Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How does that relate to the topic title question, from your perspective? Don't answer if that makes you too uncomfortable. Thanks.It can be grey which is a combination of both black and white.
Paul may have understood Adam as literal. If so, he was wrong. But it doesn't affect his point that Christ is the source of renewed humanity. The Adam / Christ comparison is, after all, an analogy. In Sunday School I sometimes use Harry Potter as an analogy. So he could certainly have made the analogy because it was a commonly-known story. But from what I know of 1st Cent. Judaism there's a high probability that he understood Adam as the actual first human being.That's an interesting analysis. But again, it doesn't play out in the NT. Do you see any NT support for this idea? The figurative view seems to depend on ignoring the rest of the Bible. You are very knowledgeable about the whole book. Does this view hold up in the NT from your perspective?
He probably wasn't alone in that thought. I would venture to say that, based on his background, that was a pretty universally accepted position to take. I wonder if the other Apostles agree? I'll have to do some research on that.Paul seems to have understood Adam as literal. He was wrong. But it doesn't affect his point that Christ is the source of renewed humanity.
Our understanding of human origins.On what basis can you conclude that Paul was wrong? (seems a rather bold declaration) - lol
Combination, yes. Bible is a combination of literal and figurative texts. But one text cannot be both figurative and literal.It can be grey which is a combination of both black and white.
Darwin refutes the Apostle Paul?Our understanding of human origins.
Some OT support as well:He probably wasn't alone in that thought. I would venture to say that, based on his background, that was a pretty universally accepted position to take. I wonder if the other Apostles agree? I'll have to do some research on that.
On what basis can you conclude that Paul was wrong? (seems a rather bold declaration) - lol
A quick search yielded this:
Luke 3:38 NIV
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Jude 1:14 NIV
Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones
Let me go further. There is simply no reason to consider Genesis historical. The Bible, looked at without conservative Protestant ideology, looks a lot like a human work, responding to God's work with Israel and the early followers of Jesus. As such it's a human witness. In some cases we're dealing with writers close to the events, e.g. Paul. In Genesis we are not. There's no reason to consider a story involving a talking snake and magic trees to be historical.Our understanding of human origins.
That is certainly possible, but not how the writers of the Bible understood it. Moses (the writer of Genesis) has this to say.
Exodus 20:11 NIV
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
COMPARE:
Genesis 2:1-3 NIV
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Thanks for that detailed explanation. I really appreciate it. I'm trying to understand the figurative side of the discussion.Let me go further. There is simply no reason to consider Genesis historical. The Bible, looked at without conservative Protestant ideology, looks a lot like a human work, responding to God's work with Israel and the early followers of Jesus. As such it's a human witness. In some cases we're dealing with writers close to the events, e.g. Paul. In Genesis we are not. There's no reason to consider a story involving a talking snake and magic trees to be historical.
This kind of critical mind-set didn't exist in 1st Cent Judaism. That doesn't mean we shouldn't believe what they say about their encounters with Jesus (and the OT historical books written close to the events). But it does mean that we're not going to judge the Biblical writings the same way 1st Cent Jews did.
http://gentlewisdom.org/augustines-mistake-about-sin/Original sin is a standard doctrine.
Two possibilities:Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Noah and the flood certainly. Might Abraham have existed? I think there's a good chance he did. Obviously Israel existed. But I don't consider anything before Judges strongly historical, and before Kings I think it's a meld. (Even Kings is of course strongly influenced by the writers' editorial intent.)Thanks for that detailed explanation. I really appreciate it. I'm trying to understand the figurative side of the discussion.
Here's a question: (or two)
Genesis is a HUGE book covering an extensive period of time. Do you find no reason to take the book as historical in some of the accounts?
Perhaps your reference to "Genesis" in your quote only means the beginning chapters. What else is fiction? Noah, the world-wide flood, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, the Israelites?
That is certainly possible, but not how the writers of the Bible understood it. Moses (the writer of Genesis) has this to say.
Exodus 20:11 NIV
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
COMPARE:
Genesis 2:1-3 NIV
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.Augustine's mistake about original sin - Gentle Wisdom
AUGNET : 1311 Greek language
Two possibilities:
a) There was a real Adam in the history, a priest selected by God to represent us
b) Adam is just a symbolic name for humanity as such
Paul was living in the philosophical age, trying to make his point from text originating in the mythological age and we are trying to read both in the scientific age
Sure, but the first century Christians seemed to indicate a literal view, which you labeled as wrong. (based on what we have learned about origins from Darwin) So, an appeal to the early church doesn't help your case. IMHOThe modern conservative treatment of Genesis 1 and 2 marries the ancient lack of critical mindset on facts with a modern historically-oriented exegetical style. I don't think the resulting combination is something first Cent Christians would appreciate.
I wanted to know where you draw the line. Thanks.Really, there are fine Catholic Biblical scholars you can consult on these questions.
With such immediacy, I wonder why it took all day. Wasn't it done as soon as he said it? "God said... and it was so."However, when the basis of his completion/"work" was God's commands, then they were complete as to his fiat. Further, it does not say six consecutive days, or have the following day stated as such or as the next day...the days are independently declared and relate to his command. So the six days stand based on fiat(s) but not necessarily on our conceived time frame. Only Gen. 1:3 speaks to immediacy all subsequent commands are directed at created matter...are they not. Genesis could very well read - "And God said, Let the land produce/bring forth living creatures, and there were living creatures" but what is clearly stated is "And God said, Let the land produce/bring forth living creatures...", no immediacy but rather agency/mediate. What was so? That God commanded the Land to produce...and it "was so" because his efficacious will is all sufficient.
Be that as it may, perhaps much more interesting to follow the thread relative to Theological implications as opposed to some "creation/evolution" conundrum...
This looks like a good place for me to apply a figurative reading of the text. - lol... There's no reason to consider a story involving a talking snake and magic trees to be historical. ...
It’s not where I draw a line but what the evidence seems to show.I wanted to know where you draw the line. Thanks.
I'll need to figure out where I will draw that line. This discussion is helpful. Thanks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?