Another possibility for the literalists

Vance · Jan 18, 2005

In the C&E forum, one of the longest running Creationists there, JohnR7, just had this to say regarding whether Adam and Eve were the first people (given the Cain issue, etc). While I don't agree with it, afterwards, I will discuss some possibilities he is heading toward (with some odd angles):

"Your right about the "Sherlock" because you really have to look for the clues in the Bible. It is sort of like trying to find the difference between two pictures to compare Gen ch 1 with Gen ch 2. There are a LOT of differences to be found. For good reason, ch 1 is a history of the earth, ch 2 is the history of the geneologies of the Hebrew people.

The only "man" before Adam was a male in the sense of a anthropoid. There were male and females, but Adam and Eve were the first man and women or the first husband and wife. This is when selective breeding began with the animals and crops also. In some places they still call the study of that husbandry.

The bottom line is this: Adam and Eve were historical people that lived around 5975 years ago. They are the common ancestor of all Hebrew people. Now if this were not true, then it would be easy for DNA and science to show that it was not true. In fact, Adam was also a common ancestor for many of the muslim nations in the middle east united together today under the Koran.

Needless to say science offers tons of evidence that there were people around before Adam and Eve. People that our DNA shows we were related to. So Adam and Eve were not the first in everything, but they were the first in a lot of things.

Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife there. His family line only lasted 8 generation up to Enoch and you do not here about him after that.

There are a lot of people today that have no relation to Adam and Eve. For example only 3% of the native american indians can trace themselves back to Isreal and the Hebrew people. The Hebrews called them Gentiles, Jesus called them "dogs". That is why we are adopted into the family of God because we are not a natural decendant of Abraham, and thus not a natural decendant of Adam and Eve."

Now, while I do not agree with this view, and some of it does have ring of the old time Creationist wackiness, there is some kernels that modern Creationists can consider, including that Adam and Eve were historical people, but not the first humans. They could be, however, either first "Man" in the sense that God did something special with them involving the soul, or that they were the first of God's "people", and I honestly can't quite get which of these John is advocating.

rmwilliamsll · Jan 18, 2005

that is the gist of the 2 adams idea.

1 adam in gen1 is generic mankind
2nd adam in gen2-5 is specific progenitor of Hebrews.

dick fisher has a book on the topic
origins solution
www.orisol.com but he hasn't renewed the dns name yet.

i've seen references back to the early 17thC, but have been unable to trace the idea back further.

the first time i saw the old earth/young adam was via Stephen Jones at:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html
he runs an active yahoo CED list. the archives there ought to have an explanation of his view.

California Tim · Jan 18, 2005

Vance said:
Creationist wackiness, there is some kernels that modern Creationists can consider, including that Adam and Eve were historical people, but not the first humans. They could be, however, either first "Man" in the sense that God did something special with them involving the soul, or that they were the first of God's "people", and I honestly can't quite get which of these John is advocating.

Hogwash:

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. (1 Cor 15:45-46)

I have another interesting twist that evolutionists might consider instead: God literally created the first man directly from the earth - instantaneously and independently of any other species. Why? because death was inherited by mankind as a result of Adam's sin:

Wherefore, 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: or until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless 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. (Romans 5:12-14)

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one...(Rom 5:17)
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men ..(Rom 5:18)
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..(Rom 5:19)

For the wages of sin is death...(Rom 5:23)
For as in Adam all die...(1 Cor 15:22)
And as it is appointed unto men once to die (Heb 9:27)

Vance · Jan 18, 2005

But Tim, you are assuming again that Paul MUST absolutely and without question have been referring to a literal historic human. Again, your dogmatic faith in your own interpretation, without the possibility that this interpretation could be incorrect is amazing.

As Didaskomenos said recently:

Paul's "by one man, so by one man" was great rhetoric, true whether the first man was literal or not. As we often say around here (or I do, anyway), Paul's analogy would be just as true if he had said, "Just as from one box (Pandora's), death and sin entered the world, so from one box (the tomb) sprang life and redemption from sin." Illuminating a truth by setting it along side (Gk. parabole) a non-historical story is precisely what Jesus' parables do.

California Tim · Jan 18, 2005

Vance said:
But Tim, you are assuming again that Paul MUST absolutely and without question have been referring to a literal historic human. Again, your dogmatic faith in your own interpretation, without the possibility that this interpretation could be incorrect is amazing.

As Didaskomenos said recently:

Paul's "by one man, so by one man" was great rhetoric, true whether the first man was literal or not. As we often say around here (or I do, anyway), Paul's analogy would be just as true if he had said, "Just as from one box (Pandora's), death and sin entered the world, so from one box (the tomb) sprang life and redemption from sin." Illuminating a truth by setting it along side (Gk. parabole) a non-historical story is precisely what Jesus' parables do.

I'm afraid you have few more theological and hermeneutical hurdles to jump on the way to your interpretation than I do mine. This is expecially true in light of passages where Adam and Christ are mentioned "IN THE SAME SENTENCE and CONTEXT". And what about the geneaology of ADAM to MOSES? Are we to start with a figurative person only to end up with a literal historical one? What does Christianity become... like mythology, where mythical gods give birth to literal humans?

Vance · Jan 18, 2005

Tim, why do you do this? Each of the three points you raise have been addressed in other threads you were involved in. Yet, you raise them now as if they have NOT been addressed. You may not agree with the responses given, but it is improper to just raise the same issue again as if it is new and has not been dealt with in some manner.

Instead, you should respond directly to what has already been said by me and other TE's on those very issues. Even if you say "I just don't buy your explanation that X because . . ." or "you say this must mean X, but I disagree because . . ."

You do not do this however.

And, no, there is actually MUCH less of a hermenuetical issue with a figurative reading when you consider the contradictions between the two creation accounts, the Cain problem, the literary style issues, etc. All of these require convoluted work-arounds that are simply implausible at best.

Remus · Jan 18, 2005

Vance said:
There are a lot of people today that have no relation to Adam and Eve. For example only 3% of the native american indians can trace themselves back to Isreal and the Hebrew people. The Hebrews called them Gentiles, Jesus called them "dogs". That is why we are adopted into the family of God because we are not a natural decendant of Abraham, and thus not a natural decendant of Adam and Eve."

I would just like to point out that tracing back to Abraham doesnt preclude the possibility of decent from Adam and Eve. There are nine generations between Shem and Abraham alone. Then there are the lines of Ham and Japheth that should be considered.

California Tim · Jan 18, 2005

Vance said:
Tim, why do you do this? Each of the three points you raise have been addressed in other threads you were involved in. Yet, you raise them now as if they have NOT been addressed. You may not agree with the responses given, but it is improper to just raise the same issue again as if it is new and has not been dealt with in some manner.

Instead, you should respond directly to what has already been said by me and other TE's on those very issues. Even if you say "I just don't buy your explanation that X because . . ." or "you say this must mean X, but I disagree because . . ."

You do not do this however.

And, no, there is actually MUCH less of a hermenuetical issue with a figurative reading when you consider the contradictions between the two creation accounts, the Cain problem, the literary style issues, etc. All of these require convoluted work-arounds that are simply implausible at best.

Each and every intance of my posts on this topic are in direct reesponse to your repetitive accusations of my motives. Not one is a preemptive statement, but a response to you. If you wish to have me cease answering, then please consider ceasing your strawman argument based on my motivation, rather thanthe topic at hand. If you feel Adam is figurative, provide documentation other than references to other posters, medieval prevailing thought or otherwise. Show me the Biblical support for your position as I continually offer you such to no avail.

Vance · Jan 18, 2005

Well, first I want to make sure all realize that the quote Remus cites is not actually my words, but words I quoted from JohnR7. But, yes, the Bible does not mandate that the rest of the world could not have descended through the others, only that many Creationists do not feel that it mandates that all descended from Adam either. The problem with the "all from Adam" viewpoint is that it provides no reasonable explanation of the Cain issue, for one thing, or the obvious contradictions between the two accounts of Creation.

Remus · Jan 18, 2005

Vance said:
The problem with the "all from Adam" viewpoint is that it provides no reasonable explanation of the Cain issue, for one thing, or the obvious contradictions between the two accounts of Creation.

Vance, these points were addressed in another thread that you were involved in. Yet you raise them again as if they have NOT been addressed. You may not agree with the responses given, but it is improper to just raise the same issue again as if it is new and has not been dealt with in some manner.

mhess13 · Jan 18, 2005

California Tim said:
Hogwash:

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. (1 Cor 15:45-46)
I have another interesting twist that evolutionists might consider instead: God literally created the first man directly from the earth - instantaneously and independently of any other species. Why? because death was inherited by mankind as a result of Adam's sin:
Wherefore, 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: or until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless 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. (Romans 5:12-14)

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one...(Rom 5:17)
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men ..(Rom 5:18)
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..(Rom 5:19)

For the wages of sin is death...(Rom 5:23)
For as in Adam all die...(1 Cor 15:22)
And as it is appointed unto men once to die (Heb 9:27)

Nice post Tim!

Vance · Jan 18, 2005

Remus said:
Vance, these points were addressed in another thread that you were involved in. Yet you raise them again as if they have NOT been addressed. You may not agree with the responses given, but it is improper to just raise the same issue again as if it is new and has not been dealt with in some manner.

Have they? I must not have seen them. If you would be so kind as to link those threads which provide a discussion about how these conflicts are worked out, I would be happy to address them.

Vance · Jan 18, 2005

California Tim said:
Each and every intance of my posts on this topic are in direct reesponse to your repetitive accusations of my motives. Not one is a preemptive statement, but a response to you. If you wish to have me cease answering, then please consider ceasing your strawman argument based on my motivation, rather thanthe topic at hand. If you feel Adam is figurative, provide documentation other than references to other posters, medieval prevailing thought or otherwise. Show me the Biblical support for your position as I continually offer you such to no avail.

First of all, I HAVE provided Biblical support for my position, and you keep saying that I haven't.

Second, you keep making your same original statement, without responding to the rebuttal. For example, here are the three points you raise once again in your earlier post:

1. Paul refers to both Adam and Christ. This has been responded to, but rather than address the response, you just make this same point.

2. You raise the issue of the genealogies. Again, we have discussed this at length, but rather than address the rebuttal, you just raise the same point again, as if it hasn't been responded to.

3. The merging of myth and literal history. Once again, we have provided detailed responses to this point, and you just continue to make the same statement AS IF they have not been addresssed at all.

I don't see why you do this. Even if you had adequately responded elsewhere, you could at least point to that rather than just act as if you are making an original and unanswered comment.

Remus · Jan 18, 2005

Vance said:
Have they? I must not have seen them. If you would be so kind as to link those threads which provide a discussion about how these conflicts are worked out, I would be happy to address them.

Address them? Thought you had.

Here's the most recent:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1117726-cain-and-his-sister-and-other-issues.html

Here's where you posted the same thing almost a year before:
http://www.christianforums.com/t70883&page=2

And here's the same post a couple of months before that:
http://www.christianforums.com/t55680&page=1

Vance · Jan 18, 2005

Yes, but those discussions just get to the "workarounds" I was mentioning (if not here, then in another thread, I tend to get them mixed up). The difference is that I acknowledge that responses have been given and, unlike Tim, I have provided detailed rebuttals and discussions on the issue. The points Tim raises once again, he raises after NOT having provided substantive rebuttals elsewhere.

But you are right, I forgot to mention the previous detailed discussions on these issues. The point is that I HAVE replied in detail to the rebuttals.

mhess13 · Jan 18, 2005

Remus said:
Address them? Thought you had.

Here's the most recent:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1117726-cain-and-his-sister-and-other-issues.html

Here's where you posted the same thing almost a year before:
http://www.christianforums.com/t70883&page=2

And here's the same post a couple of months before that:
http://www.christianforums.com/t55680&page=1

Vance is like a scratched record isn't he?

Vance · Jan 18, 2005

With wave after wave of YEC's coming and then leaving like the tide, such repetition is necessary. Do you doubt that Paul taught the same sermons in each new city?

Vance · Jan 18, 2005

Remus, I do see your point, though, and I should have made more of a reference to the depth of the debate on the Cain issue at least. But I have raised these issues with Tim, and he has not responded to them at all, while I have dealt in detail with every point he has raised, which would be entirely unsuspected from the nature of his post.

California Tim · Jan 18, 2005

mhess13 said:
Vance is like a scratched record isn't he?

LoL... too true.

mhess13 · Jan 18, 2005

Vance said:
With wave after wave of YEC's coming and then leaving like the tide, such repetition is necessary. Do you doubt that Paul taught the same sermons in each new city?

Dude, you are not PAUL for the 3,987,123,769,235,001,235,984th time!
You're always comparing this "ministry" of yours with Paul's teachings. puh-leeeeeeze

Another possibility for the literalists

Contributor

avid reader

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Senior Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency