for TE's historicity of OT people

[rmwilliamsll]

There are many here (TEs, and others) in the Christians forums who do not accept Adam, Abraham or Moses as being historical people. This conclusion was based off the people whom I have spoken with on this forum as a whole. (Christians)

From many posts within this particular forum, it seems like there is a large number who don't believe the OT is historically accurate.

So, I am asking, not accusing, people in this particular forum if they subscribe to the OT not being historically accurate or historical at all.

let's see.


options:
Adam is historical, Adam is not historical
Noah is historical, Noah is not historical
Abram is historical, Abram is not historical
Moses is historical, Moses is not historical

plus:
there is a generic adam in Gen 1, and a specific Adam in Gen 2-5


one of the things i think that YECists do not understand is that there simply is no party line, no consistency between those self described as some form of TE. The only common threads are theism and understanding the TofE.

I think that Adam lived somewhere just after the Neolithic revolution about 12K BC.
i prefer a historical Adam because that makes the theology a lot easier, and acts as a bulwark against the documentary hypothesis and classic theological liberalism, sort of a branch on the slippery slope *grin* to hang from.

 

[BlackSaab52]

I voted that all four people were historical.

 

[Tevol]

These accounts can not be alegorical.
I think it´s not that difficult to differentiate alegory from thruth on the Bible by looking it in the context.
And I am with theistic evolution.
Why is it that the serpent can talk?
Why did Balanhan´s donkey talk?
Are dragons real?
How did the serpent walk by legs at the beggining?
Isn´t Genesis 30:34-43 about natural selection?

Dragons are the most similar we can get from dinossaurs.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

These accounts can not be alegorical.
I think it´s not that difficult to differentiate alegory from thruth on the Bible by looking it in the context.
And I am with theistic evolution.
Why is it that the serpent can talk?
Why did Balanhan´s donkey talk?
Are dragons real?
How did the serpent walk by legs at the beggining?
Isn´t Genesis 30:34-43 about natural selection?

Dragons are the most similar we can get from dinossaurs.

welcome. it is nice to see someone's first posting (with this login anyhow *grin*, boy does online debating cause you to think!!!).....


note:
the number of postings is actively filled in, when i read his post, it was his first posting on CF.....

Tevol
Newbie

Reputation: 10
Health: 100%
Blessings: 1
Posts: 1

 

[Dondi]

It's kinda hard to discount these figures when Jesus views them as historical.

 

[Mallon]

It's kinda hard to discount these figures when Jesus views them as historical.

How do you know that?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

have you ever quoted Steinfeld?
i did just several hours ago in this forum. i didn't post a cavet that Steinfeld was a TV show and not real.

have you ever discussed a novel? and referred to one of the characters by name? did you issue an immediate warning that this was not a real person?

have you ever referred to a corporation by name? a corporation is a legal person, it's name operates in conversation just like a real persons name, in fact, in court it is a person, a legal fiction, treated like a person. last time you remarked, see you at the walmart, did you think of the legal person status of the corporation?

have you ever referred to a dead person by name? they don't exist either.

i could go on and on but that would belabor the point, you can not use a reference in a verse to a person to prove the existence of that person in the mind of the speaker. you do it all the time.....

how about referring to a unicorn. you have a mental image, yet it doesn't exist. likewise all kinds of objects of the imagination.

how about the good samaritan did he exist?
how do you know?

 

[Dondi]

How do you know that?

Adam - Matthew 1 (in the geneology), Matthew 19:5 (Jesus alludes to Genesis 2:24 after the creation of Eve)

Noah - Matt. 24:37, Luke 17:27

Abraham - John 8:58, Mark 12:26, Luke 16, Luke 13:28

Moses - Matthew 8:4, 17:3 (Jesus actually transfigured with Moses), 19:7, A host of others.

Plus the NT writers had references to all these figures.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Adam - Matthew 1 (in the geneology), Matthew 19:5 (Jesus alludes to Genesis 2:24 after the creation of Eve)


i'm only concerned with Adam.
Jesus didn't write the geneologies.
therefore to say that he spoke or referred to them is an error.

so you have Matt 19:5
Mat 19:3 {Some} Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful {for a man} to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
Mat 19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created {them} from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
Mat 19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
Mat 19:6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
Mat 19:7 They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND {her} AWAY?"
Mat 19:8 He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

where does Jesus say Adam was an historical man? exactly?
it appears to me to be a pattern, a great motif
an analogy of marriage today to marriage in the beginning.

 

[Willtor]

I have no idea with respect to Adam and Noah. It seems plausible. All of the stories of people in Genesis are legendary. Whether this implies fact is another question. I tend to think Abraham and Moses existed. But if you press me on Abraham, I don't think I'll be able to come up with anything better than my gut feeling based on the stories of and current state of the Jews and the Arabs.

I think Moses was a factual person. I think he wrote the Torah (or, at least, a large part of it). There are references to his writings, leading me to think they exist in some form in our Scriptures. I used to be a proponent of JEPD, but I'm not as confident after reading Walter Kaiser Jr.

Jesus' genealogies are certainly significant. But they tie into the ancient saga just as we should expect of them. It is not so important, to my mind, that Adam was a man in fact, but that Jesus' death and resurrection was for all. To be sure, all are related in a very factual sense (we're all the same species), but I don't think this was Luke's point.

As to Jesus' sayings, certainly we can say that he (as with all ancient people) valued myth, as it was. Did he distinguish myth from history? Probably not.

 

[chaoschristian]

With regard to Adam, I hold that reference to such is symbolic.

With regard to Noah, I hold that reference to such is fictionalized.

With regard to Abraham and Moses, I hold that references to such are legendary, with basis in historical fact (although none that we will ever discover for direct examination.)

 

[gluadys]

let's see.


options:
Adam is historical, Adam is not historical
Noah is historical, Noah is not historical
Abram is historical, Abram is not historical
Moses is historical, Moses is not historical

I find this too much of a straight-jacket. In one sense, I would say that none of the figures, as presented to us in scripture, is historical, because there is so much legendary accretion to the story. But, with the exception of Adam, I would also say that all of them could be historical. Not that I think Noah, per se, existed, but that somebody who survived a flood may have existed and became the historical prototype for the legendary Noah of scripture.

It would be good to have a poll that allowed respondents to indicate a level of probability rather than a forced choice. I don't know if CF has such a poll format.

plus:
there is a generic adam in Gen 1, and a specific Adam in Gen 2-5

Can you elaborate your thinking here? I don't see why the Adam of Gen. 2-5 would necessarily be any more specific that that of Gen. 1. I think of that Adam as being entirely generic as well.

 

[chaoschristian]

It would be good to have a poll that allowed respondents to indicate a level of probability rather than a forced choice. I don't know if CF has such a poll format.

What we need is a real survey tool and not a pop poll. Then we could start asking questions to real data.

 

[Willtor]

What we need is a real survey tool and not a pop poll. Then we could start asking questions to real data.

Sweet! And we could calculate margin of error and certainty. Of course, with only 20 people responding to a given poll, it wouldn't mean much. Also, I don't know that we're a very random sampling of TE's.

Oh, well. I enjoy calculations, anyway.

 

[Dondi]

Adam - Matthew 1 (in the geneology), Matthew 19:5 (Jesus alludes to Genesis 2:24 after the creation of Eve)


i'm only concerned with Adam.
Jesus didn't write the geneologies.
therefore to say that he spoke or referred to them is an error.

so you have Matt 19:5
Mat 19:3 {Some} Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful {for a man} to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
Mat 19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created {them} from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
Mat 19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
Mat 19:6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
Mat 19:7 They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND {her} AWAY?"
Mat 19:8 He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

where does Jesus say Adam was an historical man? exactly?
it appears to me to be a pattern, a great motif
an analogy of marriage today to marriage in the beginning.

By quoting Genesis 2, particularly in the same passage where Adam and Eve are created, Jesus is essentially validating Genesis. Matt 19:4 even mentions "He who created them", namely God creating Adam and Eve.

Or maybe you have problems with the historicality of Jesus as well?

 

[chaoschristian]

By quoting Genesis 2, particularly in the same passage where Adam and Eve are created, Jesus is essentially validating Genesis. Matt 19:4 even mentions "He who created them", namely God creating Adam and Eve.

Or maybe you have problems with the historicality of Jesus as well?

That's right, Genesis is a myth; therefore the entire Bible is untrue, Jesus is a dirty liar, and God's a Mason (but he can't tell you that because you don't know the secret hand-shake.)

 

[gluadys]

By quoting Genesis 2, particularly in the same passage where Adam and Eve are created, Jesus is essentially validating Genesis.

But what, precisely, is he validating? I see nothing here which validates Gen. 2 as history. I do see Jesus validating Gen. 2 as a source of ethical teaching.

Matt 19:4 even mentions "He who created them", namely God creating Adam and Eve.

Well, no one is disputing that anyway.

Or maybe you have problems with the historicality of Jesus as well?

No. Why does that cross your mind?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

By quoting Genesis 2, particularly in the same passage where Adam and Eve are created, Jesus is essentially validating Genesis. Matt 19:4 even mentions "He who created them", namely God creating Adam and Eve.

Or maybe you have problems with the historicality of Jesus as well?

i really wish that people who were self-identified as literalists would pay closer attention to the text.

what does the text say?
don't you know it is written.
Jesus is quoting Genesis.
why, for what purpose, what is he intending to accomplish?
He is drawning an analogy, in the process of building a case for the oneness of marriage.

now if, Gen 2 is essentially the creation ordinance establishing marriage then this is exactly the way to do it, allusion to the beginning and for the big reasons.

does it mention Adam and Eve.
not by name.

does it require Adam and Eve to be historical?
no, especially not in the modern 21st C ideals which have been evolving in our societies and cultures for about 350 years. and are still being worked on.

so what does it do?
shows the high regard for both Bereshit and the Torah that Jesus consistently taught.


does it help in our understanding of Gen 1, 2-5 as either allegory or historical narrative, probably not, certainly not in the way the more literalists would propose.

 

[Dondi]

But what, precisely, is he validating? I see nothing here which validates Gen. 2 as history. I do see Jesus validating Gen. 2 as a source of ethical teaching.

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?

WARNING, WARNING: Hitler reference.

That would be like me saying that what Hitler and the Nazi's did was atrocious, but not believing that the Holocost was an actual event.

Well, no one is disputing that anyway.

Precisely my point, the creation of Adam and Eve should not be disputed.

No. Why does that cross your mind?

I'm just trying to gage the mindset in this thread in regards to biblical figures. If we don't wish to believe that all these OT figures existed, what stops us from disbelieving in the NT figures?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

By quoting Genesis 2, particularly in the same passage where Adam and Eve are created, Jesus is essentially validating Genesis. Matt 19:4 even mentions "He who created them", namely God creating Adam and Eve.

Or maybe you have problems with the historicality of Jesus as well?

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.