Search results

Context is very important. The obvious context in Romans is human death and spiritual death. The thrust of the book opens with, "For the wrath of God has been revealed...". Animals are not even a subject of the discussion. Yes you can. Countless scholars have demonstrated that there is no...

I absolutely believe the fall was a literal historical event. That doesnt mean a talking snake seduced Eve into eating a magical fruit from a magical tree. The fall was a real historical event described in a non-literal way.

Did you even bother to read my original post? I put forth a model that embraces the theory of evolution AND postulates a literal, historical first man and woman.

Actually no, funny enough I'm a professional chef. But that's neither here nor there. Genesis 1 doesn't exactly qualify. Can you not see the vast stylistic differences between Genesis 1 and, say, Genesis 12? Who says God even intended to teach science or give a literal chronological account of...

I also feel the need to make clear that my purpose with this thread is not to debate theistic evolution and young-earth creationism. The point is to discuss the historicity of a literal Adam and Eve within the framework of the modern scientific consensus of the Theory of Evolution. If we could...

Thats a common viewpoint, but as I explained I am convinced there are compelling and necessary theological reasons for affirming the existence of a literal historical Adam who was the first truly human being. If you don't affirm that then Paul's covenantal reasoning in Romans falls flat. This...

So you dont take that literally. You would, im guessing, believe like most scholars that the "finger of God" is a figurative anthropomorphism conveying power and personal authority. Now apply those same principles to the creation story and you have my position.

The only way they can get around that is by claiming that "erets" in Genesis 2 refers to the "land" in a localized sense and not the whole planet, which is linguistically feasible. However that opens a whole can of worms for them especially in regards to the flood account.

KWCrazy how do you reconcile the literal statement that God has fingers with the literal statement that God is spirit? Perhaps not all of scripture is intended to be understood literally?

Lets be real here people. The acient Israelite cosmology depicted in the early chapters of Genesis was primitive and inaccurate. It pictured the earth as a flat disk floating on water with a solid dome above it to which lights (sun, moon, stars) were fixed. The rainwater was above this dome...

So you DO believe God has fingers? Funny how you refuse to plainly answer the questions. Shall we try again? 1. Does God have fingers? 2. Are the stars lights affixed to a solid dome firmament, above which is water?

You completely dogged the question. Is God incorporeal or does he literally have fingers? Moreover, do the birds and the stars occupy the same firmament? Is the water above this firmament? Strict literalism entails believing that birds and stars occupy the same space and that water is above...

Does God have fingers?

Does God have fingers? In Exodus it says God wrote on tablets of stone with his own finger. So is God incorporeal or does God literally have fingers? Is belief in the incorporeality of God a rejection of the plain teaching of scripture? If we have good reason (like mountains of evidence) to not...

No. As I stated in my original post, I believe the soul was miraculously created by God and infused into the two elect hom sapiens, making them human, and hence legitimately the first two humans, also making them spiritual beings and fitting subjects for God's covenant. I also believe that a...

Yet you yourself trust and use that "wisdom of the world" (science) everytime you drive your car or turn on your computer. Where do you think the technology you rely upon comes from? That's right, science. What about the medical knowledge and techology that preserves life? Oh, yeah, science. In...

No I wouldnt put it that way. I think itd be more accurate to call them "hominids", not lesser human beings. Like I said the demarcation line between Adam and Eve and the hominids from which they emerged biologically is spirit. I am claiming that it is likely Adam and Eve were contemporaneous...

Well there are a few things Id say to that. First, what do you mean by good? Good in the sense of conducive as precedent conditions which sculpt the ecology and biodiversity of the earth in view of God's aim of manifesting his glory in the saga of human redemption, I certainly don't see why not...

Yes. All modern humans are descended from a literal Adam and Eve. Ive explained how that is feasible within an evolutationary framework.

Nonsense. Even Augustine didn't take Genesis 1 literally. In fact he gave a scathing critique of those who reject scientific knowledge on the basis of scripture, arguing that those people did much to hinder the gospel and by causing unbelievers to see christians as ignorant. Im confident that...