Hermeneutics 101: Genesis Flood is Global or Not?

I explain 3 possible views in the book and how all three could work. I don’t really make a choice, but the choice here will impact how you read Genesis 6.

Theories are made to be tested. Who is going to test all three choices? Too many choices and too many assumptions in a model begin to render it untenable and not even valued enough to be seriously considered. Just sayin

I’m not testing Genesis. I seek to understand Genesis, and make space for differences in science.

Isn’t GAE only one of those choices, and isn’t it the one you’re favoring, or advocating, or whatever you want to call it?

No that is not the case. I explain all three views and show how it doesn’t ultimately matter which path the exegete takes, because all three can work.

What is not the case? Are you saying that GAE is compatible with all three views? What are the three views?

This is not the case:

You are being so terse as to communicate very little to me. If your goal is to shut down discussion, that will probably serve.

1 Like

The GAE is not merely one of those choices. It can work with all three ways of reading Genesis 1 and 2 together: 1. Exact recaptiulation, 2. Zoomed recapitulation, and 3. Sequential.

I see each of those as having its own difficulties in explaining various aspects of the text. What does “zoomed recapitulation” mean? I’m supposing it means that the creation of humans in Genesis 1 includes but is not limited to the creation of A&E. Yes? But in that case doesn’t everyone start out with Imago Dei?

1 Like

Especially since the rise of the “creation science” Young Earth Creationist movement of the 1960’s, there has been far too much conflict over science and the Bible, especially among Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals. Many false dichotomies have become set in stone (in the minds of many) and I see the writings of @swamidass concerning GAE as a welcomed effort at explaining how a variety of understandings of the early chapters of Genesis can be viewed as reasonable and not in conflict with the scientific evidence and the scriptures. Among other topics, his purposes include not pushing for one particular view of Genesis 1 and 2 but explaining that long entrenched assumptions which claim that science eviscerates a de novo Adam and Eve can no longer be defended.

That’s my take on the entire matter, even though I have yet to read the soon-to-be released book.

4 Likes

That is correct.

1 Like

21 posts were split to a new topic: One Race, One Blood?

55 posts were split to a new topic: 103 Isolated Tribes?

In fact, it’s only under the recapitulation reading that some people might lack the Imago Dei, but even that is silent on the question. Right?

1 Like

Exactly. My point is that all readings are consistent with the image outside the Garden, and some teach it.

How many readings are consistent with no image outside the garden? (But still with H. sapiens outside?)

Exact recaptiulation. So just one.

A post was merged into an existing topic: One Race, One Blood?

A post was merged into an existing topic: Over 100 Isolated Tribes?