Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Biologos does an about-face on Adam and Eve

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I believe biologox has a history of supporting evolution called 'Evolutionary Creationism.'
    Well, yes.

    I do not believe there has been ab 'about face.'
    Only on the issue of the possibility of a Biblical Adam and Eve, is the claim.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

      I cited specific scripture that are not as flexible to interpretation as you claim. The fundamental doctrine and dogma of Christianity is still dependent on a degree of literal interpretation of the Fall and Original Sin of Adam and Eve.

      The following is hardly open to metaphoeical in terpretation:

      Genesis 3:16

      “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;

      iin pain you shall bring forth children.

      jYour desire shall be contrary to6 your husband,

      but he shall krule over you.”
      Are you sure that was the portion of Scripture that you wish to cite?

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Are you sure that was the portion of Scripture that you wish to cite?
        Yes, in fact a broader understanding of the times and culture of history of the literature this is the meaning of the texts cited. No question. Like all ancient religions the scripture is compiled and written in ancient cultural and time. I believe the academic view of the scripture supports my view.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Only on the issue of the possibility of a Biblical Adam and Eve, is the claim.
          I reviewed the literature of Biologos I see no indication that this is true. In fact the Genesis version of Creation, Adam and Eve and the Flood are strictly in the context of the times and cultures that they were compiled, edited and written, and have absolutely no remote relevance to the contemporary science of evolution and cosmology. Yes later day 'gerrymandering' can satisfy the insecurities of 'some' believers, but it does not remotely fit if you do not selectively interpret parts of the scripture.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-11-2021, 07:33 AM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            I know, the quote was only to demonstrate the change.



            On the contrary, it appears they have changed their position. Did you read the article?

            Source: Peaceful Science

            BioLogos’s position on Adam and Eve was understood to reflect the scientific consensus. But BioLogos' new position shows that many of the claims in their past position were incorrect.

            A decade later, this June 2021, BioLogos published a new position on what genetics says about Adam and Eve. This new position statement recommends their theological position on Adam and Eve, which itself underwent several revisions in the last few years.

            © Copyright Original Source



            Blessings,
            Lee
            This is just a weak attempt to selectively make things like rime frame of population of ancient human ancestors to vaguely fir an interpretation Genesis, but no I could not find an alternate position in biologos past literature. This article basically fits biologos view of Evolutionary Creation, but no prior article of biologos proposed that the Genesis account could not be harmonized with contemporary science.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-11-2021, 07:46 AM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              I prefer to see some peer reviewed articles from scientific journals that concludes and shows the comparative details that the Biblical record of Adam and Eve is compatible with 'contemporary science,' and not a layman's Christian magazine.

              The 'contemporary scientific knowledge of evolution is not remotely compatible with the Biblical Adam and Eve story. The scientific knowledge indicates that humans evolve from large primate populations in Africa over millions of years, and not population of two..
              And the scientific knowledge of such things, is a valuable clue to whether the A & E story is to be taken as history. If the sciences do not support the historicity-as-Biblically-described of people and events in the Bible, that is a clue that the Biblical mentions of those people or events are to be understood as not historical; they must therefore be understood in a different way. In that manner, the sciences can be a valuable help toward discovering what the Biblical books are intended to mean to the reader. If God meant Adam and Eve to be fiction, not history; and if God is using the sciences to teach their fictionality; then that is surely something Christians should attend to.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                And the scientific knowledge of such things, is a valuable clue to whether the A & E story is to be taken as history. If the sciences do not support the historicity-as-Biblically-described of people and events in the Bible, that is a clue that the Biblical mentions of those people or events are to be understood as not historical; they must therefore be understood in a different way. In that manner, the sciences can be a valuable help toward discovering what the Biblical books are intended to mean to the reader. If God meant Adam and Eve to be fiction, not history; and if God is using the sciences to teach their fictionality; then that is surely something Christians should attend to.
                What if the best understanding of the physical sciences (including biology) firmly says that the Biblical accounts cannot be treated as "history," but the best understandings of sciences such as philology and theology firmly say that they *must* be treated as "history."

                Who decides which "sciences" win?
                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                Beige Nationalist.

                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                  I cited specific scripture that are not as flexible to interpretation as you claim. The fundamental doctrine and dogma of Christianity is still dependent on a degree of literal interpretation of the Fall and Original Sin of Adam and Eve.

                  The following is hardly open to metaphoeical in terpretation:

                  Genesis 3:16

                  “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;

                  iin pain you shall bring forth children.

                  jYour desire shall be contrary to6 your husband,

                  but he shall krule over you.”
                  Rather a singular translation, that. The only one that I can find saying "your desire shall be contrary to," the others including the LXX saying "shall be for."

                  Is Biologos claiming that Adam and Eve were created independently of evolution and then inserted into the chain?
                  sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                    This is just a weak attempt to selectively make things like rime frame of population of ancient human ancestors to vaguely fir an interpretation Genesis, but no I could not find an alternate position in biologos past literature. This article basically fits biologos view of Evolutionary Creation, but no prior article of biologos proposed that the Genesis account could not be harmonized with contemporary science.
                    Having followed BioLogos off and on pretty much since its inception, I don't think there has ever been anything like an "official" position regarding the historicalness of Adam and Eve. Even here with what Lee posted it merely represents the author's view. There does not appear to be a dogmatic position on the issue.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                      Rather a singular translation, that. The only one that I can find saying "your desire shall be contrary to," the others including the LXX saying "shall be for."

                      Is Biologos claiming that Adam and Eve were created independently of evolution and then inserted into the chain?
                      ESV:

                      Scripture Verse: Genesis 3:16

                      To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

                      © Copyright Original Source




                      Some others like the NLT have similar readings

                      Scripture Verse: Genesis 3:16

                      Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      and NET

                      Scripture Verse: Genesis 3:16

                      To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children. You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you."

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Interestingly, the Brenton Septuagint agrees with the more common reading:

                      Scripture Verse: Genesis 3:16

                      And to the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pains and thy groanings; in pain thou shalt bring forth children, and thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

                      © Copyright Original Source




                      You can compare them HERE

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post


                        You can compare them HERE
                        NO.jpg
                        sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          yes-pls.jpg

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Having followed BioLogos off and on pretty much since its inception, I don't think there has ever been anything like an "official" position regarding the historicalness of Adam and Eve. Even here with what Lee posted it merely represents the author's view. There does not appear to be a dogmatic position on the issue.
                            I generally agree. My point is that Biologos has never made any 'about face' on these issues.concerning Adam and Eve. I only stated that the article is in harmony with the general view of Biologos of Evolutionary Creationism.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              [QUOTE=tabibito;n1306585]

                              Rather a singular translation, that. The only one that I can find saying "your desire shall be contrary to," the others including the LXX saying "shall be for." [/quote[

                              I do not believe the different translations change anything concerning how the text is understood as is.

                              Is Biologos claiming that Adam and Eve were created independently of evolution and then inserted into the chain?
                              I do not think that Biologos makes this distinction or makes any specific statement on this issue. The article is the opinion of an author, and I only proposed that it is in 'harmony' with the Biologos view of Evolutionary Creationism,' which supports their belief that scientific evolution is in harmony with their understanding of Genesis. There is no evidence that his one article represents an 'about face' of Biologos view of Genesis, Adam and Eve, or the text of the Bible in general.

                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 10-19-2021, 03:24 PM
                              8 responses
                              75 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 10-12-2021, 10:31 AM
                              3 responses
                              35 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-12-2021, 07:46 AM
                              0 responses
                              12 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 10-01-2021, 10:26 AM
                              56 responses
                              306 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post lee_merrill  
                              Started by oxmixmudd, 10-01-2021, 09:43 AM
                              37 responses
                              200 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X