Paul

[SBG]

If the part of the evolutionary theory is to be true, that man evolved, it wouldn't seem logical that only 1 man evolved and all men came from that man.

I would like evolutionists to explain a verse then, written by the Apostle Paul:

Acts 17:24-26
“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."

 

[Vance]

The first question is to determine the theological point Paul is making here.

 

[Vance]

All people are of one family, God determined how things would happen, he did not leave things to chance, as the Epicureans believed.

Now, the Amplified Bible is helpful here, since it gives the various meanings for certain words in the original language, here Greek. It translates the verse as “And He made from one [common origin, one source, one blood] all nations . . .”. The Holcomb Bible points out in a note that some manuscripts say “one blood” rather than one “man”, and the King James Version uses this "one blood" translation. The Message is a bit more colloquial, as always, saying “Starting from scratch, God made the entire human race . . .”

And these translations I think are the key to the point. God made all humans from the same source, so that means we are all the same, Jews or Gentiles, Greeks or Barbarians.

 

[SBG]

It was a sermon to Athens who worshipped idols and believed that the earth spontaneously produced all living things. You can read in Acts 17:17, where it says Paul reasoned with them.

It is rather clear about Paul's message.

 

[SBG]

All people are of one family, God determined how things would happen, he did not leave things to chance, as the Epicureans believed.

Now, the Amplified Bible is helpful here, since it gives the various meanings for certain words in the original language, here Greek. It translates the verse as “And He made from one [common origin, one source, one blood] all nations . . .”. The Holcomb Bible points out in a note that some manuscripts say “one blood” rather than one “man”, and the King James Version uses this "one blood" translation. The Message is a bit more colloquial, as always, saying “Starting from scratch, God made the entire human race . . .”

And these translations I think are the key to the point. God made all humans from the same source, so that means we are all the same, Jews or Gentiles, Greeks or Barbarians.

Yes, lets go to the original language. The phrase 'one blood' is not one word in Greek. Blood in greek is haima, which means blood of a man, not men. It is never used as plural in the NT. And just so you cannot confuse it to be plural to mean the entire human race, there is 'one' before blood. One in greek is [size=-1]heis and it can only mean one, and is not used in plural meanings.

You cannot pluralize the original laguage when it was intended to be singular in usage.
[/size]

 

[bdfoster]

I think that all humanity are indeed spiritual descendants of Adam, in the same way that Paul tells us that all Christians are descendants of Abraham. We may not be all biological descendants of Abraham and yet through faith we share in his blessing. And we may not be all biological descendants of Adam, but through sin we share in his curse.

 

[Vance]

Yes, we are all ONE BLOOD, but that does not necessarily mean from a single human being. The term may be used in the singular, just as we use it in the singular. As the Amplified points out (and I take their interpretation of the Greek over yours, with all respect), the meaning behind this phrase as used in this context, is one source, a common origin. And, as foster points out, what is the point Paul is trying to make here? That we are all biological descendants of a single human being named Adam four thousand years earlier, or that we are all of one common stock, we are all brothers and we are all under God's control?

We also need to keep in mind how the ancients thought. Yes, Paul would have considered the story of Adam being the first man as a text that meant something, and something very important. And the fact that he discusses it in the direct way he did does not at all mean that he read as a literal history. As I have shown from a leading expert on Paul and the first century world, and a Christian and a former pastor (now a professor), Paul would very likely not have considered the Creation account as literal history, and maybe not even considered Adam as literal, but would still have referred to Adam the way he did, as a symbol for what Genesis was really saying.

 

[SBG]

Please don't try and speak for Paul by saying he didn't believe in a six day creation or a literal Adam. If you care at all for real doctrine, read the original language. I didn't ask you to take my word for it. You can easily go figure it out on your own, that is if you care.

 

[Vance]

And please don't try to speak for Paul or any other ancient person by insisting that they must have believed in Genesis as strict literal history. You are constantly saying "this is the correct and undeniable interpretation", and I am saying that there are often multiple possibilities on the details, even if there is only one on the theology. As here. If you want to continue to insist that your view of this verse must be the one that Paul intended, without doubt or possibility of error, then that is fine.

 

[Calminian]

All people are of one family, God determined how things would happen, he did not leave things to chance, as the Epicureans believed.

Now, the Amplified Bible is helpful here, since it gives the various meanings for certain words in the original language, here Greek. It translates the verse as “And He made from one [common origin, one source, one blood] all nations . . .”. The Holcomb Bible points out in a note that some manuscripts say “one blood” rather than one “man”, and the King James Version uses this "one blood" translation. The Message is a bit more colloquial, as always, saying “Starting from scratch, God made the entire human race . . .”

And these translations I think are the key to the point. God made all humans from the same source, so that means we are all the same, Jews or Gentiles, Greeks or Barbarians.

The greek says God made every nation of men on the face of the earth from one. The translations you cite say nothing different.

 

[Calminian]

And, as foster points out, what is the point Paul is trying to make here? That we are all biological descendants of a single human being named Adam four thousand years earlier, or that we are all of one common stock, we are all brothers and we are all under God's control?

Er, the latter. Spiritual relations and blood relatiions are two different things. People can be related by blood and/or related spiritually. So what are we talking about here? It's hard to refute those who so effectively refute themselves.

As I have shown from a leading expert on Paul and the first century world, and a Christian and a former pastor (now a professor), Paul would very likely not have considered the Creation account as literal history, and maybe not even considered Adam as literal, but would still have referred to Adam the way he did, as a symbol for what Genesis was really saying.

There are also “christian experts” that don’t take the resurrection literally. Their approach is identical to yours only they’re more consistent.

 

[Vance]

The consistency comes from the application of a hermenuetics that takes all these factors into consideration. If they use a hermenuetic which is the same as I do, but come to a wrong conclusion, I would say that they are not providing the proper weight to this factor or that one. Just like someone using your literalist hermeneutic could come up with geocentrism (in fact, the geocentrists DO use the same literalist hermenuetics as you do), and I could say they are actually being more consistent with their application. But you would say that they may be using the proper interpretive approach (literalism), but are coming to a wrong conclusion.

 

[Calminian]

The consistency comes from the application of a hermenuetics that takes all these factors into consideration. If they use a hermenuetic which is the same as I do, but come to a wrong conclusion, I would say that they are not providing the proper weight to this factor or that one. Just like someone using your literalist hermeneutic could come up with geocentrism (in fact, the geocentrists DO use the same literalist hermenuetics as you do), and I could say they are actually being more consistent with their application. But you would say that they may be using the proper interpretive approach (literalism), but are coming to a wrong conclusion.

But Vance you agreed with me in another thread that a literal reading of scripture doesn't teach geocentrism—no more than the term sunset teaches geocentrism. Sorry but your own words are exposing the disingenuousness of this remark.

 

[Vance]

But Vance you agreed with me in another thread that a literal reading of scripture doesn't teach geocentrism—no more than the term sunset teaches geocentrism. Sorry but your own words are exposing the disingenuousness of this remark.

Cal, you are still not getting my point. Hermenuetics is an interpretive approach, a way of going about determining what the Scripture is telling us. Yours is (or seems to be) one of fairly strict literalism. Now, that does not mean that everyone who uses the same hermenuetical approach is going to come up with the same conclusion. Those Christians who DO think that Genesis requires geocentrism use the SAME hermenutical approach you do, but come to a different conclusion than you. Now, does the fact that the two of you reach different conclusions mean that your hermenuetical approach is thus invalid, or can not be trusted, or will necessarily lead to false conclusions? You would say no, I assume, they are just applying the literal interpretive approach incorrectly.

In the same way, the fact that someone who might have a hermenuetical approach which, like mine, will consider whether Scripture might be figurative rather than literal, comes to a wrong conclusion does not make that hermenuetical approach invalid or mean it will necessarily lead to false conclusions.

I do not say that the literal approach will necessarily lead to false conclusions, or be a slippery slope to error in every case, just as you should see the same distinction in other hermenuetical approaches.

 

[Calminian]

Cal, you are still not getting my point. Hermenuetics is an interpretive approach, a way of going about determining what the Scripture is telling us. Yours is (or seems to be) one of fairly strict literalism. Now, that does not mean that everyone who uses the same hermenuetical approach is going to come up with the same conclusion. Those Christians who DO think that Genesis requires geocentrism use the SAME hermenutical approach you do, but come to a different conclusion than you. Now, does the fact that the two of you reach different conclusions mean that your hermenuetical approach is thus invalid, or can not be trusted, or will necessarily lead to false conclusions? You would say no, I assume, they are just applying the literal interpretive approach incorrectly.

If that's the case then it is they who are being inconsistent in their literalism, not me.

In the same way, the fact that someone who might have a hermenuetical approach which, like mine, will consider whether Scripture might be figurative rather than literal, comes to a wrong conclusion does not make that hermenuetical approach invalid or mean it will necessarily lead to false conclusions.

But there is not difference in their approach and yours. They simply reject all things without naturalistic explanations while you pick and choose.

I do not say that the literal approach will necessarily lead to false conclusions, or be a slippery slope to error in every case, just as you should see the same distinction in other hermenuetical approaches.

The bible says nothing of geocentrism (orbiting patterns of objects in space). Scripture does say the heavens move around the earth which from our point of reference they do. The statement "the sun stopped" is literally true since all movement is relative. Geocentrists are simply going beyond what the Bible literally teaches.

But there is no such distinction available regarding the miracles of the Bible. The only consistent position would be to believe all of them as YECs do, or none of the as atheists and deists do. Any position in between is a compromise.

 

[Calminian]

No response yet? Come on Vance it's almost been 5 minutes!

 

[Vance]

Cal, you are STILL not getting it. The geocentrist and you are using the same hermenuetics, correct? You say they are using it incorrectly. There is NO difference in their general approach to Scripture, they read it very literally, and come to the conclusions they do based on this approach. They would claim you are being inconsistent in that you are not accepting the "plain reading" that the sun stopped, and would say that you are being wishy-washy or "compromising" in letting your modern scientific knowledge of heliocentrism effect your reading. They would say you are picking and choosing what you want to take literally and what you want to read in something less than the "plainest" reading. They would say that, without your prior acceptance of heliocentrism, you would never doubt that the Scripture taught geocentrism. You would disagree, of course, and I would agee with you that Scripture is not TEACHING geocentrism (although I think it is fairly obvious that it is written from a geocentric point of view by someone who assumed geocentrism).

Now, the person whose hermenuetics is to seek naturalistic explanations for all phenomena is dramatically different than my interpretive approach. I have no problem whatsoever with the supernatural and never reject ANY miracle on the basis that it would be a supernatural event. So, such a person with such a hermenuetic would be much further from me in their approach than the geocentrist would be to you.

I am entirely with you, we should believe every single one of the miracles described in the Scripture.

 

[Calminian]

Cal, you are STILL not getting it. The geocentrist and you are using the same hermenuetics, correct? You say they are using it incorrectly. There is NO difference in their general approach to Scripture, they read it very literally, and come to the conclusions they do based on this approach. They would claim you are being inconsistent in that you are not accepting the "plain reading" that the sun stopped, and would say that you are being wishy-washy or "compromising" in letting your modern scientific knowledge of heliocentrism effect your reading. They would say you are picking and choosing what you want to take literally and what you want to read in something less than the "plainest" reading. They would say that, without your prior acceptance of heliocentrism, you would never doubt that the Scripture taught geocentrism. You would disagree, of course, and I would agee with you that Scripture is not TEACHING geocentrism (although I think it is fairly obvious that it is written from a geocentric point of view by someone who assumed geocentrism).

The difference is you and I both believe I am being consistent in sticking with the literal text and not going beyond it. Orbiting patterns is never addressed by the biblical writers.

Now, the person whose hermenuetics is to seek naturalistic explanations for all phenomena is dramatically different than my interpretive approach. I have no problem whatsoever with the supernatural and never reject ANY miracle on the basis that it would be a supernatural event. So, such a person with such a hermenuetic would be much further from me in their approach than the geocentrist would be to you.

But it's the very thing that makes you inconsistent.

I am entirely with you, we should believe every single one of the miracles described in the Scripture.

Except the ones in Genesis which you dismiss as figurative since they conflict with naturalistic theories. Why not just admit it?

 

[SBG]

I think Paul left the building.

 

[Vance]

Where you and I differ on the geocentrism issue is that I agree with the geocentrist that the text is written from a geocentric point of view, by a person who accepted geocentrism, and that without our current knowledge of science, we would think that this was describing a geocentric solar system. I agree with you that the Bible does not require a geocentric solar system, but not for the same reason. I think that it does not require a belief in a geocentric solar system because I don't think we were meant to be reading the text as a SCIENTIFIC explanation of what happened. I am thus, consistent in that I apply this same standard to the creation stories.

How could it be inconsistent of me to NOT reject any miracles in Scripture. I find the creation account the account OF A MIRACULOUS, supernatural event. No if's, and's or but's. The question is HOW this supernatural event took place. I know you really hate the idea that my figurative reading was not based on naturalistic assumptions, but that is the simple fact. The text, to me, speaks for itself. And it speaks figuratively. Of literal events, of course, but in a figurative style.

Again, I will say it again, since you seem to want to ignore it. I have no naturalistic assumptions which override the supernatural.

And your use of the phrase "dismiss as figurative" shows the depth of your misunderstanding of my position. You should know by now that it is not a rejection of any part of Scripture at all. I am embracing Scripture in the most honest and straightforward way that I can, which is how I am convinced it was originally written and meant to be read.