Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The "evolutionary view" does not address the question.I would interpret Genesis 2:7 as not only the gift of life, but Adam's reception of the Holy Spirit (per Genesis 1:27 & John 20:22). From your evolutionary view, what was the first creation to receive the Holy Spirit?
The "evolutionary view" does not address the question.
Homo Sapiens--but that is not an "evolutionary view" it is a religious one.I think it impinges on the question, but I'll rephrase it if you wish. In your opinion, what was the first creation to receive the Holy Spirit?
I will try and explain this as briefly as I am able.
Homo Sapiens--but that is not an "evolutionary view" it is a religious one.
No, and neither did the author(s) of the Garden story, apparently--which is why he was given the name Adam, a nice bit of Hebrew wordplay.Do you know the name of this first Homo sapiens?
No, and neither did the author(s) of the Garden story, apparently--which is why they gave him the name Adam, a nice bit of Hebrew wordplay.
Ok I definitely get the first sentence. By differences on how they view sin, death, and emergence of the soul are you just referring to the time prior to Adam & Eve?I've not yet met a theistic evolutionist that doesn't, in some way, reduce Genesis to allegory. There is, additionally, a whole host of issues regarding sin, death, and the emergence of the soul.
I think you're nit-picking semantics to make it come out the way you want. Regardless, what you said doesn't address my objections. I'll point you back to post #39.
In the first place, saying that "Genesis" is "allegorical" is a grotesque oversimplification. Genesis is a complex work presenting us with a wide variety of literary genres. It has always been my understanding that the Garden story, for example, is an etiology rather than an allegory. Secondly, what that has to do with what the Bible says about the Apostle James is beyond me.Uh huh. In the same way that James wasn't really an apostle, but just an allegorical supplanter. Anyway, you're obviously taking Genesis as allegorical, which was the difference between us that I pointed out many posts ago, so I won't belabor it.
Certainly that is not my opinion. The emergence of self-aware intelligence is not something that evolutionary biologists have any convincing explanation for, and it may well be due to some event or cause which has little to do with biological evolution.I'll just note then, this means the parents of this Homo sapiens - though nearly identical in genetic makeup and therefore sentient - aware they would die, able to call out to God for rescue - were left to die with no hope of a future life. They just ceased to exist. Further, they lived as imperfect beings who made mistakes and suffered - committed injustices and endured injustices with no final resolution. In other words, they lived in a sinful state, but God offered them no rescue from that sinful state.
Secondly, what that has to do with what the Bible says about the Apostle James is beyond me.
Certainly that is not my opinion.
a whole host of issues regarding sin, death, .....
Adam's parents were in a sense animals, they would have the same fate and existence of other animals that are not made in the image of God. Jesus said that I could raise up believers out of these stones, why not the ability to implant God consciousness into a previously non-God conscious homo sapien?I'll just note then, this means the parents of this Homo sapiens - though nearly identical in genetic makeup and therefore sentient - aware they would die, able to call out to God for rescue - were left to die with no hope of a future life. They just ceased to exist. Further, they lived as imperfect beings who made mistakes and suffered - committed injustices and endured injustices with no final resolution. In other words, they lived in a sinful state, but God offered them no rescue from that sinful state.
Not a problem. Just as the Garden story can be read as an etiology--for which the name of the first man is merely one indication of many--The accounts of James cannot.All names originate from some meaning. James means "supplanter" just as Adam means "earth". It's no accident Adam was given the name he was, but this is not proof that it was mere allegory just as it is not proof that referring to James in the NT was reference to an allegorical supplanter.
We can say something about the physical bodies Adam's "parents" but at the present time science can say little or nothing about what kind of intelligence they had, nor give us a reason for any change. Why is that intellectually dishonest?Then tell me what your opinion is. To claim that per evolution we know the first Homo sapiens had parents and then deny we can say anything about those parents appears to be intellectually dishonest.
But if you fully accept the scientific account of origins, it's not compatible with death being a consequence of sin. That affects a lot of people's theology
Adam's parents were in a sense animals ...
When the Bible doesn't address something speculation is all we have. The genre of early Genesis is among the hardest to figure out, and among the most disputed even among Hebrew experts.I don't see any Biblical support for such an idea, so this seems nothing more than speculation.
We can say something about the physical bodies Adam's "parents" but at the present time science can say little or nothing about what kind of intelligence they had, nor give us a reason for any change. Why is that intellectually dishonest?
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?