A question for Young Earth Creationists

[Assyrian]

The New Testament is clear that Jesus, Luke and Paul considered Adam the first man.

Actually, no. We read their statements as if they were referring to a literal man, but Jesus and Paul kept drawing allegorical lessons from the story. For Paul Adam was a figure of Christ. Jesus saw the story of Adam and Eve as an illustration of God's plan for marriage. While to Luke, Adam only crops up in the 'supposed' genealogy of Jesus.

 

[jereth]

It is irrelevant to you and to you alone.

Ummm, yes. Me alone. I guess those thousands of other Christians, some of whom are brilliant theologians and scientists, some of whom participate in this online forum, are just figments of our imagination.

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.

Show me where the NT says this please.

The historicity of the Gospel and the historical Adam are intimatly related.

Well let's agree to disagree then. We are both Christians, we both accept the (historical) gospel, we disagree about the interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Time to move on.

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.

I find it amazing that you can recognise the symbolism in these names, and yet think it's a literal story!

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.

And how does that make Genesis 1-3 a literal story?

 

[mark kennedy]

Ummm, yes. Me alone. I guess those thousands of other Christians, some of whom are brilliant theologians and scientists, some of whom participate in this online forum, are just figments of our imagination.

Speaking of brilliant theologians:


We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. (Summa Theologiae Thomas Aquinas, 1225–74)

Nothing is to be accepted save on the authority of Scripture, since greater is that authority than all the powers of the human mind. (Commentary on the Book of Genesis Augustine, 354–430)

Show me where the NT says this please.

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

Well let's agree to disagree then. We are both Christians, we both accept the (historical) gospel, we disagree about the interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Time to move on.

Ok fine...

I find it amazing that you can recognise the symbolism in these names, and yet think it's a literal story!

I can't belive you think literal and figurative are mutually exclusive.

And how does that make Genesis 1-3 a literal story?

Do you know how many events are described in Genesis that are affirmed in the New Testament? Do you realize that the historicity of Genesis was never even an issue until modernists started secularizing Christian theology? There are ten narratives (not poems, not allegories, not visions, not dream interprutations) narratives are accounts of actual events. You really should learn a little something about the literary style before making sweeping generalities about a foundation text like Genesis.

 

[Smidlee]

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.

It's odd you stopped at Genesis 5:2 since Genesis 5:3 reads on "And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:" v4 "and the days of Adam after he begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters."

So you statement has been proven false as the scripture present Adam as real as Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, King David, Solomon, all the way to Jesus Christ. Again you can believe what you want but the scriptures does present Adam as a real historial person as any other person in the genelogies. I won't debate you anymore on this subject since obviously you refuse to accept how the scriptures are written.

 

[Smidlee]

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.

It's odd you stopped at Genesis 5:2 since Genesis 5:3 reads on "And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:" v4 "and the days of Adam after he begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters."

These verse clearly point to a real person having a real son named Seth who eventually died.

So you statement has been proven false as the scripture present Adam as real as Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, King David, Solomon, all the way to Jesus Christ. Again you can believe what you want but the scriptures does present Adam as a real historial person as any other person in the genelogies. I won't debate you anymore on this subject since obviously you refuse to accept how the scriptures are written.

 

[Smidlee]

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.

It's odd you stopped at Genesis 5:2 since Genesis 5:3 reads on "And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:" v4 "and the days of Adam after he begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters."

These verse clearly point to a real person having a real son named Seth.

So you statement has been proven false as the scripture present Adam as real as Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, King David, Solomon, all the way to Jesus Christ. Again you can believe what you want but the scriptures does present Adam as a real historial person as any other person in the genelogies. I won't debate you anymore on this subject since obviously you refuse to accept the scriptures as it was written.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Do you realize that the historicity of Genesis was never even an issue until modernists started secularizing Christian theology?


until Luther elevated the literal to prominence it was the least important of the 4 fold ways to interpret Scripture.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802841465/002-7260422-8725602?v=glance&n=283155

 

[RichardT]

My question to evolutionists is this, why not believe in creation? I mean, the evidence seems to support recent creation anyway..

http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Index_to_Creationist_Claims

 

[Jase]

My question to evolutionists is this, why not believe in creation? I mean, the evidence seems to support recent creation anyway..

http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Index_to_Creationist_Claims

Theistic evolutionists believe in Creation, we just don't believe in Creationism. There is no evidence of recent creation and your link doesn't support the notion.

I noticed all your threads on the Creationism forum Richard, and it seems to me that your entire faith rests on whether Genesis is literal. You seem to put up a front on this board, but on the creationism board, you seem plagued by problems with the YEC view.

Evolution and an old universe is not the end of faith. Stop relying on creationist propaganda to base your views off of.

 

[jereth]

Nothing is to be accepted save on the authority of Scripture, since greater is that authority than all the powers of the human mind. (Commentary on the Book of Genesis Augustine, 354–430)

If you really want to know what Augustine thought, then you should read this page:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html

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

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...

I can't belive you think literal and figurative are mutually exclusive.

I don't. However, the weight of evidence convinces me that the Genesis 2-3 story is mythical in its entirety.

Do you know how many events are described in Genesis that are affirmed in the New Testament?

Just because the NT references an OT event doesn't mean the NT writer is "affirming" that event as historical. It is the typology that is important to the NT writers, not the factual historicity of the event. The classic example is Jesus' reference to Jonah. The majority of scholars (conservative and liberal) consider the Jonah narrative to be parabolic/fictional. When Jesus refers to Jonah, he is making a typological comparison, not a historical or factual one.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you really want to know what Augustine thought, then you should read this page:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html

I'm aware of his interprutation and I've read Augustine before. The whole problem with this figurative vs. literal controversy is that it's mystifies the casual reader. He also embraced a metaphorical interprutation of the Song of Solomon when the text gives a clear narrative in the text. By the way, Augustine would never have rejected theology as science but would no doubt discerned the difference between natural and spiritual wisdom.

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.

I don't. However, the weight of evidence convinces me that the Genesis 2-3 story is mythical in its entirety.

That is both contrary to sound Scriptural exegesis and undiscernably different from the worldly philosophies of our day.

Just because the NT references an OT event doesn't mean the NT writer is "affirming" that event as historical. It is the typology that is important to the NT writers, not the factual historicity of the event. The classic example is Jesus' reference to Jonah. The majority of scholars (conservative and liberal) consider the Jonah narrative to be parabolic/fictional. When Jesus refers to Jonah, he is making a typological comparison, not a historical or factual one.

It most certainly does affirm an historical Adam, there is no substantive reason to believe otherwise. That line of interprutation applied across redemptive history does not give the slightest attention to God's work in human history. TEs will say they believe in this and that but I am not sure where they call a miracle a miracle. TE as far as I can tell is simply opposed to YEC and literal interprutations of Scripture.

When refering to Jonah he makes no suggestion that he considered this some kind of a fable. In fact He says:

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40)

Mark this, he said just as the Son of man was (literally) three days in the whales belly He would be (literally) three days in the heart of the earth. You sure picked an explicit text to use for an example, I don't know if you are that careless or just that bold.

 

[Melethiel]

Mark this, he said just as the Son of man was (literally) three days in the whales belly He would be (literally) three days in the heart of the earth. You sure picked an explicit text to use for an example, I don't know if you are that careless or just that bold.

Why does having one example be literal mean that the other must be literal? If I say, for example, that my hair is as long as Rapunzel's, does that mean that the story of Rapunzel is literal?

(Yes, I know it's not the best example, but bear with me.)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Isnip snip to address a single issue



It most certainly does affirm an historical Adam, there is no substantive reason to believe otherwise. That line of interprutation applied across redemptive history does not give the slightest attention to God's work in human history. TEs will say they believe in this and that but I am not sure where they call a miracle a miracle. TE as far as I can tell is simply opposed to YEC and literal interprutations of Scripture.

When refering to Jonah he makes no suggestion that he considered this some kind of a fable. In fact He says:

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40)

Mark this, he said just as the Son of man was (literally) three days in the whales belly He would be (literally) three days in the heart of the earth. You sure picked an explicit text to use for an example, I don't know if you are that careless or just that bold.

but Jesus wasn't in a belly of a whale for 3 days.
the link between the 2 events is it's not literal it is metaphorical and analogical.

a whale is not the earth.
the connection between the two events is "typical"* as in an archtype, one (the whale) is a foreshadowing of the another (in the grave) in the same way that baptism is a cleansing and a recapitulation of the death of Christ. But here as well the connection itself is not physical or literal it is metaphoric and literary. It shows a substitution, a visual teaching tool for one thing (baptism) to symbolize another (death and resurrection) but symbols are not literal, are not exact, are not historical. They are metaphorical.


what you are doing is using a metaphor to prove that the 1st event is historical because the second event is. But the connection between the two events is not history, but a complex human symbolism. The Jonah event is a type of baptism, is a type for death and resurrection. So was my baptism as a child, but that doesn't make the symbolism historical or concrete, i was not literally dead and buried.

it is an analogy. So essentially you are taking a historical event(resurrection), using an analogy relationship (in the whale is to Jonah as death in the earth is to Christ) which can not be over-concrete or over-literal(death for Christ is to baptism and we do not die in baptism) since you know that the big issue is baptism not being in the belly of a whale, to show that the Jonah event must be historical.

odd sequence:
historical (death and resurrection of Christ)
big metaphorical point (baptism as death of believer to sin)
smaller metaphorical point (Jonah is type of Christ)
therefore Jonah event is historical.

when the sequence actually looks like:

Jonah event-->archtypic symbolism--->teaches us that Jesus' death and resurrection--->will be sufficient to clean and raise the believer to a new life.


notes:
Just because the NT references an OT event doesn't mean the NT writer is "affirming" that event as historical. It is the typology that is important to the NT writers, not the factual historicity of the event. The classic example is Jesus' reference to Jonah. The majority of scholars (conservative and liberal) consider the Jonah narrative to be parabolic/fictional. When Jesus refers to Jonah, he is making a typological comparison, not a historical or factual one.

same thing said a few messages back.

 

[Smidlee]

2 Kings 14:25 ( a book on Isreal history!) " He restored the coast of Isreal from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, accordding to the word of the Lord God of Isreal, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gathhepher."
Jonah as a prophet is in the Jewish history book just as George Washington is in American history books as the first president. Maybe George Washington was a fable yet it's not written that way in the history books.

 

[RealityCheck]

It most certainly does affirm an historical Adam, there is no substantive reason to believe otherwise. That line of interprutation applied across redemptive history does not give the slightest attention to God's work in human history. TEs will say they believe in this and that but I am not sure where they call a miracle a miracle. TE as far as I can tell is simply opposed to YEC and literal interprutations of Scripture.

When refering to Jonah he makes no suggestion that he considered this some kind of a fable. In fact He says:

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40)

Mark this, he said just as the Son of man was (literally) three days in the whales belly He would be (literally) three days in the heart of the earth. You sure picked an explicit text to use for an example, I don't know if you are that careless or just that bold.

Shakespeare frequently made references to mythical figures in his plays, and usually this was a metaphorical reference. They were meant to give an audience a quick, common reference to compare a character in the play to a well-known character from myth. To compare a king to Oedipus Rex, for example, would immediately tell the audience that this king is probably doomed to commit suicide when he learns a terrible secret about himself or his family. Invoking the names of Aphrodite or Hercules or Morpheus instantly brought up common archetypes of Love, Incredible Strength, or Sleep and Dreams. But that Shakespeare referred to them did not mean they were literal figures. Even in the historical plays, which dealt with real people and real events, Shakespeare would frequently refer to mythology for simile and metaphor. But that did not make the mythical into historical, or suggest that the author and audience believed in their literal existence.

So why can that not be the case with Jonah? Why can't that be the case with Adam and Eve, and Noah? Why is Jesus incapable of metaphor?

 

[Smidlee]

Shakespeare frequently made references to mythical figures in his plays, and usually this was a metaphorical reference...

The irony is Jesus of the Bible exposed hypocrities. (actors, pretenders) Jesus preached the scribe and Pharisees were the ones that wasn't real , not Jonah, Noah and the prophets.

 

[The Lady Kate]

The irony is Jesus of the Bible exposed hypocrities. (actors, pretenders) Jesus preached the scribe and Pharisees were the ones that wasn't real , not Jonah, Noah and the prophets.

Literally "not real"? Rather odd for people standing in front of him at the time...

 

[gluadys]

2 Kings 14:25 ( a book on Isreal history!) " He restored the coast of Isreal from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, accordding to the word of the Lord God of Isreal, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gathhepher."
Jonah as a prophet is in the Jewish history book just as George Washington is in American history books as the first president. Maybe George Washington was a fable yet it's not written that way in the history books.

Confusion of two different concepts: the historical existence of Jonah and the historical facticity of the biblical book of Jonah.

Jonah can be a real historical prophet and the biblical story about him can still be fiction. The same applies to books like Job, Ruth and Esther, all written long after the events they are said to portray and for theological, not historical or biographical reasons.

 

[Smidlee]

Confusion of two different concepts: the historical existence of Jonah and the historical facticity of the biblical book of Jonah.

Jonah can be a real historical prophet and the biblical story about him can still be fiction. The same applies to books like Job, Ruth and Esther, all written long after the events they are said to portray and for theological, not historical or biographical reasons.

Actually I'm not confused as I know about the doctrine of the Sadducees. Sadducees would accept Daniel , Jonah, Etc. as historical figures yet would have seen the book Jonah and many part of Daniel as nothing but fables. They would reject God resurrecting Jonah and Daniel speaking to angels and see them as nothing but myths.

While Pharisees believe more in the literal interpretion of the scriptures, this in itself didn't make them right with God. It should be noted that while I find in the NT where Pharisees getting right with God I can't find any mention of a Sadducee getting saved in scripture. Jesus came down hard on the scribes and Pharisees but almost totally ignore the Sadducees.

 

[artybloke]

2 Kings 14:25 ( a book on Isreal history!)

but mainly a theological interpretation of said history, not a history in the modern "get your facts straight" sense.