Thank you for the reply. I am under no illusion that by hearing a presentation by Dennis Venema that I had grasped your full argument and research. I just may enjoy the book. Thanks.

> I sent your brother a copy, but I have not yet heard back his thoughts on it. :)

I'm sure John, like many scholars, gets swamped with books to read and critique. I'm sure it's in his pile. I can give him a shout out about it, if that would help!

Nice to meet you. The full analysis is more nuanced. You may enjoy reading the book. [url]https://www.ivpress.com/the-genealogical-adam-and-eve[/url]

I sent your brother a copy, but I have not yet heard back his thoughts on it. :)

You might also like Jon Garvey's book: [url]https://peacefulscience.org/garvey-generations/[/url]

Thank you, Joshua. I know you are not. I just find your work fascinating. I wasn't linking you to BioLogos, as my reference to you was in a separate paragraph, but clarification is always helpful.

> BioLogos has clarified their scientific agreement with my work, alongside their theological disagreement.

If I understood this segment of your work correctly (according to a lecture I heard by Dennis Venema), you observed a pair of genealogical ancestors of all humans roughly 6000 years ago. I find it fascinating that this couple could be the biblical Adam and Eve of Scripture (though possibly this is where BioLogos parts from you). The chronology is just about right, and though nothing can be proved, I find it interesting to ponder.

btw, I'm Dr. John Walton's brother. My website is at [url]http://www.the3rdchoice.org[/url]. My work is done mostly in the Q&A forum.

To be clear, I am not associated with BioLogos, and BioLogos has clarified their scientific agreement with my work, alongside their theological disagreement.

The idea that Genesis 1-2 are about how God ordered the world to function comes from Dr. John Walton's book "The Lost World of Genesis 1."

The idea that evolution is valid as a biblical position has come from many directions, but is supported strongly by Christian scientists at [url]http://www.biologos.org[/url].

The idea that Adam & Eve may have been around 8000-6000 BC is an implication of the work of Dr. Joshua Swamidass and his study of genetics.

For further inquiry, are there other references you can point me to explore this view?

Initially, the primary socializer would have been the parent and village, as is speculated in all prehistoric social contexts, assuming that Adam & Eve may have been around 6,000-8,000 BC. But when God chose them out from among the others (Gn. 2.15) to reveal Himself to them as archetypes of all humanity, God would have added his input to what they were already receiving from their social context. Adam and Eve didn't live in the Garden of Eden, but only met with God there. They still lived, presumably, with their community/village.

Thank you for the response. Who would have been the primary parent/socializer in this case? YHWH, tribe, etc?

I believe God used the process of evolution to create the world. Adam & Eve evolved like everyone else.

Genesis 1 is about how God ordered what was there (Gn. 1.2) to function, not about its material manufacture. Therefore A&E were not physically mature adults from incarnation. They were born, lived and learned, and eventually died like everyone else. Their personalities were a blend of nature and nurture like everyone else's. They were socialized like everyone else.

Were Adam & Eve formed as adults with pre-determined personalities or did they undergo socialization like ordinary people?

Genesis 1-3 record the Judeo-Christian narrative of the creation of the primogenitors of the human race. The text presents them as physically mature adults from incarnation. My inquiry is in regards to the development of their personality and conception of the world. What does Scripture and doctrine teach about how they came to be the persons they were? Were they infantile in taught needing to be trained and parented in progressive development akin to an infant comatose from birth awakened as an adult? Were they rather incarnated with pre-determined personalities from the onset having a language and its inherent concepts pre-installed as it were?