Was Adam an historical figure?

[Assyrian]

Yeah, but Assyrian you're acting like the entire scientific community immediately switched to the copernicus/galileo model. That's not what happened. It was the scientific community that challenged galileo and apparently drove him into seclusion from what I've read. It took time for this new model to prevail in the scientific community. But in Galileo's day, it was geocentrism that was the majority science.

Yes and part of Galileo's problem (apart from arrogance and the ability to rub everybody up the wrong was) was that his scientific arguments for geocentrism were simply bad arguments which is why so much of the scientific establishment disagreed with him. But that is the right forum for a scientific argument, discussing the science. But the church tried to shut him up because his science contradicted their interpretation of scripture. That was a huge mistake and it is still tarnishing the Gospel. Even when the science was established, you still had Christian groups claiming the science was wrong and their geocentric interpretation of scripture right.

Now you ask why some theologians interpreted geocentrism into scripture and that answer is quite simple. They were much like theologians of today, always looking to harmonize scriptures with science. It's an age old practice. You're among those who practice this very thing. There's no question in my mind you would have sided with the majority science of Galileo's day, and used scripture to justify it.

I don't think the sun goes round the earth, yet I understand why Christians read the geocentric passages that way. I even think their interpretations of these passages are the simplest most straightforward way to read them. If they only thought the passages were geocentric because of science how do I think they sound geocentric? Not that they needed science to tell them the sun goes round the earth, that is how it appears to anybody who steps outside the door for any length of time.

What is fascinating is that creationists seem unable to understand how the passages were read that way, and make excuses for the geocentrists thinking they must have been influenced by science. Personally I think it is because cannot face the idea that scripture might actually speak in geocentrist terms, because heliocentrism is a science they do accept. There is simply too much at stake to read what the text says and understand the plain meaning. But it is better to to face up to passages where you cannot understand how God would speak that way, and still keep trusting God, than to close your eyes to God's word and keep God in a more easily understandable box.

I don't know how I would have reacted if I were around back then. I think I would be fascinated by heliocentrism because of its beauty and simplicity but I wouldn't have considered it established. If I understood what I know about Augustine and Aquinas and their approach to science and the bible, I would consider the geocentric interpretation a reasonable interpretation of those passages but that if heliocentrism were established scientifically then that would show it was a misunderstanding of the text. I hope I wouldn't make the mistake of tying science and the bible together because I would understand from Augustine and Aquinas that even if my interpretation seems to fit what science says, that may not be what the text is talking about.

 

[Calminian]

...But the church tried to shut him up because his science contradicted their interpretation of scripture.

Again you're using some terms very loosely. It was not the church that was opposing him, but a particular person—the Pope. But the church is the people, the followers of Christ. And most of them were very open to his views, and just as today, some where not. For they had tried to reconcile Scripture with modern science and were set in those interpretations.

This is not unlike TEs today, who are often theologically dogmatic (not just scientifically dogmatic) on this issue.

And BTW, geocentrism is actually very hard to reconcile with the Bible. The heavens are God's throne while the earth is his footstool. In a geocentric model, you have God orbiting men on earth. This may be why spiritual views of heaven began to arise to compensate for this supposed "scientific" view of geocentrism.

 

[Nick316]

I wish I knew where you guys get your information from and who you're quoting for this information.

Josephus was a a 1st-century historian, he he certainly listed Adam as a real man. He of course had accesses to a myriad of historical documents to draw from and recorded things about Adam that went beyond what was in Genesis. Below is just a small example.

Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over, begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself. Now a woman is called in the Hebrew tongue Issa; but the name of this woman was Eve, which signifies the mother of all living. (Antiq. 1:34-36)​

Having said that, why would you need more than the Bible? If the Bible said he was a man, why would not not believe that? Think of the things Abraham the father of our faith believed, and the risks he took for these beliefs. And yet we can't even believe the simple revelation that Adam was a man as scripture says?

Amen

 

[gluadys]

I think you're getting into semantics here. you should just be straightforward that you don't believe Genesis.

But I do believe Genesis. That's straightforward too.

LOL, so now I'm a pharisee for believe in the 6 day creation?

Of course not. But thinking of God only as a miracle-worker overlooks 99.99999%+ of what God actually does.

But only creationists can do both.

Do they? Why then do they commonly emphasize miracles and treat natural descriptions of creation as if they excluded God's work?

You have rejected the special acts of God in creation.

And you are assuming that God's acts in creation were not natural. Where does scripture say that?

Thus you've rejected the straightforward literal historical reading of Genesis. But the creationist who doesn't deny God's miraculous role in creation can appreciate both God's creative power as well as his upholding power.

And the evolutionary creationist who appreciates God's action in and through all nature can also praise God for his miraculous acts where we have knowledge of them: e.g. the exodus from Egypt, the incarnation and resurrection of Christ and the various miracles attributed to prophets and apostles.

you keep accusing me of this, yet your argument is not logical. Genesis when read literally, is a historical narrative.

Nope. Even if it is historical narrative, the literal meaning of the text doesn't make it so. And even when a narrative is filled with non-literal meanings, it could still be a historical narrative. The two concepts have nothing to do with each other.

I remember a thread on which someone (mark kennedy?) was making a case for the Song of Solomon being a historical narrative about an actual, historical love story. He could very well be right, but that doesn't mean it is told literally. Nor does it mean that it is not also an allegory of Christ and the Church.

The only one confused about this is you, as you try to defend your own unbelief in the narrative.

I don't have any unbelief about the narrative. I have great admiration for it, and more than that I believe it is true. Further, I believe in God as Creator. So I believe it is describing something real. I just don't think this account is the actual account of what happened from a historical perspective. That account comes from the creation itself and should not be ignored.

You're trying way to hard to hide your unbelief in the straightforward historical narrative literal reading of book of Genesis. Just be upfront, and stop trying to make it sound so technical.

See, you are loading three terms with different meanings (literal, narrative, historical) into a single concept. The only one on which we differ is "historical". So it comes down to this: in the spirit of modern scientism, (or logical positivism) you equate "true" with "historical" described in a "narrative" with "literal" meaning. That was a popular view of what is "true" a few decades ago, but it is such a very narrow standard of truth that most philosophers have dropped it and even science is moving away from it.

I think Genesis 1 is true without being historical. I believe its truth. I also think it presents truth that is more valuable and important than whether or not it is historical. Just as the Song of Solomon does.

 

[Calminian]

But I do believe Genesis. That's straightforward too.




Of course not. But thinking of God only as a miracle-worker overlooks 99.99999%+ of what God actually does.





Do they? Why then do they commonly emphasize miracles and treat natural descriptions of creation as if they excluded God's work?

Huh? I'm curious how many creationists you know. I've never met one that does this.

And you are assuming that God's acts in creation were not natural.

Do you assume the natural laws pre-existed creation? If God created the natural laws, you must the reason that creation was supernatural, even if you believe God backed off and allowed natural processes to do all the work after creating them. Even with your non-biblical view, you're stuck doing the very thing you accuse me of.

And the evolutionary creationist.....

Sorry, I couldn't get past this. The terminology summersaults you jump through never cease to amaze me.

Nope. Even if it is historical narrative, the literal meaning of the text doesn't make it so. And even when a narrative is filled with non-literal meanings, it could still be a historical narrative. The two concepts have nothing to do with each other.

Again with the terminology summersaults. Just be honest with your view. You're tying yourself into a knot you'll never get out of.

I don't have any unbelief about the narrative. ...

I think we're going to have to disagree on that.

See, you are loading three terms with different meanings (literal, narrative, historical) into a single concept. ....

Nope, I already clarified I was not doing that. You're now sounding desperate.

I think Genesis 1 is true without being historical.....

Yes glu I know. You've made it very clear you both accept and reject Genesis.

 

[Assyrian]

Again you're using some terms very loosely. It was not the church that was opposing him, but a particular person—the Pope. But the church is the people, the followers of Christ. And most of them were very open to his views, and just as today, some where not. For they had tried to reconcile Scripture with modern science and were set in those interpretations.

Interesting effort in damage limitation, you forget the Pope led the Catholic church. It wasn't just the pope either. You had Catholic scholars like Cardinal Bellarime looking at the theological problems heliocentrism presented lone before Urban VIII became pope, when Galileo was tried before the inquisition it was a panel of 10 Cardinals who sat in judgement 7 of whom condemned him and placed his book on the index of prohibited books, a prohibition which most Catholics would have observed.

Most Lutheran scholarship was more open to heliocentrism and following the science where ever it led, though Luther himself called Copernicus a fool for contradicting what Joshua says in scripture. Up until the beginning of the 20th century you have the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran church still teaching geocentrism.

This is not unlike TEs today, who are often theologically dogmatic (not just scientifically dogmatic) on this issue.

That's odd, I have found them open to there being different ways to understand the text. Perhaps it is because some can be dismissive of bad arguments for literalism that they come across as as dogmatic.

And BTW, geocentrism is actually very hard to reconcile with the Bible. The heavens are God's throne while the earth is his footstool. In a geocentric model, you have God orbiting men on earth. This may be why spiritual views of heaven began to arise to compensate for this supposed "scientific" view of geocentrism.

Do you have evidence this problem ever occurred to people before Copernicus? The bible speaks of multiple heavens, Paul talks about going to the third heaven. Why would people think God's throne was spinning around the earth? In fact one of the key geocentric passages, one Calvin even commented on and interpreted geocentricly is Psalm 93, which compared the immobility of the earth with the immobility of God's throne.

 

[Calminian]

Interesting effort in damage limitation, you forget the Pope led the Catholic church. It wasn't just the pope either. You had Catholic scholars like Cardinal Bellarime looking at the theological problems heliocentrism presented lone before Urban VIII became pope, when Galileo was tried before the inquisition it was a panel of 10 Cardinals who sat in judgement 7 of whom condemned him and placed his book on the index of prohibited books, a prohibition which most Catholics would have observed.

Yep, and all of those would have been good TEs today. They have the biblical interpretation with scientific backing. Anyone in disagreement with modern science is dangerous.

Most Lutheran scholarship was more open to heliocentrism and following the science where ever it led, though Luther himself called Copernicus a fool for contradicting what Joshua says in scripture. Up until the beginning of the 20th century you have the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran church still teaching geocentrism.

Yeah, Luther said a lot of things, and there is that one quote. However, after that nothing is ever recorded from him or his followers in defense of geocentrim. It's possible Luther was speaking off the cuff, and later didn't see the big problem with scripture and Copernican cosmology. Everyone at times makes statements that are not well thought out. Remember this is just a quote someone claimed him made. It's not part of any of his official theological writings, nor his followers writings.

Do you have evidence this problem ever occurred to people before Copernicus? The bible speaks of multiple heavens, Paul talks about going to the third heaven. Why would people think God's throne was spinning around the earth? In fact one of the key geocentric passages, one Calvin even commented on and interpreted geocentricly is Psalm 93, which compared the immobility of the earth with the immobility of God's throne.

Well, exactly. You see Genesis speaks of the heavens (plural) in the same material sense it speaks of the earth. It is always a material place that is above the land, which the birds fly and clouds roam and the stars transgress. The spiritual aspect of it came later, and I'm merely surmising that this may have had something to do with geocentrism. I have no proof at this point, so it's merely a suspicion. If the earth is the center of the material world, then heaven must be immaterial, for God's realm cannot rotate around man's realm. That's all speculative, though.

 

[Assyrian]

Yep, and all of those would have been good TEs today. They have the biblical interpretation with scientific backing. Anyone in disagreement with modern science is dangerous.

We don't read Genesis as a scientific textbook and we don't read evolution into Genesis, how can our biblical interpretation have scientific backing? But you are right disagreeing with science because it contradicts your interpretation of is dangerous. Augustine warned about it long before Copernicus or Darwin and said that it beings the gospel and scripture into disrepute.

There is no problem with having an interpretation of the bible that happens to agree with science as geocentrists did before Copernicus. The problem comes when science changes and and Christians say it must be wrong because it disagrees with their interpretation. So if TE's interpretation of Genesis did agree with science (which it doesn't) then the most you could say was it was like the geocentric interpretation before Copernicus. Creationists fit the geocentrists after Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton, when heliocentrism was established science, because they think their interpretation of scripture shows science was wrong.

Yeah, Luther said a lot of things, and there is that one quote. However, after that nothing is ever recorded from him or his followers in defense of geocentrim. It's possible Luther was speaking off the cuff, and later didn't see the big problem with scripture and Copernican cosmology. Everyone at times makes statements that are not well thought out. Remember this is just a quote someone claimed him made. It's not part of any of his official theological writings, nor his followers writings.

It was an off the cuff remark by Luther and the Lutheran universities weren't held back from studying heliocentrism and eventually opting for it when it became the established scientific view, but Luther's remark is still used as ammunition against Christianity though it is not nearly as bad as the Galileo trial. But while the universities went with heliocentrism you still had deep rooted antiscience views and anti heliocentrism in Lutheran denominations like the Missouri Synod which existed up until the 20th century.

Well, exactly. You see Genesis speaks of the heavens (plural) in the same material sense it speaks of the earth. It is always a material place that is above the land, which the birds fly and clouds roam and the stars transgress. The spiritual aspect of it came later, and I'm merely surmising that this may have had something to do with geocentrism. I have no proof at this point, so it's merely a suspicion. If the earth is the center of the material world, then heaven must be immaterial, for God's realm cannot rotate around man's realm. That's all speculative, though.

Genesis doesn't distinguish between the heavens, but then again it doesn't talk of God's having a throne either, or locate it in the cosmos God created. Where the bible does speak of God's throne it speaks in terms of the highest heaven or above the heavens. I really don't see the problem arising out of speculation about the structure of the the heavens, nor have I ever come across it reading in the church fathers about the heavens and geocentrism. It is more something dreamed up much later by people trying to show to say the bible didn't teach geocentrism, whereas before Copernicus it was o0bvious from the very clear geocentric passages that the bible did.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

What are your thoughts?

Historical in the sense that he did exist and his life makes a difference.

 

[gluadys]

Huh? I'm curious how many creationists you know. I've never met one that does this.

As many as are on this board and a few others I have frequented, as well as some I have met in person. And yes, this attitude comes up again and again. There is always an assumption by the anti-evolution creationist that a TE does not believe in miracles. (False assumption).

Then when we get over that hurdle and try to talk about how God relates to natural events/occurrences/processes, the anti-evolutionist seems to come up blank. Usually leaving the impression that his/her view is of natural laws operating automatically and unsupervised---more deist than theist.

I think anti-evolution creationists spend so much time defending miracles (which don't need defending) that they have never developed an understanding of how non-miraculous nature functions within the economy of God's purposes.

Do you assume the natural laws pre-existed creation? If God created the natural laws, you must the reason that creation was supernatural, even if you believe God backed off and allowed natural processes to do all the work after creating them. Even with your non-biblical view, you're stuck doing the very thing you accuse me of.

Well the whole question of "pre-existence" implies a time "before" time so it is meaningless. Perhaps natural laws exist eternally in the mind of God in the same way mathematical principles must exist in the mind of God even when there is no creation to apply them to. But I wouldn't want to be dogmatic about that.

Interesting that you couple "natural law" with "God backed off and allowed natural processes to do all the work". I think that concept is very deist and unbiblical and I completely reject it. In a created world with an active, involved Creator, there can't be any backing off, even with natural laws. How would natural laws function on their own?

It is certainly not the vision presented in scripture. Consider how Jesus describes the process of plant growth after the farmer sows his seed. How the plant appears out of the earth, first the blade, then the ear, then the full seedhead--all without the farmer having a clue how it happens. It certainly looks like it is happening all by itself. But is that what Jesus is teaching?

Or consider the Psalmists' description of the developing embryo as God "knitting me together in my mother's womb".

Both of these are natural processes. Both involve natural law. But scripture is not presenting either of them as situations in which God has backed off to let nature do all the work.

Sorry, I couldn't get past this. The terminology summersaults you jump through never cease to amaze me.

Get used to it. It is becoming a fairly common designation. Denis Lamoureux coined it and explained why. Roughly he says "theistic evolution" puts the emphasis on the wrong word. It makes "evolution" the noun and "theistic" a modifier, as if Christian biologists understood evolution differently from non-Christian biologists and were trying to re-write science. That is not the case. Nor do Christian biologists reject creation.

So "evolutionary creation" gets it the right way round. As Christians we begin by affirming the doctrine of creation. So we are creationists first and foremost. "evolutionary" describes a characteristic of the creation.

Again with the terminology summersaults. Just be honest with your view.

I am being honest. But words and the correct use of words is how I made my living. So although it may look like meaningless summersaults to you, it is important to me to use terminology clearly.

"Literal" refers to the most common, everyday meaning of a word or phrase--without simile, metaphor, personification, or similar figurative use. Our first approach to any text--sacred or secular--is to look at the literal meaning. Literal meanings are found in all types of text, including poetry, prose, fiction, factual report, drama, history, letters, parables, etc.

All texts have some sort of literal meaning. It may not be the most important meaning. Context often indicates that the literal meaning is not the one the author intends as the principle meaning.

Non-literal meaning is also found in all types of text, including poetry, prose, fiction, factual report, drama, history, letters, parables, etc.

So basically, a literal meaning, intended as the primary meaning by the author, does not tell you whether there is a reference to history in the text.

"narrative" means the text tells a coherent story. Again, narratives are found in all kinds of texts--as above. A "literal narrative" simply means that literal meanings predominate as the story is told. Whereas a non-literal narrative would be dominated by allegorical images. (e.g. the Romance of the Rose, where each character and event refers to the actions and emotions of a lady and her suitor, or Pilgrim's Progress, where Faith, Doubt, Anger, Hope, etc. are "human" characters in the story.)

But "narrative" and even "literal narrative" doesn't tell you whether the narrative is intended to be historically accurate.

"historical" does imply the intention to be historically accurate. However, historical accuracy can be conveyed in different genres of text, including poetry and allegory.

Now, I think what you believe and are trying to convey is that you see Adam as a particular, historical individual, the first human individual to live on earth.

That is what I disagree with.

But that doesn't mean I disagree with the bible. I don't think the bible teaches that Adam was a particular historical individual. So I am only disagreeing with you, not with the bible.

 

[Calminian]

We don't read Genesis as a scientific textbook.

Well, Genesis is not a text book in any sense, so why would you read it that way? Genesis is a historical narrative of origins of man, and his early history. It also records historical miracles, which by definition are violations of science.

There is no problem with having an interpretation of the bible that happens to agree with science.....

You mean like Bishop Spong to interprets all miracles out of scripture? That's some very shaky ground you're on.

It was an off the cuff remark by Luther and the Lutheran universities weren't held back from studying heliocentrism and eventually opting for it when it became the established scientific view, but Luther's remark is still used as ammunition against Christianity though it is not nearly as bad as the Galileo trial. But while the universities went with heliocentrism you still had deep rooted antiscience views and anti heliocentrism in Lutheran denominations like the Missouri Synod which existed up until the 20th century.

I'm not familiar with any ant-heliocentrims in the lutheran denomination.

Genesis doesn't distinguish between the heavens, but then again it doesn't talk of God's having a throne either, or locate it in the cosmos God created. Where the bible does speak of God's throne it speaks in terms of the highest heaven.....

The highest heavens is part of the heavens.

 

[Calminian]

As many as are on this board and a few others I have frequented, as well as some I have met in person. And yes, this attitude comes up again and again. There is always an assumption by the anti-evolution creationist that a TE does not believe in miracles. (False assumption).

Again, I think you're just reaching with this accusations. I don't believe you actually come across anyone like this.

I think anti-evolution creationists spend so much time defending miracles (which don't need defending) that they have never developed an understanding of how non-miraculous nature functions within the economy of God's purposes.

Again, a meaningless charge. You haven't said anything to support this case, you're just making an empty charge.

Interesting that you couple "natural law" with "God backed off and allowed natural processes to do all the work". ...

Yeah, IOWs God created them, and then didn't do anything outside of them in the creative process. Every creationist I know believes God both upholds normal processes, and then occasionally acts beyond them, miraculously. I'd like you to give me an example of a creationist that doesn't believe this. Yes, you have been challenged. Name someone. If you refuse then we'll have to assume you're fibbing.

I am being honest....

And I'm willing to allow you to prove yourself. Name the creationists that deny God upholds natural laws, and only acts miraculously. If you can't you really need to apologize for making this whole story up. I'm going to keep demanding sources from you until you fess up.

 

[SkyWriting]

As many as are on this board and a few others I have frequented, as well as some I have met in person. And yes, this attitude comes up again and again. There is always an assumption by the anti-evolution creationist that a TE does not believe in miracles. (False assumption).

Anecdotal accusations are the most worthless form of criticism.
Most often imaginary.

Then when we get over that hurdle and try to talk about how God relates to natural events/occurrences/processes, the anti-evolutionist seems to come up blank. Usually leaving the impression that his/her view is of natural laws operating automatically and unsupervised---more deist than theist

.

Natural Law for this world is provided by the god of this world:
Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. The god of this world has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. 2_corinthians

I think anti-evolution creationists spend so much time defending miracles (which don't need defending) that they have never developed an understanding of how non-miraculous nature functions within the economy of God's purposes.

The "god of this world's" purposes.

Well the whole question of "pre-existence" implies a time "before" time so it is meaningless. Perhaps natural laws exist eternally in the mind of God in the same way mathematical principles must exist in the mind of God even when there is no creation to apply them to. But I wouldn't want to be dogmatic about that. Interesting that you couple "natural law" with "God backed off and allowed natural processes to do all the work". I think that concept is very deist and unbiblical and I completely reject it. In a created world with an active, involved Creator, there can't be any backing off, even with natural laws. How would natural laws function on their own?

god of this world

It is certainly not the vision presented in scripture. Consider how Jesus describes the process of plant growth after the farmer sows his seed. How the plant appears out of the earth, first the blade, then the ear, then the full seedhead--all without the farmer having a clue how it happens. It certainly looks like it is happening all by itself. But is that what Jesus is teaching? Or consider the Psalmists' description of the developing embryo as God "knitting me together in my mother's womb". Both of these are natural processes. Both involve natural law. But scripture is not presenting either of them as situations in which God has backed off to let nature do all the work.

My daughter was born with cancer. I support the greatly flawed and natural theory.

Get used to it. It is becoming a fairly common designation. Denis Lamoureux coined it and explained why. Roughly he says "theistic evolution" puts the emphasis on the wrong word. It makes "evolution" the noun and "theistic" a modifier, as if Christian biologists understood evolution differently from non-Christian biologists and were trying to re-write science. That is not the case. Nor do Christian biologists reject creation.

I am willing to look over your research on these claims.

So "evolutionary creation" gets it the right way round. As Christians we begin by affirming the doctrine of creation. So we are creationists first and foremost. "evolutionary" describes a characteristic of the creation.

You claim that Jesus or anybody taught survival of the fittest?
Not one person has found anything even close.

I am being honest. But words and the correct use of words is how I made my living. So although it may look like meaningless summersaults to you, it is important to me to use terminology clearly. "Literal" refers to the most common, everyday meaning of a word or phrase--without simile, metaphor, personification, or similar figurative use. Our first approach to any text--sacred or secular--is to look at the literal meaning. Literal meanings are found in all types of text, including poetry, prose, fiction, factual report, drama, history, letters, parables, etc. All texts have some sort of literal meaning. It may not be the most important meaning. Context often indicates that the literal meaning is not the one the author intends as the principle meaning. Non-literal meaning is also found in all types of text, including poetry, prose, fiction, factual report, drama, history, letters, parables, etc. So basically, a literal meaning, intended as the primary meaning by the author, does not tell you whether there is a reference to history in the text. "narrative" means the text tells a coherent story. Again, narratives are found in all kinds of texts--as above. A "literal narrative" simply means that literal meanings predominate as the story is told. Whereas a non-literal narrative would be dominated by allegorical images. (e.g. the Romance of the Rose, where each character and event refers to the actions and emotions of a lady and her suitor, or Pilgrim's Progress, where Faith, Doubt, Anger, Hope, etc. are "human" characters in the story.) But "narrative" and even "literal narrative" doesn't tell you whether the narrative is intended to be historically accurate. "Historical" does imply the intention to be historically accurate. However, historical accuracy can be conveyed in different genres of text, including poetry and allegory. Now, I think what you believe and are trying to convey is that you see Adam as a particular, historical individual, the first human individual to live on earth. That is what I disagree with. But that doesn't mean I disagree with the bible. I don't think the bible teaches that Adam was a particular historical individual. So I am only disagreeing with you, not with the bible.

As is your right.

 

[Assyrian]

Well, Genesis is not a text book in any sense, so why would you read it that way? Genesis is a historical narrative of origins of man, and his early history.

The issue was whether an interpretation has scientific backing or not. If you read the Genesis creation accounts as a historical narrative of origins, it brings your interpretation into a place where it can have scientific backing or be contradicted by what we know from science. Our interpretation isn't as a historical narrative so science can neither back it or contradict it.

It also records historical miracles, which by definition are violations of science.

That's a very 19th century understanding of science. Science has no say in what God can or cannot do, but it can tell you some of the things have and haven't happened. Christians once believed the sun went round the earth and that when Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stop, the sun and moon really stopped moving and stood still in the sky until the battle was over, when they hurried along to the place they set. We know know from science that the sun doesn't move around the earth, so whatever happened Joshua's prayer did not stop the sun's motion. It doesn't mean there was no miracle, it just means the old interpretation of the text was wrong and we needed a better understanding of what God was saying and how he was saying it.

You mean like Bishop Spong to interprets all miracles out of scripture? That's some very shaky ground you're on.

That would be a problem with the interpretation itself not the fact it lines up with science. I was talking about things like an understanding of meteorology fitting Matt 16:2 He answered them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' 3 And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. In the case of the plague of locusts Exodus 10:13 So Moses stretched out his staff over the land of Egypt, and the LORD brought an east wind upon the land all that day and all that night. When it was morning, the east wind had brought the locusts. I think God used natural means, an east wind, to being the locusts from their natural breeding ground in Arabia.

Again the literal interpretation of the Joshua miracle was perfectly reasonable when it lined up with science. The question is what you do when science shows your interpretation is wrong. You can either realise your old interpretation was mistaken, that we are still only learning to understand what God says to us in his word and find a better understanding of the text. Or you can stand by your interpretation and insist that the bible shows you science is wrong. But as we have seen with the geocentrists, this does not defend the bible it only drags it into disrepute.

I'm not familiar with any ant-heliocentrims in the lutheran denomination.

You can read up on the Lutheran Missouri Synod. There were lots of Reformed Geocentrists up until the beginning of the 18th century too.

The highest heavens is part of the heavens.

What do you mean 'is part of'? Do you mean the highest heavens is located somewhere to the left of the Crab Nebula? Do you mean the highest heavens is physically attached to our universe? Or do you mean it is grouped together in the bible with the other meanings of heaven under the general term 'the heavens'. Unless the church before Copernicus actually thought the highest heaven with God's throne was bolted to the firmament of heaven, I really don't see why anybody would have thought God's throne had to rotate around the world.

 

[Aman777]

Calminian:>>The highest heavens is part of the heavens.
​

Assyrian:>>What do you mean 'is part of'? Do you mean the highest heavens is located somewhere to the left of the Crab Nebula? Do you mean the highest heavens is physically attached to our universe? Or do you mean it is grouped together in the bible with the other meanings of heaven under the general term 'the heavens'. Unless the church before Copernicus actually thought the highest heaven with God's throne was bolted to the firmament of heaven, I really don't see why anybody would have thought God's throne had to rotate around the world.

Dear Readers, The 3rd Heaven, the object of the Creation, is the highest heaven. It is not a part of our Cosmos, but we are a part of it, just as the first heaven was a part of it. The first heaven was in the water, and our Cosmos is in the dust, and the 3rd Heaven is all the rest of the Multiverse, which is much larger than any other heaven.

It has taken Science more than 3,000 years to realize that we might live in a Multiverse. God told us we did, in Genesis, but some haven't believed Him. This is the reason for the confusion of those who think they know more than God. It's really strange to see this confusion caused by those who put their faith in the knowledge of this world and not in God's Truth.

In Love,
Aman

 

[gluadys]

Again, I think you're just reaching with this accusations. I don't believe you actually come across anyone like this.



Again, a meaningless charge. You haven't said anything to support this case, you're just making an empty charge.



Yeah, IOWs God created them, and then didn't do anything outside of them in the creative process. Every creationist I know believes God both upholds normal processes, and then occasionally acts beyond them, miraculously. I'd like you to give me an example of a creationist that doesn't believe this. Yes, you have been challenged. Name someone. If you refuse then we'll have to assume you're fibbing.



And I'm willing to allow you to prove yourself. Name the creationists that deny God upholds natural laws, and only acts miraculously. If you can't you really need to apologize for making this whole story up. I'm going to keep demanding sources from you until you fess up.

Just to note that I will get back to you on this: but it will take a fair bit of research and I have limited time to do that right now.

 

[Calminian]

The issue was whether an interpretation has scientific backing or not. If you read the Genesis creation accounts as a historical narrative of origins, it brings your interpretation into a place where it can have scientific backing or be contradicted by what we know from science. Our interpretation isn't as a historical narrative so science can neither back it or contradict it.

And yet, if creation was a miracle, I would expect it to contradict science. Science can't account for miraculous creative events, and therefore needs extra time (a great deal of time) to explain away the existence of things via natural processes.

The historical account of the Resurrection would also contradict science in that people don't resurrect after 3 days. All the miracle accounts in the gospels and Acts would also have issues with science.

That's a very 19th century understanding of science. Science has no say in what God can or cannot do, but it can tell you some of the things have and haven't happened.

Totally false. When you have situations where a miracles has taken place, science will be wildly off it its presuppositions and in some cases could be rendered almost useless. What you're describing is almost a science religion, where it is transformed into a super epistemology where it has no limitations at all.

Christians once believed the sun went round the earth....

But to be more precise, scientists once believed the sun traveled around the earth. Some christians followed them, some didn't.

[/COLOR]Again the literal interpretation of the Joshua miracle was perfectly reasonable when it lined up with science....

Actually Joshua's description of sun stopping was perfectly fine even for modern understandings of cosmology. All descriptions of movement must have points of reference. Even modern scientists would describe the sun as stoping had this happened today. And they would be correct in doing so.

You can read up on the Lutheran Missouri Synod. There were lots of Reformed Geocentrists up until the beginning of the 18th century too.

I'm sure there were still scientists believed the same things then. It takes time for paradigm shifts to take place. The point is, christians love to be on the side of the science of their day. You're a good example of that.

What do you mean 'is part of'? Do you mean the highest heavens is located somewhere to the left of the Crab Nebula? ....

It could be, or perhaps somewhere more distant. Heaven is always described as physical, and there's no doubt in my mind that even the heaven of heavens is physical and located somewhere in deep space. Why not? There's certainly enough room. And when Jesus was finished here on earth, he went up into the sky. Had he dematerialized I'd have a different view.

What you don't see in scripture are depictions of heaven being some kind of extra dimensional incorporeal place. It's always physical, and now that we know just how big the cosmos is, it makes perfect sense. Keep in mind, whatever heaven is, scriptures says it cannot contain God. So a physical realm would be just as good as a spiritual one, as neither would be big enough to contain God.

BTW, if you look at the tabernacle—a model of heaven on earth—you have 3 compartments. The outer court encompasses the inner rooms. If the heaven of heavens was physically in the cosmos somewhere, it would very closely resemble the tabernacle model—the outer-court being the vast cosmos.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, Genesis is not a text book in any sense, so why would you read it that way? Genesis is a historical narrative of origins of man, and his early history.

Let's check that. It's text...and a book. Your claim...fails.

A textbook or coursebook is a manual of instruction in any branch of study.
Christians (and billions of non-Christians) do use it for study. Your claim fails.

The ancient Greeks wrote texts intended for education. The modern textbook has its roots in the standardization made possible by the printing press.
The bible has benefited from the printing press.

Gutenberg's first and only large-scale printing effort was the now iconic Gutenberg Bible in the 1450s — a Latin translation from the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament[disambiguation needed], copies of which can be viewed on the British Library website www.bl.uk . Gutenberg's invention made mass production of texts possible for the first time.

Because biblical history is part of the definition of "Text book", this particular claim fails on all points.

 

[astein]

Of course.

 

[SkyWriting]

And yet, if creation was a miracle, I would expect it to contradict science. Science can't account for miraculous creative events, and therefore needs extra time (a great deal of time) to explain away the existence of things via natural processes.

The historical account of the Resurrection would also contradict science in that people don't resurrect after 3 days. All the miracle accounts in the gospels and Acts would also have issues with science.



Totally false. When you have situations where a miracles has taken place, science will be wildly off it its presuppositions and in some cases could be rendered almost useless. What you're describing is almost a science religion, where it is transformed into a super epistemology where it has no limitations at all.



But to be more precise, scientists once believed the sun traveled around the earth. Some christians followed them, some didn't.



Actually Joshua's description of sun stopping was perfectly fine even for modern understandings of cosmology. All descriptions of movement must have points of reference. Even modern scientists would describe the sun as stoping had this happened today. And they would be correct in doing so.



I'm sure there were still scientists believed the same things then. It takes time for paradigm shifts to take place. The point is, christians love to be on the side of the science of their day. You're a good example of that.



It could be, or perhaps somewhere more distant. Heaven is always described as physical, and there's no doubt in my mind that even the heaven of heavens is physical and located somewhere in deep space. Why not? There's certainly enough room. And when Jesus was finished here on earth, he went up into the sky. Had he dematerialized I'd have a different view.

What you don't see in scripture are depictions of heaven being some kind of extra dimensional incorporeal place. It's always physical, and now that we know just how big the cosmos is, it makes perfect sense. Keep in mind, whatever heaven is, scriptures says it cannot contain God. So a physical realm would be just as good as a spiritual one, as neither would be big enough to contain God.

BTW, if you look at the tabernacle—a model of heaven on earth—you have 3 compartments. The outer court encompasses the inner rooms. If the heaven of heavens was physically in the cosmos somewhere, it would very closely resemble the tabernacle model—the outer-court being the vast cosmos.

Very good analysis.