Different Hypotheses

[Dark_Lite]

This forum is a little inactive; so let's make active again! There must be something we can discuss...

Perhaps different Theistic Evolution hypotheses?

Before I list mine I want to see what other people have.

 

[gluadys]

This forum is a little inactive; so let's make active again! There must be something we can discuss...

Perhaps different Theistic Evolution hypotheses?

Before I list mine I want to see what other people have.

I don't think there are different theistic evolution hypotheses. But there are likely some different hermeneutical hypotheses held by theistic evolutionists. Is that what you mean?

 

[Dark_Lite]

I don't think there are different theistic evolution hypotheses. But there are likely some different hermeneutical hypotheses held by theistic evolutionists. Is that what you mean?

Yeah... Like the different readings of Genesis and such.

 

[gluadys]

Yeah... Like the different readings of Genesis and such.

OK. Well, with the possible exception of Karl-Liberal Backslider I am probably the most radically liberal TE on this board, so, naturally, I take a radically liberal view of the bible.

As that relates to the early chapters of Genesis, I consider most of chapters 2-11 to be myth. An exception would be the genealogies. Not that I consider them literal, but as a genre of writing they are not myth. Similarly, I don't consider Gen. 1 to be literal, but it doesn't fit into the category of myth either. It is a different style of writing.

The rest of Genesis, I consider to be predominantly legendary stories about Israel's ancestors. The stories may well have an historical core, and the people may be actual figures in history, but as we have received them, there is more legend than history in the stories.

While I personally consider the flood story to be nearly 100% myth, a case could be made for an historical basis for that story too i.e. a severe local flood that was recalled and embroidered until it became (in the story) a world-wide flood. The same could be said for the story of the Tower of Babel. It could be built around an actual tower-building project that failed.

I'll let the more conservative folk who do see a case for a literal Adam&Eve explain their position themselves.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I'm with Gluadys 100%. Ditto every single thing she said. I used to call Genesis 1 "myth" because it was not a historical narrative, but that was an overgeneralization. It's difficult to name the genre for it.

I would go even further (as Gluadys might), to say that even the rest of Genesis, while it can be classified as historical narrative in general terms, lines up more with Icelandic saga than with history proper.

And because of this, I have been named Count Didaskomenos. Is that an honor?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I also see the Bible as showing us both sides of the "Heroes" lives. Like King David, blessed with leadership abilities makes mistake after mistake from boyhood on turning a minor border skirmish into a genocidal war. King Solomon using Gods gift of wisdom to rape the Queen of Sheba during trade talks between the two kingdoms. Samson breaking all of the Nazarene laws, being forgiven and given another chance to lead his people to glory only murders a few more Philistines and prolongs an already long war.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Alright. It is now time for me to share my version...

I think Adam and Eve were real, literal people. The "mit(d?)ochondrial Eve" that people speak of would be.... Eve. Adam was there too.

Parts of Genesis are literal and some are not. The creation of the universe is for the most part figurative.

I try to keep in line with Church dogma while still accepting the reality of things.

 

[gluadys]

Alright. It is now time for me to share my version...

I think Adam and Eve were real, literal people. The "mit(d?)ochondrial Eve" that people speak of would be.... Eve. Adam was there too.

Parts of Genesis are literal and some are not. The creation of the universe is for the most part figurative.

I try to keep in line with Church dogma while still accepting the reality of things.

Well, that is a misunderstanding of the concept of mitochondrial Eve. Scientists don't consider mitochondrial Eve to be the first female H. sapiens. She is simply the last common ancestor of all currently existing H. sapiens. A very different concept.

When mitochondrial Eve was alive she would be only one of hundreds if not thousands of other women.

 

[gluadys]

I also see the Bible as showing us both sides of the "Heroes" lives. Like King David, blessed with leadership abilities makes mistake after mistake from boyhood on turning a minor border skirmish into a genocidal war. King Solomon using Gods gift of wisdom to rape the Queen of Sheba during trade talks between the two kingdoms. Samson breaking all of the Nazarene laws, being forgiven and given another chance to lead his people to glory only murders a few more Philistines and prolongs an already long war.

Rape? Are you sure the Queen was not a willing consort? Were not sexual liaisons a rather common feature of national and economic alliances at the time?

 

[Didaskomenos]

What a minute - where does the Bible talk about Solomon and the Queen of Sheba "consorting" in that sense? It shows her to be a great admirer of his wisdom. Sure, early Arabic literature as well as Ethiopian legend has them romantically involved, but this is probably romanticism. I mean really. Should we assume that Reagan and Thatcher "got it on" just because they liked one another as leaders and worked together on numerous issues? Just because one's male and the other female doesn't mean anything, people. But anyways...

 

[SBG]

Hi all! I was just curious if Lewis has the verse that says Solomon raped Queen Sheba?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Well, that is a misunderstanding of the concept of mitochondrial Eve. Scientists don't consider mitochondrial Eve to be the first female H. sapiens. She is simply the last common ancestor of all currently existing H. sapiens. A very different concept.

When mitochondrial Eve was alive she would be only one of hundreds if not thousands of other women.

I know what the mitochondrial Eve theory states. She was a person from which all modern humans are descended. She was also in a bigger population of humans/human-like animals.

That's what I accept... I apologize if I didn't exactly make that clear in my last post.

 

[gluadys]

I know what the mitochondrial Eve theory states. She was a person from which all modern humans are descended. She was also in a bigger population of humans/human-like animals.

That's what I accept... I apologize if I didn't exactly make that clear in my last post.

OK. I am still not sure you have it clear. First she was definitely human, if by that you mean H. sapiens. She was not "human-like".

But do you also mean H. sapiens when you say "all modern humans"? In that case you are in error. Mitochondrial Eve is not the person from whom all H. sapiens descended. She is only the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive today. There are many deceased humans, especially of long past generations, of whom she is not an ancestor.