A question for Young Earth Creationists

[shernren]

Yet this thread isn't really about science but history. (some tries to use what they believe is science and make it history) Was Adam a real person or not? is the question. Again your "boy cry wolf" story stands alone but not the account in Genesis. The Adam connection is thoughout the whole bible including those extremely boring genealogies found in the first 9 chapters of 1 Chronicles. So you "boy cried wolf" isn't a good comparison with Adam but it can be a comparison to parables. Parables also stand alone (not connected with other parts of scripture) and uses unnamed characters.

My dad is a real Romeo.

Romeo was not a historical figure.
Does that mean I believe my dad does not exist??

Mother Teresa was a Good Samaritan.

I don't know if the Good Samaritan was a historical figure.
Does that mean I doubt that Mother Teresa existed?

The Good Samaritan was really Christlike.

I know that Christ was a historical figure.
Does that mean that I believe that the Good Samaritan was a historical figure?

Jesus is the second Adam.

If I believe that Adam was not a historical figure,
does that therefore mean I believe that Jesus does not exist?

A comparison of one figure to another, by itself, gives no information whether one figure is historical or not, even when the status of the other is explicitly and externally known. The historicity or not of every figure must stand on its own.

Luke 3:38 Matthew 19:4-6 ( = Mark 10:6-8), referring to Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 Romans 5:12-21 1 Corinthians 15:22-45

Luke 3:38 :
1. There is no problem taking Adam as a general term referring to all humanity here. After all, Adam was not a biological "son" of God, so why do we need Seth to be a biological "son" of Adam so that Adam has to be an actual father?
2. I believe that there was an Adam and Eve. This passage does not prevent me from believing that they did not exactly live 6,000 years ago or that they were not created merely six days after the universe was.
3. This is a very minor point, but the genealogy is actually one of Joseph, not Jesus. (Jesus is only connected to the genealogy by supposition, not actual descent.) If one removed Joseph as a historical figure, one does not lose much of the gospel at all. Mary would have still given birth a virgin even if she was unmarried, and from the Nativity scenes on Joseph is never mentioned again in the Bible. But of course, it is not necessary to go to such extents to defend the Bible. It does go to show, however, that the historicity of the gospel is not as vulnerable as you think it is.
4. The theological significance of the genealogy is that it connects Jesus to the human race through the royal line of David (but, a connection which would still have existed through Mary), which is valid whether or not Adam was a historical figure.

Matthew 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-8
1. The passage is clearly anthropocentric, not cosmos-centric and therefore "from the beginning" refers to the time of preparation of the universe for man. Homo sapiens since the time of its evolution has clearly been male and female; therefore the evolution of man would not conflict with this verse.
2. A completely literal interpretation of this verse would conflict with Genesis 1 since man was not created on day 1 but on day 6.
3. Theologically, this passage states that God's original intent when creating man included the plan of marriage, and that divorce is the intrusion of sin into this institution. Evolution does not challenge this and therefore poses no danger to the passage.
4. This passage demonstrates someone no less than Jesus prescribing a moral abrogation of the Torah. If the Torah can be abrogated in its moral prescriptions, when its express purpose is to be morally prescriptive, then clearly it is no great surprise for its scientific "descriptions" to also be abrogated considering that it has no express purpose to be scientifically descriptive.

Romans 5:12-21
1. It has been demonstrated that comparing event B, clearly historical, to event A, does not automatically validate event A as being historical. I could compare a real battle, say, to a particular battle from the Lord of the Rings, without implying that the real battle had never happened. In the same way, comparing the defeat of sin by Christ (clearly historical) to the triumph of sin over Adam does not automatically make the latter event historical.
2. Furthermore, someone who accepts the Fall as a historical event (though perhaps not historically described in Genesis), this passage poses no problems, since it does not commit any timescale whatsoever relating the Creation, Fall, and Resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:22
1 & 2. Same points as in Romans above.
3. Paul clearly treats Adam as being at least partly archetypal of all humanity, since he refers to dying in Adam in the present tense (at least in English translations), whereas if he were referring to an actual historical event of Adam's Fall or death he would name the event in the past tense. This in fact is the opposite of using Adam as a historical figure.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Quote:
All of these texts retain their meaning if Adam is a figurative/generic man. The TEist participants in this forum have said so time and again...

Saying it does not make it so and it most certainly does not retain it's meaning if it's figurative in the ultimate sense. The same principle applied broadly, drains the Scripture of its historical relevance. That is why it is strongly opposed in evangelical and fundamentalist circles and considered nothing more then secularism in sheeps clothing.


This is where the study of history comes in handy.
the argument that fundamentalism has with a figurative hermeneutic is not because it theologically opposes the principle but because fundamentalism is a successor to Princeton's theology of the mid to late 19thC where the victory of scientism and historicism made theology strive to be a modern science, where the idea that only the historical and scientifically observable can be really true.

As a throughly modern movement fundamentalists simply can not see that truth can be transmitted in anything other than an historical and scientific order. If Gen 1 is not in scientific and historical order, if it did not happen 6kya then it can not be true. If Gen 1 is not true, or Adam and Eve are not historical people then the Bible is not without fault and we can not trust it to tell us that Jesus rose from the dead.

This is the ultimate victory of historicism, the idea that truth can only exist in this physical plane of existence, that literary and artistic expressions of truth are inferior to scientific and historical. Ultimately that the spiritual has to be justified by reference to the physical.

secularism is a completely different principle than that of genre analysis of Scripture. secularism is a desacralization movement, the removal of spirit from the physical world, the idea that the religious have nothing to say to the normal work aday world around us. The curious thing is that fundamentalism is a secularization movement itself. If this world is more real than the spiritual, if Adam must be historical in order to be really real, then you are emptying the spiritual of significance and meaning in itself and allowing it to exist only inasmuch as it informs and motivates the physical.

curious thing, but again Fundamentalism is a modern movement, existing fully within those great forces that continue to shape our worldviews and motivate us.

 

[djbcrawford]

My dad is a real Romeo.

Romeo was not a historical figure.
Does that mean I believe my dad does not exist??

Mother Teresa was a Good Samaritan.

I don't know if the Good Samaritan was a historical figure.
Does that mean I doubt that Mother Teresa existed?

Why is this relevent. In the first instance you are comparing characteristics of an acknowledged made up character from a play. The character Romeo may or may not have been based on a real person. In the second case you are comparing someone who has similar characteristics to a character in a parable.

In both these cases we KNOW the characters are made up, because the author tells us. Whether they are based on a real character doesn't really matter.

Jesus is the second Adam.

If I believe that Adam was not a historical figure,
does that therefore mean I believe that Jesus does not exist?

A comparison of one figure to another, by itself, gives no information whether one figure is historical or not, even when the status of the other is explicitly and externally known. The historicity or not of every figure must stand on its own.

The difference here is you ASSUME Adam was a made up character. Unlike the parable characters, Adam, Moses, etc, are introduced and referred to as real characters. While this assumption may not prevent you believing in Jesus, it certainly challanges some of the basic foundations of biblical truth, such as original sin and the fall of man. Once we can challange blical truth in one area, it is an easy step to allowing us to get round any difficult challanges the bible presents you with a "it wasn't meant like that" or "we aren't literally meant to do or not do that".

 

[shernren]

The difference here is you ASSUME Adam was a made up character. Unlike the parable characters, Adam, Moses, etc, are introduced and referred to as real characters. While this assumption may not prevent you believing in Jesus, it certainly challanges some of the basic foundations of biblical truth, such as original sin and the fall of man. Once we can challange blical truth in one area, it is an easy step to allowing us to get round any difficult challanges the bible presents you with a "it wasn't meant like that" or "we aren't literally meant to do or not do that".

But I believe in original sin and the fall of man.

I was responding to a specific way of proving that Adam was a historical figure. The argument Mark seems to present is, based on this:

Jesus is the second Adam.

I.e., Jesus and Adam have a concrete, comparative relationship.
Now, if Adam is not historical,
then Jesus, by virtue of this relationship, is also not historical.
However, Jesus is historical.
Therefore Adam is historical.

Note the hidden premise:

If A is related to B, and B is non-historical, then so is A.

This is exactly the hidden premise which I attempted to refute. This shows that passages like Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Cor 15:22 do not show that Adam is a historical figure. If you have any other Scriptural passages demonstrating that Adam is historical, do let me know. And I never said Moses was non-historical. We have very specific reasons to think that Adam may have been a non-historical character, so your slippery slope argument is fallacious.

 

[djbcrawford]

Appologies, didn't reads that far back in the posts and only responded to the ones on the last page.

The passages could be read either way, but then by the same token also do not show that he isn't historical. Can you show me any scriptural passages which say he isn't historical? Can you explain how mankind fell from Grace on mass at the same time without an original sin, which in itself implies an original sinner?

The specific reasons people have for believing Adam isn't real however come from outside the bible. While you may believe in Moses, others can use your same arguments to say he was made up too, all the way up to Jesus. Just becasue you don't slide down a slippery slope doesn't mean others won't.

 

[Assyrian]

The passages could be read either way, but then by the same token also do not show that he isn't historical.

Certainly. It just answers the objection that he can't be allegorical because that would make Jesus an allegory and the one that says the NT writers all interpreted Adam literally.

Can you show me any scriptural passages which say he isn't historical?

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make Adam in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea...
Gen 5:2He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
These verses certainly suggest Adam referred to all the people God created.

Can you explain how mankind fell from Grace on mass at the same time

Well the Israelites did while Moses was up Mt. Sinai. But Adam stands for all of us, and we all sin, though not at the same time. It is the same as the Prodigal Son, who represents all of us too without implying we all run away together. There may have been a mass defection in the beginning but it is not necessary for the story.

...without an original sin, which in itself implies an original sinner?

But if you read Adam and Eve literally, they fell without original sin. In fact the temptation of Eve reads very like John's description of the temptations we face.


Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that
the tree was good for food,
and that it was a delight to the eyes,
and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,
she took of its fruit and ate...

1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world--
the lust of the flesh
and the lust of the eyes
and pride of life--
is not from the Father but is from the world.

The specific reasons people have for believing Adam isn't real however come from outside the bible. While you may believe in Moses, others can use your same arguments to say he was made up too, all the way up to Jesus. Just becasue you don't slide down a slippery slope doesn't mean others won't.

The problem with the slippery slope argument is that the grease runs in both directions. Jesus said 'this is my body'. If we don't believe in transubstantiation aren't we on the slippery slope already? And this is with Jesus own words. If we are willing to allegorise those, then we are already all the way up to Jesus.

Was there really a Good Samaritan? Was Herod really a fox? (That sounds very Disney doesn't it ) Was the snake really a snake or does it actually refer to Satan? That is how it is interpreted in the rest of the bible anyway (Ezek 28, John 8:44, Rev 12) which certainly suggest the story isn't a straight literal history.

 

[vossler]

As a throughly modern movement fundamentalists simply can not see that truth can be transmitted in anything other than an historical and scientific order.

Up until here I was following you and ready to entertain whatever concept or idea on your plate. However after reading this I wasn't interested in what came afterwards. I and, as far as I know, all YECs believe in truth being transmitted via many other means other than historical and scientific.

 

[jereth]

I and, as far as I know, all YECs believe in truth being transmitted via many other means other than historical and scientific.

... so long as that truth has nothing to do with creation.

 

[vossler]

... so long as that truth has nothing to do with creation.

Truth isn't limited to one form of transmission regardless of subject.

 

[jereth]

Truth isn't limited to one form of transmission regardless of subject.

'

YECism and TEism in agreement! Let's quit while we're ahead!

 

[RealityCheck]

Truth isn't limited to one form of transmission regardless of subject.

Would this be an admission that truth can be found outside the Bible?

 

[shernren]

Up until here I was following you and ready to entertain whatever concept or idea on your plate. However after reading this I wasn't interested in what came afterwards. I and, as far as I know, all YECs believe in truth being transmitted via many other means other than historical and scientific.

AiG's Statement of Faith:

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

The Statement of Faith makes it clear that in their YEC belief structure, inerrancy is to be equated with truth, and truth with factuality, and factuality with historicity and scientificity. And I doubt that it is limited to AiG. Most YECs I've seen here have said at one point or another that they would consider a mythical interpretation of Genesis to be untrue, or if they admit that it is truth, they would qualify that they would consider it a form of truth far inferior to historical and scientific truth. TE views of Biblical passages as being a-historical is almost always seen as viewing the Bible as being false by YECs.

YECism is all about truth being exclusively historical and/or scientific.

 

[vossler]

AiG's Statement of Faith:

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

The Statement of Faith makes it clear that in their YEC belief structure, inerrancy is to be equated with truth, and truth with factuality, and factuality with historicity and scientificity. And I doubt that it is limited to AiG. Most YECs I've seen here have said at one point or another that they would consider a mythical interpretation of Genesis to be untrue, or if they admit that it is truth, they would qualify that they would consider it a form of truth far inferior to historical and scientific truth. TE views of Biblical passages as being a-historical is almost always seen as viewing the Bible as being false by YECs.

YECism is all about truth being exclusively historical and/or scientific.

I don't think you'll find another YEC here that will subscribe to what your proclaiming. For that matter the AiG statement of faith you posted doesn't proclaim what you're espousing.

The Bible's assertions are factually true. I agree 100%!

It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. I agree 100%

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

Again I agree 100%

No where did I see any statement that said truth is only found via one or two means, nor did I see something that said it couldn't be found via allegorical or metaphorical means. So I'm sorry but I don't see what you're claiming.

BTW, welcome back!

 

[vossler]

Would this be an admission that truth can be found outside the Bible?

Although that's not the point I was trying to make, of course truth can be found outside the Bible.

 

[RealityCheck]

Although that's not the point I was trying to make, of course truth can be found outside the Bible.

Tell that to the innumerable Christian followers who believe that if it's not in the Bible, it's wrong.

 

[vossler]

Tell that to the innumerable Christian followers who believe that if it's not in the Bible, it's wrong.

Those inumerable Christian followers, if they're like me, would say that if what you're saying is contrary to the Bible it is wrong.

 

[RealityCheck]

Those inumerable Christian followers, if they're like me, would say that if what you're saying is contrary to the Bible it is wrong.

Then you're asserting the Bible is the only source of truth, because it is possible to find truth outside of the Bible that is contrary to the Bible.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

step back from Genesis for a moment.

is Jonah historical? how about Job?
if they are equivalent to our genre of historical novel, does it matter? if it matters, why? if there never was a Job or if it is wisdom literature imported from outside the Hebraic community, can it transmit truth as well as if it is historical?
if Jonah never was swallowed by a big fish and he never went to Ninaveh to preach and the city and it's king never repented for their sin, would to matter to the point of the book?


if it must be historical to be true then you seem to believe that only historical can accurately transmit or carry truth.

 

[vossler]

Then you're asserting the Bible is the only source of truth, because it is possible to find truth outside of the Bible that is contrary to the Bible.

If you can find 'truth' from outside the Bible that is contrary to it, then it most certainly isn't truth. But there are truths that the Bible doesn't speak of, so they are still truths.

 

[vossler]

if it must be historical to be true then you seem to believe that only historical can accurately transmit or carry truth.

Who said this? Not me!