A question for Young Earth Creationists

[corpuschristi]

Yes, Adam did - hundreds of years after the Bible says he would.

God was warning Adam of spritual death i.e. the seperation from God when we sin against him...

 

[Jase]

God was warning Adam of spritual death i.e. the seperation from God when we sin against him...

It doesn't say that. We call that a metaphoric interpretation.

 

[jereth]

I dont get how it pertains to Creationism?

But of course the story has value.

It pertains to creationism because the "cry wolf" story proves that a myth/fable can convey truth, even moral truth. Yet all too often we hear them saying that if TEs think Genesis is mythical then we are making God out to be a liar, etc.

Now it is impossible for God to communicate in writing to people without using words, that is a limitation of people, not God. In order to accommodate Himself to our weaknesses the Scriptures are human words. Words required a linguistic context, which in turn requires a cultural one as well. Words do not and can not exist without this context.
...
The point is that context and purpose matter, they matter in Scripture. The fundamental error of YEists is to take the modern scientific cultural milieu and wholesale wrap the Scriptures in it and address to the Scriptures modern questions, which revolve around how. When the Scriptures primarily are interested in who and why type of questions.

These are fantastic words worth reflecting upon

 

[artybloke]

The jews today could answer that but their language is the most pure oldest and unchanged language on earth.

Not true. Even the Hebrew of the Bible is probably not very like the Hebrew that was used by ordinary people. It uses a specialised and and highly literary language (though simple) that was employed in a religious context. The Hebrew of today dates from the 19th century: it's based on, but not the same as Biblical Hebrew.

No language that survives for long remains unchanged, and I don't see personally what the practical use of a "pure" language that remains unchanged for centuries could be. A "pure" language is a dead language.

 

[Assyrian]

Nescio quid dicas

 

[Smidlee]

These are fantastic words worth reflecting upon

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.

According to the scriptures God was directly involved with both bringing both Adam into the world and the Second Adam; Jesus Christ. Both Jesus and Adam acted out of love with their eyes wide open. Jesus Christ was successful where Adam failed and was able to turn down Satan's offer.

 

[Smidlee]

God was warning Adam of spritual death i.e. the seperation from God when we sin against him...

I do agree that Adam die spiritually... thus Adam ran and hide from God but I don't agree God didn't mean phyical death. Adam life was spared just the same as King David life was. (the Law /Commandments demand death on both accounts) While God spared both David and Adam yet he also proclaim the heavy price of their sin as well. Both were forgiven.

 

[RichardT]

Let's look at these verse again, shall we?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I'm reproving evolution thanks to the bible, i'm correcting evolution thanks to the bible, and i'm instructing you not to believe in something that is not of the bible.

 

[Melethiel]

RichardT, look at the last two words in your quote. reproof, instruction, training, etc...in righteousness. Not in biology.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Well, ultimately he ate it and did die, so the bible is correct. I believe if he hadn't eaten it, he wouldn't have died - ever. I believe his death began that day where his Godly self and innocence died immediately he had eaten, resulting in his physical body beginning to deteriate and dying some time later.

Arguing why he didn't drop dead on the spot just seems like a waste of time.

Not a waste of time if you believe in a literal Genesis, since God did explicitly say "On that day, you will die."

If you take a more allegorical approach to the text, then it would be a waste of time. But literalists need to overcome this hurdle...and countless others... or literalism is shot.

 

[jereth]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That's what 2 Timothy 3:16 says in most Bibles.

Now, this is 2 Timothy 3:16 according to the New Revised YEC Version:

All scripture is given by dictation of God, and is profitable for the natural sciences, for chronology, for dating the earth, for instruction in history, that the man of God might be equipped for every scientific venture.

 

[jereth]

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.

According to the scriptures God was directly involved with both bringing both Adam into the world and the Second Adam; Jesus Christ. Both Jesus and Adam acted out of love with their eyes wide open. Jesus Christ was successful where Adam failed and was able to turn down Satan's offer.

A literal historical Adam is by no means fundamental to Christian doctrine, nor to the gospel. The Genesis 2-3 story conveys the truth about humanity, that it was created by God but has turned against him in sinful rebellion. This is the foundation of the gospel. Whether Adam was a historical person or not is irrelevant.

Genesis itself makes it pretty clear that Adam is not meant to be taken literally. In Genesis 1:27 and 5:2 the text literally says that God named both male andfemale "Adam". "Adam" is simply the hebrew word for "man" or "mankind". In Genesis 2 the man (adam) is created from the ground, "adamah". It is all a play on words.

The genealogies don't prove anything either -- by having "adam" at the start they simply teach that the line of men arose from generic humanity.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It strikes me that "it was written as history" is a poor argument.

I imagine 1000 yrs from now some bizarre cult arguing about whether 20th Century humans travelled to the stars.

Cultist A: Clearly they did. Asimov wrote that they did. It was clearly written as history.
Cultist B: They did not. We lack any archeological evidence suggesting such advanced technology as "hyper-relays". Sheesh.

 

[RichardT]

It strikes me that "it was written as history" is a poor argument.

I imagine 1000 yrs from now some bizarre cult arguing about whether 20th Century humans travelled to the stars.

Cultist A: Clearly they did. Asimov wrote that they did. It was clearly written as history.
Cultist B: They did not. We lack any archeological evidence suggesting such advanced technology as "hyper-relays". Sheesh.

No.

 

[Melethiel]

No.

No what?

 

[RichardT]

"I have no pleasure in any man who despises music. It is no invention of ours: it is a gift of God. I place it next to theology. Satan hates music: he knows how it drives the evil spirit out of us." -Martin Luther

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/didlutheruse.htm

 

[Melethiel]

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/didlutheruse.htm

Yeah, I know that Luther didn't use tavern music. But that's not what the quote is referring to, I really like that quote, and it's way off topic.

 

[mark kennedy]

A literal historical Adam is by no means fundamental to Christian doctrine, nor to the gospel. The Genesis 2-3 story conveys the truth about humanity, that it was created by God but has turned against him in sinful rebellion. This is the foundation of the gospel. Whether Adam was a historical person or not is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant to you and to you alone. The historicity of the Gospel and the historical Adam are strongly related. The New Testament is clear that Jesus, Luke and Paul considered Adam the first man. As much as you would love to marginalize the Bible as history you leave out one important consideration. The historicity of the Gospel and the historical Adam are intimatly related.

Genesis itself makes it pretty clear that Adam is not meant to be taken literally. In Genesis 1:27 and 5:2 the text literally says that God named both male andfemale "Adam". "Adam" is simply the hebrew word for "man" or "mankind". In Genesis 2 the man (adam) is created from the ground, "adamah". It is all a play on words.

Adam was called 'mankind' because he was the father of all mankind. Eve was called 'mother' because she was the mother of all mankind. Your semantics are without substance, relavance or merit.

The genealogies don't prove anything either -- by having "adam" at the start they simply teach that the line of men arose from generic humanity.

You really have no idea how a Biblical doctrine is founded do you? Let me clue you in, you look at the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament revelation of Christ in the Gospel.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The historicity of the Gospel and the historical Adam are strongly related. The New Testament is clear that Jesus, Luke and Paul considered Adam the first man. As much as you would love to marginalize the Bible as history you leave out one important consideration. The historicity of the Gospel and the historical Adam are intimatly related.

What are the doctrines reliant on an historical Adam?
federal headship?
original sin?
humanity has a soul?
the nature of the human soul?
humanity in the image of God?

pick one, or bring up your own specific one.
now explain why the theology of that issue REQUIRES an historical Adam.

 

[Jase]

It is irrelevant to you and to you alone. The historicity of the Gospel and the historical Adam are strongly related. The New Testament is clear that Jesus, Luke and Paul considered Adam the first man. As much as you would love to marginalize the Bible as history you leave out one important consideration. The historicity of the Gospel and the historical Adam are intimatly related.

Not necessarily.

Adam was called 'mankind' because he was the father of all mankind. Eve was called 'mother' because she was the mother of all mankind. Your semantics are without substance, relavance or merit.

No, Adam was called mankind because Adam is Hebrew for mankind. Adam is technically not a name, it's a Hebrew word.

You really have no idea how a Biblical doctrine is founded do you? Let me clue you in, you look at the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament revelation of Christ in the Gospel.

Says who?