Science is great, but... How about we discuss some scripture?!

[Scotishfury09]

Obviously I don't condone ceasing talking about science, but I think talking about the Bible might do us some good.


1 Corinthians 11:8,12 For the first man didn’t come from woman, but the first woman came from man. For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God.

1 Timothy 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

And... go!

 

[laptoppop]

Mark 10:6 (Jesus speaking)
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

 

[Jase]

Considering this is the Christian only science forum, aren't Bible quotes intended for other forums?

 

[laptoppop]

No, not at all -- this is a subforum under THEOLOGY. Why wouldn't we want to discuss Scripture???

 

[Scotishfury09]

Origins Theology. No restriction to Bible quotes. How are we expected to talk about Genesis if we can't even quote it?

I would like to discuss how TEs interpret these verses.

And... go!

 

[KTatis]

Origins Theology. No restriction to Bible quotes. How are we expected to talk about Genesis if we can't even quote it?

I would like to discuss how TEs interpret these verses.

And... go!

I simply don't believe that there were just two people on this earth.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Um... what?

 

[Jase]

Um... what?

He means there was never a point in history when only 2 individual humans existed. Adam is not a name, it's the Hebrew word for mankind.

 

[Scotishfury09]

He's in genealogies, he's married to Eve, he has sons. Is Seth a real person?

 

[Deamiter]

I really don't see how any of these could be incompatable with a True Myth reading of Genesis. In each case they are interpreting the account to show truth that is not dependent on the account being factual.

These are no different to pointing out to a child that he's 'cried wolf' when he cries so much that when he actually gets hurt nobody pays attention right away.

1 Corinthians 11:8,12 For the first man didn’t come from woman, but the first woman came from man. For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God.

This passage points out some of the basic truths behind the creation accounts. The Bible throughout does indeed put men 'above' women as leaders (though never as somehow better than women).

[/FONT] 1 Timothy 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Another verse that irks the odd feminist, in context it's relating the creation account to the roles of men and women in Church. Is the relationship somehow less meaningful if Adam and Eve never existed? Should we reject the truth here that men were created as spiritual leaders just because Eve might not actually have been created from a removed rib?

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
[/QUOTE]
This last one is even more clearly relating the truth in nonliteral details to a current situation. The serpent is generally understood to have been Satan, not an actual snake. Here he's saying that just as Eve sinned (to many Christians, this is representative of the sin and fall away from grace we all experience) we have all sinned and have been corrupted even though (in the previous verse) he promised us as chaste virgins to Christ.

Are we really promised as virgins to Christ in marriage? Does it really matter when the meaning behind the relationship is clear?

Mark 10:6 (Jesus speaking)
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

This is silly because taking the passage literally contradicts Genesis 1 from the start! Unless of course it's talking about something other than the beginning of creation, but perhaps of the beginning of creation of man...

 

[laptoppop]

This is silly because taking the passage literally contradicts Genesis 1 from the start! Unless of course it's talking about something other than the beginning of creation, but perhaps of the beginning of creation of man...

During the first week sure sounds like the beginning of the creation to me. Note that it was "the creation" a noun, not "creation" a verb.

But in any case, how do you reconcile it with millions of years???

 

[Deamiter]

He's in genealogies, he's married to Eve, he has sons. Is Seth a real person?

You mean the geneologies that were clearly not ultra-historical as they followed the literary tradition of the surrounding culture of inflating ages? The geneologies that come from a culture that many experts believe would have had no qualms about removing names to get just the right number of patriarchs in a geneology?

There is nothing in the Bible that even hints that the Hebrew people were supposed to (or were) different from the surrounding cultures in terms of how they kept records. The Babylonians and Assyrians often traced their geneologies back to gods or other mythological characters not as a lie, but to show where they centered their loyalties and where they got their laws and morals.

Do you think the first quote in the OP was just casually mentioning that man was made first and man (as well as everything else) was made by God? Even in the Greek and Roman cultures it was hardly uncommon for people to trace their geneologies back to gods or semi-gods (like Hercules).

To understand what the authors meant by these passages often takes careful study of the culture of the area in which the passages were written. I certainly understand why people would come to the conclusion of YEC if they made no attempt to understand the context and culture of the Hebrew people in the ancient near east, but I don't think that excuses us from studying the historical context so as to have a solid base from which to form our Biblical interpretations!

 

[KTatis]

He's in genealogies, he's married to Eve, he has sons. Is Seth a real person?

It's possible that they were real but if you could claim that they existed just by reading it out of a book then I could claim that so-and-so is real just because I read his name in a book. You can not clairify or validate information from a 2000 year old book.

 

[Deamiter]

During the first week sure sounds like the beginning of the creation to me. Note that it was "the creation" a noun, not "creation" a verb.

But in any case, how do you reconcile it with millions of years???

Yep, it's a noun. And literally the passage still contradicts Genesis 1 as Adam (man) was not created at the beginning of creation (but on the sixth day as we all know).

It would be equally silly, in my opinion, to try to somehow reconcile the passage with current scientific knowledge of the universe. The meaning of the creation account was to relay theological and moral truths, some of which were pointed out in these verses. It was never meant to be a historical account and that not one of these verses treat it as primarily historical but find the primary meaning in the order of events or in the actions of the characters shows that a historical reading of all of Genesis is hardly required if one is going to take these NT verses as inspired and filled with truth!

Note -- I'm REALLY busy writing a thesis that's due way too soon and I don't know if I'll be able to graduate on time which would mean coming back after I get married etc... Please pray for me and do forgive me if I don't participate actively in these threads. I LOVE this topic, and really hope to see my favorite literary poster gluadys chime in on the subject, but I'm afraid I really need to rip myself away even if you continue to challenge my interpretation of these verses (and I'd expect nothing less!)

 

[Xaero]

Obviously I don't condone ceasing talking about science, but I think talking about the Bible might do us some good.

Great, smashing YEC doctrine with science is easy like fishing in an aquarium. You are right it's time to go back to scriptural arguments.

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man." (1.Cr 11:8)
For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.(1.Cr 11:12)
(i'm wondering how the word "first" is getting into your translation)
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve."

Where does all this support 6k earth and rejects evolution? This simply means Adam was fully formed before Eve. I don't see that this verse supports ex nihilo hocus pocus . It says nothing about the creation process. (And i'm sure Paul didn't knew any details about the formation process). Adam was a living spirit and from him Eve was made. Only when you assume yec doctrine then you read miraculous ex nihilo forces out of this verse.

Mark 10:6 (Jesus speaking)
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Isn't a more accurate translation: "from the beginning of the creature" ?

So what do YECs think about those verses:

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit." 1.Cr 15:45

"[Art] thou the first man [that] was born? or wast thou made before the hills?" Job 15:7

"Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy." (Isa 54:16)

Did god create blacksmith and waster out of nothing?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Obviously I don't condone ceasing talking about science, but I think talking about the Bible might do us some good.


1 Corinthians 11:8,12 For the first man didn’t come from woman, but the first woman came from man. For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God.

1 Timothy 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

And... go!

And....

Do you expect the writers of the Bible to start quoting the Big Bang theory when trying to make a theological point about the OT?

How would that exactly work in your imagination?

 

[laptoppop]

It's possible that they were real but if you could claim that they existed just by reading it out of a book then I could claim that so-and-so is real just because I read his name in a book. You can not clairify or validate information from a 2000 year old book.

Wow. I would say that it is my impression that most of the TEs around here have a much higher level of respect for the Scriptures.

 

[Scotishfury09]

It's possible that they were real but if you could claim that they existed just by reading it out of a book then I could claim that so-and-so is real just because I read his name in a book. You can not clairify or validate information from a 2000 year old book.

The difference is, this is the Bible, not "a book."

 

[Jase]

The difference is, this is the Bible, not "a book."

Um, yes it is. It's words on paper. Please show me where God ever said we are to exalt the Bible to divine status. Considering the originals don't even exist anymore, claiming the KJV or NIV isn't a book is Bibliolatry.

 

[Deamiter]

Oh, I should also note that I think it would be a rather severe mistake to try to avoid scriptures in this forum. Evidence in creation cannot be avoided and should not be avoided in building our understanding of the universe. At the same time, the Bible IS a primary source of truth in our continuing relationship with God and how the Bible remains truthful in spite of errant interpretations that sometimes contradict reality (i.e. Luther and Calvin's geocentrism) is quite on topic in here in my opinion.