Timeline for In Theistic Evolution when do the genealogies in Genesis become real?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 28, 2015 at 13:25 | comment | added | Joshua | @LeeWoofenden I suppose you are correct it does fail to complete the final connection. I made it myself due to some familiarity with the subject, but it should be made explicit. | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 13:23 | comment | added | Lee Woofenden | @JoshuaBigbee Though it could be made into a real answer to the question in the way that you suggest, as it stands it does not even say that any actual group of TEs believes this. It only provides some speculation about what people can or should believe whether or not they are TEs. And it concludes with a general defense of Adam as a literal ancestor, which was not what the question asked. So as currently written, it really doesn't answer the question. | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 13:10 | comment | added | Joshua | @LeeWoofenden It does answer the question. It is saying the first genealogy that they accept is...Adam. The more conservative TEs I know would agree with this and say that evolution got man to the point of Adam physically whereupon God stepped in spiritually. To say it crudely, there was an Adam, but he had an ape for a father. Not to say I agree, but that's how a conservative TE gets around the issues of messing with Adam scripturally. | |
| Dec 26, 2015 at 21:59 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Dec 27, 2015 at 5:49 | |||||
| Dec 26, 2015 at 21:59 | comment | added | Lee Woofenden | This really doesn't answer the question. It seems, instead, to be questioning the premise of the question. It's not clear that it's even written from a Theistic Evolution perspective. It seems to be arguing that Adam was the first, literal, human being. But the premise of the question is that Theistic Evolutionists do not see Adam as the first literal person. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 12:30 | comment | added | Jeff Wolski | "From the dust" does not have to mean scooping dirt out of a mud puddle. Cosmology holds that the majority of matter on the Earth was in the form of a cloud of dust LONG before there was a solid sphere. So, within the bounds of Theistic Evolution and commonly accepted science, we are very literally made from the same dust that makes up the ground. Trying to find a well-defined boundary between the figurative and literal, can be compared to asking, "Where do I stop being water and start being the other 30%?" | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 6:15 | comment | added | user3961 | Ok. So you are saying that there is no reason not to think that Adam in the genealogy was real, however, in the creation account, Adam can't be literally the same to Theistic Evolution because that Adam was molded from dirt and made to live. That Adam must be figurative, right? Maybe the question is better as "When does the Genesis story stop being figurative and start being literal?" | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 4:22 | history | edited | Jeff Wolski | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 8 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2013 at 4:03 | history | answered | Jeff Wolski | CC BY-SA 3.0 |