There has been a lot of debate about whether or not YECs are certain that Adam and Eve were 6,000 years ago, or if they might consider other options. This article is an important read, and appears in the AIG website:
Within orthodox Christianity, a group of theologians, philosophers, and scientists have affirmed that Adam was created by God around 10,000 BC to 4000 BC. They are known as young-earth creationists. Within the category of young-earth creationists are two subsets: (1) chronogenealogical young-earth creationists who believe that the Bible does not allow for genealogical gaps in Genesis 5 and 11, thus establishing Adamâs creation around 4000 BC and (2) non-chronogenealogical young-earth creationists who believe that the Bible allows for the possibility of genealogical gaps in Genesis 5 and 11 that would not violate hermeneutical rules, thus allowing for a creation date of Adam up to 10,000 BC. This article reveals how young-earth creationists have concluded this approximate age of Adam and to explain the reason for a 6,000 year range between both groups
I wonder if you could re-visit why the initial impetus to have a literal Adam and Eve, but to place them about 9,000 to 7,000 years earlier than the traditional 6,000 years ago.
I assume you hope to find a way of fitting the Biblical narrative into a timeline that better fits the physical evidence.
If this is not too off-based an assumption, the main @swamidass scenario has an âevolved humanityâ that leads up to 15kya, and right on through into the âBiblical Ageâ. This would fit the conventional timeline that historians present for the beginnings of irrigation and other agricultural related activities.
Since we are not treating the 15kya time frame as an orphan, it becomes less crucial to have Adam & Eve placed there as well. In fact, there are certain advantages to placing Godâs âGarden Laboratoryâ (aka Eden) in the chronology where most Evangelical interpretations place them: 6000 years ago.
Since the human population is âbusy as beesâ long before Adam and Eve make their appearance (via special creation), and we donât have to rely on Adam and Eve to provide all the manpower for the finds we have already identified, the âmiraculous pairâ can conveniently slide most anywhere in the timeline.
That being said, we anticipate more Evangelical support for putting the pair where they have already put them. And since the scenario is embracing both the evolutionary side and the miraculous side of human development, nothing is being ignored, and we expect the least amount of âfrictionâ by not requiring Adam & Eveâs presence to explain human artifacts prior to 4000 BCE (6000 years ago).
For example, the Genesis descriptions donât really mention anything about a fading cold spell that would suggest the dwindling away of the Ice Age climate effects (per your good graphic you include in your post above). So we can, without any guilt, let the pre-adams suffer those cold crisp nights - - with the anticipation that Adam and Eve are created in a more temperate context.
Following this logic - - and seeing that we have a population of at least 10,000 humans by 15kya - - does your version of events suffer much if we slide the âAdam/Eveâ epoch into the 6kya time frame?
Yes; in fact, itâs why Hugh Ross is not willing to give Joshuaâs work more public creedence, yet. He raises the objection that 6 kya is too late for a Persian Gulf Eden that is not already underwater.
The Genesis 5 genealogies are demonstrably filled with gaps, and never even added up by the authors of Scripture. They work according the ancient Hebrew conventions for genealogical reporting, not to what the modern English translations seem to convey.
Do you agree that itâs silly to reject 6 kya because Eden would have to be under water then? And while the time frame of the existing genealogies is a mess, it is certainly easier to accept the âreceived timeâ than to adamantly insist where Eden had to be.
Isnât that a little like saying only one angel can stand on a pin, because âAngels like lots of elbow room?â
As for the Genesis 5 genealogies⌠itâs easy to say they must be wrong ⌠and much harder to say what would be the corrected estimate of time, right?
For those interested in the successful reception of @swamidassâ work, I keep coming back to this general rule:
The more elements of the work differ from âreceived Genesisâ, especially when alternatives are even more vague or contentious, the harder itâs going to make the reception.
The rule I follow is to look for truth, not just popular reception from a public unaware of the Hebrew nuances obliterated by the English translations.
Error, arrived at through merely pragmatic means, is still error. Thatâs a silly strategy. Iâm looking for nothing less than the truth.
Thatâs what will establish Joshâs work on GA.
@Guy_Coe, Truth is much easier to arrive at when you leave general ideas general - - because you donât have the specifics.
Why would you insist on the special creation of Adam and Eve be based on archaeological evidence ⌠left by the âevolved Human population of 10,000â? The scenario does have humans in existence at your preferred time frame.
What is new with @swamidassâ work is that while the âevolved adamsâ explain the concrete findings in the field, we can put the âspecially created Adam/Eveâ wherever the Bible seems to put them.
It doesnât appear that the Bible is describing the 15kya time period (with its colder temperatures). So, whatever adjustments one places on the flawed genealogies, the adjustment shouldnât be bumping into the incorrect climate conditions, yes?
Have you had time to consider the three âfinger printâ options for the Cambrian?
All three of them are those that you have discussed on the Australian thread âŚ
but I wasnât sure which one you favored.
Typo: the finger-print choices are in the Australian thread, not the Cambrian thread. But they come after we were discussing the article you cite about the Cambrian explosion.
Gosh; did you even read the article? Colder worldwide temperatures donât entail specific regional cold temperatures; the Persian Gulf at that time was a refuge from colder temperatures.
I donât argue for a completely âde novoâ creation for Adam and Eve; in fact, the Hebrew verb âbaraâ is almost entirely missing from the chapters which tell the story of Adam and Eve.
What is ânewâ about them is their illegitimately acquired capacity for âknowing good AND evilâ --the gaining of a capacity for sophisticated moral and immoral reasoning, to the degree that they choose to defy Godâs expressed prohibition, doubting His character and intentions for their good.
Prior to this there were no explicit prohibitions, and so moral accountability begins in earnest for Adam and Eve and their lineage.
Read Waltonâs explanation of the literary relationship between Genesis chapter 1-2:4, and Genesis 2:4b ff., as well as the meaning of the âdeep sleepâ of Adam and how it relates to the âribâ from which Eve is formed. While I donât like his treatment of Adam using categories, I do see heurism in the things I just mentioned.
Perhaps you noticed that Josh responded favorably, with a âheartâ icon, to the article?
Yes, I agree that we want Adam and Eve where the Bible puts them --not where the English translation seems to suggest they belong.
I disagree, in other words, on 6 kya as that figure.
I happen to agree with virtually every one of your positions⌠if we are discussing a clearly polarized set of options: Evolved Humanity of 10,000 vs. Specially Created Humanity of 2.
But this isnât the context of our discussion. Everything you object to happened in the Eden laboratory⌠with the only lasting effect on the rest of the world, apparently, is Adam and Eve themselves. Godâs curse is simply a statement of conditions outside of Eden⌠so even that isnât a âchangeâ.
The positions you are standing on are well earned and well conceived ⌠when we have the dialectic of Evolution OR Special Creation⌠10,000 OR Two (2).
But you havenât really discovered yet that if we have both of these, it doesnât mean we have to arm wrestle the âAdam/Eveâ arc to the ground like in prior years. It doesnât really matter where you put Eden ⌠as long as it is consistent with the conventional interpretations of Genesis.
I understand that you think Genesis isnât well thought out in terms of philosophy and natural history. But under the Swamidass operating conditions, Adam and Eve donât have to do the same heavy lifting. All they have to do is join the rest of humanity and things proceed from that point onward.
Frankly, Iâve never been a fan of âspecial creation of Adam & Eveâ. But for the sake of this project, I can accept the logic of having both âsystemsâ in operation. If I planted my feet and said: I will only accept Truth, I would already be gone ⌠because I donât find much truth in the Special Creation scenarios.
Now, here you are (and Iâm putting @swamidass right here so he can note this specifically)⌠you are saying, you will only accept truth, and you just donât think Adam & Eve were really specially created, but however they were created, it has to be some time frame different from Genesis (even though we already have humans operating in your preferred time frame). The only thing that happens when you insist that Adam & Eve be in the very same time period is that you drive away the very people we are trying to show :
âThere is a way that allows for a 6kya Adam & Eve - - except when Guy_Coe is around.â
Wouldnât it just be easier to let the evolved humans have their real time frame, and let the Created Pair have their âidealized figurative Edenâ ? If Adam & Eve are already created, or living, in an âilligitimateâ context (âilligitimateâ is your word), then you must already acknowledge that they are not the genuine article. And if that is so, you canât form any kind of Truth regarding them, no matter where you put them.
If you arenât going to label the interpretation of the three scales, could you at least explain the difference between the Blue Temperature (centigrade) and the Green Temperature (centigrade)? -45 C. seems pretty cold to me; so I assume we are ignoring the blue scale. What is the Green scale reporting?
It is but GISP is measuring temps in GREENLAND. Its going to be cold. Its cold now. Cariaco is a better model as its in Venezuela much closer in lat to Mesopotamia.
This is based on the assumption that Eden is itself walled off (by some kind of divine force field) from the rest of the Earth⌠Any Evangelical Iâve found so inclined to discuss things like climate say the worldâs climate was perfect everywhere - - until the Fall.
If you can imagine a God-covered Eden, I can imagine that he did it 6000 years ago.
And so, we get to the nub of the problem again. You have your pigeonholes for evangelicals, and so misinterpret large portions of what has been said. It was the human experience of Godâs good creation that changed, not the creation itself.
Prior to the fall, no human conceived of an afterlife in which anything in our lifetimes would be adjudged unfavorably by God; we werenât morally sophisticated enough yet to understand evil, or its ramifications. We had yet to commit any accountable evil.
After the fall, the neurological changes entailed in gaining that knowledge, viz., a ânew capacity for the knowledge of good AND evil,â including the dramatic enlargement and neurological/ neurochemichal changes to the neocortex, get fixed as traits that are passed on to succeeding generations. And then, there are also the changes in spiritual dynamics which led God to cut off access to the tree of life, by exiling us to more hostile conditions outside the garden.
If you donât like that analysis, ignore it.
Joshua will make his own decisions, but this has been a long, uphill battle, for me, to not be prejudged because of theological caricatures. Youâre free to imagine what you like, but at the end of the day, I am not accountable for your presumptions. Sound fair?
I have the same complaint as @Guy_Coe. You ascribe positions to me and others based on your stereotypes and you have an extremely hard time getting past them, much moreso than is common. We all have our weaknesses but I do encourage you to work past that particular habit.
The Garden is a walled garden because the word translated âgardenâ means a walled garden. I never considered it was a âDivine Force Fieldâ, just a special valley with mountains on all sides. David Rohl has a location like that he favors, near the city of Tabriz. I have one I think is even better just west of Lake Van and Mount Nemrut (the eastern one). The location of the garden is not that important. The timing is more important, and I think there is a lot of both scriptural and historical evidence for a date just over 13K ago.
You seem to think that your views are going to be âhelpfulâ to the process of winning over Evangelicals. But you donât seem to have any empathy for their views.
Just look at your 3rd sentence:
âIt was the human experience of Godâs good creation that changed, not the creation itself.â
This sounds just fine to me ⌠as a Unitarian Universalist. But in the role of âreligious diplomatâ in which I see us here as serving in, that is a terrible sentence. No traditional YEC (or No True Scotsman YEC?) would accept that sentence.
And I think I know why we have this impasse: you think @swamidass is going to define Truth. But how can we, given our general state of ignorance?
What I think he is going to do is create a whole range of possible interpretations, from which any given Evangelical might accept as the best fit.
I think what you propose is fair IF you also accept that there is going to be more than one version developed, in response to different audiences insistence that their views be reflected. Obviously, the Good Doctor cannot make one specific version of Truth. He must create a range of options, under a general description of Truth.
So instead of insisting that Adam and Eve could only have been created sometime between 15kya and 13kya, he is going to say something like, Adam & Eve as special creations could fit into human history anywhere between 400,000 and 6,000 years ago.
I will get off the specific 6,000 range, if you get off your specific 15-13000 range. We can talk about our preferred versions⌠but we can only insist that the general statement of the scenario âaccommodateâ the various Evangelical schools of thinking - - rather than deny an option from them. How can we deny something when we donât have firm evidence to declare one time or another?
How does that sound?
@swamidass, if this sounds wrong, let me know. Iâm a good soldier.
P.S. to @Guy_Coe: You do understand, donât you, that my personal views about what really happened and what definitely didnât happen, do not look anything like the @swamidass views, right?
