Genesis, Adam and What the Scriptures Teach

[mark kennedy]

John says chance doesn't exist.
The Bible says an archer hit King Ahab by chance.

It also says that God judged by famine and drought.

"And it came to pass after many days, that the word of The Lord came to Elijah in the third year, saying, Go, show thyself unto Ahab; and I will send rain upon the earth. And Elijah went to show himself unto Ahab. And there was a sore famine in Samaria." (1 Kings 18:1-2 KJV)​

It was predicted that Ahab would be killed in the up coming battle.

"And the word of The Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, which is in Samaria: behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, whither he is gone down to possess it. And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith The Lord, Hast thou killed, and also taken possession? And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith The Lord, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine." (1 Kings 21:17-19 KJV)​

That is not by chance, it was God's judgment.

I dunno, I'm not very good at choosing between fallible humans and the trustworthy word of God. I guess it has something to do with me being evolutionist.

Mark, when John MacArthur says something doesn't exist, and the Bible says it does, who should I believe?

You have some real problems reading things into both the scientific literature and the Scriptures. You choose out of nowhere one of the 'age of miracles'. There was Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha then finally Christ and the Apostles. All three periods were marked by an abundance of miracles like the one you pick out, seemingly at random. This is what John had to say about chance as it is used in evolutionary arguments:

Whether this world and its life as we know it evolved by chance, without a cause, or was created by God has immense comprehensive implications for all of human life.

So again I say, you're left really with two choices. You either believe Genesis or you don't. You either believe the Genesis account that God created the heavens and the earth, or you believe they somehow evolved out of random chance.

The materialistic view says, "The universe is created by chance, without any ultimate purpose." The Christian view says, "The universe was lovingly created by God for a specific purpose."​

This is the statement you are making such a pedantic mockery of:

I'm exposed to that as well, and they keep trying to make us believe that chance exists as a force. That everything by chance spontaneously generated. Nobel laureate, George Wald, brilliant man, I quote him, "One has only to wait, time itself performs the miracles. Given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable actually certain," end quote. What in the world is that? That is just double talk. That is absolutely meaningless. Self-creation is absurd no matter how much time because chance does not exist...it doesn't exist.​

Creation: Believe it or Not--Part 1

You either believe the Scriptures or you don't. You either believe the account of the generations of life, Adam, Noah and Abraham or you don't. You either believe the record of the prophets and the apostles with regards to God's interventions in human history or you don't.

I know what the Scriptures teach and what John said in his series, I concur with both because they are in agreement. What you are saying is contrary to the word of God and if you believe that Ahab died by chance then you either doubt or simply don't believe the clear testimony of Scripture.

It can't be predicted and then fulfilled and still be by chance, it's absurd.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[shernren]

It can't be predicted and then fulfilled and still be by chance, it's absurd.

But the Scriptures themselves say:

But a certain man drew his bow at random and struck the king of Israel between the scale armor and the breastplate. (1Kgs 22:34, ESV)
​

Yes, it was caused by God; but yes, it was also caused by chance. That is the only way I can read my Bible without cutting out 1 Kings 22:34. Or is every word of the Bible only inspired when it happens to fit into the straitjacket of your peculiar epistemology?

 

[Papias]

Papias wrote:

Among them, I didn't find the quote you mentioned from your reference - maybe I just missed it in those 19 pages. Do you know which page it was on?

Thanks-

Papias

Post your formal debate invitation and we can deal with this once and for all.

You really want to have a debate over where you got your quote from? Couldn't you just simply point it out?

Papias

 

[crawfish]

Well, I finished his lecture on day 4 last night, and it was interesting. He called Hugh Ross a TE and seems to be a bit confused over the differences between TE and progressive creationism, but I'll forgive that because from his point of view we probably all "look the same".

He has one mantra he's repeated often: "Science is not a valid hermeneutic". I found this a bit hypocritical in light of the strong concordist interpretations he has thrown out in each lesson. If science is not an interpretive method then how in the world can you say that "kind" is implying genetics?

The most interesting part of this lesson to me was his discussion of the meaning of "Rahab", the sea monster mentioned in Job and Isaiah. Most YEC's deny that this refers to any kind of mythological creature; MacArthur actually admits that the early Rabbis had been "infected" with outside thought, and the idea of Rahab was known to the biblical authors and used as a way to metaphorically make a point in poetic literature. He admits that it is a worldview that would have meaning to the contemporary audience; the bible's use doesn't validate a belief in that god, only that it contained meaning.

So close.

However, he uses this as proof-text to try and show that since the Genesis account avoids use of the name of Rahab, and in fact the names of any foreign Gods, Genesis 1 cannot possibly be metaphor. This is where his logic goes wildly wrong - there is no doubt that Genesis 1 avoids foreign gods and giving any divine nature to created things, but there is also no doubt that it references imagery that would be completely familiar to the contemporary audience (God hovering over a primeval ocean, the firmament, etc). Such imagery would have led to an affirmation of that early audience of things that were not true; either the account is wrong, or such accuracy was beyond its purpose.

However, I have had a number of Creationist acquaintances that have refused to accept that there is any foreign influence in any of scripture. I now can point to the most virulent among them to show evidence that there is. Thank you, John MacArthur!

 

[crawfish]

That is not by chance, it was God's judgment.

Also note that the Apostles "cast lots" to choose Judas' replacement, trusting that God would guide the choice.

You seem to completely miss the point. "Random chance" to us is not "random chance" to God. God uses the "random" to exert His will. This is an inescapable conclusion from scripture.

I have no idea why this simple idea seems to flummox you, MacArthur and the rest of the YEC world. You obviously believe that God works through randomness in nature, in weather, etc., because if you didn't then God would not be evidenced through anything that had a natural process behind it. If you accept that, then why is the idea of a "random" evolutionary process any different than random weather patterns?

 

[jckstraw72]

even if the Fathers wrote of figurative interpretations of Genesis this does not mean they didnt also believe in the literal level of Genesis. the Fathers saw many levels in Scripture, so you cant point to one of their interpretations to ignore the others.

 

[mark kennedy]

You really want to have a debate over where you got your quote from? Couldn't you just simply point it out?

Papias

Nope, I want to debate theology with you formally in a way you can't cop out on the rebuttal. It's at the bottom of General Theology under Formal Debate Invitations. Take your condescending tone there and we can discuss Romes real position on origins in a way you can't spam your way out of.

Of course your welcome to take it to the common forum, there is a formal debate forum there as well. I'm sure you'll get the customary bar room back slapping to encourage you along your way. Just bear in mind, you have no real argument either way.

One thing is for sure, your going to stop pretending that you have made a substantive argument I have not answered. Put up or shut up buddy or your going to just keep hearing about it.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

even if the Fathers wrote of figurative interpretations of Genesis this does not mean they didnt also believe in the literal level of Genesis. the Fathers saw many levels in Scripture, so you cant point to one of their interpretations to ignore the others.

The whole issue of Adam being our first parent comes down to a simple theological concept.

Original Sin Explained and Defended

 

[gluadys]

The whole issue of Adam being our first parent comes down to a simple theological concept.

Original Sin Explained and Defended

So, then what about evolutionary Christians who agree that Adam in our first parent?

And what about evolutionary Christians (including those who see Adam figuratively) but agree with the theological concept of original sin?

You want to bring this down to a simple choice of Adam and original sin or the evolutionary origin of humankind without either Adam or original sin.


But that is clearly a false dichotomy.

 

[shernren]

'sokay, gluadys, he has no issues with your theology.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Papias wrote:

You really want to have a debate over where you got your quote from? Couldn't you just simply point it out?

Papias

Nope,

So let me get this straight. You claim a quote and supply a source. I look at that source and don't see that quote anywhere, so ask you to point out where it is - and you have again refused?

I want to debate theology with you formally in a way you can't cop out on the rebuttal. It's at the bottom of General Theology under Formal Debate Invitations. Take your condescending tone there and we can discuss Romes real position on origins in a way you can't spam your way out of.

One thing is for sure, your going to stop pretending that you have made a substantive argument I have not answered. Put up or shut up buddy or your going to just keep hearing about it.

My, it's always refreshing to read your cordial posts. I feel the love......

Of course your welcome to take it to the common forum, there is a formal debate forum there as well. I'm sure you'll get the customary bar room back slapping to encourage you along your way. Just bear in mind, you have no real argument either way.

OK, if you want to debate, propose a debate and I'll look at it.

Papias
​

 

[mark kennedy]

mark wrote:

So let me get this straight. You claim a quote and supply a source. I look at that source and don't see that quote anywhere, so ask you to point out where it is - and you have again refused?





My, it's always refreshing to read your cordial posts. I feel the love......



OK, if you want to debate, propose a debate and I'll look at it.

Papias
​

Just go to the Formal Debate forum and post an invitation. Your the one complaining that I never answer your arguments, here is a chance to nail me down. If you want to debate theology then it's at the bottom of the General Theology forum, if it's the science involved then try Creation/evolution in the Physical and Life Science section in the common forums.

Regardless of the subject matter you want to debate I have standing invitations in both those invitation threads. Make your proposal and I'll see you in the formal debate forums, otherwise stop this insipid whining about how I don't address your questions.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

So, then what about evolutionary Christians who agree that Adam in our first parent?

If Adam is our first parent then we do not have ape ancestors. What do I think about evolutionary Christians, it's like fire and water. Either one is going to be extinguished or the other will evaporate. The only way you can reconcile the two is to define and defend what principles of historicity and epistemology you choose to make your own.

And what about evolutionary Christians (including those who see Adam figuratively) but agree with the theological concept of original sin?

I believe them to be compromised and directly contradicting the clear testimony of Scripture. What their reasons are vary from one to the other.

You want to bring this down to a simple choice of Adam and original sin or the evolutionary origin of humankind without either Adam or original sin.

No dear, it comes down to a choice between the Scriptures as evidential narratives regarding human and redemptive history and the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism. Original sin is inescapable not because Genesis is an historical narrative, it is, but that is not what makes it so central to Christian theism. It's because Paul identifies the origin of sin and calls him by name, Adam. This happens in Paul's most exhaustive exposition of the Gospel.

But that is clearly a false dichotomy.

You can rationalize it away but it comes down to whether or not you believe Genesis, not how you interpret it. But I still love you, we are all looking at the things of God through a glass darkly but the days is coming when we will see Him as He is.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

Just go to the Formal Debate forum and post an invitation.

Sounds good. I'll get to it in the next week (church functions friday & today, played with the kids yesterday).

Your the one complaining that I never answer your arguments, here is a chance to nail me down.

mark, since you've repeatedly ignored questions and failed to address clear answers, of course you can do that as well in a debate forum as here. I'm under no illusions that your behavior will be any different.

otherwise stop this insipid whining

I hear more and more from the teens that they see Christianity as being about insulting people, and that they don't want anything to do with it. At first I was a little confused, but you make it so much easier to understand them.

about how I don't address your questions.

As long as you don't address the questions, whether that is in a debate or another forum, I certainly may still point that out, regardless of whether or not you also did so in a debate forum.

Have a good Sunday though-

Papias

 

[philadiddle]

What the Scriptures actually teach regarding Adam and other historical aspects of Genesis is vital to our understanding of Origins Theology. I have covered these Scriptures and issues over and over again, it seemed like it was time to put them all in one thread. Before the advent of Darwinism this simply was not an issue, other aspects of Genesis and the Pauline doctrine of original sin were but not our lineage.

He (Lamarck) first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Preface)​

Darwinism is one long argument against special creation, all evolutionists who are honest emphasis this point. It's based on naturalistic assumptions as opposed to what Darwin called 'miraculous interposition'. The creation of Adam would have been a 'miraculous interposition' but Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

Paul says repeatedly that sin was the result of one sin/trespass and Paul identifies that man as Adam.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (II Peter 3:15.16)​

The Scriptures are crystal clear, in Adam all sinned and there is no orthodox Christian doctrine to the contrary.

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) or as shernen said it, Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

Because the King James Bible translates tupos (G5179 τύπο&#962 as 'figure' some folks thinks it means that Adam is a figure of speech.

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 5:14)​

This is not how that word is used in the original. The word actually means:

From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type”), that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)

tupoi

1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do.
1 Cor 10:11, here it means literal people who murmured, same meaning.
1 Pe 5:3, here it means literal leaders of the church are examples not Lords.

tupon

John 20:25, Here it means the literal print of the nail in Jesus hand.
John 20:25, Here it means the same thing.
Acts 7:44, Here it means a literal pattern.Acts 23:25, Here it means the manner in which a letter is literally written.
Rom 6:17, Here it means a literal doctrine.
Php 3:17, Here it means a literal Paul and his companions.
2 Th 3:9, Same meaning here.
Titus 2:7, Here it means a literal pattern of good works.
Heb 8:5, Here is means literal Christians.

tupoV

Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal Adam
1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.

tupouV

Acts 7:43, here it means a literal idol, that represents a pagan god.
1 Th 1:7, here it means that literal believers are to be examples to other believers.​

Paul also makes mention of Adam in his first letter to the Corinthians. There is no indication that Paul is speaking figuratively of Adam:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)

Genesis

Antediluvian Period:

1) Historic 6 Days of Creation (Romans 1:18-22; Heb. 11:3)
2) Adam and Eve Created (Luke 3:38; Rev. 22:3)
3) Sin and Death Through Adam (Rom 5:12-21)
4) Wicked Cain Slew Righteous Abel (I John 3:12; Matt. 23:35)
5) Generations: Adam to Noah (Luke 3:23-38)
6) Antediluvian Period (Heb. 11:7; I Peter 3:19-20)
7) Flood Prevails for 150 Days (II Peter 2:5; Luke 12:27)​

From Noah to Abram:

8) Waters Recede and Noahic Covenant (II Peter 3:3-10)
9) Repopulation: Shem, Ham and Japeth (Acts 17:26)
10) Generations: From Noah to Terah (Micah 5:6)
11) Tower of Babel and Shem to Terah (Heb 11:8-10)
12) Abram Called: from Ur to Egypt (Heb 11:15)
13) Abram and Lot Separate (Jude 18,19)
14) Abram and Melchizedek (Heb 7:1-22)​

These chapters are foundational to all of Christian theism and to discard them as anything other then historical is to abandon the original intent of the author. Given the fact that the New Testament confirms in no uncertain terms the historical nature of these passages skepticism of them is suspect. The profound theological principles inextricably linked to the sin of Adam and the judgment of the Flood makes historicity of Genesis essential to Christian theism. If arguments to the contrary exist then I have yet to see them except in the most superficial of rationalizations. Dismissing them as figurative does a grave injustice to the authority of Scripture and the Christian scholarship surrounding them for almost 2,000 years before the advent of Darwinism.

Grace and peace,
Mark

So you report my post about how Creationism is the cornerstone for some people's Christianity instead of the Gospel of Christ, and you have this thread in here?

I won't report your post for the fact that it takes an entire group of Christians and calls them dishonest and then says that they aren't really Christians, because I don't censor people with different perspectives. I'm sure you'll report this post though, because that's just how you roll.

 

[Papias]

mark, I proposed the debate here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7553634/

also, I'm still interested if you'd like to point out where in your source you got that quote from.

Thanks, and have a good day-

Papias

 

[Jazer]

If Adam is our first parent then we do not have ape ancestors.

Adam was the first Hebrew. Actually many Arabs and Hebrews trace themselves back to Abraham. The Bible traces the geneology from Abraham back to Adam. This is the J Haplogroup, the group where you find the beginning of farming and civilization. A lot of the research is being done at the University of Jerusalem. Also there is a lot of work being done on the I Haplogroup that had the Vikings and Normans.

 

[mark kennedy]

So you report my post about how Creationism is the cornerstone for some people's Christianity instead of the Gospel of Christ, and you have this thread in here?

I won't report your post for the fact that it takes an entire group of Christians and calls them dishonest and then says that they aren't really Christians, because I don't censor people with different perspectives. I'm sure you'll report this post though, because that's just how you roll.

Christ being the Creator is a part of the Gospel, the opening verses of John, Hebrews and other books makes this abundantly clear. I personally am neither impressed nor am I intimidated with you telling me you consider creationism to be idolatrous since I know better. I can make a much stronger argument from the Scriptures and evolutionist literature that the opposite is more the case.

Report anything to believe to be a violation of the rules, I have no problem with that. I report what I feel the moderators need to be made aware of and since they have censored threads like the one you started before, including my own, I reported it.

I actually liked some of the things you were trying to say and think you could make those points effectively. The thing is you have been encouraged to do it in a confrontational and condescending way. I suggest you rethink the points you were trying to make and take another pass at it, this time without casting aspersions.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Adam was the first Hebrew. Actually many Arabs and Hebrews trace themselves back to Abraham. The Bible traces the geneology from Abraham back to Adam. This is the J Haplogroup, the group where you find the beginning of farming and civilization. A lot of the research is being done at the University of Jerusalem. Also there is a lot of work being done on the I Haplogroup that had the Vikings and Normans.

Adam was the first man, the New Testament is crystal clear on that.

 

[philadiddle]

Christ being the Creator is a part of the Gospel, the opening verses of John, Hebrews and other books makes this abundantly clear. I personally am neither impressed nor am I intimidated with you telling me you consider creationism to be idolatrous since I know better. I can make a much stronger argument from the Scriptures and evolutionist literature that the opposite is more the case.

Do you still think that TEs don't think God is the creator?

I actually liked some of the things you were trying to say and think you could make those points effectively. The thing is you have been encouraged to do it in a confrontational and condescending way. I suggest you rethink the points you were trying to make and take another pass at it, this time without casting aspersions.

Have a nice day
Mark

For what it's worth, I will swallow my pride and take this to heart.