@swamidass, Carol Hill seems to be believing in GAE.
Grand Canyon Caving and Other Adventures: An Interview with Carol Hill - Articles - BioLogos
2 Likes
No, she seems completely unaware of GAE. Here’s the relevant quote:
In other words, they’re ancestral to the Jews and other people mentioned as descendants of Noah, but not to everyone.
2 Likes
Yes you’re correct, Carol Hill’s A&E were the start of the genealogical line of Jewish History, whereas GAE were genealogical line of the entire human race living 2000 years ago. Carol Hill’s approach is much simpler and seems more plausible than GAE. Carol Hill’s view fits well with Alice Lindsay’s archaeological work where A&E were first of the Jewish priestly line.
1 Like
I don’t share your respect for Alice Lindsay’s (sp.?) work, and I don’t think it’s actually archaeology. But yes, it would fit to some degree.
1 Like
The fact she doesn’t know about the GAE doesn’t some how make her AE less likely to be universal ancestors.
Yes, but she doesn’t think they’re universal ancestors, which was my point. Her AE are not.
1 Like
But her A&E is more plausible than GAE as the God mentioned in the Torah could have de novo created A&E in the special garden and this A&E is in the genealogical of all the Jewish people mentioned in Torah and the Jesus of Nazareth figure in the NT. Paul could have been talking about Jewish history not world history as he actually knew nothing of world history. And with this A&E, the flood bottleneck just evaporates as it is just a local flood killing just the wicked people of a tiny region. The genealogy of the OT is preserved as nothing more than a tiny tribe in the vast global humanity of the past few thousand years.
I have respect for Alice’s work as it is real archaeology of real artifacts and cultures. To me it shows, how localized, backwards, and tribal the culture was in that region of the world in that time frame.
More plausible than the GAE? You are talking as if they are separate options. They aren’t.
They are certainly separate options. All the options are made-up to make the Genesis story sound plausible and compatible with science, history, archaeology, and genetics. Anybody’s imagination can come up with options that fits the story and the science. That the greatness of theology. You can make stuff up and there is no way to falsify.
Which of Hills claims precisely are not consistent with the GAE?
Her A&E doesn’t need to be the genealogical ancestor of all humanity just the genealogy recorded in the Torah. Her is GAE of just the Jewish people not humanity. In fact this fits better with God’s “chosen people” claims.
I don’t believe this is correct. Why hasn’t she published anything?
What she “needs” is distinct from what she claims.
True, but what she claims is that A&E are ancestors of the Jews and perhaps some others, but not everyone. What she claims is explicitly not compatible with GAE, though she might change her claims if you talked to her.
1 Like
In that case her view would need refinement. This seems to be nothing more than a scientific misunderstanding on her part and does not indicate an intrinsic opposition to monogenesis.
1 Like
“Monogenesis” is another of those terms, like “sole progenitorship”, that seems to have multiple meanings. What did it mean in that sentence?
1 Like
The doctrine that everyone alive by at least AD 1 descends from AE.
1 Like
That seems a non-standard definition.
1 Like
Well, that is the definition I derive from tradition and Scripture in the GAE book you love to talk about, but have yet to read 
.