When was Genesis 1 and 2?

No according to the Romans who occupied Judea at the time.

1 Like

@Patrick, this is completely irrelevant to the point @jongarvey was making. Please try to stay on topic.

The Romans were never asked to even evaluate that claim. Why would they have cared?

It is off topic, but the charge that came before Pilate was his claim to kingship, which was taken seriously enough to agree to his execution. And there is an early tradition that the Emperor Domitian felt threatened by the royal background of the sons of Jude, the brother of Jesus, but when they were found to be peaceful and poor, his fears were allayed.

So Rome, the Sadducees and the Church were agreed that the genealogy meant something after all that time.

I will re-state my thoughts on chronology very simply:

I know what the chronology is for the field studies of homo sapiens. The science falls where it may.

When we put a de novo creation of Adam and Eve is something I leave wide-open to the those Creationists engaged in accepting the “dual” Evolutionary/De Novo model. The theological model is, within reason, completely up to the Creationist side of the equation.

I once again adjure you and Guy to be kind to one another, though it is a good thing to scrutinize each other’s positions closely. That accountability is how we get better and hone our beliefs. Trading insults without any insight attached on one’s positions is counter-productive IMHO.

But @gbrooks9 I thought I had made some progress with you on the time frame- and @Guy_Coe and I see that part of it the same way. This was a way to look at it that kept the literal reading of the genealogies with no gaps in time (and short sensible and definable gaps in genealogies). It had the further advantage of pushing the flood of Noah back to 6,500 years ago and that had great appeal to you because it allowed time for the GA scenario even considering the problem of Noah and the flood.

1 Like

@anon46279830

In your video (above) you mention that Adam doesnt have to be the progenitor of all humans.

But you could ADD in a note that with a geneaological approach, you have plenty of time for Adam/Eve to become ONE of humanity’s U.C.A.

As I said above… as long as the pre-adam side is being followed along scientific lines, Adam can appear anywhere.

2 Likes

First of all thank you for watching that video. I made it before I heard of GA so I did not think to mention that fact. The only one I made after finding this place is the “Don’t be Racist” one and I believe I did mention it there. Remember I independently came to conclusions about framework just from studying scripture which I then discovered was similar to the framework required fro GA.

1 Like

@Revealed_Cosmology… yep I remember. And I am waiting for you to accept God-led evolution!

You are going to have to define what that means a lot better before that happens. I see God being increasingly personally active in the ordering of the earth. Culminating in not even assisting the earth in bringing forth humanity, but doing it Himself.

1 Like

Whether God is invoking natual law or supernatural miracles, it is STILL God doing it.

Here is a couplette just on this point:

Gen 1:24 “… God said, Let
THE EARTH
bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

Gen 1:25 “And
GOD
made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind …”

All completely addressed in my book but it takes chapter to lay it out. Well, the first four minutes of this touches on it…

@anon46279830, I like your first 4 minutes. It makes for a nice treatment where God is outside of time.

But I don’t think Genesis 1:24-25, or my interpretation of it, challenges this stance.

Gen 1:24 “… God said, Let
THE EARTH
bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
Gen 1:25 “And
GOD
made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind …”

I use these 2 texts to show that when God “makes it rain” … God is the one making it rain, whether he does it through miraculous engagement, or through engaging with his natural laws of the cosmos. It is still “all God”.

1 Like

Well that’s why I said it needed several chapters. I see what you mean relative to what I say in that video but it goes on from there in the book.

I mean if you put some meat on those bones about how God might intervene in affecting outcomes by giving the command or making kinds maybe we won’t be that far apart.

Well, first of all, I would drop the use of the word “intervene”.

Collins once wrote about God “intervening in natural law”.

But if God is the source and sustenance of natural law … it’s like saying God’s left hand intervened in the affairs of his right hand.

Neither Joshua nor I have any interest in anything that looks Deist. God is personal and acts in real time (from our perspective)… all the while he is outside of time.

Not so. Creation is not within Him or a part of Him. Rather He entered creation. With His word in Genesis 1 and with the word made flesh in the Gospels.

Nor I. But are you then saying that He is constantly intervening, and that only looks like Natural law because He is usually consistent?

@anon46279830

Wow… so that’s what it sounded like to you?

No. I’m saying that while English speakers are tempted to use the word “intervene” - - because it seems like God is “blocking” something … I am saying that God employs natural properties, which might be seen as the very extension of God’s substance, to accomplish things throughout the Biblical narrative… and sometimes he engages in miraculous (or non-lawful) methods as well.

Whether the rain is providential but lawful, or providential and miraculous, it is all God’s personal doing.

But when its the latter it is regarded as creationism. So welcome to the team?

@anon46279830

You and Mr. Guy both hold to this view it seems.

Which is all well and good… define the terminology any way you like. But if you co-opt “natural law” to mean Creationism, it means we now need a replacement term for “natural law”.

If I were to say to a Young Earth Creationist that since I believe God uses Evolution to create humans, I am also a creationist, I doubt he would agree. Because he knows there is still a difference between “Special Creation” and “Creation by Evolution”. - - even if we both call ourselves Creationists!

So, now that we’ve lifted the Creationist tent to include me, the Evolutionist, what is the terminology of choice to distinguish between

Creationist Special Creationist

and

Creationist Evolutionist?

You aren’t going to propose “Creationist Evolutionist” are you?