that's not much better than saying sunday school teaches they were all factual people (it's not a very critical answer). Bible colleges teach within a scriptural vacuum, their goals are not to challenge scripture but to understand how to study it for spiritual benefit.Bible college teaches if they had a name they were a real person.
I'm not at odds with the idea of whether these characters are real or not but know that under academic scrutiny they fall short of being credible. the further removed an account is from when it finally was written down the less credible it becomes in terms of its factual representation (not embedded theological truth).
Earlier accounts like in Genesis are survived through oral tradition and since pre-Moses there was no authoritative version of God or system of how to follow him then it's hard to know what the motivation was with these surviving oral accounts. Sure there are the accounts of Abraham but this is a very primitive version of Judaism with a law centred around circumcision practices, but there are still no established priests, temples and sacrifice is not that defined plus in practice not a lot of instruction for daily living or knowledge of God, all things essential for an established religion. I'm sure each household or "tent" had wide differences of these accounts with a lot of influences from surrounding cultures. Moses would have a task to establish unity with all these differences.
We know during the exodus the Hebrews had some very pagan mindsets (such as the event with the golden calf under the direction of the high priest of God) so their understanding or commitment to God was not that deep but this is the setting Moses comes in setting in motion an ordained and authorised narrative and a system of law. Did he have to reshape or "de-paganise" these accounts to align with monotheism to establish foundation theological concepts? If so how are the characters involved rehaped with it? In the end, the theological concepts are more important than if the person was real or not, in particular, with these early accounts. The second temple era is a far more credible time for scripture but credibility fades the older it gets and Genesis in practice is prehistory for the Hebrews so it's even worse.
the uncompromised truth is the gospel, that Jesus Christ came to earth, led a sinless life, died on a cross for our sins and rose again 3 days later so that we may have a restored relationship with God. And this is the inerrant message through out scripture, If Adam however was a real person or not doesn't add or remove anything from the truth of the gospel. Adam's account is used to point to Christ and give glory to God outside of that his factual role doesn't have value either way regardless of what a bible college may teach.
here is another video from the same Youtuber as the last one I posted that talks about the historical accuracy of Moses and the events surrounding him plus how we can understand and make sense of them in a faith-based context.
Last edited:
Upvote
0