Ken Keathley: How High Are The Stakes?

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Jordan

It’s interesting that some people want Adam & Eve to be sole-genetic progenitors, and don’t care when (how far back) that was and some people want Adam & Eve to be relatively recent, and don’t care if they were sole-genetic progenitors. I guess it’s the people who want them to be both recent and sole-genetic progenitors that are out of luck?

@Jordan (cc @AJRoberts )

One of the target audiences for Genealogical Adam are those Christians who want to save their view of Christianity and not dismiss all of modern science while doing so.

The easiest way to fit these overlapping criteria is, naturally, to accept the context of the miraculous creation of Adam & Eve recently but reject the idea that Adam & Eve were the “first couple”.

If the reverse conditions are sought (where Adam & Eve are the first couple, but are created more than 500,000 years ago)… you immediately run into both Biblical and Anthropological problems:

1. Does the Bible warrant Adam & Eve being created at least half a million years ago?

And:

2. Name a theologian ready to make a non-Homo sapien hominid the quintessential Man of God?

The only fit, if a fit is sought, is RECENT miraculous creation (in sync with the emergence of agriculture, and avoiding virtually any conflict about human hybrids), and Adam & Eve becoming ONE of several Universal Ancestral Couples, rather than the ONLY one.