Is evolutionary science in conflict with Adam and Eve?

To a YEC, any Christian who doesn’t accept their unimaginative interpretation of Scripture is a “compromiser”. But it could be argued that YEC’s are themselves “compromisers”, on account of their need to reject certain scientific discoveries to order to keep their exegesis afloat.

Exactly. So read a more sensible review :slight_smile: .

1 Like

What would be really silly would be to - for no good reason - claim that the chronological details the Flood account (Gen 7, 8) are not precise, literal history.

The book of Genesis says Jacob had twelve sons – if it is “silly to impute scientific precision upon ancient texts”, then perhaps it is “silly” to conclude that Jacob literally had twelve sons. Ditto for the myriad of other historical details contained in Genesis.

I’m having trouble finding “non-literal” interpretations of the chronological details in the Flood account that I mentioned (Gen 7, 8) in my earlier post. If you could provide links that discuss that subject, I would be most grateful. Thanx.

No, I prefer something I can read, rather than something I have to listen to.

So what? Who’s claiming it does?

Gen 1:14-18 doesn’t contain any deep and meaningful, hidden secret or symbolism – even child could understand what it’s talking about.

That link didn’t discuss the Flood account, and I’m not going to waste money on a book that, in all probability, offers nothing more than yet another wild, wonderful and worthless interpretation of Genesis.

I wish I had a dollar for every explanation of Genesis that’s out there!

Was Jesus resurrected from “dust” to immortality? Yes or no?

3 posts were split to a new topic: Jesus’ resurrection and creation from the dust

That’s what “literal” (as defined) would entail.

Then why discuss? Check into interlibrary loan

No

@edgar I’m probably done discussing with you. It’s lost its potential fruitfulness b/c you won’t stay on point or answer questions

1 Like

Here’s something short to read on the flood. It’s an interview of John Walton by BioLogos. I know BioLogos isn’t well thought of here, but this interview may give you at least a start on the flood. If you like John Walton, you can find some good stuff from him on Gen 1-3 as well.

https://biologos.org/articles/the-genesis-flood-through-ancient-eyes-an-interview-with-john-walton-and-tremper-longman/

Just some friendly advice, if you only want to read, but aren’t willing to order some books, then you may have trouble finding what you need.

1 Like

Don’t overgeneralize.

1 Like

There is no scientific reason to doubt Walton’s exegetical work, and we’ve even recently interviewed him.

1 Like

NEVER

Just kidding, did I?

Does science even impinge on exegetical work? Should it? There are certainly scientific reasons to doubt that there was ever a “regional flood” in the fertile crescent, if the region is more than a few miles wide. Nor would the Persian Gulf oasis count, as that flood didn’t subside.

1 Like

10 posts were split to a new topic: Confusion on Who is Replying to What

Thanx.

You’re right; I’ve been looking on the 'net for discussion on the chronological details described in Genesis 7, 8 and there seems to be very little out there. That suggests to me that “non-literal” interpretations of said details are rare (but no doubt someone has proffered some fanciful theory on the subject).

What relevance does that have to the chronological details I cited from Gen 7, 8?

He isn’t suggesting a non-literal reading…

I don’t think this is accruate at all, but maybe it depends somewhat on how you define “literal” with regards to biblical interpretation.

If you check out the Bible Project thread that I posted in the Conversations category, and then click on the links to episodes 1 and 2, then scroll down below the podcast, then you’ll find a written summary of the show and you’ll find references.

They’re covering the ancient writings that the authors of Genesis were in conversation with in the first two episodes in order to lay the groundwork for the context in which Genesis was written, but next week I think they’ll focus more on the text of Genesis. In the show notes, when that episode comes out, you’ll find a lot of references.

The scholarship is available. There are lots of other scholars, but if you just accessed Dr. Swamidass’s book, his references, John Walton’s material, his references, the Bible Project, the references in the Bible Project show notes, all that could keep you busy learning about the ancient context of Genesis and the exegesis and even theolgy that flows from that for months, or years!

Okay, thanx. I’ll check it out.

Regarding a few quotes from the article you cite …

“In the case of the Flood, it appears that a particularly devastating, regional flood was described hyperbolically (i.e. using purposeful exaggeration) in order to make important observations on sin, judgment, and grace as well as order, disorder, and divine re-ordering.”

…… “ The flood story is describing a real event, but using hyperbole to depict that real event in order to forward the writer’s theological message. ”

… “The Flood is a hyperbolic report and the Ark is likewise a hyperbolic report”

The Genesis Flood Through Ancient Eyes: An Interview with John Walton and Tremper Longman - Articles - BioLogos

I’m struggling to find any hint of “hyperbole” in the following details from the Flood account:

“6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters were on the earth …

10 And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were on the earth…

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month , the seventeenth day of the month , on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights

17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days

24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days

At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased. 4 Then the ark rested in the seventh month , the seventeenth day of the month , on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month . In the tenth month , on the first day of the month , the tops of the mountains were seen …

6 So it came to pass, at the end of forty days , that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made …

10 And he waited yet another seven days , and again he sent the dove out from the ark …

12 So he waited yet another seven days and sent out the dove, which did not return again to him anymore …

13 And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year , in the first month , the first day of the month , that the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and indeed the surface of the ground was dry. 14 And in the second month , on the twenty-seventh day of the month , the earth was dried.” (from Genesis 7:6-8:14).

Mixing hyperbole with what appears to be literal history seems to me to be an odd way a recording an historical event.

And here is another interesting little detail :
“You shall make a window for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above” (Gen 6:16).
What is the purpose of mentioning that window was to be placed “a cubit” from the top of the ark? Is there some deep and meaningful secret interpretation contained therein? I don’t think so.

Edgar, can you understand why some might think there is a hint of hyperbole here?

4 Likes