Why's that? I ask because the questions posed seem pretty basic to me. Why are they not obvious to you?Those questions are not exactly obvious to me but it is interesting to see, thank you for responding.
Why's that? I ask because the questions posed seem pretty basic to me. Why are they not obvious to you?
My approach to studying Scripture is not at all like that line of questioning, but my questions for the flood story began with "how does the water released here relate to how the term is used in these Psalms I pray? Where is this in time, which is probably not linear according to these Church Fathers? How did the commentators of old interpret this and what does it mean?" and then after many other questions in that vein I may perhaps get to those things Estrid asked. I am still on the questions I am asking which cross through so many other subjects in theology it will take a long time to get there, but it has been extremely rewarding in my personal studying.
I chalk it up to a difference in interests and worldview, I think people will ask only questions they are interested in usually even when being well-meaning, so that's why.
There is now a short response on First Things, a critique by an Evangelical:
Craig responds: "Mytho-History in Genesis."
Thanks for posting that.The review of Craig's book I mentioned earlier is now online, here. Unless you have paid access to the journal you're stuck with a low resolution view, which is readable but less than ideal. (They're supposed to make a link available to the proper version but they're having technical difficulties.)
ETA: The first link here leads to a more legible copy.
I notice Craig puts a pivotal amount of credibility onThe review of Craig's book I mentioned earlier is now online, here. Unless you have paid access to the journal you're stuck with a low resolution view, which is readable but less than ideal. (They're supposed to make a link available to the proper version but they're having technical difficulties.)
ETA: The first link here leads to a more legible copy.
I don't know if it's been mentioned here yet, but it's interesting that Craig hopes to avoid the inevitable genetic bottleneck problem by suggesting interbreeding with the other, not so blessed, hominins of the time.The review of Craig's book I mentioned earlier is now online, here. Unless you have paid access to the journal you're stuck with a low resolution view, which is readable but less than ideal. (They're supposed to make a link available to the proper version but they're having technical difficulties.)
Since the other, less blessed, ones could be almost identical to A&E genetically, I don't see how we could tell how large a contribution they made to modern human genetics.Unfortunately, the genetic evidence appears to show that their contribution is far too small to hide such a bottleneck...
IIRC he was talking about Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the like, whose genetic signature in modern human DNA is pretty small. It's true that there may have been many interbreeding branches from which the bulk of our genetic inheritance derives, but if they were not blessed with souls, it calls into question how much of the original blessed lineage actually persists in modern humans...Since the other, less blessed, ones could be almost identical to A&E genetically, I don't see how we could tell how large a contribution they made to modern human genetics.
Even traits that seem to exist on a continuum like consciousness and empathy could certainly have a threshold over which you would consider human level.IIRC he was talking about Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the like, whose genetic signature in modern human DNA is pretty small. It's true that there may have been many interbreeding branches from which the bulk of our genetic inheritance derives, but if they were not blessed with souls, it calls into question how much of the original blessed lineage actually persists in modern humans...
No, he views Neanderthals and Denisovans as being human. Interbreeding with look-like-humans-but-ain't would have been earlier.IIRC he was talking about Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the like, whose genetic signature in modern human DNA is pretty small.
I suspect it was quite a long process - some sense of identity and at least the rudiments of morality would far predate hominins - even rats show elements of those traits, although recognisably human traits probably appeared relatively quickly by evolutionary timescales, with the help of cooking. But Craig seemed to be suggesting that God gave humans their special nature (souls & whatever) in a single step (Adam & Eve).Even traits that seem to exist on a continuum like consciousness and empathy could certainly have a threshold over which you would consider human level.
I was trying to imagine a community of creatures where some had an ability to comprehend morality and identity and some did not... but when you think about it on the day to day it might not be relevant.
A dog can be loyal, friendly and cooperative without human levels of self awareness and our two species find a way to interact.
It occurs to me that while I don't believe that Adam and Eve were a literal pair of individuals and I don't believe that divine intervention was necessary for human morality and consciousness, I still accept that these traits must have begun to appear in a population of hominids and not been universal.
Oh - does he think Neanderthals & Denisovans had souls and so-on? If so, I misread what he was saying.No, he views Neanderthals and Denisovans as being human. Interbreeding with look-like-humans-but-ain't would have been earlier.
Could you elaborate?I used to believe in an old earth but, recently i have started to see the truths in a young earth.
WLC embraces both sacred myth and some current scientific understandings to locate the historical Adam.
Given the recent archaeological findings, Adam and Eve may plausibly be identified as belonging to the last common ancestor of Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, usually denominated Homo heidelbergensis or Heidelberg Man, living more than 750,000 years ago. Heidelberg Man was not some strange ape-man, but was recognizably human, with a cranial capacity of 1,260 cubic centimeters, well within the modern range. It is noteworthy that population genetics—a subfield of evolutionary biology dealing with genetic differences within and among populations—does not rule out the existence of two sole genetic progenitors of the human race living more than 500,000 years ago. The mythic history of Genesis is fully consistent with current scientific evidence concerning human origins.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2021/10/the-historical-adam
Thoughts?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?