t f p g+ YouTube icon

BioLogos and the June 2011 “Christianity Today” Cover Story

Bookmark and Share

May 31, 2011 Tags: Human Origins

Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk. You can read more about what we believe here.

BioLogos and the June 2011 “Christianity Today” Cover Story

The cover story of the June issue of Christianity Today, entitled "The Search for the Historical Adam" (the full article can be viewed here), notes that our website The BioLogos Forum has played a prominent role in moving the discussion surrounding the historical Adam forward and cites various blogs and articles that appear on these pages. We are pleased that a matter deemed so important by us is beginning to play a prominent role in the discussion for the Church as a whole.

As detailed extensively on these pages over the past two years, there is now little doubt that God has created all life forms, including human beings, through an evolutionary process. God could have created in an instant. After all, in the supreme divine act of all time Jesus was raised from the dead—in an instant. However, it now seems certain that this is not the way He chose to create the human body. God’s process was gradual, not instantaneous.

We are fully aware that interpretation of scientific data changes and this fact causes some to be skeptical about the scientific consensus regarding human creation. True, scientific revolutions do occur. However, the data with regard to human creation has been accumulating for 150 years, and the conclusions have been substantiated through a wide variety of scientific disciplines. Astronomy shows that the universe is billions of years old. Geology independently shows that the earth, though a little younger, is also billions of years old. Paleontology poignantly lays out the parade of created life forms and graphically documents the species-changes over hundreds of millions of years. Comparative anatomy and developmental biology show feature after feature in living bodies, each with its distinctive trademark pointing to gradual alteration from that which came before. And, with the sequencing of the human genome, genetics provides the final confirmatory lynch pin. Creation through a gradual process is not a hypothesis that emerges from a peripheral scientific sub-discipline. To show it wrong would involve overturning principles that independently lie at the very core of the findings of most of the natural science disciplines. True, they all together cry out in unison with a loud voice—“Created!” However, they also, in a subtle, but persuasive whisper, add the all-important qualifying phrase—“…slowly and not in an instant!”

The Christianity Today cover story is important because it engages the Church in one of the most important questions of all: was there a historical Adam and Eve? There has been much discussion of this point on these pages and although we strongly encourage ongoing discussion, BioLogos does not take a position on the issue. Denis Alexander, Director of the Faraday Institute and a frequent contributor to the BioLogos conversation says ‘yes’ in this BioLogos article, and Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City affirms it in this one. Denis Lamoureux and Peter Enns believe otherwise and have expressed their views here and here, for example. The scientific data are silent on the possibility of a federal headship—two unique individuals singled out by God from all others to enter into relationship with him and to bear his image. Similarly, science is silent on the veracity of the alternative possibility— that the story of Adam and Eve is not a story of two unique individuals. According to this latter view, the story of Adam and Eve is in a very real sense the story of all humankind—we have all sinned and we are all in need of redemption.

These are theological questions, not scientific ones. Science makes it abundantly clear, we believe, that God has created through an evolutionary process and that there was never a time when there were just two individuals on earth. It goes no further though. Beyond that, we are in a different realm, one deeply steeped in the traditions and creeds of the church, and in theology, biblical scholarship, and philosophy.

Although The BioLogos Forum has raised the issue and encouraged discussion, we also urge caution. The “Federal Headship” model that accepts the scientific findings while at the same time holding to the historicity of a real first couple has not yet been carefully worked out by theologians. The reason that we haven’t had many articles of that sort is because we haven’t been able to identify theologians who are looking at the question from that perspective. In general, our experience has been that theologians are in one of two camps. Either they work within the framework of a non-historical Adam and Eve or they believe the scientific conclusions will eventually prove to be deeply flawed and humans were not created through an evolutionary process after all.

The purpose of BioLogos is to show that there can be harmony between mainstream science and evangelical Christianity. We are in complete agreement with Richard Ostling (the author of the aforementioned article) and the Editors of Christianity Today that working through the historicity question is of the utmost importance to the Evangelical Church. Within the framework outlined above, it boils down to theology not science, and we urge the Church to reserve judgment for a while. Let’s keep both possibilities before us. Here’s hoping that some of our greatest theological minds will work on the question of what a model based on “Federal Headship” would look like. Here’s also hoping that some of our finest theologians will continue to work on how the view of a non-historical Adam would address some of the issues that puzzle and concern most evangelicals. Communication is key. This must move beyond theologians speaking to each other in language that is not readily accessible to the rest of us. Let’s figure out pastorally-responsible ways of putting the issues before the Church in a manner which is respectful of all views, while not shying away from the challenges that lay before us.

This is an exciting time for the Church because there is much interesting work to be done. Personally, I reserve judgment and I urge that all of us proceed with caution. Let’s see what emerges. Let’s see what our theologians and philosophers come up with, especially those who hold to a historical Adam and Eve. The Church is 2,000 years old. It has been guided by some of the sharpest minds that have ever lived and it has done so under the guiding wisdom of Emmanuel—God with us. This is God’s Church and we must proceed prayerfully, lovingly, and solemnly. We must listen intently to the wise voices of our deep past while following the Spirit’s guidance into a future where we have not yet been. We are not alone though. We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses whose lives and work remind us of the faithfulness of God through the millennia. This is still God’s Church and we are still God’s people. We are not alone. Emmanuel—God is with us!

More Pieces on the Historical Adam from BioLogos


Darrel Falk is former president of The BioLogos Foundation. He transitioned into Christian higher education 25 years ago and has given numerous talks about the relationship between science and faith at many universities and seminaries. He is the author of Coming to Peace with Science.


View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Loading...
Page 2 of 2   « 1 2
Roger A. Sawtelle - #62051

June 3rd 2011

Papalinton
Posted June 2, 2011 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

Jerry, you say:
“(What Falk means, of course, is he wants some slick person to make something up that allows for a historical First Couple while still accepting the genetic data).”

This is the modus operandi and the fundamental ‘mission’ of BioLogos. There is no other possible way the christianities are going to be able to ground the mythos.

Papalinton,

You are mistaken because Jesus is not the mythos, Jesus is the Logos.


rwbower - #62056

June 3rd 2011

I don’t think we will ever have honest communication through our pastors. Your normal person in the pew has no idea what is being discussed in theological circles. The pastor might but he’s not going to say anything. He / She will still stand up there and pretend that these kinds of discussions are not going on and will keep everyone else in the dark. It’s safer that way.


AJH16 - #64193

August 23rd 2011

If you believe that is the case with your pastor, I would suggest either confronting them or finding another church.  There are many great churches where the pastors actually encourage theological study and challenging them on things.


Dick Fischer - #62102

June 4th 2011

There is a reason that theologians and scientists disagree on human origins.  Whereas scientists use data and evidence to formulate theories of explanation, theologians typically don’t.  The great divide in theology is between conservative (creationist) theology and liberal or accommodationist theology.  Both are based upon the weight of accumulated opinion and both sides reject scientific and historical evidence that counters their collective points of view.

What is sought after here among us who do struggle to inject evidence into this debate is a theology that actually makes use of it.  At this juncture we have none.

What I have tried to point out here on this forum and in my book is that there is evidence that such an individual we know as Adam likely lived at Eridu in southern Mesopotamia around 7,000 years ago - too late to be the progenitor of our species but at the right time to begin the era of accountability and to be the first in the line of promise leading to Christ.

What was passed down to the children of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags” />Israel

in Genesis 2-11 was their unique history.  Somehow early Christians received it as human history and thus the conundrum.


beaglelady - #62126

June 4th 2011

Dr. Falk,

Denis Lamoureux posted a very relevant comment on this thread and now it is gone! Do you know what happened to it?


Norman - #62129

June 4th 2011

beaglelady,

Denis appeared to get carried away with demeaning or belittling comments toward Dr. Falk and his comments were removed. He apparently fares no better than the rest of us when our tone gets too edgy toward each other.


Darrel F - #62164

June 5th 2011

A full and open discussion of the issues associated with the historicity of Adam and Eve is very important.  BioLogos encourages constructive discussion of all views.  

BioLogos refers readers to the statement that emerged from the seminal New York workshop, hosted by Rev.Tim Keller  last November.  The statement can be found here

http://biologos.org/blog/the-biologos-foundations-theology-of-celebration-ii-workshop/

It concludes with the following paragraph:

We acknowledge the challenge of providing an account of origins that does full justice both to science and to the biblical record. Based on our discussions, we affirm that there are several options that can achieve this synthesis, including some which involve a historical couple, Adam and Eve, and that embrace the compelling conclusions that the earth is more than four billion years old and that all species on this planet are historically related through the process of evolution. We commit ourselves to spreading the word about such harmonious accounts of truth that God has revealed in the Bible and through science.

 The second sentence in the above quote is especially germane to the current discussion. So also is the list of signees.

Because of the sensitive nature of the topic we will be monitoring the discussion closely to ensure that discussants stay on topic.  Ad hominem comments will be deleted.

Darrel Falk, President, The BioLogos Foundation


Nancy R. - #62130

June 4th 2011

Denis - in hopes that these comments are not deleted, could you please explain why, on theological grounds, you believe the historical Adam model is unsound? An explanation might help advance this conversation in the direction of greater understanding of the various points of view that have been brought up.


Gregory - #62455

June 11th 2011

Hi Nancy,

Sorry for the late response. (#62130 & 62188). First, you asked Denis to “please explain why, on theological grounds, you believe the historical Adam model is unsound.” I would like to hear a short answer to this question you asked also.

Then, the next day you gave a kind of testimony (which you’ve given here before) to how much Denis’ work has influenced you and showed you the light, so to speak. Yet that *very* important question above remains unclear to you - you seem to have already accepted Denis’ views without fully knowing his views. So I’m a bit confused by your endorsement of his work.

You write: “his contributions are invaluable”. Might you not want an answer to that difficult question above first before you decide this? To me, his (astronomy, geology & biology) arguments against the historicity of Adam and Eve are the weakest feature of his writings. I hope you and BioLogos will grant me that opinion.

“In light of evolution…there’s a bit of a problem right here because evolution does not identify a first individual from which everyone descends.” - D. Lamoureux (from new lecture ‘Human Evolution’ on UAlberta website)

Which evolution? Whose evolution? There is no problem accepting a ‘real, historical Adam and Eve’ along with ‘common descent.’ (Although perhaps people like Paul Nelson and even Dembski might with to contend with that.) Please explain if/why you think that is not possible, Nancy.

Lamoureux doesn’t believe in a 1st “real individual”. That seems to me to be a bigger problem than *anything* I have read him yet offer an answer to.

Today for the first time I read Lamoureux’s acronym: “N.O.T. Adam.” You’ll have to forgive, Nancy, that it is just hard for me to read such playful ‘anti-Adamic’ expressions! Whenever I read Lamoureux, I find myself being reminded how important ANTHROpology is, as a lost and overlooked art, in this ‘science and religion’ discourse, and especially when discussing A&E.

Thanks,
Gregory


Nancy R. - #62550

June 12th 2011

Hi Gregory - I didn’t see your comment until just now. I actually am familiar with Lamoureux’s theological objections to a historical Adam; I was hoping to direct the conversation on this thread in that direction. He develops this in “Evolutionary Creation.”

A general comment - reading the Adam story as a universally-applicable explanation, in symbolic form, of our sinfulness snd our broken relationship with God, one another, and the rest of creation, adds an immediacy to this story, an immediacy which is missing if we believe it’s about two people who lived thousands of years ago. Sorry, I know that my ideas are not theologically or scientifically profound, but now that I accept the idea that Adam and Eve were not real people, I feel a greater connection with them. Lamoureux’s approach is not anti-Adam as much as anti-literalist. Adam may take on a more potent role as Every Man than he does as one specific man.

What contribution would you hope to see anthropology bring to this debate? I’m curious.


Nancy R. - #62553

June 12th 2011

Gregory - your inability to comprehend my question - based on the assumption that people only ask questions to which they do not know the answers - very nicely illustrates the inadequacy of the literalist approach. Thank you.


Jon Garvey - #62566

June 13th 2011

Nancy, I’m not sure to what words of Gregory these words apply, but how would one individual’s incomprehension say anything illustrative about a literalist approach to Adam and Eve? Gregory is not a theologian, so it would unsurprising if he were not the ablest protagonist for such a view.

To comment on your post above, it seems to me that the intention of the A&E story is not to tell everyman’s story, but to give an explanation of why the experience of sin is everyman’s story.

For some representative human figure to sin in his responsibility towards God, and so in some way to affect those he represents, gives the message that God’s good human creation became worthy of judgement and pain in a way that ought not to have occurred.

For the story to represent the failure of every man implies that God’s human creation was flawed in very nature, without giving an explanation (for example, Genesis could have said that God permitted men to fall to maintain his own superiority, or to teach them humility, or to show them mercy, or because he liked them to suffer ... but it does none of these). In modern terms one would tend to conclude (as eg George Murphy) that sin was an intrinsic result of evolution. For some, it is hard to see in that case why sin is man’s responsibility rather than God’s.

To second guess Gregory’s reply on the anthropology question, I would think from past dealings with him that he would suggest anthropology, as opposed to evoltionary behaviourism, implies that human customs and behaviours arise historically from human choices, rather than gradually in deep time by blind natural forces. Evolutionary mechanisms do not explain the first wheel, the first bow and arrow, the first writing, or the first priest. They actually exclude the concept of a first Homo sapiens, as has been discussed. He would suggest, I think, that “the first sin” comes into the non-evolutionary category. Maybe, also, that “man in covenant relationship with God” would have to be an historical, rather than an emergent, phenomenon.


Nancy R. - #62613

June 14th 2011

Jon - first, I am aware that you have commented regularly on this site and it’s very possible that you’ve already at some point addressed my concerns. If so please forgive my request to repeat yourself, since I am unable to spend the time that I might like reading all the posts and comments.
It’s obvious that you consider an actual, historical Fall a necessity in order to explain why every human is sinful - why we are all heirs to Adam’s legacy - and as evidence that humans, not God, are responsible for our sinful condition.
I consider Genesis 3 to be a crucial description of our inherent capacity to sin Whether it is historic or allegorical is beside the point, since I believe it to be divinely-inspired; it’s God’s story of our broken relationship. But as I see it, the story shows that sin is inevitable. Even given that Adam and Eve were in a beautiful environment, had a close relationship with God, and wanted for nothing, they still sinned at what appeared to be a very early opportunity to do so.
I am not sure that I understand how the Genesis account relieves God of all responsibility for our brokenness, and places it all on Man. No, I don’t believe that God is responsible for our sin; he gave us free will, but we still have chosen how to exercise that will.
But what about that serpent? Why was he in the garden, and why was he permitted to tempt Eve? Many people read the Genesis account as proof that all evil started with our first sin, but evil had already taken up residence in the garden (and for some reason God permitted this to happen). Eve was tempted by an agency outside of herself to question God and then to disobey him.
I just don’t see how the Genesis account satisfies your apparent requirement that all responsibility for sin rests on man, and in particular our deliberate, conscious choices. Adam and Eve were drawn into sin partially through an outside source, by evil that they neither understood nor controlled. An evolutionary explanation for our sinfulness is not necessarily incompatible with the Genesis account, as far as I can tell.


Jon Garvey - #62615

June 14th 2011

Hi Nancy

Thanks for your considered reply. At this point I have to remind myself that I don’t consider my theological position on A&E to be the main issue in the BioLogos setting. I think your summary of my personal position is pretty fair, and I guess MY summary is that I feel it’s a better fit to Gen 3 and the whole Biblical picture than the “everyman” view. There are oceans of writings down the centuries justifying that view, and I’d probably gen up on it if someone asked me to preach on “the fall”, but a real systematic theologian like Mr Opderbeck would do better justice to it than I would.

On BioLogos, though, my main interest is (a) to affirm that a historical  (or protohistorical, or whatever) A&E need not be at all incompatible with evolution or any other science and (b) that BioLogos shouldn’t tie itself to a position on the matter (unnecessarily) so as to exclude those who are conservative in this matter - not to mention those tied to it via Catholic or other credal commitments.

Conversely, I would not want to deny that a non-historical interpretation of Gen 3 is compatible with orthodoxy, even if I might contend that it works less well. The main aim of BioLogos is to show Christians that faith and science are not in opposition - and so the more streams of both it encompasses, the better. That’s why I’m uncomfortable with forcing Darrel Falk to commit himself, or the project, to one view or another, seeing that he’s openly said that the science does not permit a single biological progenitor. If anything, in my year or so on BioLogos, I’ve felt that the bias was towards a non-historical understanding (via significant articles by Peter Enns and George Murphy), so I’m actually reassured there’s still room for me.

Neither position allows for simple-minded literalism, and both allow quite a lot of room for discussion and - more importantly - for the development of new understandings that keep Genesis crucially relevant in the scientific age.

Does that help - or would you like me to go into what depth I can on the substantive points in your last para (or better still shout “Help!” to Dave O)?


Nancy R. - #62707

June 18th 2011

John, thanks once again for your thoughts, and finally I have time to respond. I especially appreciate that although you consider your view of an historical Adam to be preferable, you do accept that a non-historical view is not incompatible with scripture. Frankly, the view (expressed in the CT editorial) that “if you don’t believe Adam was real, everything else falls part” is little different from “if you don’t believe in a 6-day creation, everything else falls apart.” They’ve just moved that line in the sand over a couple of chapters.
   Like you, I desire that BioLogos require high standards of scholarship in both the scientific and scriptural areas. And indeed I believe that is the case on the scientific side; I’ve learned a great deal from posts that focus on evolution. I’m not convinced that theories that combine an historical Adam with evolutionary theory can hold water scripturally, however. Darrel Falk’s response to me in #61944 is essentially an admission of that difficulty:
   “You’ll
note that I said that we’ve had no difficulty finding theologians who
will write on a non-historical Adam.  My call for this huge branch of
Christian theologians was for them to also work on how to communicate
their thinking to the Evangelical Church at large.  It is a call for
them to be pastoral as they do their theology.  I
singled out the other branch (the view that Adam and Eve were real
historical individuals, but not the sole genetic progenitors of
humankind) because I know of very few theologians developing this line
of thinking.”  
   If he has to plead with theologians not to dismiss the notion of an historical Adam, he’s giving evidence that genuine Bible scholars don’t feel that his pet theory holds water.
   Although BioLogos doesn’t endorse either an historical or non-historical interpretation of Genesis 2-3, a careful reading of their position on the Genesis flood indicates that BioLogos does indeed endorse an historic interpretation of Noah as a real person and the flood described in Genesis 6-9 as an historic (although non-global) event. Please note that there is no hint in this piece - http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood - that the Genesis account could be primarily mythological. And, as I mentioned in a previous comment, I just don’t see how an honest reading of scripture would lead one to believe that God is discussing wiping out all life on only a small area of the earth’s surface and leaving the rest untouched. The biblical message is not about a local flood - although of course the mythology that culminated in the biblical account would have been based on one or more local, catastrophic floods. I bring up Noah in this context because I feel this does demonstrate sharply the deficiencies in the interpretation that combines our scientific understanding with an insistence of the historicity of the events of Genesis 1-11.
   An examination of all views does allow for considerable discussion, which should be encouraged on BioLogos. But I would hope that the level of biblical scholarship on this site would be equal to the high level of scientific scholarship - and I am not convinced that historical interpretations of Genesis 1-11 can provide this.
   I can make a case for BioLogos to continue to emphasize the non-historic interpretations of Genesis 1-11, however, in addition to the apparent preference of serious theologians for this point of view: it’s simply a greater challenge for conservative Christians to accept than the historical interpretation. An approach that combines historical readings of the accounts of Adam and Noah with an acceptance of scientific reality is, well, quite comforting, a way of having one’s cake and eating it too. When we have been told that we must accept an historic Adam, else the Gospel just isn’t true, we’re going to hold on to Adam for dear life.
   And so the view that one can be a serious Christian and yet believe that Adam is divinely-inspired myth is a greater challenge. It’s a harder sell. BioLogos should not just encourage people to take the easier path (for the sake of “balance,” perhaps?). On the contrary, BioLogos should encourage us to stretch ourselves and to deepen our understanding of both science and scripture. A more completely developed discussion of non-historical interpretations of Genesis 1-11 is an essential part of that mission.


Jon Garvey - #62711

June 19th 2011

I was a little intrigued by Darrel’s difficulty in finding serious theologians supporting a historical Adam, as I know of many and even know some. So I suppose he means a difficulty in the context of those who also support evolution and have interacted with the genetic evidence. I suspect this may a have a lot to do with the “sociological” groupings of Christians, particularly in the US where, as the editorial under discussion shows, there is a very strong historical tendency to group conservative evangelical approaches with anti-scientific agendas. Conversely a pro-evolution stance has been associated with the more liberal strand.

In other words it maybe has less to do with the strength of the theological arguments, than with what questions the particular theologians have been asking. Some of the most fruitful approaches are recent and, therefore, not yet prevalent.

To me John Walton’s work (not unique, but seminal) does the important job of shaking our minds free of the idea that Genesis is telling the same story as science is, only better or worse. Once one is no longer trying to force Adam back into palaeolithic times, and instead seeing him as the first man in covenant relationship with God, one can see the Genesis story as the beginning of the story of Israel and, only through that, of the salvation of the world. Physical cosmology and biogenesis it is not.

Without going into much detail here, I believe such a view can do justice to the genres of ANE myth, which dealt with real historical origins (such as the foundation of the first city states) and sometimes real people (Irving Finkel, for example, is certain that Gilgamesh was a real king whose memory inspired the epics). Much serious work needs to be done on this, but even an elementary understanding of the Mesopotamian worldview shows that the Noahic Flood, for example, has not been “bigged up” from a local account, but written in much the same way the Mesopotamians wrote about local events. Not for nothing were their kings called “ruler of the World” or even “the Universe.”

The bigger issues to be addressed from this approach are the serious theological questions of how God first revealed himself to mankind, and what went wrong. These, to me, are the weakness of the non-historical approaches, which tend to revert back to evolutionary answers. So there is the idea that God-consciousness and sin (defined usually in a different way from the Sriptural accounts as selfishness, rather than rebellion against God (cf both Genesis and Romans 1), emerged in deep time. But that bounces us back to the idea that Genesis is about physical origins, which I don’t believe to be the case.

I’d endorse your final “a more completely developed discussion of non-historical interpretations of Genesis 1-11 is an essential part of that mission,” but add that the discussion needs also to address the fact that since history hadn’t been invented when Gen 1-11 originated, even key historical events may be recorded non-historically. And it needs to be recognised that, if the chapters are from God, that does not necessarily mean that they say anything about deep-time origins at all. They are set in ANE Mesopotamia, and presumably originated there - so that’s the context for understanding them, augmented, of course, by their ancient Israelite literary context.


Nancy R. - #62188

June 5th 2011

In hopes that anyone is still reading this thread… for years I had
been challenged as a Christian, unable to reconcile my faith with my
understanding of scientific knowledge, especially human evolution. Any
reader of the BioLogos site has a keen interest in this dilemma, of
course. I finally found some thoroughly satisfying answers to my
questions when I read Denis Lamoureux’s Evolutionary Creation, and I imagine many readers here are familiar with this work.



It would be a shame to leave out a reference to his works in this
comment thread, as his contributions are invaluable. And far more
readily accessible than his book are the web lectures on his website:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/index.htm



For obvious reasons these two are particularly relevant:

Human Evolution: An Evolutionary Creationist Approach
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/wl_5_human_evolution.htm

Was Adam a Real Person?
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/wl_6_adam.htm


Anyone unfamiliar with his work should start with his introductory lecture.


Beyond the “Evolution” vs. “Creation” Debate
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/wl_1_beyond.htm


beaglelady - #62226

June 6th 2011

If anyone one wants creative theology on a literal Adam and Eve, take a look at what the Mormon church has to say on the subject.


Jon Garvey - #62228

June 6th 2011

Hi beaglelady. You often seem to mention the LDS - are they targeting your doorstep for some reason?


beaglelady - #62247

June 6th 2011

No, I don’t mention the LDS church to much and no they aren’t targeting me (thank God).


beaglelady - #62251

June 6th 2011

Oops I meant “too much”


Nancy R. - #62722

June 19th 2011

This piece by Daniel Harlow: “After Adam: reading Genesis in an age of evolutionary science” is a brief but thorough defense of a non-historical reading of the Adam and Eve story. Truly worth a look, in either the webpage or pdf version.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7049/is_3_62/ai_n55282692/?tag=mantle_skin;content

www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Harlow.pdf


Jason - #63698

August 8th 2011

Next up for BioLogos, Adam and Eve were not two historical individuals, but instead represented a group. Marriage is just symbolic and from nature we observe there can be any sort of number of mates, also being hetero or homosexual. Also, where does Truth of morality come from again BioLogos? Stay tuned, Dawkins material soon to be referenced as truth on the evolutionary benefits of acceptable morals…for the time until it becomes each man for himself.


dtmiller1976 - #64190

August 23rd 2011

Huh?


AJH16 - #64192

August 23rd 2011

I believe he is claiming that BioLogos has gone off the deep end of heresy and has lost any foundation for which the rest of scriptures is based on.  I don’t believe this to be the case, but I do believe that is what he is saying.


Page 2 of 2   « 1 2