# The Genealogical Adam Need Not Be Concordist

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-genealogical-adam-need-not-be-concordist/1728>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Adam\
**Created:** [September 19, 2018, 11:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-genealogical-adam-need-not-be-concordist/1728 "2018-09-19T23:47:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2018, 1:10am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-genealogical-adam-need-not-be-concordist/1728/3 "2018-09-20T01:10:07Z")

</div>

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> Can you expand this a bit? If it’s not concordist, it seems to me to be at least providing support for concordist interpretations.

At BioLogos concordism means reading science into scripture. It means eisegesis. In no way does the GA support eisegesis.

There are other meanings of the word “concordist”, that this does support, but this is generally not what BioLogos means. We had a long conversation with @deuteroKJ over this: [Concordism and Genesis 1-2](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/concordism-and-genesis-1-2/909).

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-genealogical-adam-need-not-be-concordist/1728)._