This is inaccurate. According to the text, Abraham was born roughly 2000 years after Adam. Considering his father was from Sumer and he interacted with a Pharoah/king in Egypt, Adam could not have been created any earlier than roughly 6000BC.
Any other conclusion conflicts with Genesis.
A figurative interpretation of parts of Genesis goes without saying here at PeacefulScience.Org.
It is not inaccurate. It is just a different model than yours, and it is using different definitions. Your view is not the only valid position.
I didn’t site my model in the explanation of why it’s inaccurate. I sited how it conflicts with the details of the text.
And whose model does not?
Isn’t the point of this thread to engage the specifically laid out RTB model? Am I wrong?
It is to engage RTB’s scientific and theological model of Adam. From a scientific side, we can objectively assess some claims. On the theological claim, they already acknowledge that, in their model, Adam and Eve arise more ancient in the past than Genesis seems to indicate. A better strategy is to ask how they make sense of this.
@AJRoberts and @SueD, how do you make the case to place Adam so far back in history? Can you point us to a good article on the RTB view of why Adam and Eve can validly placed so far back in history?
From all the stuff I’ve read from Hugh and Fuz, they say that discoveries keep pushing the dates of farming, etc. back further towards the beginning of Homo Sapien Sapiens.
RTB folks, @AJRoberts @SueD
If we have neanderthal DNA in us, does that mean that we are only 98 percent in the image of God? Would the child of a human and neanderthal have the image of God?
This suggests it would be lessened through continued intermingling…
Gen6:3 - Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal
… and this …
Ezra9:2 - For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy seed is mixed with the peoples of those lands. Indeed, the hand of the leaders and rulers has been foremost in this trespass.”
There are no SHADES of the image of God. Gen 9 says the reason Noah should enforce rules against murder is because he and his offspring HAVE the image.
By any definition, Noah must have a slice of Neanderthal and whatever else was available!
If Adam and Eve were created separate from naturally evolved humans, the lines had not yet mixed in Noah’s case.
Maybe not in your case… by whatever odd factors your scenario invokes.
Seth needs a spouse. His children and grandchildren need spouses.
And if the Kennite lineage goes back to Cain… then ipso facto… you would be in error for yet another reason.
Yes, but how do they deal with the genealogies. That is what your point is, right @Jeremy_Christian?
Right, the genealogies place Adam’s line 20 generations before Abraham, who interacted with Egyptians and who’s father was from Ur. Neither of these places existed prior to 4000BC. So they could not have been created so far back and remain consistent.
As for farming, Genesis depicts God teaching Gen1 humans the concept of seed-baring plants bearing other plants.
Farming is not unique to Adam’s line.
I doubt anyone equates genetic content with the Image of God.
You cant let a man be murdered brcause someone alleges he has less Image of God than someone else.
It is all or nothing.
According to Genesis, the intermingling with other lines didn’t begin until Noah’s era. If the spouses of each Patriarch also came from humans outside of their own line then what’s significant about it being pointed out in Gen6? If it’s been going on the whole time?
That all depends on what you think the Image of God is. Genesis 6:3 seems to indicate pretty directly that mixing with humans dilutes “God’s spirit”, as it says it cannot contend forever. What else could this mean?
Would gaps in the genealogies not explain this? They would say the genealogies are not an exhaustive list. And they would say say cities were rebuilt after the flood. Not sure if this answers your questions at all.
How would a line be drawn between image bearers and non-image bearers then?
Should we be against physisian assisted suicide for chimps but in favor of it for dogs and cats?
How we understand the imago dei has major implications for ethics. I have not satisfactorily resolved this issue in my own mind.