Death Before the Fall

[Gxg (G²)]

I can understand how Augustine and others could believe that Genesis 1 represented something other than six literal days. I myself see a pattern where the days are grouped together into two sets of three days each, and I'm not sure it's intended to be literal.

..

There was an excellent review on that issue - as it concerns what early Christian writers felt on the matter:

• 
  
  
  Does Old-Earth Creationism Contradict Genesis 1? - Evidence
• How was the Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin... - BioLogos

And even modern YEC physicists such as Humphreys and Hartnett mess around with time, having different temporal reference frames at various places and times during the creation.


But by Genesis 3 the creation is finished. And it's at this point I don't see an easy reconciliation between a 6,000-year human genealogy and the conclusions of natural history. The most controversial genealogies, in Genesis 5 and 11, seem designed to prevent us from extending them via the usual method of inferring missing generations

I wonder on whether creation was "finished" in the sense of no more development - for even after the Lord saw that his creation was "good", there was still the dynamic that the creation itself goes through periods of change/alteration and adaptation. Differing species can arise over time, be it due to environment change or breeding and many other things.


Nearly all Christians hold to the view of progressive revelation....meaning that God started simple w/ humanity and moved forward with more detail, knowing that certain things would need to be conveyed a certain way to get a job done. For some examples, consider how you talk to your children...or how I talk to my 5yr old sister in simple terms that she can understand and identify with. When my sister is 20yrs, of course it'd be insulting to speak to her as I do now when she's 5...as her understanding is more developed.

For another example......I recall an incident happening in another country--- South America, I believe....where there were doctors working with some primitive tribes who had a very high infant death rate. They tried to explain to the midwives how they needed to wash before assisting in a birth on account of germs. However, the people had no idea what they were talking about and would not heed the advice. Finally, in desperation, they used the people's own spiritual outlook by telling them that by going through a special ritual of hand washing they would ward off the evil spirits that were causing the deaths of the infants. For that was something they could identify withj and it worked. Now, was it true in an absolute sense? Of course not....but nonetheless, it became a vehicle to get these people to do what they needed to do to save lives.

And likewise, so it can be seen with the scriptures. For Humanity was much younger when Genesis was written and did not have the benefit of thousands of years of change in their perspective. One often assumes that they would even understand or be helped what what concerned them by telling them the whole evolutionary story...but these people lived in constant fear of impending anarchy, invading armies, disease, starvation, weather, wild animals and many other dangers. Truly, they were far more at the mercy of the elements than you and I are.

The Story of Genesis tells the story of a God who was in complete control of all things...and things came about as a result of this God's power. God used their understanding of the world that was based on their observation of the world around them to teach them these things. What possible good would it have been to tell them things they could not possibly understand or relate to? That would hardly give them any sense of security in following this God. Look at your own life now. What you understand about God now and life with Him is going to be quite different to what you will know in 30 years. For God meets us where we're at, coming down to our level. And thus, the truths conveyed by the Genesis account are what we need to know and believe.

There are others who've done a better job on addressing the issue, if interested....and for more, one can consider looking up online/investigating......each under their respective titles:

• The Creation of an Evolutionist: "Evolutionary Creation..." ( )

• Beyond the Evolution vs Creation Debate --by Denis O. Lamoureux ( //)
  

• "Gerald Schroeder <<< Finding the Intelligence Within the Design 17-22" ( )

Dr G Schroeder is truly a brilliant individual and I think some of his views make alot of logical sense. I like what he said here in "Gerald Schroeder <<< Finding the Intelligence Within the Design 17-22" ( ) . He has a very interesting take on Genesis 5 as well. As he noted:

Days containing ages sounds strange. Nevertheless that is what we twice read in Genesis: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the Eternal God made heaven and earth" (Genesis 2:4). And again "This is the book of the generations of Adam in the day that God created Adam" (Genesis 5:1). It took an Einstein to discover how ages could be squeezed into a day. The laws of relativity taught the world that the passage of time and the perception of time's flow varies from place to place in our most amazing universe. A minute on the moon passes more rapidly than a minute on the Earth. A minute on the Sun passes more slowly. The duration between the ticks of a clock, the beats of heart, the time to ripen oranges, stretches and shrinks. Where ever you are, time seems normal because your body is in tune with your local environment. Only when looking across boundaries from one location relative to another very different location can we observe the relativity of time. If you can not understand how this can be, do not despair,. The other approximately 5 billion inhabitants of the Earth are in a similar quandary. We look back in time, studying the history of the universe. From our vantage we find, correctly, that billions of years have passed. But, those same Sages told us, the Bible sees the six days of Genesis looking forward from near the beginning, from the moment that stable matter formed from the energy of the big bang.

​

Gerald Schroeder is one of the best ones I think you could investigate---concerning theistic evolution, as Brother Gerald Schroeder is a scientist/Orthodox Jewish theologian.. an Orthodox Jewish author and lecturer at Aish HaTorah's Discovery Seminar, Essentials and Fellowships programs and Executive Learning Center, who focuses on what he perceives to be an inherent relationship between science and spirituality. Others may disagree, but its amazing whenever it comes to presenting the perspective of evolutuon from the perspective from Jewish Thought.

Of course, he is not alone..as in our own times, most Jewish denominations accept the science of evolutionary theory and do not see it as incompatible with traditional Judaism, endorsing the stance of theistic evolution in the process. On the issue of Jewish thought/evolution, it has been the case that several modern Orthodox Jewish scientists have interpreted creation in light of both modern scientific findings and rabbinical interpretations of Genesis....where each of these scientists have claimed modern science actually confirms a literal interpretation of Torah. They all accept the scientific evidence that the age of the Earth and the age of the universe are on a scale of billions of years, with them also acknowledging that the diversity of species on Earth can be explained through an evolutionary framework. The most significant aspect, though, is that each of them interprets certain aspects of evolution as a divine process, rather than a natural one only---and therefore, each of them accepts an evolutionary paradigm while rejecting some aspects of Darwinism.

Outside of Gerald Schroeder, others to look into would be Nathan Aviezer-another Jewish physicist, who interprets the six days of creation as broadly referring to large periods of time, an interpretation for which he cites rabbinic sources, including Maimonides and Nachmanides. The physicist/teacher---Judah Landa--was already mentioned earlier as another solid character to investigate when it comes to others reconciling the Torah with factual evidence in the scientific world.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Chapter 11 tells me that Adam and Eve were historical. Because it goes back as far as their immediate children and references Abel's death. And because it treats those two men, and that event, no differently than later personages and events which I'm sure we agree are historical..

There are some excellent reviews on the matter which I think may be a blessing to you in your own studies :

As BioLogos said best in Understanding Adam In this paper, Pete Enns looks - BioLogos:

Genetic evidence shows that humans descended from a group of several thousand individuals who lived about 150,000 years ago. This conflicts with the traditional view that all humans descended from a single pair who lived about 10,000 years ago. While Genesis 2-3 speaks of the pair Adam and Eve, Genesis 4 refers to a larger population of humans interacting with Cain. One option is to view Adam and Eve as a historical pair living among many 10,000 years ago, chosen to represent the rest of humanity before God.

• Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Cain's Birth ... - BioLogos javascript:void(0)

​

As Francis Collins notes:

"Another view sees human-like creatures evolving as the scientific evidence indicates. But at a certain point in history, it is possible that God bestowed special spiritual gifts on those who had developed the necessary characteristics. This historical event would endow the recipients with the Image of God. We can say that Homo divinus was therefore created from Homo sapiens. With these spiritual gifts came the ability to know and experience evil — an opportunity that was grasped with tragic consequences that have carried through the history of Homo divinus"

​

Also, as Dr.Keller notes in his paper from Bio Logos:

God took one out of the population of tool-makers and endowed him with ‘the image of God’. This would have lifted him up to a whole new ‘plane of life’. On this view, then what happened? “If this…alternative implied any doubt of the unity of mankind it would be of course quite untenable. God…has made all nations ‘from one’ (Acts 17:26)….Yet it is at least conceivable that after the special creation of Eve, which established the first human pair as God’s vice-regents (Gen 1:27,28) and clinched the fact that there is no natural bridge from animal to man, God may have now conferred his image on Adam’s collaterals, to bring them into the same realm of being. Adam’s ‘federal’ headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike.”

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Please excuse me for butting in, but back to the OP. After 90+ replies, I still haven't read where someone is going on record as saying:

1. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall, but...

2. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall - no "buts".

3. No, there was no physical death of any sort before the Fall.

Doesn't seem like that hard of a multiple-choice question.

Dy,

Going through the thread itself, I saw multiple times where others said they either personally supported the concept of death before the Fall - or that they didn't. As others have noted, I agree with the concept of death happening before the Fall due to my beliefs that Adam/Eve were not made immortal and had to eat the Tree of Life to live forever - and I also support the concept due to how not all animal life was ever given the command to eat herbs/fruits (the aquatic animals being excluded amongst others - as shared earlier in #24,#25 and #40 ).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I don't see why they should be. The story is using snakes' slithering to tell us about a spiritual being's defeat, it doesn't mean snake slithering is a punishment. It would be pretty unfair to punish snakes for being used as a metaphor.

.... The best way to illustrate it is with the parable of the sower I mentioned in the post to ChetSinger. Jesus wasn't saying Satan transformed himself into a flock of birds to torment the farmer, he wasn't saying Satan possessed the birds. In the story it is an ordinary farmer, ordinary seeds, and ordinary hungry birds. The story is about Satan but we don't look for ways to read Satan back into the narrative. The birds are simply birds in the story, it is when we look for the deeper meaning of the story that we understand the birds are a metaphor for Satan.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Genetic evidence shows that humans descended from a group of several thousand individuals who lived about 150,000 years ago. This conflicts with the traditional view that all humans descended from a single pair who lived about 10,000 years ago. While Genesis 2-3 speaks of the pair Adam and Eve, Genesis 4 refers to a larger population of humans interacting with Cain. One option is to view Adam and Eve as a historical pair living among many 10,000 years ago, chosen to represent the rest of humanity before God.

who lived about 150,000 years ago

where?

 

[juvenissun]

Please excuse me for butting in, but back to the OP. After 90+ replies, I still haven't read where someone is going on record as saying:

1. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall, but...

2. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall - no "buts".

3. No, there was no physical death of any sort before the Fall.

Doesn't seem like that hard of a multiple-choice question.

In fact, it is difficult to chose among the three. Here is a kind-of 4.

4. There was no physical death of human before the Fall.

 

[dysert]

In fact, it is difficult to chose among the three. Here is a kind-of 4.

4. There was no physical death of human before the Fall.

I see your point, but I think that fits into #1:
1. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall, but... only for non-humans

Which happens to be my belief.

 

[juvenissun]

I see your point, but I think that fits into #1:
1. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall, but... only for non-humans

Which happens to be my belief.

Agreed.

 

[Assyrian]

Please excuse me for butting in, but back to the OP. After 90+ replies, I still haven't read where someone is going on record as saying:

1. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall, but...

2. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall - no "buts".

3. No, there was no physical death of any sort before the Fall.

Doesn't seem like that hard of a multiple-choice question.

How about:

4. What Fall'?

The nearest I can find in the bible to the Fall is Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Physical death has been around a lot longer than humans, if that helps.

 

[crawfish]

Everlasting life was built in to Creation. Sin can only work with what is there because it has no creative powers. What was there was good, and had to be turned to work for evil. </quote>

Taken literally, everlasting life was only available from partaking in the tree of life; it was not part of the fabric of creation, it was offered by God to bypass the natural process of death. Again, the bible indicates that death and entropy was built into the fabric of creation.

Though shalt surely die. Death comes to all.

True. But the key is not some reworking of creation to make things mortal, but a denial of access to the tree of life. the bible states that it would have been very possible for Adam to partake of the tree of life and live forever in his sin. The death being spoken of was "spiritual death", the death that is separation from the hand of God. Jesus's sacrifice has enabled us to overcome that separation through him; as we die in Adam (experience separation), we are made alive in Christ (reconnect) - even though in Christ we still experience physical death.

There are no core YEC beliefs that are internally legitimate. If we examine the age of the Garden East of Eden, what exact age do we get? If we examine the age of the animals brought before Adam to name, what age do we get....exactly? Zero? I thought not.

Glad to hear you say this.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, I am assuming that the writer of Hebrews could tell history from allegory. But since Hebrews is scripture, I'm content to trust his judgment.

I thought it was just the scripture, his actual letter to the Hebrews that was inspired, not every understanding and idea the writer had about the OT. Even Paul said 1Cor 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully.

I just don't see him (the writer) treating any of the names any differently, even down to the last verse in the chapter:

And these all were commended for their faith, yet they did not receive what was promised. For God had provided something better for us, so that they would be made perfect together with us.
​

"These all"? Here again, does this make sense if some of the names weren't even real people?

Jesus commended characters from his parables like the Good Samaritan and the tax collector in the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. It would only be a problem if you thought the writer's purpose was to teach about history rather than give a figurative exposition showing what the characters mean for us today. Read it as a history lesson and you miss the whole point.

And if Abel and Cain are literal, why not their parents? Heck, we're even told how old Adam was when Seth was born, and how long he lived afterward. Those facts add no theological significance to the account, so why make them up?

We are not told how old Adam was when Cain and Abel were born, even if we were, numbers have deep symbolic significance in the bible. One deeply significant theological reason for the account of Cain and Abel's birth is to tie it in with the promise of a redeemer in chapter 3, specifically Eve's declaration on Cain's birth I have gotten a man (with the help of) the LORD. Another recurring theme it brings out is God's rejection of the first born sons, Ishmael, Easu, Reuben and the first king Saul, as bearers of the promise. You see you are still assuming ancient writers had the same priority we do now where literal history takes complete precedence over the deeper meanings of the story.

In sum, I see no reason from NT scripture to consider that any of the names in this chapter represented anything but actual people. There's just no impetus from scripture to even begin down that path.

Surely Paul telling us he interpreted Adam figuratively, Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come, should give modern readers pause if they take every reference to Adam as literally?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and no offense is intended to anyone so I hope none is taken. But I think some of the resistance to the historicity of the earliest figures in the Bible has little to do with the Bible itself. Instead, I think it's because natural history has convinced churchgoers that these people cannot be historical.

So some of us find ourselves in a bind. We have faith in Christ, but our faith in the conclusions of natural history is greater than our faith in the written words in Genesis. One solution to that dilemma is to treat the parts of Genesis that are unsupported by natural history as something other than mere history.

There was a time in my Christian walk when I felt like that. It wasn't until the early 90's that I put much thought into origins. I still treat Genesis 1 as something that's beyond my understanding. But I'm struck by how matter-of-factly the OT characters are portrayed in the NT, regardless of whether there's any modern-day controversy over their historicity.

I have to choose what I believe. And I choose to believe they were historical because I think the NT writers believed they were historical. And my faith is based on the words of the NT. So that's my logical progression of thought, and that's where I end up.

Aren't parables like The Prodigal Son and The Good Samaritan narrated in a matter of fact way?

In defense of historicity, I'd like to mention a few things that were often thought of as fables, yet are now being reevaluated.

• There was a time when people "knew" David was a myth. Now we've found archaeological evidence of him.
• There was a time when people "knew" the Pentateuch couldn't be as old as it claimed, because they "knew" Hebrew wasn't then a written language. Then we discovered Ugarit.

You need to realise that the origin of writing was only one argument for the documentary hypothesis. It was comments in the text itself that originally pointed people to the idea the text was composed much later.
Gen 12:6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.
Gen_13:7 and there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram's livestock and the herdsmen of Lot's livestock. At that time the Canaanites and the Perizzites were dwelling in the land.
Gen 36:31 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites.

• There was a time when people "knew" the exodus never occurred. Now the Egyptian time line is being restudied, and the exodus is fitting in better.

I read Velikovsky years ago and then David Rohl when his books came out. Is that what you are talking about? Velikovsky was dismissed for his loopier wandering planet Venus idea but his revised chronologies had some potential as a hypothesis. Rohl avoided that pitfall with his revised chronology and I have been waiting to see if his ideas would gain any ground. I think the calibration of C14 dating with lake Suigetsu varves has given us reliable dates at last and they seem close to conventional chronology. The interesting question is the relationship (if any) between the Thera eruption and the exodus and C14 dating does shove Thera back between 1627 and 1600 BC before the start of the New Kingdom. This is probably a topic for another discussion

 

[ChetSinger]

I thought it was just the scripture, his actual letter to the Hebrews that was inspired, not every understanding and idea the writer had about the OT. Even Paul said 1Cor 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully.

I agree. But when the NT is speaking of OT characters, I won't choose a purely allegorical explanation if a historical one will do. I think we two may just use different criteria when deciding for ourselves "what will do".

Jesus commended characters from his parables like the Good Samaritan and the tax collector in the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. It would only be a problem if you thought the writer's purpose was to teach about history rather than give a figurative exposition showing what the characters mean for us today. Read it as a history lesson and you miss the whole point.

I agree. But parables are identified as such.

We are not told how old Adam was when Cain and Abel were born, even if we were, numbers have deep symbolic significance in the bible. One deeply significant theological reason for the account of Cain and Abel's birth is to tie it in with the promise of a redeemer in chapter 3, specifically Eve's declaration on Cain's birth I have gotten a man (with the help of) the LORD. Another recurring theme it brings out is God's rejection of the first born sons, Ishmael, Easu, Reuben and the first king Saul, as bearers of the promise. You see you are still assuming ancient writers had the same priority we do now where literal history takes complete precedence over the deeper meanings of the story.

I don't discount deeper meanings in OT accounts. But I don't see that as a reason to discount their historicity. The story of Abraham's life has much deep meaning. As does Moses' life. Do we agree that Abraham and Moses were actual men?

Surely Paul telling us he interpreted Adam figuratively, Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come, should give modern readers pause if they take every reference to Adam as literally?

Augustine also believed that Adam and Eve had deep figurative meaning. Even so, I hear that he accepted their historicity.

Aren't parables like The Prodigal Son and The Good Samaritan narrated in a matter of fact way?

I agree. But parables are identified as such, and are not tied to particular personages from the OT.

You need to realise that the origin of writing was only one argument for the documentary hypothesis. It was comments in the text itself that originally pointed people to the idea the text was composed much later.
Gen 12:6 Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.
Gen_13:7 and there was strife between the herdsmen of Abram's livestock and the herdsmen of Lot's livestock. At that time the Canaanites and the Perizzites were dwelling in the land.
Gen 36:31 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites.

I think the documentary hypothesis overreached. But I accept that later explanatory changes were added to the text.

I read Velikovsky years ago and then David Rohl when his books came out. Is that what you are talking about? Velikovsky was dismissed for his loopier wandering planet Venus idea but his revised chronologies had some potential as a hypothesis. Rohl avoided that pitfall with his revised chronology and I have been waiting to see if his ideas would gain any ground. I think the calibration of C14 dating with lake Suigetsu varves has given us reliable dates at last and they seem close to conventional chronology. The interesting question is the relationship (if any) between the Thera eruption and the exodus and C14 dating does shove Thera back between 1627 and 1600 BC before the start of the New Kingdom. This is probably a topic for another discussion

Not Velikovsky, but Peter James, and David Rohl.

 

[SkyWriting]

QUOTE=SkyWriting; Everlasting life was built in to Creation. Sin can only work with what is there because it has no creative powers. What was there was good, and had to be turned to work for evil.

Taken literally, everlasting life was only available from partaking in the tree of life; it was not part of the fabric of creation, it was offered by God to bypass the natural process of death.

Taken literally, the tree of life was part of the original creation.

Not the one Adam was banished to.

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry about the delay, the computer chewed my last one.

I agree. But when the NT is speaking of OT characters, I won't choose a purely allegorical explanation if a historical one will do. I think we two may just use different criteria when deciding for ourselves "what will do".

Where do you base this assumption and priority of literalism on? If scripture contains both literal and figurative texts, shouldn't we be open to God speaking figuratively even if we can interpret it literally? After all if we can interpret a passage literally but it is really speaking figuratively, the literal interpretation is actually a misinterpretation. It isn't as if there is a shortage of passages where people in the bible mistakenly take a metaphor literally, the Jews who thought Jesus was advocating cannibalism, Nicodemus who though Jesus being born again was literal.

I agree. But parables are identified as such.

You'd think so, but that isn't the case. Of course there are times when Jesus introduced his parables as parables. Other times Jesus just told the story without any indication he was telling a parable, it is the writer of the gospel who informs his readers what is going on. Other times there is no indication at all that the story is a parable, The Good Shepherd, The Prodigal Son, The Good Samaritan. When Nathan told David the story of the pet lamb in 2Samuel 12, he didn't give any indication it was a parable. David wouldn't have been taken in by the illustration if he had. There is no indication that story of the talking trees in Judges 9 is a parable, or Jerusalem and her Sisters in Ezekiel 16.

I don't discount deeper meanings in OT accounts. But I don't see that as a reason to discount their historicity. The story of Abraham's life has much deep meaning. As does Moses' life. Do we agree that Abraham and Moses were actual men?

Sure. But just because you can give allegorical interpretations to historical people doesn't mean you can't have characters who aren't historical, who only exist as characters in a parable, like the prodigal son, Jerusalem and her sisters, or Jeshurun in Deut 32 &33.

Augustine also believed that Adam and Eve had deep figurative meaning. Even so, I hear that he accepted their historicity.

And it is clear from Augustine's writings that he thought Adam was a historical person, in fact his theology needed a historical Adam for us to share in his original sin when we were in Adam's loins.

You don't have that with Paul. All of his references to Adam fit the kind of figurative interpretation of Adam he spoke about in Rom 5:14. Of course you could still have Paul believing in a literal historical Adam and interpreting him figuratively, just like he allegorised Sarah and Hagar in Galatians. You just can't tell from Paul's writing if he also took Adam literally. However if Paul is talking figuratively, whether he believe in a historical Adam or not, it means it is the figurative meaning of the story that is most important for us as Christians. That if you interpet it figuratively and don't believe Adam was historical, you are not missing out on anything important. You could get the same message taking Adam literally but understanding that Paul was talking figuratively. The problem is, nearly everybody who takes Adam literally interprets what Paul was saying about Adam literally too, missing out on what Paul may actually have been saying in a figurative comparison of Adam and Christ.

I agree. But parables are identified as such, and are not tied to particular personages from the OT.

Assuming the personage was a historical person rather than a metaphor. What the parables show is how God often speaks to us in his word, that God's metaphors can be narrated in a seemingly matter of fact way and the characters in them not be real people.

I think the documentary hypothesis overreached. But I accept that later explanatory changes were added to the text.

I think once you realise from the text of the Pentateuch that the texts were edited much later than tradition tells us, it seems reasonable to examine the texts further to learn what we can about their composition and construction. Genesis itself is is clearly divided into different documents with labels like 'this is the book of generations of Adam'. If you look at them they divide up very closely into the different documents identified by the documentary hypothesis. I think the motivations ascribed to the different sources are pretty speculative, and I think Moses did write significant portions of what goes into Exodus to Deuteronomy, but I don't have a problem with a post exilic compilation. The book of Psalms is composed of songs written by a range of different authors from Moses and David all the way to laments written during the exile. "By the rivers of Babylon..." The book of Psalm can only have bee compiled during the exile or after.

Not Velikovsky, but Peter James, and David Rohl.

What do James and Rohl say about the Thera (Santorini) eruption?

 

[ChetSinger]

Sorry about the delay, the computer chewed my last one.

No problem. Please don't feel any obligation to respond at all. All threads eventually become expended and fade away.

Where do you base this assumption and priority of literalism on? If scripture contains both literal and figurative texts, shouldn't we be open to God speaking figuratively even if we can interpret it literally? After all if we can interpret a passage literally but it is really speaking figuratively, the literal interpretation is actually a misinterpretation. It isn't as if there is a shortage of passages where people in the bible mistakenly take a metaphor literally, the Jews who thought Jesus was advocating cannibalism, Nicodemus who though Jesus being born again was literal.

I've already explained that: when I look at the NT I see people of accepted historicity treated no differently than people of contested historicity.

I'll add two more:

1. This is the belief of my church (Grace Brethren).
2. Afaik, looking back through history, this has been the majority position of the church.

You'd think so, but that isn't the case. Of course there are times when Jesus introduced his parables as parables. Other times Jesus just told the story without any indication he was telling a parable, it is the writer of the gospel who informs his readers what is going on. Other times there is no indication at all that the story is a parable, The Good Shepherd, The Prodigal Son, The Good Samaritan. When Nathan told David the story of the pet lamb in 2Samuel 12, he didn't give any indication it was a parable. David wouldn't have been taken in by the illustration if he had. There is no indication that story of the talking trees in Judges 9 is a parable, or Jerusalem and her Sisters in Ezekiel 16.

Sure. But just because you can give allegorical interpretations to historical people doesn't mean you can't have characters who aren't historical, who only exist as characters in a parable, like the prodigal son, Jerusalem and her sisters, or Jeshurun in Deut 32 &33.

I think we agree on many things. But regarding some contested names such as Noah, Shem, Enoch, or Abel, I see them treated no differently in the NT than accepted names. For example, consider the genealogy in Luke. Which names are actual people, and which are fables? Where do the fables begin? Is it where natural history says they must begin?

And it is clear from Augustine's writings that he thought Adam was a historical person, in fact his theology needed a historical Adam for us to share in his original sin when we were in Adam's loins.

You don't have that with Paul. All of his references to Adam fit the kind of figurative interpretation of Adam he spoke about in Rom 5:14. Of course you could still have Paul believing in a literal historical Adam and interpreting him figuratively, just like he allegorised Sarah and Hagar in Galatians. You just can't tell from Paul's writing if he also took Adam literally. However if Paul is talking figuratively, whether he believe in a historical Adam or not, it means it is the figurative meaning of the story that is most important for us as Christians. That if you interpet it figuratively and don't believe Adam was historical, you are not missing out on anything important. You could get the same message taking Adam literally but understanding that Paul was talking figuratively. The problem is, nearly everybody who takes Adam literally interprets what Paul was saying about Adam literally too, missing out on what Paul may actually have been saying in a figurative comparison of Adam and Christ.

Well, perhaps we just approach that passage differently.

I think once you realise from the text of the Pentateuch that the texts were edited much later than tradition tells us, it seems reasonable to examine the texts further to learn what we can about their composition and construction. Genesis itself is is clearly divided into different documents with labels like 'this is the book of generations of Adam'. If you look at them they divide up very closely into the different documents identified by the documentary hypothesis. I think the motivations ascribed to the different sources are pretty speculative, and I think Moses did write significant portions of what goes into Exodus to Deuteronomy, but I don't have a problem with a post exilic compilation. The book of Psalms is composed of songs written by a range of different authors from Moses and David all the way to laments written during the exile. "By the rivers of Babylon..." The book of Psalm can only have bee compiled during the exile or after.

I accept some of the OT scriptures are compilations. Being called a "Book of Moses" didn't mean that he wrote every word, but that the assembly was done under his authority and with his stamp of approval.

What do James and Rohl say about the Thera (Santorini) eruption?

I have no clue. I know that they have promoted re-dating Egyptian history, making it easier to place the exodus, but believe that neither are YECs who believe in a global flood. Rohl, for example, has looked for Eden (good luck with that).

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I have no clue. I know that they have promoted re-dating Egyptian history, making it easier to place the exodus, but believe that neither are YECs who believe in a global flood. Rohl, for example, has looked for Eden (good luck with that).

i have rohl's book legend. he's not a yec. as regards adam, i used to think that it was important for adam to be literal, as jesus is said to have restored the fall of adam. however, now i don't really see the need to have a literal adam, as it might just be a figuritive illustration of the fall from a state of innocence. although i think there was a creation of man, it wouldn't make any odds if humans had evolved, as there would still be a fall from innocence, perhaps. (perhaps not)
but as regards a snake in the garden, i think that is partly allegorical, but ezekiel indicates that there really was a fallen angel in the garden of god, but the garden was in east africa 130,000 years ago, according to the genetic research.

i think that eden didn't exist, as recorded in the bible, but is an indication of where the hebrews came from; sumer, and that region. abraham is said to have come from ur, going back further than abraham, is in my view more of guesswork; some memories of patriarchs of sumer, and possibly ancient persia before that, and india before that.
the tower of babel story is dropped into the text of genesis. it dosn't say that babel was before the flood, i think it is a legend.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Interesting..

 

[Joshua0]

1. After the fall, God stepped in and did more acts of special creation to alter certain animals to be predators in the new fallen world.

What your talking about took place long before Adam and Eve. Satan was thrown out of Heaven and down to the Earth millions of years ago. When God restores creation then the animals will no longer consume each other.

6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling [a] together;
and a little child will lead them.

You could check the fossil record to see when the animals developed the teeth needed to consume each other. We are warned in Galations: "But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!"

 

[Joshua0]

i used to think that it was important for adam to be literal,

Of course Adam was a literal person. The Bible records his genealogy. All of the Bible is a story about the descendants of Adam. How can people manage to miss that?

 

[SkyWriting]

Of course Adam was a literal person. The Bible records his genealogy. All of the Bible is a story about the descendants of Adam. How can people manage to miss that?

Because so many people admire "science" we don't want to look
silly by saying that God has done anything out of the ordinary.