precise. Any one with deeper knowledge that agrees specifically with your position on free will?
Recall many qualified people here have reviewed it. It is not a new idea to us any more. Do you understand why we reject it?
Finding experts to weigh in is why I’m here. Not as easy to accomplish for a shlub like me.
Do you see how strangely ironic your statement is here… when you are the ones making pictures of putting REPTILES into Day 5, where fish and birds are supposed to be created?
That is so wrong, it isn’t even wrong any more…
Drop the stubborn routine…
And it must be even harder to KEEP the experts around… because when someone provides a learned opinion, you just lean back and say: “nawwwww… nope”.
From what I can tell all rejections I’ve encountered so far are because of preconceived concepts of free will that are, as is often the case, rooted in ideals formed long ago before all the information that makes this apparent was available.
Most often, those that have reviewed it that you’re referring to, haven’t. Not a comprehensive review of the whole picture, but rather a single statement that seems contrary to concepts already held by that person based on that specific term “free will”.
