Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time

So Adam and Eve were direct descendants of lower primate apes, and did God appear to them and judged them for sin? Was there a real histocial Fall of mankind then?
Jesus and Paul both assumed that Adam was created by God, and not evolved, so why would we deny the special creation account?
The Holy Spirit inspired that the entire human race had one parent, Adam and Eve, so you buy into science more than inspired scripture?

 

A population of hominids (represented by the archetypes of Adam and Eve) were descended from earlier hominids.

God created them to be human (in His image) and they ended up rebelling against God.

There was a real fall, and newer generations of humankind continue to exhibit and perpetuate that fall.

That's an enormous assumption. Certainly Jesus and Paul rightly believed that humankind was created by God, but you are assuming that Jesus and Paul believe exactly as you believe.

Since Jesus and Paul were real people living in a real social, cultural and religious context, not simply figures in a made-up story, they have experiences and a culture that is not necessarily described in the canonical books of scripture. If you read the Apocrypha and other writings from that era, you will see that Adam is often treated as an archetype or genealogical figure, not necessarily as a living, breathing single human being. Therefore, if the context of the canonical books of scripture allows it, we cannot assume that Jesus and Paul meant that Adam was a literal, historic figure in their teaching. Moreover, have you noticed that Paul references Adam as an archetype of humanity and Eve as an archetype of falling into temptation?

What you mean to say is, 'why would you not believe my interpretation of Genesis 1-3.'

I don't interpret the text your way because of my careful study of it. I have already pointed out some of my observations previously in this discussion thread. Moreover, there is a lot of reliable external extra-biblical evidence that supports my interpretation of the text. Since all truth is of God, I need to take all truth seriously.

Your statement contradicts itself. You say "one parent" and then you name two parents.

I believe you are quoting from Paul's sermon on the Aeropagus (Mars Hill) where he essentially restates the Genesis 1 narrative of God creating a temple for Himself, not built by human hands:

Acts 17:24-29
"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; or is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man." ​

Since Paul did not mention Eve -- and we know that humankind does not asexually reproduce -- it is clear that Paul is speaking metaphorically here. The "one man" is a way of expressing that humankind is closely related at that we all "children of God."

NOTE: If you are going to quote scripture as evidence, please reference it so (1) you can first verify that it actually says what you claim it says; and (2) so I can respond to you effectively. We have been having a good discussion and I don't want it to get sidetracked by ambiguity.

This comes across as quite accusatory. The simple answer is no.

I have been quoting all kinds of scripture in this discussion (as well as citing references), so don't get on your high-horse and pretend that I'm not relying on scripture. However, genetic science is quite helpful and clear. I have been studying it for a couple of years and I have experienced its reliability with DNA testing. I have had my DNA analyzed by two different companies and it has revealed a number of important things about me, both with family history and my health. Through DNA analysis, I they have been able to quite accurately connect me with distant relatives that I previously didn't know, and revealed some health information that I did know and some that I didn't.

The science is quite solid, although they are still developing it. But the matter of about 10,000 hominids being the foundation of modern humanity is quite settled science. And it does not contradict the scriptures.

The scriptures are the prime authority, but I also pay attention to other sources of knowledge. You do the same when you quote geologists and other persons who are experts (or claim to be experts). You and others appeal to science (and certain interpretations of science) all the time.

I thoroughly recommend the book, "Adam and the Genome" as I mentioned earlier. It goes into great detail about all of the issues we have discussed.

 

The final statement that can be made on Adam and Eve as being direct and special creations of God Himself, and not evolved primates, was from the lips of Jesus Himself, as he created them back in genesis Himself!

 

What is the biblical reference for Jesus saying that “Adam and Eve are direct and special creations of God Himself?”

 

Mark 10:6

 

Thank you for providing a reference so we can compare it to your assertions. Let’s look at both Mark 10:6 and the parallel passage in Matthew 19:4 in context:

Mark 10:2-9
2 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “ Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Matthew 19:3-9
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “ Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They *said to Him, “ Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”​

Now let’s look carefully at the assertion you made. Your assertion has several parts:

(1) “The final statement that can be made on Adam and Eve...”
You assert that your interpretation of Jesus’ words is the final authority, or possibly Jesus’ words themselves are the final authority.

I gladly agree that whatever interpretation that Jesus has of Genesis is out final authority, and that our interpretations must conform to the interpretations of Jesus. If Jesus is interpreting the origin of humanity in the relevant passage(s), we should follow His example.

But Jesus is not interpreting the origin of humanity (in the sense we are discussing). He is interpreting the meaning and purpose of marriage by allusions to Genesis 1 and quoting Genesis 2:24 in both Mark and Matthew.

(2) “...as being direct [creations of God Himself]...”
I think we both agree that God was (and is) directly involved with the creation and nurturing of humankind. This is not an area of disagreement, unless I have completely mistaken your position.

(3) “...and special creations of God Himself...”
I think we both agree that humankind was not an accident. Where we probably differ here is that you believe that humankind has no biological lineage from other animals, while I believe we do, based on genetic science. You assert that the scripture teaches your view and I assert that it does not assert it. The referenced passages in Mark and Matthew simply make allusions back to Genesis 1 and a reference to Genesis 2:24. This passage does not provide evidence for “special” creation, other than we were given the “image of God” when we came to a certain place in development.

(4) “...and not evolved primates...”
The human genome points to a population of about 10,000 hominids as the start of modern humanity. You and I probably agree that if macro-evolution occurred, then God would have had to assist creatures as then transitioned from one kind of creature to another. I believe that that’s exactly what God did. He molded generations of creatures into humankind, like the potter molds clay, gradually bringing it into conformity with the desire of the potter.

(5) “...was from the lips of Jesus Himself, as he created them back in genesis Himself.”
Jesus did create humankind, however, He did not have anything to say about HOW He did it in Mark 10 or Matthew 19.

If I have misunderstood you, I am truly sorry. Please bring it to my attention so you will not be misrepresented in this discussion.

 

Jesus stated plainly that God cteated a male and a female. Adam and Eve. amd Paul carries this and runs with it, as he contrasts the First Adam, first huamn, who failed the test, and the second Adam, Jesus, who passed the test...

Eve was stated to be the Mother of the entire human race, not thousands of Eves! Genesis 3:20, also the genealogies of Jesus goes back to Adam, not to many Adams!

 

Actually, He said, “He created/made them male and female,” not “a male and a female.”

Moreover, as I pointed out in the last post, Jesus is making a reference to the Genesis stories to talk about the purpose of marriage, not to discuss the mechanics of the origins of humankind.

If I reference “the prodigal son” in a sermon, that does not mean that the prodigal son of Jesus’ parable was literally, historically true. This is basic biblical interpretation as well as common sense.

Actually, no he doesn’t. Unless you have seen something in the New Testament that I have completely missed, Paul does not take this reference of Jesus to the Genesis stories as a launch pad to write up a doctrine of the historicity of Adam and Eve. As I have pleaded before, please cite specific scripture for your assertions.

If you have a specific text in mind, please cite it.

In texts like you describe, Paul uses Adam as an archetype of fallen humanity. A big clue here is that Eve was the first to sin, so the fact that Paul is using Adam as a stand-in points to the reality that Adam is a stand-in for all of humankind.

Again, Adam and Eve are representations of male and female as God created us. As I pointed out very recently (do you actually read my responses carefully?), Cain was worried about other people killing him as he wandered the earth (Genesis 4:14-15) because of his murder of Abel - what other people would there be if Adam, Eve and Abel were the only ones alive? Also, even though Cain was banished, he found a wife (Genesis 4:17). Where did she come from?

You really need to read Genesis carefully from the beginning without seeing it as a science textbook. When you do that, you will notice a lot of things that people seem to ignore.

Adam is also used in a genealogical sense. Hebrew individuals who were physical descendants of Abraham traced their lineage back as far as possible to Abraham, and then went with the descriptions in Genesis 1-11. The geneologies simply don’t prove what you think they do.

 

Your reasoning appears to be trying to reconcile presumed "science" and the scriptures, but the problem is that the bible ONLY knows of a Adam and Eve, no references to any other humans around at that time! And Cain married his own sister...

 

First, you say that like it is a bad thing. This assertion can be placed at the feet of 6-day creationists too.

Scripture is the primary authority and I have studied the scriptures carefully. I also know a little bit about science. The scriptures are fully reliable and genetic science seems to be quite reliable. Since both the scripture and science point to objective reality, it is natural to figure out what both can teach us in their proper place.

Actually, your statement is flatly wrong. At that time there are explicit references to Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. Then there is Cain’s wife (who is not named), and then there are the others that Cain will meet in his exile that are implied because God places a mark/sign on him so those unnamed people will not kill him.

What is the scripture reference stating that Cain married his sister? It is certainly not Genesis 4:17, because that says nothing about her being his sister. Unless you can give me a reference, you are trying to claim that your speculation has the authority of scripture. It does not.

I’m sorry your views (or whatever you have been taught) is not actually in scripture, but that is no reason to reject other points of view without investigating them. A faithful Christian should always be ready to investigate things to see if they are so. You should also be ready to change your mind (even if it is unpopular) when you discover that what you have believed is false.

Don’t reject what I have written out of hand. Think and pray about it. Carefully reread the scriptures and see them afresh. Try reading the book I have repeatedly suggested, “Adam and the Genome.” I believe it covers every one of your objections, plus many more that people have made, plus it gives you some historical perspective on ancient texts and world views which can be quite helpful. I have not relied on the book in our conversation, but I know it covers everything I have mentioned.

 

The scriptures call Eve the mother of all who are theliving, not multiples mothers of us all, and the plain and literal meaning of genesis was written as an historical account to us on how the Universe came in being, how life originated, and how Humans were created in the very image of God. Evolution cannot give to us that image, must have been by special creation by God..
Paul compares and contrasts Adam to Jesus, as the first and second Adam, were they multiply Adams, and so which one actually sinned in the Garden to bring about the fall?

 

Baptist Believer: "---genetic science seems to be quite reliable."
TODAY!? What about a year, decade, century from now? Science is steadily revising itself, hopefully getting more & more reliable & accurate in the process, BUT, not all science is free from prejudice.

I recall reading in the 50's about the coming "ice age" due in the 70's; then the flooded coastlines from global warming due in the late 90's; the depletion of "OIL" before 2000; massive world starvation due to population explosion/failure of crops/dirty water yada, yada, yada. The list goes on & on, & on, and oddly none of these dire predictions have matereralized

For many years, Sodom & Gomorrah was just a fantasy/parable/tale, proving the Bible was just another book of religious fables. But WHOOPS!!!! some archeologist (Christian, of course, & don't remember his name) decided to take the Scripture and follow the description given for the location of S&G & found what is very possibly the exact site - based on the description of the "fire & brimstone" destruction of same. I've read of other discoveries similar to this one that TODAY proves the Scripture true, in spite of the assurances of SCIENCE that the Bible is just another GILGAMESH EPIC.

I read a book by a Christian, physicist I think, that "PROVES" the Bible AND science are correct on the creation of 6 days/ ~billions of years. It involves a lot of math, physics etc. showing that before our time, time was different than we know it. Very interesting, and his explanation, that I only partially grasp, does not negate the Scriptural sequence of 6 days, but shows it in a different frame of reference. IOW, he is showing the creation timeline from the dimension of eternity past and the timeline with present day time.

I can't say I fully accept this, BUT I can see the possibility of such, especially since it DOES NOT reject the Biblical time line, and the first 2 verses IMHO, are open-ended enough to allow this possibility.

If there is a definite conflict -- I'm going with the written Word!!!!

 

I understand Adam and Eve to be archetypes of humanity. An archetype is a symbol or person that explains the characteristics/nature of the world and life.

(1) What is the biblical source for your unstated assertion that the proper way to interpret Genesis is a post-Enlightenment rationalistic hyper-literal method that feels "plain" to you?

(2) Where does the scripture indicate that Genesis 1-3 was intended to be a historical account of the type that is common in the post-Enlightenment world of the past three centuries? It would be extraordinary if it was, since the original audience for the text did not think in the forms that we do. That is clear from reading other ancient texts written in the same part of the world in roughly the same eras.

The competing creation stories are quite different in content, but similar in form and symbols, with a primary motif of function, rather than form being the guiding principle. Note that Genesis 1:1-2:3 shows God forming unformed masses and objects to create day and night; dry land and seas; foliage upon the earth to grow and reproduce; lights in the heavens for lighting the earth and for signs, seasons, days and years; animals in the seas to grow and reproduce; birds for the air and land animals to grow and reproduce. Then humankind was created in the image of God to grow, reproduce, and manage everything that was created. The at the apex of the story, God makes His 'resting place' the earth, and we discover that everything that has been created upon the earth is the Lord's temple, and we are created for worship and relationship.

The Genesis 1-2 stories are about purpose, not history. If so, then there are at least two contradictions, one of them a glaring one, as I have pointed out before. That points away from it being any sort of history in our modern sense.

Nothing I have said contradicts this, although you keep trying to claim that I don't recognize it.

I have never claimed it did. I have also pointed out, repeatedly, that God must have been guiding the process of evolution.

It was certainly give to us by God in some way that made us distinct from the animals, and I agree, it was a special event, but you cannot jump from that belief and claim that God specially created a singular Adam and singular Eve -- apart from any evolutionary processes -- that allowed for the image of God.

Sigh. You apparently don't read what I have been patiently explaining to you. Also, remember what I requested about you providing scriptural references when you cite something from scripture? That helps our conversation and shows me you are looking at scripture (not just reading arguments from other websites) and thinking through it -- in context -- so you can have understanding. I'm getting the idea that you just want to win an argument.

However, I think you are referring to an example that Paul cites in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul uses "Adam" in a literary and archetypal way throughout his writings (as was the contemporary practice ), most notably in Romans 5:12-17 and in 1 Corinthians 15. I believe you are citing the part of the chapter where Paul is making a comparison between the first Adam and the last Adam (or, as you said "second Adam") in regard to the their current bodies and future resurrection bodies they will have. Instead of simply proof-texting, let's look at it with a big of context so we can know what it means.

1 Corinthians 15:35-49
35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?” 36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; 37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.​

The first thing we notice is that Paul is answering a question:

35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?”​

He responds with an argument based on a series of metaphors:

36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; 37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.​

Paul first goes to agriculture, with the illustration of seeds - they are buried in the earth (die), but they grow according to what kind of seed they are. Next, to humans and animals - humans and animals have different kinds of bodies (flesh). Then celestial - there are many different lights in the sky, and it is clear they are different from the earth. And the sun, moon and stars are different in nature and intensity.

Paul has now made his point about things in similar categories possessing different natures. So Paul moves back to our bodies. To make his point, he juxtaposes extremes:

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. ​

The perishable body is sown (buried) as a perishable body, but is somehow raised imperishable! It is sown in dishonor (corrupted), but raised in glory! It is sown in weakness (can't sustain itself), but raised in power! It is sown a natural body (born by normal reproductive processes), but raised a spiritual (in the nature of God) body!

Paul then makes an assertion, and supports it with the competing images of Adam and Jesus:

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.​

What you need to know before interpreting this passage is that the name "Adam" is a transliteration of the Hebrew root from Genesis 2:7 (הָֽאָדָ֖ם), which literally means "man." It is a play on words which speaks of the LORD God forming the man ("adam") from the dust of the הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה (transliterated as 'ha adamah' with is literally "the ground").

So in verse 45, Paul plays on the name of the Adam of Genesis 2:7 where God breathes life into man. The man, and all of humankind, has life breathed in from God. The last Adam (Jesus) possessed in Himself life and gives it to others.

Paul then points to a progression:

46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.​

The natural comes first, then the spiritual. The first man (Adam) is from the earth - made of the ground ('adamah') while the second man (Jesus) is from the heavens. Those of us who are "earthy" (verse 48), begat earthy beings. Those who are from the heavens (Jesus), begat heavenly beings. Although we bear the image of the earthy ('adamah'), we will also bear the image of the heavenly (Jesus), as long as we are in Christ.

[Continued below]

 

[Continued from previous post]

Now that we have looked at the meaning of that passage, we can see that Paul is not really talking about origins at all. But I can imagine you saying, as I have heard so many before:

"Even though Paul is not talking about origins, it is clear that he believed that Adam was a specific and real person, otherwise he would not have used him in the illustration in that way. Since Jesus was a real, historical figure -- not an archetype -- it stands to reason that Adam was a real, historical figure."

That's a nice bit of thinking, but it does not take seriously what Paul wrote. Looking back at verse 45:

So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.​

If we say that the text demands that Adam is a literal, historical figure, then we have to conclude that Jesus was the last (ἔσχατος) human, or at least male human, who was born. Of course, that is ridiculous, so we understand that Paul is using "Adam" as an archetype with Jesus.

 

Yes, today. Do you doubt the basics of genetic testing? Do you reject DNA evidence in court cases?

I know it is reliable because my family's genome has been examined and we have discovered things about ourselves and our background. More than a decade ago, we had the Y chromosome tested and determine that we were not Scottish as was the family story, but actually Irish.

In the past couple of years I have sent off DNA samples to two different companies and they have come back with exactly the same results, although one of them processes health information. They confirmed things I already knew that they did not know (they just had the samples). The one that offer the health screening determined some things I already knew, plus a couple of things that I didn't that turned out to be accurate.

It will probably improve dramatically and offer a better and clearer picture or origins.

Sure, but genetic science has fewer judgment calls than interpretative sciences like geology or meteorology.

Sure, some of that was inaccurate. That's where interpretations of data get in the way.

That referred to "proven" oil reserves based on current extraction technology. That was largely accurate. What changed was extraction technology.

That could have easily happened, but advances in botany and fertilizers have made the land more productive. And the EPA has helped to regulate the quality of water in the United States, and many other countries have enacted similar programs to preserve clean water.

You have failed to recognize the ways that science has alerted us to problems and how it has helped us solve/mitigate many of them.

I don't know why you think this is relevant. That's not what we have been discussing.

Science doesn't make claims like that. Certain scientists might, but they are speaking from ignorance about a subject in which they are not competent.

I have obliquely referenced the Gilgamesh Epic and other cosmological narratives of the same era, but only as a matter of forms and the ideas that were in the air at the time. No one in this discussion has claimed that the Bible is "just another Gilgamesh Epic." I certainly don't believe that, nor advocate it.

So do I. But there isn't in this case.

 

You keep saythat that we only understood Genesis and Adam and Eve from past 300 years, dueto how western cultures decided to read into it, but isn't the truth though that Calvin and Luthor and others read the scriptures just as I have detailed here, and that the early church would have seen it as being a real and historical fall, just Adam and Eve , or are you saying jesus accommodated to his audience what they viewed it as being, but not what was the real truth?
Genesis 1:24 did not really mean that, but God instead was using evolution to get us finally a whole family of Adams and Eves?

 

No, not really. What I said was:

(2) Where does the scripture indicate that Genesis 1-3 was intended to be a historical account of the type that is common in the post-Enlightenment world of the past three centuries?​

And I think I have only said that once. Nevertheless, I was pointing out that you are reading Genesis with a post-Enlightenment bias that assumes literalism and a modern scientific viewpoint when talking about matters of cosmology.

I am no expert on Calvin or Luther, but they are certainly not infallible. They disagree with each other and with all Baptists on certain points. But to your specific point, Calvin and Luther are approaching the text with biases from their experiences with Roman Catholicism and the darkest of the Dark Ages in church teaching and theology. And both Luther and Calvin were approaching the text without an in depth knowledge of other cosmologies of the Middle East that we have now. After doing a quick Google search for Luther and the creation narrative, I came across an interesting paragraph from this article:

Martin Luther approached the issue of origins from the basic premise that the Bible is the only safe and reliable source of information on that topic, being superior to the writings of philosophers, theologians, astronomers, and scientists. His lectures reveal, nevertheless, that he interacted with the writings of a wide range of ancient and medieval Greek, Jewish, and Latin philosophers and theologians.
In matters of science, he considered the ancient Greek philosophers superior to Christian theologians and philosophers. Their reflections were “more advanced” and “more clever” than the “childish ideas” of Ambrose and Augustine.2 Luther regarded it expedient to follow the advice of Jerome and Averroës, who recommended refraining from attempts to explain scientifically the exact procedure of creation.​

How Luther and Calvin thought of the first few chapters of Genesis is worth reading about, but since Baptists are not descended from the Reformation, but the Radical Reformation, those reformers are from outside our tradition.

Jesus always told us the "real truth" (to use your strange phrase), even when it was not literal or historical. Jesus was not teaching the processes of creation or modern science. Jesus told parables that were "real truth," but were not literal or historical.

Since you are quizzing me, let me ask you a question: Was Jesus a big liar when he told the story of the prodigal son, since it wasn't literally and historically true? If no, then give me a break and stop demanding that everything that Jesus said when He was teaching was historically and literally true.

Thank you for actually giving a reference:

Genesis 1:24
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.​

I'm not sure what your point is here. The Bible does not talk about a process at all, except that God called things into being. Did you notice that God called to "the earth" to bring forth the living creatures, not that he called for specific creatures? That sounds like an allusion to evolutionary development. But the process is not the point of this passage at all. The passage means exactly what it intends to communicate, and that's not modern "creation science."

It seems that way, but the text does not address it at all -- or address modern "creation science." That's not the point of the creation stories. They exist to tell us Who created all things and why we were created.

 

So all of those, such as Augustine/Calvin/Luthor et all, who held to genesis as being historical literal accounting , were wrong, because they had to rely upon the the Holy Spirit being able to illuminate what he inspired, instead of waiting for the modern evolutionary thinkers to assist them?

 

I noticed you didn't answer my question. What's wrong? Do you not actually read what I write or are you afraid to respond?

Since you are quizzing me, let me ask you a question: Was Jesus a big liar when he told the story of the prodigal son, since it wasn't literally and historically true?​

Please answer, or I'll know you are not actually invested talking about these issues, only in "winning" an argument.

Were Augustine/Calvin/Luther (please note the spelling) wrong on their doctrine of the mode of baptism? Yes, they were. Why would the Holy Spirit allow that? Why didn't the Holy Spirit illuminate what the Spirit inspired? If you can answer that, then you will also have your answer to your question about the interpretation of the process of human origins.

Since the Bible doesn't point to a literal interpretation of human origins in the first place, your critique is irrelevant. However, new evidence and truth help us examine the scriptures in a new light and move us closer to the truth of God.

 

Jesus was speaking to them in a parable, and genesis is neither myth/metaphor, nor a parable!
And so you are back to stating that God was not able to show to any Christian what was intend and meant to us to learn from Genesis until the Evolutionists and their "scientific facts" became history?
The Days of creation were literal days, Genesis1:24-25 explains that there was no evolution used, chapter 2 shows us Mankind was a special creation of God, 1 Adam and 1 Eve..
Your biggest mistake is to filter the scriptures thru lens of evolutionary science, and not the other way around!