Except the GAE shows how a literal reading is consistent with evolution. So…that changes the situation here.
1 Like
The passage (Gen 1:14-18) describes how light from the sun divides night and day and how the solar cycle is used to measure seasons, days and year. That sounds (primitively) scientific to me. It certainly doesn’t sound symbolic, allegorical or metaphoric.
The passage doesn’t contain any symbolism or allegory or metaphor, so what do would you suggest is the “authorial intent” of the passage?
Your first statement you say the word “literal” is unhelpful, but then you use the word “literalistic” in the second statement. Interesting.
Well, I think the main thing the author meant to convey was from matter devoid of life, God created the first human life – as opposed God creating the first human life from some form of pre-existing life. But there may be other ways of reading it.
Nevertheless, I think it’s fair to say Adam was made “from dust” and possessed the potential for immortality (Gen 3:22). So I have my doubts about your claim that “from dust” symbolizes mortality.
Neither do I. Human immortality can come only from the power of God, so I should think “natural immortality potential” is an oxymoronic impossibility.
When Jesus died his body become inanimate matter – “dust”. But that same body was resurrected – “from dust” - to immortality, which is another reason I question your claim that the term “from dust” symbolizes mortality.
It’s fair to say I’m confused by that comment. How can a literal reading of Gen 2:7 be consistent with evolution?
Do you mean Adam was directly created from “dust” and did not evolve from a pre-existing creature, but all the other creatures did evolve (including non-Adamic human beings)?
We’ve told you before already, several times, you really need to read the book. If you did, you would not be confused, and you would understand.
Yes. That is what we mean.
Sorry I have not read the book. There seem to be different ideas about Adam/evolution getting around and it gets a bit confusing. I hope to get a basic idea of your version (which sounds very interesting) without having to read an entire book.
If I may, here is another question: Is this how you see things? Adam did not evolve and was directly created by God, but other homo sapiens evolved from some lower creature … then the Adamic humans interbred with the evolved, non-Adamic humans.
Whom do you mean by “we”?
Yup, and it’s the “a priori” probability that’s important here in my Bayesian calculation. As I said before, we have to exclude the evidence itself from its evaluation. We want P(E|~H), not P(E|E~H) - the latter would obviously, trivially be 1: of course things are “not surprising” after you already take it into account.
This whole thing actually reminds me of this passage from your book, Josh:
“After all this, in an audaciously entertaining flip, some switch over to the object that these findings are just obviously true. They insist there is no real contribution here […] Well, if this was obvious to other scientists, it would have been valuable for them to have explained this to everyone a long time ago.”
This is how people sneak in P(E|E~H), then pretend that it’s P(E|~H), then say that it’s “just obviously true” or “not surprising”. I found it amusing that I run into the same kind of error here, as you did in your book. Nothing new under the sun, eh?
@Mercer :
Well, after all that, it’s good to see that you’ve switched over to the side of scientific consensus, and acknowledged the surprise. Welcome! But you needn’t have provided that quote: after all, I have already cited plenty of actual quotes from people who actually made the discovery. There reaction went far beyond just “Gee, not my intuition”. Instead, they said things like “astonishing”, “remarkable”, “surprisingly recent”, and almost “patently implausible”. Given that we already have these quotes, let’s try not to put words in people’s mouths.
Now, I understand that you’re still somewhat hesitant on this surprise, and what it implies for my main thesis (that the body of work making up GAE is evidence for the Biblical Adam and Eve). Let me see if I can address that.
@Mercer , @glipsnort :
So, you want to reject the idea that the opinions of scientists (who actually made the discoveries that we’re talking about) can be used to model the probabilities and hypotheses that they’re operating under. You say that you want a specified model.
Now, as I said, I think this is a mistake. I happen to think that expert scientific opinion is valuable, and should be given its due weight. I think that the people who made the discoveries are in excellent positions to describe how surprised, or unlikely, their discovery was under their previous hypothesis. Their brains themselves are one of the best possible models for ~H, and their surprise is one of the best measures of P(E|~H).
So you can’t reject this without consequences. After all, if you reject the authority of scientists in the area of their expertise, what becomes of the things that you’ve said even in this very thread, much of which relied on argument from that authority?
But if you insist on having a model, I think we can come up with one. I propose the following approach: if the surprise of the discoverers themselves are not enough, how about a thorough examination of the scientific literature itself? If, as you say, that P(E|~H) is not small, then there should have been someone, somewhere who wrote something relevant about it.
Now, as I’ve said, we have to exclude E itself from our model. So, given that we’re in 2021, and Chang’s first paper I cited above is from 1999, and that he cites multiples papers from the 1980’s, let’s draw a line at, say, 1975. That should be a safe time where we can be reasonably certain that any model before then excludes E. We will search the scientific literature from before this time.
The 1975 boundary is, of course, a ridiculously generous concession to ~H. After all, its competitor H (that of the Biblical Adam and Eve), hasn’t changed in a very long time, and was able to predict the recency of the common ancestor FAR before 1975.
So, here’s where I need your help. You’re the biologists, after all. Can you find me all the pieces of major scientific literature from before 1975 that concluded that the ancestor of all humans living today could have lived as recently as, say, 6000 years ago? We will examine that literature, and see if they have a model, or if we can construct one from their work. There should be plenty of such work for us to consult, if P(E|~H) is at all appreciable. Just the frequency of such works should give us a handle of P(E|~H).
Of course, I’m aware that you may reject this model. I should warn you, though, that as before, you cannot do so without consequences.
I’m skeptical.
1 Like
Biological evolution in itself has nothing to say about de novo creation. It is a merely a process that brings about heritable changes within a population over generations. They are just two separate processes.
However, de novo creation is inconsistent with what we know on how new human beings come into existence, and our evolution as well. Sexual reproduction is the only observed mechanism that produces new humans, and it has also shaped our evolution. All modern humans today are linked to ancestors like Mt-Eve (because their cells carry mitochondria which are only transmitted to progeny from a mother’s egg following fertilization by a sperm) because of sexual reproduction. Mt-Eve herself, and Y-Chr-Adam also had ancestors and this goes back till we arrive at our ape ancestors. The hypothesis of a de novo created AE is inconsistent with this fact. The articles cited by Joshua to show we most likely had recent universal ancestors all work with this fact, not a hypothetical de novo AE.
1 Like
Michael LeFebvre has an intriguing thesis (see here and here), which I’ve summarized in my upcoming book on Gen 1, that shows a pretty convincing case for the dates in the Pentateuch, including the flood narrative. LeFebvre’s view wouldn’t make the literature into myth, but neither is it “literal history.” There are other options. (BTW, assuming strict chronology produces contradictions.)
4 Likes
“And God said” is non-literal. It’s interesting you seem to think the only other option is “factual description.” I recommend you study the concept of genre. And whatever Day 4 of Gen 1 is, one would need to argue Gen 2:7 on its own.
2 Likes
“Literalistic” is more precise than “literal.”
Is there a biblical text that connects Jesus to “dust” in such a way to help us understand its meaning in Gen 2?
2 Likes
Okay, thanks for that. I’ll check out the links.
After doing a bit of homework ( Review: ‘The Genealogical Adam and Eve’ - creation.com), I get it now - you think God created Adam for “dust” AND created human beings via evolution. I’d never come across that theory before.
What I understand is that trying to wed Genesis with scientific consensus produces some “interesting” interpretations.
That is a start. Now try an unbiased review that accurately represents the book and doesn’t falsely accuse me of compromise.
3 Likes
Sorry, “compromise” was the wrong word and I retract it. A better word would be “interpretation”.
I didn’t take much notice of what that article thought of your interpretation; rather, it served to give me a basic overview of your point of view.
1 Like
If “ Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night ” (Gen 1:14) is “non-literal”, what does it mean?
If “ And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night ” (v.16) is “non-literal”, what does it mean?
What is your “non-literal” interpretation of “ seasons … days and years ”?
What other “option” is there? Has anyone in the entire history of the world ever offered a “non-literal” interpretation of Gen 1:14-18? If so, I’m all ears.
If the chronological details in the Flood account (Gen 7:6-8:14) are not “literal history”, what are they?
What “contradictions” are produced by a literal reading of the chronological details I pointed out in the Flood account?
We don’t need the NT to know that “dust” in Gen 2 means “inanimate matter” – as confirmed by a verse like Gen 3:19 and by every other place “dust” appears in the OT.
And we know from the resurrection of Jesus that the term, “from dust”, doesn’t necessarily denote mortality (don’t forget to mention that fact in your book).
This book addict needs more details on this!
1 Like
I really really really liked the Bible Project’s “Faith and Science” podcast when I was a Christian
1 Like
There is actually more depth to Genesis than what you present, not less. And there is good scholarship available. You don’t just have to rely on discussion forum short answers. If your question, “what are the options?”, is honest and not just rhetorical then there are answers that can help you find new richness in these texts that may enhance your reading of the whole Bible. You might be on the edge of some fun discovery.
Check out John Walton and his Lost World series. Read a book or two from that series or youtube some of his lectures.
Read GAE.
Search the BibleProject podcasts and find some that walk through themes in Genesis. If you’re interested I can link some suggestions. Let me know.
If you like lectures better, then search YouTube for some Tim Mackey lectures on Genesis, Adam and Eve, the Tree of Life, etc.
Better knowledge of what the Hebrew authors were trying to do with Genesis is available if you want it.
3 Likes