for TE's historicity of OT people

Dondi · Mar 31, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
when did you stop beating your wife?
can i open the truck, what do you have to hide.

all three are example of the logical error of the double question. as such are unanswerable and are meant not to further the discussion but to inflame the participants. i see no reason for Christians to argue in such a manner, it seems foolish and self defeating, but that is just my opinon.

there is no necessary link between a person's understanding of the historicity of Adam and the historicity of Jesus. Why should there be? there are several millennium between their times. It appears to be a ploy to tie a little thing with little support into a big thing with great support and importance as a hitchhiker and fellow traveler. It is possible that the historicity of Adam is so weak that it needs such support but i'd rather discuss the issues separately rather than as a bundled package.

I'm not a literalist, nor am I a YEC, I can live with the notion that perhaps God was involved in the evolutionary development of creation. I'm still coming to terms that the YEC view has problems and that secular evolution doesn't explain everything either. And I don't think that one necessarily has to be a literalist to believe in the historicity of the OT biblical figures.

Maybe the historicity of Adam in scripture is weak, if you believe that time erases such. It's also been 2000 years since Jesus's time, but I see no one here disputing the existence of Christ.

Why am I making these points? Am I off topic in discussing the historicity of biblical figures when that is the title of this thread? Why am I getting beat down when I am trying to make a point that Jesus and other NT disciples mention Adam's creation? Are you surmising that Jesus didn't believe that the OT figures were real?

My contention is that I don't think we have to blow off the historicity of biblical figures just because of our TE viewpoint. Unless, of course, there are other unrelated factors in not believing that the OT figures are true. In which case, that is a topic for another board.

Mandrake · Mar 31, 2006

I said that I thought Adam and Noah non-historical, and Abraham and Moses historical. As has been noted, I have no way of knowing for sure, or even of making an especially informed guess, so I went with what I have to work with. Additionally, all ofthe characters (with the possible exception of Adam) likely have some basis in fact,so I kind of decided based on how much I think is entirely legendary, and how much is more or less factual. If I were to put them on a scale from least to most historical, I'd probably go Adam, Noah, Moses, Abraham.

gluadys · Mar 31, 2006

Dondi said:
While it may be true that Jesus is explaining some ethical teaching about divorce and in Matt 19:4 He uses Genesis 2 to make His point, why wouldn't it also not be true that believes what Genesis says about the creation of Adam and Eve?

The point is that we don't know what it says about the creation of Adam and Eve.

For one thing, Adam and Eve are not mentioned, either in Jesus' quote or in Genesis. The Hebrew words are those for "man" and "woman" not for "Adam" and "Eve".

For another, even if you take this as referring to the creation of Adam and Eve, it doesn't mean that Adam and Eve are individual persons. We don't know what Jesus understood by "Adam" and "Eve".

It's not that TEs have a problem as such with the possible historicity of Adam and Eve. Some think they are historical and some don't. The point is that Matt. 19:4 is not evidence of their historical existence.

So it is not the historicity of Adam and Eve that is problematical, but the application of Jesus' statement in Matthew as if it were a guarantee of their historicity. It's not.

Dondi · Mar 31, 2006

gluadys said:
The point is that we don't know what it says about the creation of Adam and Eve.

For one thing, Adam and Eve are not mentioned, either in Jesus' quote or in Genesis. The Hebrew words are those for "man" and "woman" not for "Adam" and "Eve".

For another, even if you take this as referring to the creation of Adam and Eve, it doesn't mean that Adam and Eve are individual persons. We don't know what Jesus understood by "Adam" and "Eve".

It's not that TEs have a problem as such with the possible historicity of Adam and Eve. Some think they are historical and some don't. The point is that Matt. 19:4 is not evidence of their historical existence.

So it is not the historicity of Adam and Eve that is problematical, but the application of Jesus' statement in Matthew as if it were a guarantee of their historicity. It's not.

Then I think my problem is theological is relation to the historicity of Adam and Eve. And I'm sure you probably saw this coming. But it is a question foremost in my mind.

What do we do with idea of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve if they are not historical figures?

I read in Romans 5:

"12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

This passage speaks of Adam by name. And it refers to him as "one man".

So if I don't regard Adam as historical, as one man who sinned and a corresponding man named js Jesus who remedied what the one man Adam did, then I'm going to have to come up with something that will reconcile this passage.

To be honest, I don't know. I have a few ideas about this, but I should like to hear you take on it.

rmwilliamsll · Mar 31, 2006

its the doctrine of federal headship.

first, does it require physical descent from Adam? how is it that all humanity is found it Adam?

second, the whole problem of the tranmission of original sin, on top of what exactly is original sin?

then when you solve this you have the whole issue of what does it mean to be "in Christ" to be in union with Christ. for this is the essential element of the analogy and of the argument.

it is not primarily intended to be an argument for the historicity of Adam nor even things about original sin but a justification of salvation as being "in union with Christ"

gluadys · Mar 31, 2006

Dondi said:
Then I think my problem is theological is relation to the historicity of Adam and Eve. And I'm sure you probably saw this coming. But it is a question foremost in my mind.

What do we do with idea of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve if they are not historical figures?

I see too often this confusion between original sin and first sin. Original sin does not refer to the first sin. It refers to the state of human nature into which we are all born that makes us prone to sin. A state Calvinists refer to as depravity. This does not even require a historical first sin, though presumably there was a first individual who had sufficient moral consciousness to recognize his/her own sin.

This passage speaks of Adam by name.

Paul is transliterating the Hebrew instead of translating it. Just as we transliterate the Greek Xpistos into Christ instead of translating it into Anointed One. It doesnt change the essential meaning from human to man named Adam.

And it refers to him as "one man".

Who can still be a collective one man through federal headship: the one man who is all humans beings and who every human is by participation in the same fallen humanity.

Actually, I dont know precisely what rmwilliamsll means by federal headship. I think of it as a sort of Platonic form, a concept both Paul and his readers would be very familiar with.

So if I don't regard Adam as historical, as one man who sinned and a corresponding man named js Jesus who remedied what the one man Adam did, then I'm going to have to come up with something that will reconcile this passage.

Exactly. That is why I have done a lot of thinking about this passage, and why I feel understanding some of the theological/philosophical approaches used in Judaism and Hellenism at the time are helpful. I mentioned the Greek concept of Platonic form (aka idea). A sort of equivalent in Judaism is the mystical concept of Adam-Kadmon, which views Adam not as one individual among many, but as the one man who is the whole human race. Either of these would see the historicity of Adam as consisting in the historical life of every human individual. So you are the historical Adam, and so am I. Yet there is only one Adam.

Dondi · Mar 31, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
its the doctrine of federal headship.

first, does it require physical descent from Adam? how is it that all humanity is found it Adam?

second, the whole problem of the tranmission of original sin, on top of what exactly is original sin?

then when you solve this you have the whole issue of what does it mean to be "in Christ" to be in union with Christ. for this is the essential element of the analogy and of the argument.

it is not primarily intended to be an argument for the historicity of Adam nor even things about original sin but a justification of salvation as being "in union with Christ"

Federal headship? Now you're sounding like a Republican.

I kinda get what you mean, though.

I wasn't trying to argue for the historical proof of Adam in this passage, rather problems encountered in viewing it in terms other than in the historical context.

What needs to be addressed how does one view the Garden of Eden setting speaking from a TE viewpoint? Were we (as an Adamic race of people, if you will) in perfect communion with God is the past? If so, what implemented the Fall, that is, what gave us a sinful nature? Was it one act of disobedience? Or was a collective departing from God?

Dondi · Mar 31, 2006

gluadys said:
I see too often this confusion between original sin and first sin. Original sin does not refer to the first sin. It refers to the state of human nature into which we are all born that makes us prone to sin. A state Calvinists refer to as depravity. This does not even require a historical first sin, though presumably there was a first individual who had sufficient moral consciousness to recognize his/her own sin.

I've asked in the above post about the garden of Eden setting in the TE viewpoint. So I'll refer the question here.

Paul is transliterating the Hebrew instead of translating it. Just as we transliterate the Greek Xpistos into Christ instead of translating it into Anointed One. It doesnt change the essential meaning from human to man named Adam.

But why the distinction in reference to 'man' in other verses of the same passage. "Adam" and "man" are different Greek words. Unless "Adam" refers back to the first man (In the Strong's Concordance, "Adam" is translated "the red earth")

So as humans who collectively fallen. So now the question becomes at what point in the evolutionary scale did we become "human"? Were we Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Homo-Sapiens?

Exactly. That is why I have done a lot of thinking about this passage, and why I feel understanding some of the theological/philosophical approaches used in Judaism and Hellenism at the time are helpful. I mentioned the Greek concept of Platonic form (aka idea). A sort of equivalent in Judaism is the mystical concept of Adam-Kadmon, which views Adam not as one individual among many, but as the one man who is the whole human race. Either of these would see the historicity of Adam as consisting in the historical life of every human individual. So you are the historical Adam, and so am I. Yet there is only one Adam.

Interesting approach. It is evident that Paul uses the Greek method of asking a lot of rhetorical questions in Romans, much like Socrates did. I will have to look into this more.

Willtor · Mar 31, 2006

Dondi said:
Federal headship? Now you're sounding like a Republican.

I kinda get what you mean, though.

I wasn't trying to argue for the historical proof of Adam in this passage, rather problems encountered in viewing it in terms other than in the historical context.

What needs to be addressed how does one view the Garden of Eden setting speaking from a TE viewpoint? Were we (as an Adamic race of people, if you will) in perfect communion with God is the past? If so, what implemented the Fall, that is, what gave us a sinful nature? Was it one act of disobedience? Or was a collective departing from God?

There are a variety of TE viewpoints, as evidenced by this thread. I think the myth suggests that there was a time when people were in communion with God. As to the particulars, I don't know. I would have a hard time trying to draw very many historical conclusions from a myth. Mostly, what I can talk about, and what I am interested in discovering (what any myth intends to communicate), is what it says about the relationship between God and humanity, what it is supposed to be (what it was, once), what it is, now, and the truth of how it came to be so.

As soon as we begin to ask factual questions, we move away from what it's trying to tell us, and we are likely to draw erroneous conclusions. If I say it was a population of a particular size and everyone collectively chose to become their own origins of Good and Evil, or if I say it was a few, and they dragged down the rest, I am speculating.

rmwilliamsll · Mar 31, 2006

doctrine of federal headship basically is the idea that God dealt with Adam and Christ in a federal or universal-group way as representatives of particular people.

But why the distinction in reference to 'man' in other verses of the same passage. "Adam" and "man" are different Greek words. Unless "Adam" refers back to the first man (In the Strong's Concordance, "Adam" is translated "the red earth")

it is actually a complex pun in Hebrew.

adam, red, earth vary only in the vowel pointings. God does have a sense of humor, the problem is that is is really bad puns, in Hebrew *grin*
i actually took a class on the puns in jonah.

the issue is similiar with Eve.
her first name was a pun on man ish, drawn out of man-ishah

her second name is again another pun. which we read as a title "mother of all living"
see:
http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Bible Studies/hawwah.htm
http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Genesis.htm

for example.

Willtor · Mar 31, 2006

Actually, rmwilliamsll, do you have any online references for puns in Jonah?

rmwilliamsll · Mar 31, 2006

Willtor said:
Actually, rmwilliamsll, do you have any online references for puns in Jonah?

it's not my field however there is a long bibliography on hebrew word play at:
http://faculty.washington.edu/snoegel/wordplay.html

if you scan down to:
Halpern, B., and R.E. Friedman, "Composition and Paronomasia in the Book of Jonah," HAR 4 (1980), pp. 79-92.

the proper word for pun in sciencese is paronomasia
and Richard Friedman was my prof for that class, so i'd start there. that class was back in 77-80 so i long since parted from those class notes.

there are a couple of interesting essays via google

from: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2792

1. Paronomasia and Phonetic Word Plays. By these devices the writers were emphasizing and focusing the readers attention on critical points in the text. We may make a technical distinction that a paronomasia is a word play involving sound and sense, for the words used were cognate; whereas the phonetic word play only involves sound. There are also a few word plays that involve only sense and not sound. In general, all types may be classified as word plays, and then the significance in each case can be further explained.

Word plays regularly appear in naming narratives in narrative literature, the point of the word play being to stress the significant meaning of the story. For example, in Genesis 16 we have the story of Sarais giving Hagar to her husband in order to obtain a child. At the end of the story, the LORD rescued Hagar in the wilderness and prophesied concerning her child, giving him the name Ishmael with the explanation that the LORD heard (shama) her affliction (v. 11). She responded by naming God El roi, a God who sees me, and then named the place, Beer lakhay roi, the well of the living God who sees me. The word plays on these names focus the readers attention to the fact that God hears and God sees, meaning, God is able to deliver people from their affliction. Because these come through the revelation of God (a speech in the narrative), and because that revelation is the climax of the story of the expulsion of Hagar - who must return to her mistress - they provide the lesson (and rebuke) for Abram and Sarai. Is it any wonder, then, that their son Isaac meditates at Beerlahayroi (24:62); and that when his wife was barren, he prayed instead of schemed - and the LORD provided children (25:21)?

But word plays are not limited to namings. In the story of Jacob and Esau the narrative employs many word plays. For example, in Genesis 25:27 Esau is described as a mighty hunter (tsayid); but then in verse 29 Jacob boiled (wayyazed) pottage (nazid). The writer contrasts the two by playing on the sounds, for the words are not related. But his point was that Jacob was also a hunter, laying the trap for this reddish, hairy animal of a brother who would came running to the bait.

try:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="Paronomasia+in+jonah"&btnG=Search

and see:
http://www.bibal.net/04/proso/psalms-ii/pdf/dlc_jon003-001-b.pdf
which appears to be offline, so

use cache at:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...c_reading-jonah.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

hope that is enough to get started, i can only remember a few of the words, i never used the hebrew that i studied then.

Willtor · Mar 31, 2006

I got the PDF without the Google cache. This is cool stuff. New dimensions.

rmwilliamsll · Mar 31, 2006

there is a cool book on the humor of God
see:
The comic vision and the Christian faith: A celebration of life and laughter
Hyers

i think he has an essay on line on laughing God

there is another nice intro essay at:
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/bibhumor.htm

Didaskomenos · Mar 31, 2006

I think that Adam is the only purely mythological/legendary character. Even though Noah's story is mythological, I tend to believe there was some person in Hebrew pre-history with that name, to whom the story of the Flood became attached. Nevertheless, I voted non-historical for both Adam and Noah.

Tevol · Apr 2, 2006

Isn´t Genesis 30:34-43 about natural selection?
Why not?
Why can´t humans and dinossaur coehxist?
Why can´t evolution make the serpent and the donkey talk?
Why can´t evolution make the serpent lose legs?
Why can´t evolution validate the storicity of Adam,Noah,Abraham and Moses?
These questions have a common and UNIQUE answer:
Timeline based on different kinds of measurements.

I suggest doing the following experiment:
Try to approach evolution with the bible without using
timeline and order considerations.Everything will match.
Consider the flood local in the sense that it covers every living thing on Earth.
This implies that all life was concentrated originally at one place and don´t originates around the entire planet(only the human timeline will argue against this idea).

gluadys · Apr 2, 2006

Tevol said:
Isn´t Genesis 30:34-43 about natural selection?
Why not?

No,it is about Jacob practicing sympathetic magic.

Why can´t humans and dinossaur coehxist?

It's not a matter of "can" they, but "did" they. They didn't.

Why can´t evolution make the serpent and the donkey talk?

Because current evolutionary pathways are constrained by past evolutionary history. Talking, especially talking intelligibly and conversing requires many changes in throat, larynx, jaw, nerves, muscles and brain that have not occured in serpents or donkeys.

Furthermore, according to scripture, only one individual in each of these species talked. Evolution would affect all organisms in the species. It could only make one serpent talk by making all serpents talk. It could only make one donkey talk by making all donkeys talk.

And once they can talk, all their descendants would be able to talk as well. So how many serpents and donkeys carry on conversations with humans today?

Why can´t evolution make the serpent lose legs?

It did.

Why can´t evolution validate the storicity of Adam,Noah,Abraham and Moses?

Because evolution is about genetic changes in populations, not about specific individuals.

These questions have a common and UNIQUE answer:
Timeline based on different kinds of measurements.

I suggest doing the following experiment:
Try to approach evolution with the bible without using
timeline and order considerations.Everything will match.
Consider the flood local in the sense that it covers every living thing on Earth.
This implies that all life was concentrated originally at one place and don´t originates around the entire planet(only the human timeline will argue against this idea).

How can it match if you are using no criteria for matching? Also there is no evidence that all life was ever concentrated in one local area. Certainly not at the supposed date of the flood.

Tevol · Apr 3, 2006

But the serpent at Eden could be a special kind of serpent which became extinct in a couple years.
It was only used by God to enable the Devil to tempt Adam and Eve.
Or maybe it evolved later into a dinossaur.
That´s why in Revelation it says that the dragon was the ancient serpent.
I even heard dinossaurs came from reptiles.
Interestingly,dragons on Bible don´t spew fire(rather impossible) but water.
So it can be a sea dinossaur.
It is possible to loose talk abilities after some time isn´t it?

The philosophy of the post is that evolution contradict the bible ONLY if you consider a timeline of milions of years instead of hundreds and if you consider some order in events based only on this timeline.

I believe the cosmos to be billions of years but not Nature itself.

You can call me a YETE(Young Earth theistic evolutionist).
I don´t know if I am the first one.

Genesis 30:34-43 is about natural selection.
Jacob´s animals adapt to the change in nature .
They looked at what Jacob did.
Light(radiation) entering on their eyes influence their genes and they breed mutated animals.
So there is adaptation to ambiental conditions which were changed here.

Mallon · Apr 3, 2006

Tevol said:
Or maybe it evolved later into a dinossaur.
That´s why in Revelation it says that the dragon was the ancient serpent.
I even heard dinossaurs came from reptiles.

Dinosaurs came from archosaurian reptiles (e.g. crocs); not squamate reptiles (e.g. snakes).

So it can be a sea dinossaur.

No such thing.

Tevol · Apr 4, 2006

Extinction is the only option then.

for TE's historicity of OT people

Looking for historicity ideas

Adam was an historical person

Adam was not an historical person

Noah was an historical person

Noah was not an historical person

Abram (Abraham) was an historical person

Abram (Abraham) was not an historical person

Moses was an historical person

Moses was not an historical person

Veteran

Brother Cattle Prod of Reasoned Discussion

Legend

Veteran

avid reader

Legend

Veteran

Veteran

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

avid reader

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

avid reader

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

avid reader

Voiced Bilabial Spirant

Tevol

Guest

Legend

Tevol

Guest

Senior Veteran

Tevol

Guest

Similar threads