Genesis, Adam and What the Scriptures Teach

[Hairy Tic]

The case can be made decisively from the Scriptures, RCC dogma and the Early Church Fathers that Adam having ancestors is a modern view. This never occurred to the New Testament writers or the Church, Catholic or otherwise prior to the advent of Darwinism.

## Isaac de la Peyrere (Peyrerius) came up with the idea of pre-Adamites in 1655. I don't know the details of the idea.

Are we talking of literary Adam (in Genesis), or ancestral Adam (in theology) ? That an idea was not held in the past, does not make it wrong now. It may be without value, or it may be of great value. St. Paul did not have to answer questions about human biological origins; we need to. The fourth-century Fathers had challenges to meet which were different from those met by the Apostles. It never occurred to the mediaevals or the Reformers that there was an Australia.

Darwinism is a rejection of God and the supernatural in no uncertain terms, that is clear as well.

## The supernatural is not specifically relevant to biology. Bringing God into it serves no purpose, because that amounts to using God as an explanatory mechanism. Affirming evolution, whatever the level or degree of complexity, is not affected one way or the other by whether God was at work or not. If God exists, Darwinism leaves Him unchanged. If God does not exist, adopting creationism won't change that. THe study of biology needs a method appropriate to biology - one that is approriate to astronomy or mathematics, equitation or surfing or bungee-jumping, won't be any good. Neither are prayer, Bible-study, theology, or other religious matters. Different activities and different ends require different means.

BTW, something can be random from from one POV, and not random from another. For the theological discussion of evolution, it is no objection if Darwinism asserts randomness. An event can be random from a non-theological POV, but be full of significance from a theological POV. There is one event, seen from two POVs.

That means to accept evolution with the a priori assumption of universal common descent is to reject much of Scripture and Christian theism. It is by no means fatal spiritually but intellectually the two are mutually exclusive unless you can affirm God's supernatural intervention in human affairs as a matter of fact.

## I've never been keen on talk of "intervention" - for if God is the Creator of all things, no "intervention" is needed: God is present already. As to "supernatural intervention" (to keep with the word for simplicity's sake) - what would that be like ? As for any notion of appealing to the supernatural as a deus ex machina - no thanks.

I have seen this from theistic evolutionists only on the rarest of occasions. I worry about these people but I don't believe them to be at fault, I think they have been deceived. Who's to say we all aren't being led down the primrose path by speaking of things too wonderful for us.

1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
2 I know that thou canst do every thing,
and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge?
Therefore have I uttered that I understood not;
things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak:
I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear;
but now mine eye seeth thee:
6 wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

Job 42

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Here is a link to one of the best expositions of the most important theological texts in the Scriptures. Enjoy!

There are a host of important questions at the core of the battle that relatively few in either camp have bothered to ask—much less answer:

• Why is the issue of origins so universally controversial?
• How can creationists support biblical claims that so obviously seem to contradict modern science?
• Whose side of the argument does scientific evidence support?
• What roles should science and the Bible play in a person’s beliefs about the physical universe?

The Battle for the Beginning, John Macarthur

I'm anxious to hear what people think of the series.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Siyha]

Here is a link to one of the best expositions of the most important theological texts in the Scriptures. Enjoy!

There are a host of important questions at the core of the battle that relatively few in either camp have bothered to ask—much less answer:

• Why is the issue of origins so universally controversial?
• How can creationists support biblical claims that so obviously seem to contradict modern science?
• Whose side of the argument does scientific evidence support?
• What roles should science and the Bible play in a person’s beliefs about the physical universe?

The Battle for the Beginning, John Macarthur

I'm anxious to hear what people think of the series.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I think I might check this out. I read MacArthur's "Truth Wars" a couple years ago concerning the emerging church. His thoughts on creation should be interesting.

 

[Papias]

Mark, welcome back!

I didn't see a response to my last post on this thread, #38, where I asked you several direct questions. 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

 

[shernren]

I see your John MacArthur:

But let me tell you about chance. Chance doesn't exist, it's nothing...it's nothing. Chance is a word used to explain something else. But chance isn't anything. It's not a force. Chance doesn't make anything happen. Chance doesn't exist. It's only a way to explain something else. Chance didn't make you meet that person, you were going there when she was going there, that's why you met her. Chance didn't have anything to do with it because chance doesn't exist. It's nothing. But in modern evolution its been transformed into a force of causal power. It's been elevated from being nothing to being everything. Chance makes things happen. Chance is the myth that serves to undergird the chaos view of reality. (Creation: Believe It or Not, Part 1 (3/21/1999))
​

and raise you the Bible:

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)
​

I'm sorry, but on this topic he's just another random (heh) conservative slandering scientists (many of whom are Christians) when he himself has a tremendous gap in his theology of providence.

​

 

[shernren]

Reading through the transcript of Creation Day 3 (5/16/1999), I notice John MacArthur say:

Turn to Psalm 74. Psalm 74, first of all, and verse 13, here the psalmist is extolling God and in verse 12 he talks about God being his King from of old, his ancient King whose works, deeds of deliverance in the midst of the earth...who works deeds of deliverance in the midst of the earth. Then in verse 13, "Thou didst divide the sea by Thy strength...Thou didst divide the sea by Thy strength." In other words, it was You that created the sea. And he adds in verse 13 this most interesting statement, "Thou didst break the heads of the sea monsters in the waters."
​

After a long excursus about Rahab, he says:

What is so interesting to me about that is when you come to the Genesis account and the actual account of creation, there is no Rahab...there is no sea monster. There is no other existing power. There is no other existing force or existing deity in a sea monster form. What you have in Genesis is a very careful detailed believable real account of creation with nothing poetic, nothing legendary, nothing mythical whatsoever. And the very fact of that, I think, acts as a protest against those ancient myths which tended to corrupt even the thinking of Jews as time went on. ... There was no such battle. God said it and it was so.
​

Firstly, it's interesting to note that John MacArthur is using an idea from liberal theology! In a fundamentalist hermeneutic of Scripture, God simply says whatever He says: there is no need for the Bible to interact with any of the literature around it, much less contemporaneous religious myths. But the idea of comparing notes with Ugaritic myths came from the likes of Peter Enns.

But more importantly, John MacArthur says that Psalm 74 and Genesis 1 both speak of the same event, namely the initial division of waters into those above the canopy and those below. Moreover, he says that the exclusion of Rahab from Genesis 1 serves to reject the myths of the surrounding culture. If that is so, then why is Rahab in Psalm 74? If the earlier omission served to prevent deception, then surely the later inclusion can do nothing but cause deception! Or did it suddenly become okay to say that the sea could mystically resist God's power somewhere between Moses and Asaph?

So John MacArthur hasn't done his homework. Not only has he borrowed an idea from liberal theology wholesale, he has even managed to use it in such a way that he contradicts himself within the space of a few paragraphs. Sure, I can see that he is a passionate anti-evolutionist. But how much of it is misguided zeal, and how much of it stems from real reflection? You'll notice he gives lots of air-time to anti-evolutionists, and very little to what evolutionists actually believe. The few quotes he gets of evolutionists are either from the newspaper or from anti-evolutionist sources.

That tells me that John MacArthur wasn't serious about these sermons. Give me a pair of blinkers big enough and I can prove you anything. It is a little like forbidding someone to read anything but Das Kapital and Mao's Little Red Book, and then wondering why that person should reject capitalism. John MacArthur's resistance to evolution didn't result from his reading and reflection, it predated and shaped it; and while every man has the right to unshakeable biases, it is one thing to be biased and another to preach mere bias from the pulpit to millions.

 

[mark kennedy]

I see your John MacArthur:

But let me tell you about chance. Chance doesn't exist, it's nothing...it's nothing. Chance is a word used to explain something else. But chance isn't anything. It's not a force. Chance doesn't make anything happen. Chance doesn't exist. It's only a way to explain something else. Chance didn't make you meet that person, you were going there when she was going there, that's why you met her. Chance didn't have anything to do with it because chance doesn't exist. It's nothing. But in modern evolution its been transformed into a force of causal power. It's been elevated from being nothing to being everything. Chance makes things happen. Chance is the myth that serves to undergird the chaos view of reality. (Creation: Believe It or Not, Part 1 (3/21/1999))
​

and raise you the Bible:

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)
​

I'm sorry, but on this topic he's just another random (heh) conservative slandering scientists (many of whom are Christians) when he himself has a tremendous gap in his theology of providence.

​

Oh yea, he makes statements like that throughout the series. I just love the guy. I know you don't care much for traditional Christian theism but John does. I don't really like the fact that he is so taken by Intelligent Design, Creationism is more in keeping with the historicity of Scripture.

It's kind of annoying for me personally that creationists forget that the main issue is the creation of Adam.

Any way, glad you didn't like the series, that is very encouraging.

Thanks shernren, no matter how disappointed or discouraged I get with creationists you are always there to cheer me up.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, welcome back!

Thanks, haven't you been able to come up with new spam or is the old stuff too addictive?

I didn't see a response to my last post on this thread, #38, where I asked you several direct questions. 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. Otherwise there is no reason to keep chasing your fallacious arguments around the mulberry bush.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Jazer]

It isn't the Bible that's under question; it's how we interpret it.

Actually, a lot of the problem is how they interpreted the Bible 100 years ago. Today science helps us to understand our Bible better then we could before.

 

[Tim Myers]

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

What was Paul's background source?? Where did he receive his data?? What socio-religious influences might have affected his viewpoint??

"...how we inherited it exactly is not important..."

I would think that would be considered extremely important.
(Or are you merely saying that it is not important because you do not have a satisfactory explanation for it?)

 

[shernren]

I just love the guy. I know you don't care much for traditional Christian theism but John does.

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

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?

 

[crawfish]

Here is a link to one of the best expositions of the most important theological texts in the Scriptures. Enjoy!

There are a host of important questions at the core of the battle that relatively few in either camp have bothered to ask—much less answer:

• Why is the issue of origins so universally controversial?
• How can creationists support biblical claims that so obviously seem to contradict modern science?
• Whose side of the argument does scientific evidence support?
• What roles should science and the Bible play in a person’s beliefs about the physical universe?

The Battle for the Beginning, John Macarthur

I'm anxious to hear what people think of the series.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Thanks, Mark. It's always good to listen to the other side. It's very scary to me that such influential men can create so much antipathy among Christians based on strawmen, logical fallacies and complete misunderstanding of what they are talking about.

I'm going to give MacArthur the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to ignorance, because if he really understands what he is doing that is nothing short of evil.

 

[Mallon]

Gotta love how MacArthur describes the interaction between science and faith as a "battle".

 

[crawfish]

Gotta love how MacArthur describes the interaction between science and faith as a "battle".

I've had a lot of creationists approach me with John MacArthur quotes, so I've decided to listen to this series. It's pretty standard creationist drivel so far.

 

[crawfish]

Here's a fun quote:

"Could God have used evolution as a method to evolve the first matter? No, God couldn't have used evolution...because evolution is impossible!"

Did ol' John just limit God's power?

 

[Mallon]

Here's a fun quote:

"Could God have used evolution as a method to evolve the first matter? No, God couldn't have used evolution...because evolution is impossible!"

And so he's advocating creation ex nihilo as the alternative???

 

[crawfish]

And so he's advocating creation ex nihilo as the alternative???

Either he's not too bright, or he's counting on the fact that his audience isn't.

I have to think even Mark can see through his weak arguments. I have to think the only reason Mark likes this is because of MacArthur's no-prisoners-taken stance against anything but pure YEC. Which, of course, is the same as his stance on strong Calvinism and Dispensationalism, which makes him 0-3 in my book.

 

[shernren]

I only read the transcripts and didn't bother listening - did I miss anything?

 

[crawfish]

I only read the transcripts and didn't bother listening - did I miss anything?

I haven't read the transcripts, so I'm not sure. I'm 8 lessons into it (made good listening material while I painted the house yesterday). What astounds me most is how far he is willing to go to speculate on scripture, words and meaning to justify his hard-line beliefs. It's amazing how much massaging of scripture has to be done for something that is so plain and simple it cannot be taken any other way.

For instance, to get around the "bara" and "asah" issue of words in Genesis 1, he simply says that the latter is a simile of the former. This is the only way to prove that everything in the creation story was "poof'ed" into existence from nothing. He gives no textual proof or evidence, I guess it's true because he says it is? He even does this while glossing over words such as "let the earth bring forth...".

 

[shernren]

It's from the same home page (The Battle for the Beginning), just click on the "Read" links instead of the "Listen" links for each sermon.