The notion – permitted by the Church! – that the first chapters of Genesis include ‘figurative’ accounts, and provide an allegory rather than a literal historical account.
Permitted, not required. And the fact that Adam, Seth, Enoch and all the other people before Noah show up in Jesus’s genealogy seals the deal.
Agreed. Yet, the assertion being made here (the very one I’m engaged in repudiating) attempts to do precisely the same thing, but in the other direction. Namely, if successfully argued, then it makes the literalistic understanding of pre-historic Genesis the only possible understanding. And, as you have acceded, that’s not what the Church teaches.
Oh, boy. You don’t want to look too closely at the genealogies, then… 'cause you’ll find a number of inconsistencies in them that’ll really put the kibosh to the literalistic approach!
He had the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality and freedom from sickness.
If you are looking to find the word genetics in scripture it is not there.
Let us examine what a prototypical newly created human being would look like.
- God either created him near perfect with non mutated genetics
- God created him less than perfect with already mutated genetics.
I would like to see that…
Wow, I get to pick one.
Thanks for the offer.
So your claim of “pristine genetics” for the first two ensouled humans has no scientific basis then. Am I hearing you well?
As in empirically testable, that is observable, testable and predictable? No. But I do not need to. My inference is as good as any evolutionary extrapolation of the past.
Since we know genetic entropy is real and humans are degenerating 1-5% every generation it makes sense that the newly created Adam would have no defects.
Add that to what Revelation says and voila confidence is really high.
So pick one.
Ok, thanks. That;s all I need to know. The claim was a scientific claim using scientific language.
I’m very familiar with the Church’s teaching.
Those are easily resolved. If you check Luke’s genealogy it resembles the one in Genesis found in the Septuagint.
If we found any remnants of skeletal remains that could be shown through dna or some other mechanism to have lived 900 years I would drop all of my skepticism in an instant and absolutely believe everything else no matter how much I struggle.
No, I’m thinking more of the portions of the genealogies that deal with figures closer to the time of the exile. If you want to dig in your heels on absolute literalism and historicity, you’ll have to start explaining those, as well…
The thread deals with Genesis, so if you want to discuss this further, you can PM me or create a different thread.
One big obvious one: Matthew’s genealogy traces Jesus’ family line back to Abraham – the father of the Jews. Luke’s goes much further, in fact, he goes all the way back to the Adam!
Ahh, but you opened up the question, with your assertion that the genealogies prove the case for the literal existence of the folks contained therein! So, unless you want to back away from that claim, then all of them must be historically accurately represented, if you want to use any of them as proof.
I know, and I’m actually agreeing with you for a change! I tried fixing it, but I’m not sure it worked.
There ya go – either one of these works!
How is that an inconsistency? How?
To answer the question: yes, he did.