The Genealogical Adam Need Not Be Concordist

The link won’t go through, for me, at least.

Private thread. We are not meant to see it. Who knows though, maybe we have ways :shushing_face:.

So, are they clandestinely visiting here, only to unaccountably selectively quote from here, and put it out on private threads? That’s a rather paranoid way of controlling the communication, if so. Hope that’s not the case.
Probably best not to try to answer that, just in case it is true.

It isn’t clandestine to visit here. This is a public forum. I’m sure they watch what happens here very closely.

I’m sure it is just normal surveillance by an organization that is concerned about how they are represented. We should believe the best about them. If they really feel they were misrepresented, I’d like to know how so we can correct it.

1 Like

Agreed.

1 Like

I imagine by now they are watching this thread even more closely than most.


It is worth point them to William Lane Craig’s assessment of (dys)concordism in BioLogos, which I imagine is going to figure prominently in his upcoming book. Maybe they will thank me for giving them a heads up? (William Lane Craig On The Babylonian World Map) So, if I am wrong about BioLogos here, it seems a lot of other people are too. It would be great if they could help set the record straight.

This issue of world maps has come up several times, sometimes to great entertainment, in the past here. Remember this thread? When Christianity Was in Charge, This Is What We Got

@jongarvey, by the way, gets credit for having noticed this problem with representation of the Babylonian World map a long time ago, back in 2015. http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2015/10/30/flood-geography/ and here http://jongarvey.co.uk/download/pdf/mythicchronology.pdf.

1 Like