Is the Hebrew phrase, "formed from dust" a repudiation of normal childbirth for Adam?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Guy_Coe

I can easily point out the flaws in Jack Collins supposed “refutation;” you’ve only seen a couple so far…

I’m not saying I agree with Collins. I’m just saying he does need to agree on all the particulars to be an ally.

@Guy_Coe

Now, see --this is where the blinders about what’s familar come on. Have you researched among the Jewish scholars regarding this view? Have you looked at Ellicott’s and other commentaries about the feasibilty of this interpretation? Being the lone wolf in the midst of a hostile pack should seem somewhat familiar to you, I should think. What does being an “outlier” have to do with the truthfulness of what’s offered?

On the science, I am not an outlier. I brought forward a several surprising theses, and defended them all. Everyone on the scientific side agrees I’m right. The only remaining conflicts are all theological.

I’m not saying Walton is wrong. I’m just saying that his ideas have been out there for a while, and strongly disputed. If you agree with him great. But his ideas have all the traction they are going to get. There is value in finding multiple theological models that all work with basically the same scientific scenario. That is all I am saying. I’m not anti-Walton, just saying there is more to the playing field than his view.

For example, look at Keller…

@swamidass

But when I read the text, I look, and sure looks like its saying that God created Adam and Eve, and he didn’t just adopt a former human-like being, and adopt him and put the Image of God on him. It doesn’t seem like that is what it is saying. It says “created out of the dust of the ground.” And I do think in the end, even if I could be wrong on reading that text, I’ve got to have my reading of the text correct my understanding of the science.

Do you really want to be the one to “set Keller” straight on this? Why find a way that works for him too?