Is there one that makes more sense than others? I ask because I want to study and the visual would help even though I recognize that it is a futile exercise. No need to recreate the broken wheel if we already know it doesn’t work.
If Eve was the mother of all living things, would she be the mother of all mothers too? I see a recursive morass down the road…
I don’t think so. The ones that try hardest to accommodate science do the most violence to scripture. Case in point: since plants are created on day 3 but the sun doesn’t appear until day 4, it’s explained that it’s really not creation of the sun, but just the atmosphere finally becoming transparent enough that the sun became visible. Of course that’s not what the text says. Also, if there was a time when this happened, it was long before there were any plants. Further, sea animals and birds appear on day 5, and in fact plants should happen after sea animals but before birds. And land animals appear on day 6, but birds should be after that too. Of course, this assumes that a day is not about the creation of all the kinds of plants and animals, just the first. In reality, different sorts of plants, sea animals, birds, and land animals appear throughout the fossil record after their first appearance, meaning that the days really overlap a lot.
And that’s only a few of the problems. Best to treat Genesis 1 as a story intended to convey a simple message, that God did stuff. You probably shouldn’t try to pin down exactly what he did and when based on that story.
Genesis 2 has other problems. If you want to retain original sin, it would still be best to forget much of the story.
2 Likes
You have a choice:
You can agree with one faction of I.D. proponents who want to exploit the possibility that modern human diversity COULD be produced by a first mated pair more than 450,000 years ago (and so all you have to do is fill in the gap from then to the rest of the Biblical period)…
OR
you could follow the path of least resistance and put Adam and Eve less than 10,000 years ago, and eventually merging with the older human population that evolved from a branch of primates.
I think all the other convincing scenarios that you might consider are just tweaked versions of these two.
I’ve put so many silly ideas on this forum in the past few months. I will happily take the “silliest award.” 
Don’t try to take silliest away from me.
Something about @swamidass having an imagination too. It makes you remember you have one, and had some ideas that lay dormant in your brain. Sorting them out and having people critique them is painful sometimes. I hate letting go of my good ideas, but it’s helpful to realize they make more sense in my head than in written form. But honestly, after listening to quantum physicists, I realized also that you can spout the silliest ideas that you want and if you have Ph.D. after your name, people will take all of them seriously 
I had forgotten this passage, so it takes #1 option mentioned off the list…unless of course, daughters were born first. But I think the emphasis is this is the first conceived child.
Good. You seem to have a strong faith, so this idea would be unnecessary for you. It would be an unnecessary “overreach”. However, if you believe in human evolution (which I am still not sure about concerning you) or if you feel that as a believer you are slipping into a evolution, then you should definitely consider the biblical claim that all humans, all people’s everywhere who share in the human race are direct descendants of their mother Eve.
This idea was constructed solely as a remedy for those who felt that an argument in favor of “people outside the Garden of Eden” leans also in favor of evolution. This idea helps render that kind of thinking as “premature” and just wrong.
1 Like
Just to clarify my thinking for those curious.
No, I don’t believe in human evolution. Oddly, studying the issues more, made my belief in YEC stronger. I was maybe 60-40 before.
I also don’t believe people outside the garden is necessary.
Thanks for the update. To believe in evolution or not is a personal struggle that we all must go through. That is an unfortunate reality of our modern world.
Nice. I appreciate the disagreement. Why even go there in the discussion if not necessary. Good for you.
@r_speir you seems big confused here on two points.
First, I was YEC because I lacked faith. It took faith in Jesus to leave my anti-evolution idols to follow him.
Second, the GAE shows that that all humans, all people’s everywhere who share in the human race can be direct descended of their mother Eve, even if evolution is true, and even though Scripture doesn’t say this.
So it seems you are working from an incorrect assumption that evolution is in conflict with Scripture. It isn’t.
It also seems like you read into scripture a teaching, as we have already shown, that is not actually there. I’m very concerned you are reading man’s fallible word in to Scripture. That’s very dangerous. It might be why you are feeling so much conflict.
I guess you would be referring to the Eve bearing children in the Garden idea here.
I am not internally conflicted about evolution. I am at perfect peace about that. But you are quite correct that I have experienced internal conflict regarding this proposal. We are living in unfortunate times.
1 Like
But why? If it isn’t in conflict with Scripture what is the problem with it? Even if evolution is false, shouldn’t be a good thing that people who affirm evolutionary science can’t just dismiss a literal reading of Genesis now? What exactly is the negative?
Did you read my comments on your rejoinder? I said this was your strong point in your GAE endeavor. You know I cannot endorse human evolution but I most certainly can find some degree of admiration for someone who pushes back on BioLogos!
1 Like
I did. Thanks.
But what is the danger here? Wouldn’t it be good for there to be a way for someone to read Genesis literally, even if they also think evolution is true? Doesn’t that defang evolution’s danger? Isn’t that a good thing?
Trusting in something other than Jesus or in addition to Jesus, makes that something an idol. But it doesn’t logically follow that it also has to be false. It can also be an idol of a truth.
I did trust in YEC. Encountering evidence in Scripture and in science against YEC, I chose instead to trust articles from places like AIG. That was idolatry. Whether or not YEC was right or wrong, my trust was put in the wrong things.
Why? I had a lot of fear about leaving YEC. The creationism fed the fear, and the fear pushed me to creationism. It was a very effective means of locking me in a cage. That’s how idolatry works.
Except I encountered Jesus. He is far more worthy of my trust than anything I ever found in creationism. I think even some of the atheists here might agree with that sentiment. Amen?
3 Likes
Amen.
Definitely the older I get, the more comfortable I realize I have to be with not knowing all the answers, and realizing I’m not God and to trust Him. I think YEC is the simplest way of reading the Bible; it made sense to me as a kid, and now I’m glad I decided to investigate the science more. Lol, it’s much easier not to be a scientist and believe that YEC is true. I poked at the science bear and he looked pretty formidable, but then I realized he yawned and rolled over and said he really doesn’t know much either. But don’t get me wrong…I still love to figure out all the puzzles as much as I can 
3 Likes
My understanding is that God expects you to use your intelligence and powers of reasoning. Pride in ignorance is just sad. And that bear never actually said he didn’t know much; you should probably poke him again.
2 Likes
Sorry for the late reply, I haven’t visited this forum in months. I have no opinion on these matters.