Kurieuo wrote:You'll have to further explain, as I'm unclear on your points being made. That is, how such (Genesis 1:26-27 related to Genesis 2-3, different narrative [though I'd say same narrative, different focus]) indicates a lineage outside of Adam and Eve.
Sure... And for this we go back again to sequence of events
I think its pretty clear that Genesis 1:26-27 refers to the creation of mankind - Let's say somewhere around 200,000 years ago in Africa.
Then if we look at Scripture (and Mesopotamian history) we can place the historical Adam in Mesopotamia somewhere around 5,500 BC. (Remember Cain's city?... the dates for the earliest known Mesopotamian cities are significant in identifying approximate dates for when Cain would have built his city... and BTW those dates are consistent with the Scriptural genealogical dates.)
So if the Genesis 1:26-27 creation of mankind (200,000 years ago)
sequentially took place some time before the appearance of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 (5,500 BC)
Then by definition there were other lines of humanity present on earth at the time of Adam and Eve.
DB, are sure you can see you're not letting science guide what you find acceptable?
For what it's worth, there's nothing wrong with such, except that we be unaware to our own prejudices. I think Heisler is also kidding himself (and others) in this regard, in relation to his claimed "naked" interpretation as though his carry no prejudice vis-a-vis what he likes to call "traditional" views. Sure sounds good to proclaim one is free of "traditional" influences and reading Scripture nakedly, free from inject science, letting it speak for itself, but in practice there's nothing naked about it or any other interpretation. This is a mistake YECs often make when they accuse others of not reading Scripture plainly.
I'll talk more perhaps on prejudices in a future post, as it's too detailed a critique here and it runs off into deeper issues to do with how we as people gain knowledge in general. I will leave two quotes here of historical Scottish judge Francis Jeffrey which strike me as true:
"There is nothing respecting which a man may be so long unconscious as of the extent and strength of his prejudices … Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known."
Elsewhere he writes some other words of wisdom which we should all take to heart:
"Beware prejudices. They are like rats, and men's minds are like traps; prejudices get in easily, but it is doubtful if they ever get out."
So then, with your belief that mankind arose 200,000 years ago, I do not believe Heiser would allow you this. In his paper on Genesis 1-3 aligning with modern genome science, he makes passing reference to his other thoughts on Romans 5:12
. I've read over them also.
Heiser notes the following in his third part on Roman 5:12
3. What passed to all of humanity as a result of Adam’s sin was mortality / death. That is what the text says. This means that humanity lost immortality. It also means, going back to the Genesis story, that humans were driven from the presence of God in an ideal “heaven meets earth” environment. They were on their own. Left to their own, as non-divine mortals, the result is that all humans, born from that point on, were born into those conditions. If they are allowed to live a normal life span, this means that all humans will sin and incur guilt before God. No human “cannot not sin.” Sin would be universal and inevitable for all humans who get to live some measure of a lifespan where they can choose to rebel against God (i.e., sin).
In his "Naked Bible" position, he believes that Original Sin passed on death and mortality to all of the human race. It seems apparent, that one can't reason Scripture supports anything other than death entering into humanity when Adam sinned.
What is the logical outworking of this thought when applied to possible human genealogies existing prior to Adam and Eve? That is, let's accept as a given there existed separate human lineages apart from Adam and Eve, like say the man and woman of Genesis 1 which Heiser reasons came prior to Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. When did they die? Heiser interprets Scripture as saying sin and death came to all humanity
when Adam sinned.
So then, this means if humanity existed 200,000 years ago, they must have lived a very long time if Adam didn't exist and sin until around 5,500BC. Approximately 192,000 years. Now, I don't know about you, but scientifically speaking, accepting this seems like too much a stretch.
It seems then that Romans 5:12, as we take Heiser to understand it, works against how some interpret him on Genesis 1-2. That is, if one posits these human genealogies outside of Adam and Eve lived much earlier. Interestingly, I don't see Heiser ever say that such genealogies existed much, much, earlier on. So then, Heiser doesn't contradict himself necessarily in what I've read of him on this issue. God still could have created other human lineages aside from Adam and Eve (according to Heiser's views), but they must have been created also at around the same time (unless we are to believe individuals lived for over a 100,000 years). For, it wasn't until Adam sinned, that death came upon all humanity.