No.
“Allegorical”, not “symbolical.” (Kinda pedantic, seemingly, but important. The narrative isn’t just a ‘symbol’ of the truth, but rather, tells the actual truth through the genre of figurative literature.)
I would say ‘no’. Instead, I would suggest that the point of the genealogy is to point out that the incarnate Son of God is human, in the way that all of us are human, and therefore, we can trace our human origins to our first truly human parents.
I think that’s the only rational answer.
The genealogy has a ‘literal sense’ – that is, the sense in which the author intended. Was it intended to endorse a 4.5K history of creation? I’d say “no”. Rather, it was intended to point out that Jesus was fully human, like us, and thus, was a “son of Adam.”EmilyAlexandra:
I think that’s the only rational answer.
Right. But as far as being literal in the common sense of the term, there’s no way it can be reconciled with what we know of human evolution.
Fair enough. But, if you’re discussing things in a particular context, you use the language of that context. Perhaps if you asked “is this a strictly and exclusively a complete historical account of genealogy?”, then you’d get the answer which you wish to hear: “no, that’s not the way that toledot works in Scripture.”
One should be careful with this number, even though it is supposedly scientifically based. People who do modeling of animal species for environmental purposes have expressed doubt that the human species is that old, because even taking into account catastrophic events and other parameters, the human world population by now should be several orders of magnitude larger than it is at present.
It is 77, the number of Perfect Forgiveness, if you count from God to Adam to the rest.
Have they suggested that the human species may be as little as 4,000-5,000 years old?
