These are great points… but aren’t they all proofs or evidences that there are Two Stories in Genesis for the two creations?
@swamidass has, up front, stated that he is willing to give up the “Genesis 1+2” story interpretation as merely optional.
My question is: which of the 7 points (or others) are still valid if we were to concede, even temporarily, that the 2 stories in Genesis 1 & 2 is just about the de novo creation?
I don’t know how many times I have to say it George, I accept the two-story premise. It is just that chapters 1 and 2 are not strictly sequential. Chapter one is the big story which started a billion years ago and continues to this day. Chapter two happened 13,000 years ago and covered only a portion of a single human lifetime. Look at it as a “nested hierarchy” of stories if that helps.
Where do you get the phrase “creation” with regards to Adam and Eve? It is not a “second creation” story at all. It’s the second chapter in one giant, unfolding “creation story.” But, neither Adam nor Eve are presented as having been “de novo created.”
And @anon46279830, I don’t know how many times I have to write: Yes, I know! I get it.
What I’m asking you is:
if we exclude Genesis 1 + 2 from any further reference…
What is your evidence … what is your Biblical Warrant, that there was a population in existence prior to the de novo creation of Adam/Eve?
All my best evidence comes from Evolution and from Genesis 1 & 2. And you reject either evidence as compelling.
So… what’s left in your bag for a pre-Adam population?
Genesis chapters 3-11 contain multiple passages to support the position, along with passages in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Hebrews. It is seeded throughout the Bible.
I refer you back to the videos in this link, the first of which you once described as “the heart of Genealogical Adam”, and it is as far as showing that the scriptures point to a population outside the garden which was already around when Adam and Eve came along.
Mark’s appellation of “two stories” avoids the “two creation stories” problem, to which I’d add that, the two stories are sequential. Mark doesn’t see it that way, at least not yet. He relies on the remarks about Cain’s wife and the people Cain built cities with as an oblique warrant for a “humanity prior to Adam view.”
@Guy_Coe, I think I get your explanation.
But I encourage you and @anon46279830 (and @swamidass too) to NOT employ the “short hand” expression of “2 Stories” unless you go to the extra effort to add a qualifier:
either 1-Creation or 2-Creations.
Here’s what I mean:
Obviously, no matter which position we take, we could be argued that Genesis 1 & 2 are “2 stories” for a single act of creation. But when you adopt this kind of summary description, what is left for someone who believes in 2 Creations to say?
Generally speaking, below are formats that are certainly clear enough:
2-Stories/1-Creation
vs.
2-Stories/2-Creations
We can see that this works fairly well. And then someone comes along and gets a little
lazy and writes: “Well, I endorse 2-Stories…”
You can see the trouble, right? Both versions can be described as 2-stories. The point is that
one is 2 stories but ONE CREATION… and the other is 2 stories for TWO creations.
EDIT NOTE: The first few sentences of this posting were too confusing even for me. I deleted them!,
edited some, and deleted some more!
Oh, my goodness, George!
My drumbeat throughout these forums rejecting a “two creation stories” view couldn’t be clearer.
If you’re hearing that, it’s not on me!
I agree with you about it being better if these ideas were honed to precision.
That’s what I’m constantly on about, not just making nice with conceptions which aren’t even in the text. Cheers!
Wow… you really made the effort to write this paragraph… WITHOUT answering my question? You gotta be kidding?
in YOUR scenario, where do Adam & Eve come from?
Is this your way of punishing me for not agreeing with some of your posts? How can anyone follow-up 1, 2 or 3 attempts to get an answer … by continuing to write AROUND the answer without revealing it?
You write: “My drumbeat throughout these forums rejecting a “two creation stories” view couldn’t be clearer.
If you’re hearing that, it’s not on me!”
I think you have answered your own question! As you can see, and everyone else here can see, you have a natural tendency to not dot the i’s and cross the t’s… to leave things unsaid. Heck, you can’t even explicitlyl state to whom you are responding!
I think it is officially on YOU now. I practically defy counting how many times you have explicitly stated your position on the origin of Adam & Eve… out of hundreds of postings, I bet you have only explicitly stated it twice - - and you think it’s my fault that I can’t find those 2?
Tantrums don’t become you, George. I am just one of many participants here, and no one else on any of these forums comes off as if I’m trying to insult or punish them. So, why do you? Give it a rest. The answer was responsive.
Come on colleagues, it is a beautiful day and we are all opinionated people. There is no point in making our interactions unpleasant as we test one another’s ideas. Take a break from each other if you must, but please don’t downright squabble.
If it was avoidable, I would.
There was no tantrum.
There was me asking for a clarification.
You wouldn’t give it.
Then I asked again, and you ducked again.
And had the nerve to blame my ignorance on my lack of perception. ha.
You over-played your hand, and now I know of what you are made.
Frankly, I don’t even know why you are on this list. The Model was designed
specifically to engage Creationists. You are actually perfectly suited to BioLogos
as it is currently configured.
I’m not playing any hand. I view this, not as some sort of hapless contest, but as a dialogic exchange. Glad, from your end, it wasn’t a tantrum. Certainly sounded like one. If you’re willing to look, I’ve been responsive to your questions all along. Perhaps if you read my most recent contributions to other topics, you would understand better. In the meantime, enjoy your day. I am a creationist, by the way. That’s all in the “old earth creationist” appellation. I am also a “progressive creationist.” Hope that helps without imposing an aspect of a pigeon-hole I’d reject.
No reasonable person responds 3 times before finally answering a sincere question on the 4th response.
I’m not even going to explore why it is that you don’t (or can’t) address your response to the intended recipient.
Does your computer have a bad key for the “at” symbol > “@” ??? I have gone back through dozens of your communications, and as far as I cold tell, you haven’t named your recipient a single time… no matter who it is, no matter the circumstances.
To expect an exchange, there has to be trustworthiness in a person’s communication. What I see is a bag full of idiosyncracies which seems inevitably problematic.
POSTSCRIPT
Believe it or not, I’m not trying to fit myself to your tastes. I am explicating the text.
And Denosivans. Also the major interbreeding would be between Homo sapiens and archaic species of genus Homo as the two species separated presumably in Africa.
You must be speaking to someone else. It can’t be me, because
Some categories are too rigid to admit a rethink. A thought I’m offering to whomever. I appreciate the quest for precision.
If you are a Progressive Creationist, why did you tell me that you opposed the idea of a special creation of Adam & Eve? Just what is getting “progressively created” in your world view … if a human population evolved, and you don’t support the idea of Adam and Eve being created by God?