Homo sapiens sapiens is the only existing species of humans, which makes them the most recent humans. Adam would have been one of the most recent humans, and according to the biblical record, life did not exist shortly before Adam. Therefore, life did not exist recently.
But H. sapiens once existed simultaneously with other species of Homo such as the Neanderthals, the Denisovans, the Floresians and possibly even late H. erectus. We are the only existing species now, but that has not always been the case.
All observations are subjectively interpreted. That’s how the human mind works.
I am glad you recognize that. But you can't take a statement like "life did not exist recently" and call it an observation. That has not been observed. That is an interpretation of the scripture, not an observation.
I’m not saying re-creation is in scripture, I’m saying that re-creation offers a reasonable and logical explanation for what we do observe in scripture
Even better, this far. A complete recognition that you are interpreting scripture in a way that makes sense to you. To this point I would actually agree with you. It is when you add this:
that we get disagreement. In no way does a recent cessation of life agree with the fossil record.
In the fossil record life is old. In scripture life is new. There is nothing wrong with trying to make sense of this apparent contradiction.
I would say there is something wrong with this. This treats scripture and science as if they were the same kind of knowledge, the same type of information. But so treated they do conflict. However, as God is the ultimate source of both scriptural and scientific truth, that is impossible. Better then to recognize that science often speaks of what scripture does not, and when they appear to speak of the same thing, they do not do so in the same way. The biblical authors were not trying to give us knowledge that can be verified by scientific methods and observations. They were giving us a different sort of revelation.
Even theistic evolutionists do it. But they prefer an allegorical interpretation of Genesis. I simply prefer an explanation the holds to a literal interpretation of Genesis, which to me makes the most sense in light of what scripture teaches as a whole.
Actually I did.
The fossil record tells us that life is old. The biblical record tells us that life is new.
Re-creation offers a logical explanation for this apparent contradiction while still holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis.
That’s my reason.
I see. And I think you will agree that this reason is only needed if you "prefer an explanation the [sic] holds to a literal interpretation of Genesis". So my question has still not been answered. Why prefer a literal interpretation when it creates such difficult apparent contradictions?
I disagree.
Many people’s opinion about Genesis is shaped by evolution theory and not by the scriptures themselves. A historical account being the intent of the author is supported by a number of other scriptures in both the Old and New Testament, and by Jesus himself. Anything other than a literal, historical account makes no sense at all in the light of scripture as a whole.
Not exactly.
We have already concluded that many of the modern species today existed in prehistory with differences that were negligible. Perhaps the line got blurred because the differences were so negligible. In any case, some species could have been re-created exactly as they were before.
Yet the idea that Genesis is allegorical has been held by some students of scripture for over 2,000 years with no theory of evolution to stimulate it; only the text itself. I will agree that modern science was a factor in retrieving this idea from the past, for it seems to have been forgotten for a time. But I am not aware of any significant controversy over the idea of an allegorical Genesis until modern times. Even if only a few ancient scholars articulated it, it was apparently accepted as a legitimate approach in the Patristic age and both the literal and allegorical interpretations stood side by side without enmity. To each their own preference.
I’m thinking the break would have occurred 6 to 12 thousand years ago.
In that case, even H. sapiens would need to be re-created for fossils of H. sapiens are much older than that.
But the very idea of a re-creation is what is called an ad hoc thesis. There is no reason to even put the proposal forward unless we first have the proposal of an earth cleared of life. And there is no evidence for it at all. Usually, in science, we get some sort of evidence needing an explanation first, then a hypothesis as to what that explanation might be. A hypothesis put forward simply to support an earlier hypothesis which has not been validated itself yet has no explanatory value. If and when there is reason to believe the earth really was cleared of life in the time frame you mention, then one can pose the question--so how did it get repopulated? But if it was never fully cleared of life in the first place, then no re-creation is necessary.
But I am not expecting that there will always be physical evidence left by actual historical events. That’s why I believe there was a break in prehistory despite lack of physical evidence.
As I explained earlier, even a short break would leave physical evidence. Possibly not geological evidence, but it would leave biological evidence including genetic bottlenecks.
If Genesis was an actual historical account the interpretation would still be the same no matter who it was written to, and it would still conflict with prevailing scientific theory.
Key word: "If"
And I’m not saying it does. But re-creation does offer a reasonable and logical explanation of what the Bible does say in light of the fossil record.
Only to the extent that the fossil record tells us there was life on earth prior to 12,000 years ago. But the fossil record also records no time when earth was devoid of life, no time within that framework when it was devoid of human life, so re-creation is not a reasonable and logical explanation in light of the fossil record.
The fossil record tells us that life is old. The biblical record tells us that life is new, beginning shortly before Adam.
You are assuming the biblical record tells us Adam's existence began 6-12 thousand years ago. You don't even need allegory to find that debatable. Then there is the whole question of who 'ha-adam' in Genesis 2 is. The Hebrew does not justify the personal name.
Re-creation offers a reasonable explanation for this apparent contradiction. There is no reason for me to interpret Genesis as an allegory when there is a perfectly natural and logical explanation for it.
So, it comes back to a preference for avoiding allegory in favour of a literal interpretation.
But what is the value of the literal when allegory makes more sense?
They didn’t need scientific knowledge; they only needed knowledge of history.
History is evidence.
Only when what people believe is history really is history. In the case of Genesis, whatever people believed or believe, it is not known that it is history.
We also need the Bible to tell us how life originated on earth and why life originated on earth, something that science is still trying to figure out and will never figure out.
No, we don't need that kind of knowledge from the Bible. The bible tells us more important things, such as that the universe is a created cosmos (=order) and within that order humanity was created for a task, a function, a purpose. IOW life, especially human life, is meaningful.
Now, that is knowledge science can never give us.
