It should also be obvious that it cannot be discounted that increased scientific understanding of human origins prompts different interpretations of Genesis. And that results in Christians saying things like "This doesn't mean Genesis is false, but simply that we need to interpret the text within its proper genre." But lets see that for what it is: it allows for never having to admit anything in the Bible is false. It allows Christians to think: "Without a primordial pair confirmed by science, we'll remain agnostic about how the Bible should be interpreted in that regard... But if science confirms such a primordial pair -- oh wow! -- we'll all get very excited and publish lots of articles about how science confirms a foundational Biblical claim!"
whatever helps you sleep at night.
Quote from: Language-Gamer on July 10, 2018, 12:46:18 pmwhatever helps you sleep at night.That is immensely ironic in a thread on conference about historicity of Adam.
Well, you guys have to admit that if there was strong scientific evidence for a primordial pair of ancestors who lived around 6,000 years ago -- with no evidence of any prior ancestors themselves -- creatio (poof) ex nihilo -- that would prompt a certain interpretation of the text... A much more straightforward one.
Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.
That order isn't correct Got the order of birds wrong, which come after land animalsAlso the sun and stars existed before creation of earthThe earth was never dark because the sun was there first.
That order isn't correct Got the order of birds wrong, which come after land animalsThe earth was never dark because the sun was there first.
Also the sun and stars existed before creation of earth
Lennon, you have outlined the "straightforward" interpretation. But Harvey's post is case in point for what I am talking about. If you start out presupposing "the Bible is true -- somehow -- some way -- we just need to figure out how it is true" then you may come up with a "counterintuitive" interpretation of creation that reconciles Biblical passages with scientific findings. So, the passage that says God made the sun, moon, and stars may really mean that is when God revealed them by making the atmosphere less hazy. Revealed to whom? That is still unclear, since according to this timeline God hadn't created earthly life yet.