That said, I think the myth was intended by the biblical authors (and ultimately, God) to teach something specific; one of those things is that man was set apart by God from the beginning to be special. Therefore, on this surface level of such interpretation, I would say that the breath of life was not simply soulishness, but included the whole complex of divine intentionality that would lead to this God-consciousness. I think that man was from the beginning called out; this correlates with my idea of theistic evolution as God playing the lottery numbers He foreknew would win.

I think that’s the same thing that went on with Scripture, which, as I stated in the above post, was “the literature of men sovereignly foreknown and ordained” and, as Lewis described it, was “raised by God above itself, qualified by him and compelled by him to serve purposes which of itself it would not have served”.

I dunno, either. But that’s my current understanding

That said, I think the myth was intended by the biblical authors (and ultimately, God) to teach something specific; one of those things is that man was set apart by God from the beginning to be special. Therefore, on this surface level of such interpretation, I would say that the breath of life was not simply soulishness, but included the whole complex of divine intentionality that would lead to this God-consciousness. I think that man was from the beginning called out; this correlates with my idea of theistic evolution as God playing the lottery numbers He foreknew would win.

I think that’s the same thing that went on with Scripture, which, as I stated in the above post, was “the literature of men sovereignly foreknown and ordained” and, as Lewis described it, was “raised by God above itself, qualified by him and compelled by him to serve purposes which of itself it would not have served”.

I dunno, either. But that’s my current understanding

I find it interesting that you equate “dust of the ground” with “men.” Are you intending to equate these two objects in Genesis 2:7 as well?

“The the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

If so, how would man (“a living being”) be formed from men (“dust from the ground”)? If humankind did indeed follow an evolutionary path, this verse could indicate that God intervened in history to give mankind a soulish aspect to his consciousness. Or, it was at this point in man’s evolutionary development that mankind’s consciousness awakened to God’s existence, at which time God began to fellowship with man.

I dunno.

I find it interesting that you equate “dust of the ground” with “men.” Are you intending to equate these two objects in Genesis 2:7 as well?

“The the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

If so, how would man (“a living being”) be formed from men (“dust from the ground”)? If humankind did indeed follow an evolutionary path, this verse could indicate that God intervened in history to give mankind a soulish aspect to his consciousness. Or, it was at this point in man’s evolutionary development that mankind’s consciousness awakened to God’s existence, at which time God began to fellowship with man.

I dunno.