Genesis, Adam and What the Scriptures Teach

[mark kennedy]

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

I've accepted your invitation and sent a PM to the moderator requesting he open the Formal Debate thread. When this has happened I'll get the opening post up shortly there after.

Honestly I'm have no idea what quote you are concerned with, try posting it along with the request for the source.

See you in the formal debate forum. In the spirit of the debate forums, may the truth prevail.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

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

So when Paul says "the second man is from heaven" he must be talking about Cain?

 

[ghendricks63]

...
Darwinism is one long argument against special creation, all evolutionists who are honest emphasis this point.
...

As much as I would love to debate your views with you...the one statement you made above is the reason why I won't. Like so many literal creationists, you let it be known from the very start that you consider those who disagree with your conclusions to be dishonest.

I have found no point in debating one who begins and proceeds on the premis of a lack of character in their opponents.

 

[mark kennedy]

So when Paul says "the second man is from heaven" he must be talking about Cain?

Paul identifys the first man by name, Adam. Paul identifies the second Adam as Jesus Christ. As usual you are twisting the Scriptures to mean something never intended by the authors.

 

[mark kennedy]

As much as I would love to debate your views with you...the one statement you made above is the reason why I won't. Like so many literal creationists, you let it be known from the very start that you consider those who disagree with your conclusions to be dishonest.

I have found no point in debating one who begins and proceeds on the premis of a lack of character in their opponents.

If all you are capable of is casting aspersions on the character of creationists, I assure you, there are plenty of TEs doing that already. These ad hominem attacks and other fallacious arguments are all too common.

Darwinism is one long argument against special creation, all evolutionists who are honest emphasis this point.

More importantly, what I am doing here is paraphrasing Darwin and Ernst Mayr. In Mayr's book 'One Long Argument' he suggests 5 theories being essential Darwinism.

1. Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2. Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3. Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4. Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5. Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation.

One Long Argument, Ernst Mayr

Like so many theistic evolutionists you makes scathing personal attacks before you even bother to learn what they believe.

Have a nice day
mark

 

[Assyrian]

Paul identifys the first man by name, Adam. Paul identifies the second Adam as Jesus Christ.

So when Paul said Adam was the first man he meant Adam literally was the very first man, but when he said Jesus was the second man, he didn't mean Jesus was literally the second man ever?

As usual you are twisting the Scriptures to mean something never intended by the authors.

Yes indeed, Peters warns us it is very easy to do that. But I am not the one trying to claim it is crystal clear 'the first man' has to mean Adam is the very first man ever, while in the same verse 'the second man' is Jesus who wasn't literally the second man.

 

[ghendricks63]

If all you are capable of is casting aspersions on the character of creationists, I assure you, there are plenty of TEs doing that already. These ad hominem attacks and other fallacious arguments are all too common.

LOL - Whatever man. Perhaps you could grow up and stop using such tactics in the first place. Treat people with respect and they are more likely to respect you back. Or keep on accusing your opponents of dishonesty.

My point stands...don't really care if you like it or not.

 

[Leetposter]

Good Word!

 

[crawfish]

Paul identifys the first man by name, Adam. Paul identifies the second Adam as Jesus Christ. As usual you are twisting the Scriptures to mean something never intended by the authors.

Irony | Define Irony at Dictionary.com

 

[mark kennedy]

So when Paul said Adam was the first man he meant Adam literally was the very first man, but when he said Jesus was the second man, he didn't mean Jesus was literally the second man ever?

He meant what he said and said what he meant.

Yes indeed, Peters warns us it is very easy to do that. But I am not the one trying to claim it is crystal clear 'the first man' has to mean Adam is the very first man ever, while in the same verse 'the second man' is Jesus who wasn't literally the second man.

Paul wasn't talking about the second man, he was talking about the second Adam who was a type of Christ. Both are literal persons, but the 1st and 2nd Adam are identified by name.

Your talking in circles around this obvious fact.

 

[mark kennedy]

LOL - Whatever man. Perhaps you could grow up and stop using such tactics in the first place. Treat people with respect and they are more likely to respect you back. Or keep on accusing your opponents of dishonesty.

I'll respond to my opponents as I see fit thanks. You have some nerve to respond to the OP by hurling random insults, which has been your sole contribution to the thread, then preach respect. That's after making off the wall remarks about people and things you know nothing about.

My point stands...don't really care if you like it or not.

You didn't make a point, you made a fallacious ad hominem argument.

In response to the carefully prepared OP your exclusive contribution to the thread you make these asinine remarks.

As much as I would love to debate your views with you...the one statement you made above is the reason why I won't. Like so many literal creationists, you let it be known from the very start that you consider those who disagree with your conclusions to be dishonest.

I have found no point in debating one who begins and proceeds on the premis of a lack of character in their opponents.

Certain of my opponents like to twist the meaning of the Scriptures to fit their world view rather then acknowledging the clear and originally intended meaning, I respond with expositions of the texts. I substantiate all such accusations and I neither enjoy nor do I take lightly this kind of criticism.

Your scathing indictment is unwarranted, unfounded and little more then a random trolling tactic. If that is how you intend to contribute to these boards you will find there is stiff competition among your Darwinian cohorts.

Frankly, I don't think you know much about what is being discussed and could care less. Keep it up though, the TEs on here depend on these trolling tactics to derail threads they don't like. Your sure to make fast friends with your Darwinian brethren on here.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

He meant what he said and said what he meant.

So you can't actually show that what he said meant what you claimed it meant?

Paul wasn't talking about the second man,

1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
This is Jesus isn't it? Paul hasn't suddenly switched back to talking about Cain? Is spite of your hand waving "He meant what he said and said what he meant", you haven't explained why Paul must have been speaking about the literal first man ever when he called Adam 'the first man' but calling Jesus the second man doesn't mean he was the second man ever.

he was talking about the second Adam who was a type of Christ. Both are literal persons, but the 1st and 2nd Adam are identified by name. Your talking in circles around this obvious fact.

Glad you recognise Paul's comparison of Adam and Christ in 1Cor 15 is using the sort of typological interpretation he referred to in Rom 5:14 where he described Adam and a figure, or type, of Christ.

Let's assume Adam was a real historical person, it still means Paul is speaking typological when he describes him as 'the first man' and Jesus 'the second man'. Your problem is you are taking a discussion about typology and treating it as if Paul was simply describing literal history.

Now Paul could have been basing his typological comparison on the historical fact of Adam begin the very first man, though as we have seen if that is the case, you have to deal with Christ being the historical second man. Alternatively, 'first man' and 'second man' are Paul's typological comparison of Adam and Christ, not a historical description at all, Adam himself may be literal history but Paul's description of Adam as 'the first man' isn't.

Which brings us back to your claim

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

Hardly crystal clear if you are mistaking a typological description for a literal one.

 

[ghendricks63]

You didn't make a point, you made a fallacious ad hominem argument.

Your scathing indictment is unwarranted, unfounded and little more then a random trolling tactic. If that is how you intend to contribute to these boards you will find there is stiff competition among your Darwinian cohorts.

Mark

The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. (wikipedia)

As is certainly the case here. My first post was to simply point out the futility of trying to argue anything with someone who accuses those who disagree with them of being dishonest. This is an EXTREMELY valid point that you would do well to pay heed to. Naturally...your responses have been directly in line with what I have come to expect from those who engage in such tactics and they completely confirm my first post to you...LOL

 

[mark kennedy]

The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. (wikipedia)

Yes I know and I use the ad hominem apologetic method all the time. Basically it is when you use sources that your opponent won't deny, the way a scientist can't really deny a peer reviewed scientific document.

What I'm talking about here is the constant personal attacks that are the bulk of TE contributions to these threads. It's fallacious and an abandonment of substantive reason.

As is certainly the case here. My first post was to simply point out the futility of trying to argue anything with someone who accuses those who disagree with them of being dishonest. This is an EXTREMELY valid point that you would do well to pay heed to. Naturally...your responses have been directly in line with what I have come to expect from those who engage in such tactics and they completely confirm my first post to you...LOL

Your not pointing out anything, your making a snap judgment based on raw assertion but your in good company, it's common on here. Now I do call people liars when they deny the evident and obvious. One of the point I have made repeatedly is that the latest research in Chimpanzee Genomics indicates the the Chimpanzee genome is no more the 96% the same as ours. Which is very puzzling since evolutionists will not admit this and instead propagate the myth that we are 99% the same.

At this point I don't know if you actually understand a single issue since you have not bothered to raise one. All you have done is to make unfounded insults your only line of reasoning. When I see this in the posts of people in these debates it tells me one thing, they have abandoned the actual evidence and no longer have substantive arguments to defend.

Fallacies don't make you dishonest, what they make you is gullible. There will always be evolutionists who happily encourage you to attack creationists with reckless abandon, that way they don't have to. They will just pop in from time to time and throw a few jabs in and leave the heavy lifting to those who are less informed.

Bottom line, when you resort to ad hominem attacks you can no longer be taken seriously. I don't think it's dishonest, I think it's poor substitute for a real argument. Some evolutionists know they don't really have an argument that stands up to close scrutiny, so they encourage ad hominem attacks.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

So you can't actually show that what he said meant what you claimed it meant?

Yes I can and I have repeatedly. None so blind...

1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
This is Jesus isn't it? Paul hasn't suddenly switched back to talking about Cain? Is spite of your hand waving "He meant what he said and said what he meant", you haven't explained why Paul must have been speaking about the literal first man ever when he called Adam 'the first man' but calling Jesus the second man doesn't mean he was the second man ever.

Paul isn't talking about Cain, Adam is named as well as Christ.

For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (! Cor. 15:21, 22)​

This is what happens when you habitually take the clear meaning of Scripture and distort the meaning.

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. (2 Peter 3:15, 16)​

Glad you recognise Paul's comparison of Adam and Christ in 1Cor 15 is using the sort of typological interpretation he referred to in Rom 5:14 where he described Adam and a figure, or type, of Christ.

Type yes, figure no.

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&#8221, that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)​

This is how the word is used in other passages:

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)​

What he is saying is that the literal and historical Adam was a 'type' of Christ. Typology is not a figure of speech and you know this.

Let's assume Adam was a real historical person, it still means Paul is speaking typological when he describes him as 'the first man' and Jesus 'the second man'. Your problem is you are taking a discussion about typology and treating it as if Paul was simply describing literal history.

No, let's assume nothing, lets' understand the clear message as it was originally intended to mean and stop distorting the Scriptures. Paul is describing literal history, there is no indication otherwise and you know it.

Now Paul could have been basing his typological comparison on the historical fact of Adam begin the very first man, though as we have seen if that is the case, you have to deal with Christ being the historical second man. Alternatively, 'first man' and 'second man' are Paul's typological comparison of Adam and Christ, not a historical description at all, Adam himself may be literal history but Paul's description of Adam as 'the first man' isn't.

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' you pretend it means that Adam is a figure of speech.

You actually try to argue that Paul is speaking of Adam figuratively Paul makes this statement regarding Adam:

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)​

Which brings us back to your claim

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

Yes it is clear but you can keep chanting your mantra of 'Adam is figurative' and no one will correct you, no one except me and 2,000 years of Christian scholarship.

Hardly crystal clear if you are mistaking a typological description for a literal one.

That's not a mistake, it's an evident and obvious fact. You have been shown enough times what a sound exposition of the text looks like and you insist and denying the clear testimony of Scripture. As many times as you do it I will show you what Paul means by what his words actually mean.

This is how you are trying to generate credibility for theistic evolution? By twisting the clear meaning of words to fit your philosophy of natural history? I think you have been betrayed by a world view that is based on assumptions that fold like a house of cards under close examination. The fact that you have the audacity to keep making an argument that has already been refuted tells me that you don't have a legitimate one.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Clockstopper]

Yes I can and I have repeatedly. None so blind...



Paul isn't talking about Cain, Adam is named as well as Christ.

For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (! Cor. 15:21, 22)
​

This is what happens when you habitually take the clear meaning of Scripture and distort the meaning.

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. (2 Peter 3:15, 16)
​

Type yes, figure no.

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)
​

This is how the word is used in other passages:

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)
​

What he is saying is that the literal and historical Adam was a 'type' of Christ. Typology is not a figure of speech and you know this.



No, let's assume nothing, lets' understand the clear message as it was originally intended to mean and stop distorting the Scriptures. Paul is describing literal history, there is no indication otherwise and you know it.



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' you pretend it means that Adam is a figure of speech.

You actually try to argue that Paul is speaking of Adam figuratively Paul makes this statement regarding Adam:

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)
​

Yes it is clear but you can keep chanting your mantra of 'Adam is figurative' and no one will correct you, no one except me and 2,000 years of Christian scholarship.



That's not a mistake, it's an evident and obvious fact. You have been shown enough times what a sound exposition of the text looks like and you insist and denying the clear testimony of Scripture. As many times as you do it I will show you what Paul means by what his words actually mean.

This is how you are trying to generate credibility for theistic evolution? By twisting the clear meaning of words to fit your philosophy of natural history? I think you have been betrayed by a world view that is based on assumptions that fold like a house of cards under close examination. The fact that you have the audacity to keep making an argument that has already been refuted tells me that you don't have a legitimate one.

Have a nice day
Mark

Dear Mr. Kennedy; thank you for all that. Your answers are very good. I have been reading the posts by 'Papias', 'Dark Lite', 'Assyrian', and 'Mallon' and their 'reasoning' has certainly poisoned the waters of this website that's for sure.

Thank you for standing up to them.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes I can and I have repeatedly. None so blind...

Perhaps you have, however your reply "He meant what he said and said what he meant." wasn't one of those repeated demonstrations that Paul meant what you claim he did.

Paul isn't talking about Cain, Adam is named as well as Christ.

For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (! Cor. 15:21, 22)

This is what happens when you habitually take the clear meaning of Scripture and distort the meaning.

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. (2 Peter 3:15, 16)

It is fascinating the way you keep quoting 2Peter 3 without any apparent awareness you might be the one distorting Paul. Especially when you cannot answer my question. I had just said that Paul was talking about Jesus. The question is, why did Paul call Jesus 'the second man' if he was speaking literally, when the second man was literally Cain? Because if Paul wasn't speaking literally, then your claim about Paul being crystal clear that Adam was the very first man, falls apart. But all you can do is claim Paul was speaking literally, without showing how Jesus could be the literal second man.

Type yes, figure no.

Like the passover lamb was a type of Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29. You may not like the term figurative, but John the Baptist wasn't speaking literally when he called Jesus a sheep. Paul was speaking in types when he said 1Cor 10:2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea... 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
These statements are not literal either. Jesus wasn't incarnated, or lithified, as a wandering rock, the Israelites didn't hold baptismal services on the banks of the Red Sea baptising each other into Moses. Paul is interpreting crossing the Red Sea as a type of our baptism into Christ, and he is interpreting the rock Moses struck to get the water as a type of Christ.

The issue you can't seem to get you head around is that while the passover lamb, crossing the Red Sea and Moses striking the rock are all literal historical events, the typological interpretation isn't literal and statements made giving a typological interpretation are not always literal literal either.

Which means that when Paul was interpreting Adam as a type of Christ in 1Cor 15, as you yourself admit he was doing, then even if Adam was a literal historical person, and Paul firmly believed Adam was a literal historical person, his description of Adam as 'the first man' and Christ as 'the second man' need be no more literal than saying Christ was the rock the Israelites drank from, or John the Baptist saying Jesus was a sheep.

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&#8221, that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)​

This is how the word is used in other passages:

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)​

What he is saying is that the literal and historical Adam was a 'type' of Christ. Typology is not a figure of speech and you know this.

You keep repeating that list of yours, yet when when I show you all the problems in it, you could not support you claim. The first time you gave a half hearted attempt at a defense and then gave up, link. The second time I challenged on it you never even replied, link.

Let's assume Adam was a real historical person, it still means Paul is speaking typological when he describes him as 'the first man' and Jesus 'the second man'. Your problem is you are taking a discussion about typology and treating it as if Paul was simply describing literal history.

No, let's assume nothing, lets' understand the clear message as it was originally intended to mean and stop distorting the Scriptures. Paul is describing literal history, there is no indication otherwise and you know it.

I said "Let's assume Adam was a real historical person" because I was looking at the problems in your argument even if you take Adam as a real person. And what do you do? You go on insisting Adam was a real person and ignore my actual argument.

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' you pretend it means that Adam is a figure of speech.

You actually try to argue that Paul is speaking of Adam figuratively Paul makes this statement regarding Adam:

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)​

So basically you just want to keep arguing Adam was historical rather than try to deal with the argument I am making? You should at least try to defend you claim "Adam was the first man, the New Testament is crystal clear on that" Why not answer my point instead of changing the subjecting. Here it is again:

Now Paul could have been basing his typological comparison on the historical fact of Adam begin the very first man, though as we have seen if that is the case, you have to deal with Christ being the historical second man. Alternatively, 'first man' and 'second man' are Paul's typological comparison of Adam and Christ, not a historical description at all, Adam himself may be literal history but Paul's description of Adam as 'the first man' isn't.
​

Yes it is clear but you can keep chanting your mantra of 'Adam is figurative' and no one will correct you, no one except me and 2,000 years of Christian scholarship.

That's not a mistake, it's an evident and obvious fact. You have been shown enough times what a sound exposition of the text looks like and you insist and denying the clear testimony of Scripture. As many times as you do it I will show you what Paul means by what his words actually mean.

Meh. You could try defending you claims instead of changing the subject all the time and just claiming you gave a sound exposition of the text.

This is how you are trying to generate credibility for theistic evolution? By twisting the clear meaning of words to fit your philosophy of natural history? I think you have been betrayed by a world view that is based on assumptions that fold like a house of cards under close examination. The fact that you have the audacity to keep making an argument that has already been refuted tells me that you don't have a legitimate one.

Have a nice day

Mark

Speaking of clear meaning of words, You never did get around to explaining how it is 'crystal clear' Adam was the first man, when the same verse Paul refers to Christ as 'the second man'.

 

[mark kennedy]

Perhaps you have, however your reply "He meant what he said and said what he meant." wasn't one of those repeated demonstrations that Paul meant what you claim he did.

Frankly Assyrian, yes he did. I know you are past the point of actually understanding the clear meaning right in front of you but you are grossly changing what Paul actually said.

It is fascinating the way you keep quoting 2Peter 3 without any apparent awareness you might be the one distorting Paul. Especially when you cannot answer my question. I had just said that Paul was talking about Jesus. The question is, why did Paul call Jesus 'the second man' if he was speaking literally, when the second man was literally Cain? Because if Paul wasn't speaking literally, then your claim about Paul being crystal clear that Adam was the very first man, falls apart. But all you can do is claim Paul was speaking literally, without showing how Jesus could be the literal second man.

He is talking about a literal Adam being a type of the second man, Christ. I have no interest in answering questions in circles but thanks just the same. What you have ignored is that the first and second man are named. You just pull Cain out of your hat based on your sophomoric begging of the question of what literal actually means. You preach a gospel skepticism and I don't know just how far that road goes. One thing is for sure, the first man isn't real to you and the second one is only mentioned in passing.

Like the passover lamb was a type of Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29. You may not like the term figurative, but John the Baptist wasn't speaking literally when he called Jesus a sheep. Paul was speaking in types when he said 1Cor 10:2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea... 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

Those were all literal events and typologies always are, that's the point. It doesn't have to be 'same as', the idea is of a pattern, like a die or a stamp. You know this, I've told you repeatedly and you pretend you don't understand it, or maybe, you can't.

These statements are not literal either. Jesus wasn't incarnated, or lithified, as a wandering rock, the Israelites didn't hold baptismal services on the banks of the Red Sea baptising each other into Moses. Paul is interpreting crossing the Red Sea as a type of our baptism into Christ, and he is interpreting the rock Moses struck to get the water as a type of Christ

.

The Baptism in the Red Sea was a passing through the water, nothing more. Christ was with them in the dessert and provided for them, the Rock was Christ because it produced water by Christ (check it out in Hebrews sometime). You really don't have a clue and as much as I would like to teach you some things you don't listen.

The issue you can't seem to get you head around is that while the passover lamb, crossing the Red Sea and Moses striking the rock are all literal historical events, the typological interpretation isn't literal and statements made giving a typological interpretation are not always literal literal either.

A typology is not a figure of speech, it has nothing to do with the interpretation and the historical/literal aspect is requisite to the Gospel and the canon of Scripture. To continually argue against the literal/historical aspect of the Scriptures and to be interested in nothing else in Scripture does not speak well for TE.

Which means that when Paul was interpreting Adam as a type of Christ in 1Cor 15, as you yourself admit he was doing, then even if Adam was a literal historical person, and Paul firmly believed Adam was a literal historical person, his description of Adam as 'the first man' and Christ as 'the second man' need be no more literal than saying Christ was the rock the Israelites drank from, or John the Baptist saying Jesus was a sheep.

Like all typologies, they are both literal. That's the clear meaning of the word and the texts involved.

Y

ou keep repeating that list of yours, yet when when I show you all the problems in it, you could not support you claim. The first time you gave a half hearted attempt at a defense and then gave up, link. The second time I challenged on it you never even replied, link.

That's not my list, that's from something you should learn to use, a Bible study tool. I don't care about those links, you have done this repeatedly and it's really nothing more then you repeating your bogus assertion that Adam is figurative. It's absurd and contrary to the Scriptures themselves.

I said "Let's assume Adam was a real historical person" because I was looking at the problems in your argument even if you take Adam as a real person. And what do you do? You go on insisting Adam was a real person and ignore my actual argument.

Adam was a real person and you don't have an argument, at least none that stands up to close scrutiny.

So basically you just want to keep arguing Adam was historical rather than try to deal with the argument I am making?

Because I study the Scriptures and you don't.

You should at least try to defend you claim "Adam was the first man, the New Testament is crystal clear on that"

I did, but this is the thing, being a theistic evolutionists means you don't have to use sound expositions of science, theology, the Scriptures or the facts related to the theory of evolution. All you have to do is to undermine a confidence in the reliability of the Scriptures as history.

Why is that?

Why not answer my point instead of changing the subjecting. Here it is again:

Now Paul could have been basing his typological comparison on the historical fact of Adam begin the very first man, though as we have seen if that is the case, you have to deal with Christ being the historical second man. Alternatively, 'first man' and 'second man' are Paul's typological comparison of Adam and Christ, not a historical description at all, Adam himself may be literal history but Paul's description of Adam as 'the first man' isn't.
​

Meh. You could try defending you claims instead of changing the subject all the time and just claiming you gave a sound exposition of the text.

Yes Adam is being used as literal, historical and typologies always are. This history is based on a special revelation, the redemptive history of God in Christ. Christian scholars and theologians have always understood that receiving Christ as Savior and Lord means worshiping him as Creator:

"To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness..."The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason." (VATICAN CITY, APRIL 23, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator, says Benedict XVI.)​

Where are your sources? Where do you get the authority, or rather, the audacity, to decide what Paul meant when he wrote the epistle to the Romans or Corinthians? The writings of the early church fathers, Catholic and Protestant traditions, detailed meticulous expositions of the texts, relevant and well established source material all point to a literal and historical Adam. In spite of all of that you can tell me you alone have the proper interpretation while the rest of Christian scholarship simply got it wrong.

That's not Scriptural, that's a distortion of the clear teaching of Paul.

Speaking of clear meaning of words, You never did get around to explaining how it is 'crystal clear' Adam was the first man, when the same verse Paul refers to Christ as 'the second man'.

Yes I did and you ignored it, we have done this repeatedly and it's you who are failing to defend a modernist rationalization of the clear testimony of Scripture. I only bother to point it out because it's something that has fascinated me far longer then my interest in origins did. What brings me back to this discussions is that I'm studying you.

Thanks for the exchange.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Dear Mr. Kennedy; thank you for all that. Your answers are very good. I have been reading the posts by 'Papias', 'Dark Lite', 'Assyrian', and 'Mallon' and their 'reasoning' has certainly poisoned the waters of this website that's for sure.

Thank you for standing up to them.

When you are interested in what the Scriptures teach, continually refer back to the Scriptures, When you are studying science with them always go back to the actual scientific literature says. That's really all there is to it, rest assured when I tell you, it's my pleasure.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Perhaps you have, however your reply "He meant what he said and said what he meant." wasn't one of those repeated demonstrations that Paul meant what you claim he did.

Frankly Assyrian, yes he did. I know you are past the point of actually understanding the clear meaning right in front of you but you are grossly changing what Paul actually said.

Speaking of not understanding the clear meaning right in front of you, how do you manage to answer a point about what you said in your post, with yes Paul did?

He is talking about a literal Adam being a type of the second man, Christ. I have no interest in answering questions in circles but thanks just the same. What you have ignored is that the first and second man are named. You just pull Cain out of your hat based on your sophomoric begging of the question of what literal actually means. You preach a gospel skepticism and I don't know just how far that road goes. One thing is for sure, the first man isn't real to you and the second one is only mentioned in passing.

So still no attempt to answer how Christ is literally the second man.

...I have no interest in answering questions in circles...

That would be great if you actually answered the question in the first place. Instead you avoided the problem and now refuse to go back and answer it. Perhaps you should just have said:

I have no interest in answering questions
​

Those were all literal events and typologies always are, that's the point. It doesn't have to be 'same as', the idea is of a pattern, like a die or a stamp. You know this, I've told you repeatedly and you pretend you don't understand it, or maybe, you can't.

The issue here isn't whether the were literal event or not. I specifically chose types in my example that were literal events so we could get past that issue. The problem is that you don't seem to be able to recognise that typological statements aren't always literal, Jesus wasn't a literal sheep.

The Baptism in the Red Sea was a passing through the water, nothing more.

So Paul was wrong to see it as a type of Christian baptism?

Christ was with them in the dessert and provided for them, the Rock was Christ because it produced water by Christ (check it out in Hebrews sometime). You really don't have a clue and as much as I would like to teach you some things you don't listen.

If the rock really was Christ, should the Israelites have worshiped it? Or would that have been idolatry? You claim I haven't a clue, yet you cannot seem to tell what is literal from non literal. Even when Paul tells us he is looking at the OT example as tupos, and the literal meaning of his statement 'the rock was Christ' is utterly nonsensical, you still try to take what he said literally.

The issue you can't seem to get you head around is that while the passover lamb, crossing the Red Sea and Moses striking the rock are all literal historical events, the typological interpretation isn't literal and statements made giving a typological interpretation are not always literal literal either.

A typology is not a figure of speech, it has nothing to do with the interpretation and the historical/literal aspect is requisite to the Gospel and the canon of Scripture. To continually argue against the literal/historical aspect of the Scriptures and to be interested in nothing else in Scripture does not speak well for TE.

Funny you should try to argue that when I have just said the passover lamb, crossing the Red Sea and Moses striking the rock are all literal historical events. Clearly I was right, and you really can't get you head around the idea that you can have a literal historical event and a typological interpretation of the event that isn't literal.

...A typology is not a figure of speech...

Odd you would claim this when the Latin for typology was figura, which we get figurative and figure of speech from. Of course our use of the word figurative is a much broader than typology, but typological interpretations are still figurative.

Which means that when Paul was interpreting Adam as a type of Christ in 1Cor 15, as you yourself admit he was doing, then even if Adam was a literal historical person, and Paul firmly believed Adam was a literal historical person, his description of Adam as 'the first man' and Christ as 'the second man' need be no more literal than saying Christ was the rock the Israelites drank from, or John the Baptist saying Jesus was a sheep.

Like all typologies, they are both literal. That's the clear meaning of the word and the texts involved.

I am pretty sure at this stage you don't know the meaning of the word typology. The passover lamb may have been literal but calling Jesus a lamb wasn't. He was incarnated as a human being not a sheep. The rock was literal too, but saying the 'rock was Christ' isn't literal. Perhaps instead of simply insisting it is all literal, you could try to explain how Jesus was literally a sheep and the rock was literally the Son of God in mineral form.

Then perhaps you can go on and try to explain how Jesus was literally the second man.

That's not my list, that's from something you should learn to use, a Bible study tool. I don't care about those links, you have done this repeatedly and it's really nothing more then you repeating your bogus assertion that Adam is figurative. It's absurd and contrary to the Scriptures themselves.

So that abysmal bible study isn't you fault? I googled
"1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do"
but all I came up with was you posting the same bible study around the place. You are not trying to blame Strong's concordance for your misunderstanding of tupos are you?

...I don't care about those links...

And apparently you don't care about trying to answer the mistakes and misunderstandings in your bible study. It looks good to you, so just ignore the problems and keep pasting it.

I said "Let's assume Adam was a real historical person" because I was looking at the problems in your argument even if you take Adam as a real person. And what do you do? You go on insisting Adam was a real person and ignore my actual argument.

Adam was a real person and you don't have an argument, at least none that stands up to close scrutiny.

So why not try some close scrutiny, and attempt to answer my argument, instead of changing the subject?

So basically you just want to keep arguing Adam was historical rather than try to deal with the argument I am making?

Because I study the Scriptures and you don't.

I would have thought if you studied the scriptures you should be able to answer my argument.

You should at least try to defend you claim "Adam was the first man, the New Testament is crystal clear on that"

I did, but this is the thing, being a theistic evolutionists means you don't have to use sound expositions of science, theology, the Scriptures or the facts related to the theory of evolution. All you have to do is to undermine a confidence in the reliability of the Scriptures as history.

Why is that?

Why is what? Why do you duck and dive and avoid my questions only come back and claim you answered them? Why do you resort to ad hom about me being a TE instead? Probably because you cannot defend your unsound expositions.

Why not answer my point instead of changing the subjecting. Here it is again:

Now Paul could have been basing his typological comparison on the historical fact of Adam begin the very first man, though as we have seen if that is the case, you have to deal with Christ being the historical second man. Alternatively, 'first man' and 'second man' are Paul's typological comparison of Adam and Christ, not a historical description at all, Adam himself may be literal history but Paul's description of Adam as 'the first man' isn't.
​

Meh. You could try defending you claims instead of changing the subject all the time and just claiming you gave a sound exposition of the text.

Yes Adam is being used as literal, historical and typologies always are. This history is based on a special revelation, the redemptive history of God in Christ.

Way to go Mark, ignoring the question again

Christian scholars and theologians have always understood that receiving Christ as Savior and Lord means worshiping him as Creator:

"To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness..."The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason." (VATICAN CITY, APRIL 23, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator, says Benedict XVI.)​

Has no one ever told you Mark, that TEs all believe God is the creator?

Where are your sources? Where do you get the authority, or rather, the audacity, to decide what Paul meant when he wrote the epistle to the Romans or Corinthians?

as opposed to you telling us what Paul meant? I have the same authority to study scripture you do. We are both children of God.

The writings of the early church fathers, Catholic and Protestant traditions, detailed meticulous expositions of the texts, relevant and well established source material all point to a literal and historical Adam. In spite of all of that you can tell me you alone have the proper interpretation while the rest of Christian scholarship simply got it wrong. That's not Scriptural, that's a distortion of the clear teaching of Paul.

Perhaps if we are discussing the historicity of Adam you could trot your argument from tradition out again. But this wasn't a discussion on the historicity of Adam, but on the problem of interpreting typological statements literally. At least that is what I have been discussing. You seem to have been having a completely different discussion.

Speaking of clear meaning of words, You never did get around to explaining how it is 'crystal clear' Adam was the first man, when the same verse Paul refers to Christ as 'the second man'.

Yes I did and you ignored it, we have done this repeatedly and it's you who are failing to defend a modernist rationalization of the clear testimony of Scripture. I only bother to point it out because it's something that has fascinated me far longer then my interest in origins did.

Perhaps you can quote the explanation I am supposed to have ignored, and tell us what post it is in, because as far as I can see you simply played our old game of ducking and dodging then claiming to have answered.

What brings me back to this discussions is that I'm studying you.

Hope you do a better job than you have done studying scripture.

Thanks for the exchange.

Have a nice day

Mark

Cheers Mark. Take care of yourself.