Creation

That belief is based more on analysis of the text than on a plain reading of the text. Tom Larkin seems to be talking about a plain reading of the text and so am I.

Yes, it is possible to tell. All of us today are descended from Adam. That is why it is recorded in Chapter 6 when discussing the Sons of God and the daughters of men that Noah was "perfect in his generations" meaning he is a direct descendent of Adam.The entire point of my book is that Christians are rejecting aspects of science when there is no need, and that men and women trained in science are rejecting scripture when there is no need, they are not mutually exclusive studies.

This statement makes no sense to me, what's your point?

I have seen many people reject the Christian faith as mythology as they have heard things that a contradictory to science from Christians. I have heard people say "I don't believe in God, I believe in science" when there is no need to choose between the two.I have a ME in Biochemical Engineering, for years I rejected the Old testament as myth because I thought is was contradictory to science. It was only until I studied it in detail, saw how it is aligned and completely consistent with the new testament and the vast amount of prophecy that has already been fulfilled, that I accepted it as the Word of God. Jesus is an active participant in the Old testament, he is called "the Angel of the Lord" (see Zechariah 3 for one of many examples)

Well that's just wrong on several levels. The two things are obviously not mutually exclusive, millions of scientists believe in god and gods. I suspect you're misinterpreting what they say or what they mean.In any case, belief is not an appropiate word to use when discussing science Prophecy aligns with science? What cobblers, you're simply doing what all belivers do - rationalising and apologetics for an already held belief.

quote:

---

The entire point of my book is that Christians are rejecting aspects of science when there is no need, and that men and women trained in science are rejecting scripture when there is no need, they are not mutually exclusive studies.

---

If that was your aim you would be better off embracing Genesis as myth and legend and recognising that as the reason for the conflicts between the two creation stories.If you choose to throw in with the literalists you have huge problems with the Genesis 1 creation story, with the dates, with the Flood. Reiterating pre-Adamite ideas does very little to deal with those problems.And, of course, there are better reasons to reject Christianity anyway, but that is a different issue.

I think you have that wrong. I, for one, accept the Bible. I accept it for what it is, myth. You're the one who's rejecting myth.Science and myth are mutually exclusive studies. That doesn't make either of them less valuable.And there is no reason to pretend that there is any scientific truth in the Bible.

Congratulations! This is the first reply I have received to a post on this site that didn't actually start as "Wrong!", you actually attempted to engage in somewhat of a discussion by establishing your point your view.I have made a logical Biblical argument, but if reject the Bible, then a Biblical argument is irrelevant. So I will just wish you well.

quote:

---

I have made a logical Biblical argument, but if reject the Bible, then a Biblical argument is irrelevant

---

If you have a real interest in reconciling the Bible with science then you need to deal with all the relevant science.If, on the other hand, you are solely interested in reviving the pre-Adamite theology by falsely claiming that it reconciles the Bible with science, then there is indeed nothing more worth talking about.

Acknowledging that the Biblical Creation stories are not factual and that they are also contradictory is not rejecting the Bible. Trying to pretend they are factual and that they are not contradictory IS rejecting the Bible.Edited by jar, : neither ----> not

Given:is you reject any of these "givens" then let's start another post so we don't stray from the point
G1 - the Bible is the word of God (the current 66 books)
G2 - any scripture must be interpreted in light of all scripture, no scripture may be "privately interpreted"Evidence:
E1: The creation in chapter1 describes the creation of the universe from the Big Bang (let there be light - initially photons only existed prior to even atoms) the creation of the universe, the creation of the stars, earth moon, sea life, plants, animals and humans.
E2: Creation of Chapter 2 describes the creation of Adam, the Garden and the animals.
E3: Throughout the book Genesis, the geneology of the line not leading to Jesus is always given first. This is consistent throughout the book including Seth, Shem, Isaac, Jacob, etc.
E4:In Genesis 6, it states the "sons of God" saw the "daughters of men" and saw that they were fair and took them as wives, but Noah was perfect in his generations.
E5: In 1 Cor and in Romans, Paul states we are born in "corruptible seed" through Adam and sown in incorruptible seed through the second Adam, Jesus.
E6: All mean and women alive today are descended from a most recent common ancestor (MRCA) who was alive when other men and women were alive (Nature 6Aug13 among many other sources)
E7: The are many occurrences in the Bible where the same story is retold from a different perspective (Kings and Chronicles) or to a different audience (the four Gospels)
E8: A lack of archaeological evidence does not prove that something did not exist (e.g. both King David and the city of Troy were thought to be myths until evidence of their existence was uncovered)
Discussion:
D1: The purpose of Genesis 1 is consistent with the rest of Genesis in that the line not leading to the Messiah is given before the line leading to the Messiah.
D2: The men and women of Genesis 1 are consistent with the "daughters of men" described in Chapter 6
D3: The creation described in Genesis 1 is not contradictory to our understanding of the evolutionary process.
D4: Noah was described as being "perfect in his generations" which means he was a direct descendent of Adam and Eve, and I assume his family was a well.
D5: Through Noah, we are all descended from Adam.
D6: The creation events in Genesis 1 and 2 are very different in order of creation, in what had already existed and even in the reason for creation of men and women (Genesis 1 - let's make man in Our image", Genesis 2 - "there was no one to till the ground"
Conclusions:
C1 The Creation accounts Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential, which is consistent with the genealogies in the book of Genesis and with Genesis 6.
C2 The account in Genesis 1 is not inconsistent with science, having Adam and the garden created after other men and women eliminates the conflict with evolution (men and women in chapter 1 followed the evolutionary process as is consistent with the order).
C3 We are all descended from Adam through Noah as he was "perfect in his generations", so this is consistent to the references to Adam in the New Testament.
Again, if you want to argue with the information in the "given"section, let's start another post as not to detract from the argument made here.
Go at it!Edited by Tom Larkin, : No reason given.

Question: Why should science even attempt to reconcile itself with old tribal myths?

My goal is aligned with your goal, let the Bible be the Bible and let science be science. The Bible is not science and science is not faith. The reason I wrote my book (Genesis and Evolution) was that too many Christians were rejecting science, this is evident is many people thinking climate change is a hoax or fake news.This is the main purpose of book.

Of course I reject many of your givens based on the actual evidence beginning with the fact that there is no such thing as an universal Christian Canon and in fact Christian Canons vary from the smallest that contains only the first five books of the Old Testament to the largest Canon that contains over 80 books.Your givens are simply dogma and have nothing to do with reality or honesty.And your G2 is just plain silly.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin hand ----> and

I have some comments on these.

quote:

---

G1 - the Bible is the word of God (the current 66 books)
G2 - any scripture must be interpreted in light of all scripture, no scripture may be "privately interpreted"

---

G1 is contrary to the Bible which presents itself as primarily a human creation.
G2 seems like an excuse to distort the text to hide contradictions.

quote:

---

E1: The creation in chapter1 describes the creation of the universe from the Big Bang (let there be light - initially photons only existed prior to even atoms) the creation of the universe, the creation of the stars, earth moon, sea life, plants, animals and humans.

---

This is false. The Creation starts with the Primordial Ocean - common to Creation Myths in the Ancient Near East, and the cosmology reflects that. It is at odds with science in many ways, which you have so far refused to discuss even when the issue has been raised.

quote:

---

E6: All mean and women alive today are descended from a most recent common ancestor (MRCA) who was alive when other men and women were alive (Nature 6Aug13 among many other sources)

---

I'll just note again that the Y-Chromosomal Adam is certainly not the MRCA (there are more recent ones). Also that your assumptions require that the Y-Chromosomal Adam is Noah who - according to Biblical chronologies - lived much too recently to be a plausible candidate. Further, the human population has never been reduced to an effective population of 5 as a literal reading of the Flood story suggests.

quote:

---

E7: The are many occurrences in the Bible where the same story is retold from a different perspective (Kings and Chronicles) or to a different audience (the four Gospels)

---

Which includes some significant contradictions between the texts. If your doctrine refuses to acknowledge this your doctrine opposes the Bible.

quote:

---

E8: A lack of archaeological evidence does not prove that something did not exist (e.g. both King David and the city of Troy were thought to be myths until evidence of their existence was uncovered)

---

In all cases, the absence of evidence is only significant to the extent that evidence should be present. The absence of evidence for the Biblical Flood is, for instance, decisive.

quote:

---

D3: The creation described in Genesis 1 is not contradictory to our understanding of the evolutionary process.

---

The order of creation is not consistent with what we know of evolution, and the account does not acknowledge the differences between ancient and modern forms.

quote:

---

D5: Through Noah, we are all descended from Adam.

---

For this to be consistent with science, Noah must be placed in the distant past, contradicting the Biblical chronology - and even then science gives us absolutely no reason to identify the Y-Chromosomal Adam with Noah whatsoever.

quote:

---

C1 The Creation accounts Genesis 1 and 2 are sequential, which is consistent with the genealogies in the book of Genesis and with Genesis 6.

---

This conclusion is not adequately supported, since it fails to deal with the differences in the order of creation which you acknowledged in your D6

quote:

---

C2 The account in Genesis 1 is not inconsistent with science, having Adam and the garden created after other men and women eliminates the conflict with evolution (men and women in chapter 1 followed the evolutionary process as is consistent with the order).

---

This conclusion is clearly false, since most of the conflicts have been completely ignored. Which at this point looks like a deliberate tactic.

quote:

---

C3 We are all descended from Adam through Noah as he was "perfect in his generations", so this is consistent to the references to Adam in the New Testament.

---

As I have pointed out above this conclusion is also problematic, at best requiring dubious assumptions.