Trouble squaring the Fall and the Cross.

[WalterPlinge]

Hello.

I would like to ask a question that can easily be answered by the Fundamentalist Christians, here at C.F.
However (and with all due respect) , I would prefer this question to be answered by non-Fundamentalists, please.
My reasoning for placing this condition is as follows...

I am currently having a problem squaring the historicity of Jesus with the apparent non-historicity of the account of the Fall, as described in the Book of Genesis. Yes, I do appreciate that from the Fundamentalist p.o.v., both of these parts of the Bible are considered to be factual and historical accounts of real events. That is why I said that there is an easy answer from the Fundamentalist viewpoint - with both the Fall and the Cross being equally historical, everything fits neatly into place.

But what of the non-Fundamentalist viewpoint?

What follows is my current understanding of this p.o.v, so if I am in error please correct me. Thank you.

Dealing with Jesus' death on the Cross first...
* It's accepted that this was a real and historical event, backed up by facts and evidence.
* His death was a real, physical cessation of life and not something to be understood symbolically or metaphorically.
* His death had to be just as real as ours will be, because He was as fully human as we are.
* The full penalty for sin is corruption in this life, followed by physical death and then eternal separation from God in Hell. To save us from the full measure of this penalty, Jesus had to sacrifice Himself on the Cross for the sins of the whole world, thus satisfying both God's perfect justice and His love for us. By His sacrifice we are fully purified, renewed, perfected, justified and glorified - fit to enter into the holy presence of God in heaven.

So, none of the above is considered metaphorical, poetic, allegorical or symbolic. It's all real and true and relevant to us all.

Now compare and contrast what I've learned about the Genesis account of the Fall from non-Fundamentalist Christians, here at C.F.
(Once again folks, if I'm tripping up, please let me know.)

* The Book of Genesis is not a historical document and should not be read literally or as a historical account of actual events.
* It is important to understand the cultural framework in which it was written and realize that symbolism, allegory and metaphor are used in it to promote understanding of it's true meaning.
* Yes, sin did actually enter into the world (requiring Jesus to set things right) but not necessarily via Adam and Eve, because these people may well be literary constructs and not real persons.
* It is important not to take Genesis literally because that then opens up difficult questions concerning the mismatch between the Creation account and what Science tells us about the origins of the universe, the Earth and humans.

So perhaps you can see my difficulties here?

From a straight Fundamentalist p.o.v. there is no tension between the historicity of Jesus and the historicity of Genesis, both are equally true and real and historical. But from a non-Fundamentalist viewpoint surely we cannot see the Fall and the Cross in equally historic terms?
Both cannot be equally factual descriptions of real events, involving real people and causing real consequences if one of them is to be understood in symbolic or allegorical terms?
So if I can accept that everything listed above about Jesus is real, how can I then do the same for the Fall in particular and Genesis as a whole?

Please note that while I am trying to understand the non-Fundamentalist p.o.v. here and would prefer answers from non-Fundamentalist Christians, I am still open to any and all respondents, no matter what their persuasion.

Thanks in advance,

Walter.

 

[Chesterton]

Both cannot be equally factual descriptions of real events, involving real people and causing real consequences if one of them is to be understood in symbolic or allegorical terms?

The Fall need not be factual for the ideas it describes to be true. It may not describe what actually happened, but it relates the truth that something causing real consequences did take place. There may have been a one-time event, or maybe a condition men gradually fell into. But I think the important points of the story are clear enough - the state of our relationship with God, with each other, our disobedience, etc. And I think those points are as plain as the nose on my face (it's hard to not use metaphor ).

 

[solarwave]

The Fall was a real thing that happened, just not in the way describing in the creation story. I think there was a sin commited by the original humans or something along those lines. I find it hard to see what the problem or what the question you are asking is??

I believe that actual history starts ether with Noah or Abraham, since Noah could be literal or could be symbolic.

 

[WalterPlinge]

The Fall need not be factual for the ideas it describes to be true. It may not describe what actually happened, but it relates the truth that something causing real consequences did take place. There may have been a one-time event, or maybe a condition men gradually fell into. But I think the important points of the story are clear enough - the state of our relationship with God, with each other, our disobedience, etc. And I think those points are as plain as the nose on my face (it's hard to not use metaphor ).

Hello Chesterton and thanks for the prompt reply.

Dealing with the last things first, I'm well-endowed in the schnozzle department too - so your point is well made and well taken.

Yes, the lesson/meaning of Genesis is plain enough. I won't dispute that.

But for me there's something lacking in the idea that a certain undefined "something" created the need for Jesus to die on the cross. Call me unspiritual, unredeemed, sinful or whatever, but I just don't find this notion at all persuasive. Sorry, but there it is.

Normally my postings are carefully crafted queries focusing on the meaning of scripture. Not so, here and now. I find myself in new territory, trying to come to terms with the whole, wide sweep of the Christian message, from it's inception to it's conclusion. So please bear with me on this.

It's possible that I'm struggling to reconcile two things...

1. The Historical Facts of Jesus Christ's Existence.
I define a "historical fact" as an accurate description of real events, involving real people, anchored down to specific locations and specific dates. It will be backed up by corroborating evidence from other, neutral or unaffiliated sources. It can be investigated archaeologically, culturally, ethnologically, etc. because, unlike an abstract concept or idea, it happened in the concrete reality of the real world.

Christian's contend that the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ fulfills all of these criteria.

(Please note that I also agree that an abstract idea can have real and concrete effects too.)

2. The Meaning to be Drawn from the Book of Genesis.
As mentioned above, the lesson/meaning seems plain enough - at some undetermined point in human history God's relationship with man was broken by man. This is described in a figurative, not actual, way in the account of the Creation and the Fall. Therefore (in a nutshell) everything in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is about God putting that damage right and giving man an even better quality of relationship with Him.

All of this being accepted, what we have left is the abstract concept that these words convey. Nothing physical can be investigated. There are no dates or locations involved. There are no corroborating testimonies, only contradictory ones - the Creation myths of other religions. There is nothing tangible or concrete or factual here, only the meaning of the words themselves.

(I apologize to any Fundamentalist Christian's reading this and I acknowledge that you would challenge what I've just written. Please refer to the beginning of this thread, for why I couch this information in these terms.)

So Chesterton, the only way I can currently move forward to reconcile these two different things is as follows.

Based on the provable historicity of Jesus, I might conclude that this is sufficient authority to disregard the problem described above and trust the meaning of the Genesis account of the Fall from Grace.

Any further thoughts?

Thanks,

Walter.

 

[gaweatherford]

It's possible that I'm struggling to reconcile two things...

1. The Historical Facts of Jesus Christ's Existence.


2. The Meaning to be Drawn from the Book of Genesis.

None of the prophecies and predictions within the Old Testament had full harmony until Christ taught the true meaning thereof.

Jesus himself authenticated the precepts of the Old testament by drawing out it's meanings and by forebearing the accuracy thereof with the details of His own life. This in itself would mean nothing if one was to not recognize first that Christ was exactly who the New Testament affirms that He was. The witnesses maintained that he was a "miracle worker" with divine attributes and had the credibility to earmark the Old Testament. Man alone could not draw the meanings of Genesis in the Old Testament to flow to the Christ in the New Testament without Christ being the key to draw the link to himself. Man at his own had his own selfish ideas for interpretation thousands of years ago. They were stuck on interpreting the Bible's claims to point to a political Messiah, while Jesus was teaching that scripture was refering to a spiritual Messiah. That is why they killed Him. Their lack of conception for "the link" and it's authority to be smarter than they is why his own killed him (which was predicted).

 

[ebia]

Hello.

I would like to ask a question that can easily be answered by the Fundamentalist Christians, here at C.F.
However (and with all due respect) , I would prefer this question to be answered by non-Fundamentalists, please.
My reasoning for placing this condition is as follows...

I am currently having a problem squaring the historicity of Jesus with the apparent non-historicity of the account of the Fall, as described in the Book of Genesis. Yes, I do appreciate that from the Fundamentalist p.o.v., both of these parts of the Bible are considered to be factual and historical accounts of real events. That is why I said that there is an easy answer from the Fundamentalist viewpoint - with both the Fall and the Cross being equally historical, everything fits neatly into place.

But what of the non-Fundamentalist viewpoint?

What follows is my current understanding of this p.o.v, so if I am in error please correct me. Thank you.

Dealing with Jesus' death on the Cross first...
* It's accepted that this was a real and historical event, backed up by facts and evidence.
* His death was a real, physical cessation of life and not something to be understood symbolically or metaphorically.
* His death had to be just as real as ours will be, because He was as fully human as we are.
* The full penalty for sin is corruption in this life, followed by physical death and then eternal separation from God in Hell. To save us from the full measure of this penalty, Jesus had to sacrifice Himself on the Cross for the sins of the whole world, thus satisfying both God's perfect justice and His love for us. By His sacrifice we are fully purified, renewed, perfected, justified and glorified - fit to enter into the holy presence of God in heaven.

So, none of the above is considered metaphorical, poetic, allegorical or symbolic.

It's many of those as well as being historical. Your description is also a little inaccurate, and has a gapping hole whether the resurrection should be, but we can come back to that if its relevent.

It's all real and true and relevant to us all.

Yes, but something does not have to be historic to be those things.

Now compare and contrast what I've learned about the Genesis account of the Fall from non-Fundamentalist Christians, here at C.F.
(Once again folks, if I'm tripping up, please let me know.)

* The Book of Genesis is not a historical document and should not be read literally or as a historical account of actual events.
* It is important to understand the cultural framework in which it was written and realize that symbolism, allegory and metaphor are used in it to promote understanding of it's true meaning.
* Yes, sin did actually enter into the world (requiring Jesus to set things right) but not necessarily via Adam and Eve, because these people may well be literary constructs and not real persons.
* It is important not to take Genesis literally because that then opens up difficult questions concerning the mismatch between the Creation account and what Science tells us about the origins of the universe, the Earth and humans.

So perhaps you can see my difficulties here?

Your difficulty seems to be that you have contrasted as set of statements and implications of the crucifixion against a set of guidelines about how to read Genesis. You aren't comparing like with like.

From a straight Fundamentalist p.o.v. there is no tension between the historicity of Jesus and the historicity of Genesis, both are equally true and real and historical. But from a non-Fundamentalist viewpoint surely we cannot see the Fall and the Cross in equally historic terms?

The fall is real, it just isn't described in quite the same sort of text.

So if I can accept that everything listed above about Jesus is real, how can I then do the same for the Fall in particular and Genesis as a whole?

Genesis does describe the fall, it does describe a real problem, but it does that through the medium of myth, not historical account. Why should that be a problem?

Genesis 1-11 describes the (very real) problems in the world, the problems of evil, sin, death, suffering, etc. It does so in mythical terms, because that's the most appropriate way of doing that. It preceeds that with something about what the world is supposed to be like, and it includes a description of why God cannot simply wipe away that evil (the story of Noah). All that is an extended prologue that sets the scene for what the bible is really about - the story of what God is doing to solve that problem through the call of Abraham and his family that will climax in Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[ebia]

All of this being accepted, what we have left is the abstract concept that these words convey. Nothing physical can be investigated.

Well, the factual "thing" you could investigate is the existance of death, suffering and evil.

There are no dates or locations involved. There are no corroborating testimonies, only contradictory ones - the Creation myths of other religions. There is nothing tangible or concrete or factual here, only the meaning of the words themselves.

So what? The accounts are they to tell what happened, not to give something for a particular culture to verify.

It seems the problem lies in what you would like - an account that is objectively verifiable (at least in principle) rather than a problem with actually reconcilling Genesis and Crucifixion/Resurrection.

Based on the provable historicity of Jesus, I might conclude that this is sufficient authority to disregard the problem described above and trust the meaning of the Genesis account of the Fall from Grace.

If you accept the resurrection and the accounts of that, then one is faced with the question of the meaning given to it by those who give us the closest descriptions,...

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, the lesson/meaning of Genesis is plain enough. I won't dispute that.

But for me there's something lacking in the idea that a certain undefined "something" created the need for Jesus to die on the cross. Call me unspiritual, unredeemed, sinful or whatever, but I just don't find this notion at all persuasive. Sorry, but there it is.

Well, (unless the literalists are correct) you're right that there is something mysterious in the story. But the meaning or "bottom line" of the story is not mysterious at all - that is, that humanity is not right; we are guilty, or broken, or sick, or something. G.K. Chesterton once said something like "original sin is the only Christian doctrine which can be proven, and it can be proven just by going out in the street". I find the idea in the Genesis story persuasive because it's congruent with everything I know of humans - things I see on the TV news, the behavior of family and friends, and most of all myself - probably every day of my life I have "eaten the fruit" of disobedience. I do things which I know are wrong. My conscience tells me this, and I believe my conscience is a remnant of the "image of God" which Genesis says we were created with.

Of course atheistic evolutionists have their own account of why we feel guilt, but I find the explanation lacking. They'll talk about duty to the tribe or community in a question-begging way, as if "duty" were not itself one of many components of morality. Without an external standard, I don't see any reason we should have evolved the emotion of guilt to begin with. If there's no real wrong, then there can be nothing of which to feel guilty.

It's possible that I'm struggling to reconcile two things...

1. The Historical Facts of Jesus Christ's Existence.
I define a "historical fact" as an accurate description of real events, involving real people, anchored down to specific locations and specific dates. It will be backed up by corroborating evidence from other, neutral or unaffiliated sources. It can be investigated archaeologically, culturally, ethnologically, etc. because, unlike an abstract concept or idea, it happened in the concrete reality of the real world.

Christian's contend that the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ fulfills all of these criteria.

(Please note that I also agree that an abstract idea can have real and concrete effects too.)

2. The Meaning to be Drawn from the Book of Genesis.
As mentioned above, the lesson/meaning seems plain enough - at some undetermined point in human history God's relationship with man was broken by man. This is described in a figurative, not actual, way in the account of the Creation and the Fall. Therefore (in a nutshell) everything in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is about God putting that damage right and giving man an even better quality of relationship with Him.

All of this being accepted, what we have left is the abstract concept that these words convey. Nothing physical can be investigated. There are no dates or locations involved. There are no corroborating testimonies, only contradictory ones - the Creation myths of other religions. There is nothing tangible or concrete or factual here, only the meaning of the words themselves.

We divide the past into history and pre-history; when men recorded events in writing, and before they did. The Fall was pre-historic, and Jesus was historic. I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't see the problem in reconciling the two things. In my opinion, the one truly important thing about the Genesis story is the idea that man is sinful. I don't know of other creation myths which contradict that idea; in fact, the idea of man's sinfulness once was almost universally accepted.

I think we agree that whether or not there was a Christ is of primary importance, but whether there was a tree or a fruit or an Adam and Eve is of secondary importance, or maybe no importance really.

 

[vespasia]

Have a look for 'Things hidden since the beginning of time' by Rene Girard.

 

[WalterPlinge]

Based on the provable historicity of Jesus, I might conclude that this is sufficient authority to disregard the problem described above and trust the meaning of the Genesis account of the Fall from Grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you all for your replies and I'm sorry if you're having trouble understanding my problem reconciling the Fall with the Cross.

Perhaps this might help?

Are you familiar with this man...

Gary Habermas - Theopedia

...and his research into the historicity of Jesus' resurrection?

Now, rightly or wrongly, I place a great deal of store in his approach to the Christian faith. In his work he aims to show that Jesus' resurrection is as much a bona fide historical event as the Siege of Troy or the conquests of Alexander the Great - by presenting corroborative, extra-biblical evidence for it.
Please take a moment to think about this, because I cannot stress strongly enough how important this point is.

Agreed, you may well believe the words of the Gospels and know Jesus personally, but that is not the same thing as His resurrection being shown to be a historical reality. You may know the reality of Christ in your heart-of-hearts, but the ultimate proof of Christianity is not whether you believe or not.

The proof of Christianity's truth is the historical reality of Jesus' resurrection.
This makes it true for everyone, not just those with the faith to believe in it.

Are we agreed on this?

If not, I really think further dialogue would be a waste of time.

However, assuming that we are in agreement, let me move on.

My initial question concerned my trouble with reconciling the historical reality of the Cross (confirmed by the historicity of the resurrection) and the lack of historicity for the Genesis account of the Fall from Grace.
Now please refer to the text I've highlighted in red at the top of this message.

This is quoted from my second message in this thread, where I've replied to Chesterton.

You'll notice that I say that I might trust in the meaning of the Genesis account of the Fall if the historicity of Jesus is proven. Do you see how my viewpoint has changed from my initial message?

I am now prepared to accept what Genesis says about the Fall (even though, as Chesterton says, this happened in pre-historic times and is therefore not historical) based on the confirmed, historical reality of Jesus' resurrection.

So, my current p.o.v. can be summed up thus...

If Jesus' resurrection is true - so must everything else in the Bible be true also, because it is His rising from the dead that gives meaning to everything else in this book.
No proof of the resurrection = no proof that the rest of the Bible is true.



I hope that in this message I've been able to clearly communicate the following points.

1. The vital importance of the resurrection being a historical fact and not just an unconfirmed article of faith.

2. How my viewpoint has changed in response to your replies.

3. How I can now see that even though the Fall was a pre-historic event, the confirmed historical fact of the resurrection puts this portion of Genesis into it's proper context. It's not an actual historical account, nor should it be read as such. The fact that Jesus did rise from the dead confirms and gives meaning to the rest of the Bible.

Thank you all again for your input.

Walter.

 

[ebia]

Based on the provable historicity of Jesus, I might conclude that this is sufficient authority to disregard the problem described above and trust the meaning of the Genesis account of the Fall from Grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you all for your replies and I'm sorry if you're having trouble understanding my problem reconciling the Fall with the Cross.

Perhaps this might help?

Are you familiar with this man...

Gary Habermas - Theopedia

...and his research into the historicity of Jesus' resurrection?

Now, rightly or wrongly, I place a great deal of store in his approach to the Christian faith. In his work he aims to show that Jesus' resurrection is as much a bona fide historical event as the Siege of Troy or the conquests of Alexander the Great - by presenting corroborative, extra-biblical evidence for it.
Please take a moment to think about this, because I cannot stress strongly enough how important this point is.

I'm not familiar with him, but N.T. Wright has done considerable work also into showing how the resurrection is as solid historically as any 1st century event in his Christian Origins and the Question of God series of books.

Agreed, you may well believe the words of the Gospels and know Jesus personally, but that is not the same thing as His resurrection being shown to be a historical reality. You may know the reality of Christ in your heart-of-hearts, but the ultimate proof of Christianity is not whether you believe or not.

The proof of Christianity's truth is the historical reality of Jesus' resurrection.
This makes it true for everyone, not just those with the faith to believe in it.

Are we agreed on this?

Absolutely.

If not, I really think further dialogue would be a waste of time.

However, assuming that we are in agreement, let me move on.

My initial question concerned my trouble with reconciling the historical reality of the Cross (confirmed by the historicity of the resurrection) and the lack of historicity for the Genesis account of the Fall from Grace.
Now please refer to the text I've highlighted in red at the top of this message.

This is quoted from my second message in this thread, where I've replied to Chesterton.

You'll notice that I say that I might trust in the meaning of the Genesis account of the Fall if the historicity of Jesus is proven. Do you see how my viewpoint has changed from my initial message?

I am now prepared to accept what Genesis says about the Fall (even though, as Chesterton says, this happened in pre-historic times and is therefore not historical) based on the confirmed, historical reality of Jesus' resurrection.

So, my current p.o.v. can be summed up thus...

If Jesus' resurrection is true - so must everything else in the Bible be true also, because it is His rising from the dead that gives meaning to everything else in this book.
No proof of the resurrection = no proof that the rest of the Bible is true.



I hope that in this message I've been able to clearly communicate the following points.

1. The vital importance of the resurrection being a historical fact and not just an unconfirmed article of faith.

2. How my viewpoint has changed in response to your replies.

3. How I can now see that even though the Fall was a pre-historic event, the confirmed historical fact of the resurrection puts this portion of Genesis into it's proper context. It's not an actual historical account, nor should it be read as such. The fact that Jesus did rise from the dead confirms and gives meaning to the rest of the Bible.

Thank you all again for your input.

Walter.

Take care,
ebia

 

[aiki]

Walter:

Just a note: In other places in the Bible Adam and Eve are regarded as actual people and the Fall is referred to as an actual historical event. The idea that the Fall and Adam and Eve are all merely symbolic and metaphoric is defied by the Bible itself.

Here are a few examples:

Mark 10:6 (KJV)
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

1 Chronicles 1
This chapter details the genealogy from Adam to Abraham and beyond. There is no mention of neanderthals, or cro-magnon men in this list of generations.

Luke 3:23-38
Another chronicling of the generations from Adam to Christ. Such genealogies strongly indicate a real, actual person named Adam linked to an equally real Christ.

Romans 5:12-14 (KJV)
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 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.

1 Corinthians 15:45 (KJV)
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1 Timothy 2:13 (KJV)
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Peace to you.

 

[WalterPlinge]

To Ebia and Aiki,

Peace to you both and thank you for your replies.

Those quotes are very helpful Aiki, but they do prompt me to ask some questions.

1. Do you think it's possible that the writers of Chronicles, the Gospels and the Epistles thought that Adam and Eve were real people, even though the First Man and First Woman might actually be literary constructs, as other Christians suggest?

2. The quote from the Gospel of Mark has Jesus replying to a question from the Pharisees and I see that the marginal notes in my KJV refer to Genesis 1:27 as the source for this part of Jesus' response.
That being the case, doesn't this strongly indicate that Adam and Eve were in fact real people?
I mean, if God (incarnated as Jesus) says that they were made in just the way Genesis describes, that should be it - case closed! After all, he was there and He made them, didn't He?

3. If we come down in favour of the literal interpretation of Genesis, that means taking a Fundamentalist line on Evolution, the Age of the Earth and the Big Bang (i.e., that these theories are plain wrong) doesn't it?

4. Ummm...to be honest I don't know much about Baptist Christianity (having seen that you are one) , so I'm curious. What's your take on this? Where do Baptists stand on the notion that Adam and Eve were real (though pre-historic) people?

Thanks again,

Walter.



p.s.
I'm open to input from anyone here at C.F., even though this message is for Ebia and Aiki. If you've something helpful to say, please do so. Thank you.

 

[aiki]

Those quotes are very helpful Aiki, but they do prompt me to ask some questions.

1. Do you think it's possible that the writers of Chronicles, the Gospels and the Epistles thought that Adam and Eve were real people, even though the First Man and First Woman might actually be literary constructs, as other Christians suggest?

My point was that, while modern Christians may take the view that the first man and woman were just literary constructs, the Bible does not. From what the writers of the Scriptures indicate, they viewed Adam and Eve and the Fall as actual. Were they wrong? If you declare that they were, you put yourself on an exceedingly slippery slope theologically and doctrinally.

2. The quote from the Gospel of Mark has Jesus replying to a question from the Pharisees and I see that the marginal notes in my KJV refer to Genesis 1:27 as the source for this part of Jesus' response.
That being the case, doesn't this strongly indicate that Adam and Eve were in fact real people?
I mean, if God (incarnated as Jesus) says that they were made in just the way Genesis describes, that should be it - case closed! After all, he was there and He made them, didn't He?

Yes, I believe you've got the right of it here.

3. If we come down in favour of the literal interpretation of Genesis, that means taking a Fundamentalist line on Evolution, the Age of the Earth and the Big Bang (i.e., that these theories are plain wrong) doesn't it?

That would seem to be the case.

4. Ummm...to be honest I don't know much about Baptist Christianity (having seen that you are one) , so I'm curious. What's your take on this? Where do Baptists stand on the notion that Adam and Eve were real (though pre-historic) people?

Here are some quotations from a book entitled "Think Biblically" that speak directly to your last question and with which I entirely agree:

John MacArthur (pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, author and conference speaker, and president of The Master's College and Seminary) writes:

"I am convinced that Genesis 1-3 ought to be taken at face value - as the divinely revealed history of creation. Nothing about the Genesis text itself suggests that the biblical creation account is merely symbolic, poetic, allegorical, or mythical. The main thrust of the passage simply cannot be reconciled with the notion that 'creation' occurred via natural evolutionary processes over long periods of time. And I don't believe a faithful handling of the biblical text, by any acceptable principles of hermeneutics, can possibly reconcile these chapters with the theory of evolution or any of the other allegedly scientific theories about the origin of the universe....all sorts of theological mischief ensues when we reject or compromise the literal truth of the biblical account of creation and the fall of Adam."

MacArthur continues:

"...if the Lord wanted to teach us that creation took place in six literal days, how could He have stated it more plainly than Genesis does? The length of days is defined by periods of day and night that are governed after day four by the sun and moon. The week itself defines the pattern of human labor and rest. The days are marked by the passage of morning and evening. How could these not signify the chronological progression of God's creative work?....The simple, rather obvious, fact is that no one would ever think the time frame for creation was anything other than a normal week of seven days from reading the Bible and allowing it to interpret itself. The Fourth Commandment makes no sense whatsoever apart from an understanding that the days of God's creative work parallel a normal human work week."

And still more:

"A clear pattern for interpreting Genesis is given to us in the New Testament. If the language of early Genesis was meant to be interpreted figuratively, we could expect to see Genesis interpreted in the New Testament in a figurative sense. After all, the New Testament is itself inspired Scripture, so it is the Creator's own commentary on the Genesis record.

What do we find in the New Testament? In every New Testament reference to Genesis, the events recorded by Moses are treated as historical events..."

Finally:

"If the plain meaning of Genesis 1 may be written off and the language treated as nothing more than a literary device, why not do the same with Genesis 3? Indeed, most theological liberals do insist that the talking serpent in chapter 3 signals a fable or a metaphor, and therefore they reject that passage as a literal and historical record of how humanity fell into sin. Where does the metaphor ultimately end and history begin? After the Flood? After the Tower of Babel? And why there? Why not regard all the biblical miracles as literary devices? Why could not the resurrection itself be dismissed as mere allegory?"

Thanks again,

Walter.

You're welcome.

Peace to you.

 

[ebia]

To Ebia and Aiki,

Peace to you both and thank you for your replies.

Those quotes are very helpful Aiki, but they do prompt me to ask some questions.

1. Do you think it's possible that the writers of Chronicles, the Gospels and the Epistles thought that Adam and Eve were real people, even though the First Man and First Woman might actually be literary constructs, as other Christians suggest?

A couple of comments need to be made. Firstly, imagine you are evesdropping on a conversation:

"Did you hear what happened to Jenny last night?"
"Yes, wasn't it dreadful. I can't believe David would do something like that."
....
​

Nothing in that conversation tells you whether they are talking about real people, or fictional characters in their favourite TV soap, or what? Even in our modern culture that differentiates strongly between factual historical account and other forms of narrative, when we talk about a shared story we use the same forms of talking about it whether or not it is factual. Secondly, ancient people are much less interested in fact, and more interested in meaning. "Did it actually happen exactly like this" is not the question they are interested in - it's our question, not theirs.

The geneaologies in Chronicles, and Luke, and anywhere else serve the same purpose as they do in Genesis itself - they form links between the characters in the story being written and the characters in the story being referred to. Geneaologies are important in many ancient writtings not because they are factual, but because they link people and their stories.

The above applies just as much to Jesus' references back - referring to a shared story, and to not having a 20th century obsession with fact. But it also needs noting that Jesus is fully human, with all the limitations that go with that. He is therefore living in the same understanding of the cosmos as everyone around him. I've sometimes asked the question, if Jesus talked about a sunrise would he be:
a) wrong
b) would have given a long explanation about earth rotations
c) have been talking and thinking within the cosmological understanding of his culture

The answer has to be (c) and the same applies to his references to Genesis. The incarnate Jesus is not omniscient. He can't be and still be fully human. He is given the insights he needs to fulfill his mission. Mark even portrays him not knowing that the fig tree would be out of season, even though a normal person could have know that.

Jesus is not a superman figure, but fully human, with all the limitations that come with that, as well as fully divine. As soon as we start thinking in terms of Jesus knowing and being capable of doing anything (omniscient and/or omnipotent) then we've thrown his humanity out of the window. I would suggest that's probably the biggest problem in the way most Christians think in 21st century. Jesus followers knew he was fully human and struggled to get their heads around his divinity, modern Christians have been told he is fully divine and fail to pay more than lip-service to his humanity.

 

[WalterPlinge]

The incarnate Jesus is not omniscient. He can't be and still be fully human. He is given the insights he needs to fulfill his mission. Mark even portrays him not knowing that the fig tree would be out of season, even though a normal person could have know that.

Jesus is not a superman figure, but fully human, with all the limitations that come with that, as well as fully divine. As soon as we start thinking in terms of Jesus knowing and being capable of doing anything (omniscient and/or omnipotent) then we've thrown his humanity out of the window. I would suggest that's probably the biggest problem in the way most Christians think in 21st century. Jesus followers knew he was fully human and struggled to get their heads around his divinity, modern Christians have been told he is fully divine and fail to pay more than lip-service to his humanity.

Hello again Ebia.

Before I go on to comment about your last message, please let me assure all the concerned parties that I have no desire to cause any friction with my questions. When I opened this thread I stated that there might be some difficulties associated with them. Sadly, the search for the correct interpretation of scripture seems to be a topic that divides as much as it unites. Let us hope and work for unity on this one, ok?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see the logic in what you've said and I take on board what you say about the necessary separation between Incarnation and Omniscience.
However, your point about non-factuality of people listed in a genealogy does (in my opinion) needs further enquiry.
So how about the hypothetical scenario described below? Are you suggesting that something like this might apply? That is to say some kind of mechanism that merges two different types of personality into one document so that they become indistinguishable?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 21st century France the number of small hamlets, villages and towns named after Saints far exceeds the agreed number of canonized, bona fide Saints as declared by the authority of the Catholic church. There's a St. Alphonse de this, a Ste. Morgane de la that and a St. Symphorien de whatever, etc., etc.

The origin of these thousands of unaccredited Saints names comes from the early-Mediaeval tradition of a community unofficially canonizing one of their own citizens for good deeds he or she performed during their lives. When a church was built or re-built it was often consecrated/re-consecrated with this persons name. Since the church was usually the hub of these tiny rural communities, the whole village or town was often re-named in the church's honour. This process began almost a thousand years ago. I don't know if it still persists today.

Anyway, thus we have present day place names in France, bearing the prefix, "Saint" which bear no relationship to the officially sanctioned list of beatified and canonized Saints drawn up and overseen by the Vatican.

Now fast forward in your imagination two millennia, to the year 4009 A.D.

What would an archaeologist make of these two different listings of Saints, one found in the ruins of the Vatican and one from an ancient library in Paris? Here are two apparently contradictory lists of the Saints venerated by the primitive societies of the early 21st Century. They don't match up, but they do overlap to a degree. Perhaps the best way to understand the way these backward people practiced their religion would be to conflate both listings into one larger one - that way there can be no omissions.

So the 41st Century archaeologist produces this over-arching list of Saints, ignorant of the fact that he's mixing up...

1. Place names dedicated to real, but strictly local personalities of good character, who were unknown outside their own villages.

and...

2. Authorised Catholic Saints like St. Thomas Aquinas, who's teachings have had a profound influence on the lives of billions through being adopted into the Vatican's doctrine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, I admit that this is highly improbable and totally fictional, but I think it does show how the genealogies of the Bible might, over time, become unintentionally blurred between two different types of personality - the historically real ones and the metaphorical/mythical ones.

Please note that I do not wish to imply in way that the Bible is wrong or untrue or inaccurate. You'll note that both sets of people I refer to in my hypothesis are equally real (in that they really lived and died) , just different in influence and different in their original listings.

So Ebia, is this the kind of thing you were describing in your last message?

To Aiki...

Please trust me here. I do not advocate that this actually happened with the Bible. I am simply presenting this fictional scenario to see if this is the sort of process Ebia had in mind. My wish is to understand more fully what he is saying.

I do have further questions but I think it best not to ask them just yet.

Thank you,

Walter.

 

[ebia]

Hello again Ebia.

Before I go on to comment about your last message, please let me assure all the concerned parties that I have no desire to cause any friction with my questions. When I opened this thread I stated that there might be some difficulties associated with them. Sadly, the search for the correct interpretation of scripture seems to be a topic that divides as much as it unites. Let us hope and work for unity on this one, ok?

Sorry. Yes.

So how about the hypothetical scenario described below? Are you suggesting that something like this might apply? That is to say some kind of mechanism that merges two different types of personality into one document so that they become indistinguishable?

Kind of, but not really.

When Luke sat down to write his geneology one needs to ask 'why is he doing it'? What's his purpose? It's not to provide some academically historical information, or to aid someone in working out the age of the earth. He is showing how Jesus is linked in to the meta-narrative of the bible. Since Luke wants to show how Jesus is the culmination of a story that begins right back when people went wrong in the obedience to God he takes that link right back not just to Abraham (the beginning of the story of God putting things right) but to Adam (the beginning of the story of things going wrong). By doing so he also makes Jesus representative (as Adam is) of all humanity, not just (as Abraham is) of all Israel.

The question of whether Adam ever was an identifiable historical individual is our question, not his. He would not have been asking questions on those terms, and would undoubtably have been puzzled if you had been there and asked them of him. He would not have been looking to draw a sharp line between myth and history, but how do I tell this story to make clear the meaning I need to give it.

We then come at that text and assume Luke (and Jesus) are thinking the way we do, and providing answers to the questions we bring to it. Questions that have nothing to do with the purpose of the text or the world in which it was written.

 

[DeaconDean]

Hello.

I would like to ask a question that can easily be answered by the Fundamentalist Christians, here at C.F.
However (and with all due respect) , I would prefer this question to be answered by non-Fundamentalists, please.
My reasoning for placing this condition is as follows...

I am currently having a problem squaring the historicity of Jesus with the apparent non-historicity of the account of the Fall, as described in the Book of Genesis. Yes, I do appreciate that from the Fundamentalist p.o.v., both of these parts of the Bible are considered to be factual and historical accounts of real events. That is why I said that there is an easy answer from the Fundamentalist viewpoint - with both the Fall and the Cross being equally historical, everything fits neatly into place.

But what of the non-Fundamentalist viewpoint?

What follows is my current understanding of this p.o.v, so if I am in error please correct me. Thank you.

Dealing with Jesus' death on the Cross first...
* It's accepted that this was a real and historical event, backed up by facts and evidence.
* His death was a real, physical cessation of life and not something to be understood symbolically or metaphorically.
* His death had to be just as real as ours will be, because He was as fully human as we are.
* The full penalty for sin is corruption in this life, followed by physical death and then eternal separation from God in Hell. To save us from the full measure of this penalty, Jesus had to sacrifice Himself on the Cross for the sins of the whole world, thus satisfying both God's perfect justice and His love for us. By His sacrifice we are fully purified, renewed, perfected, justified and glorified - fit to enter into the holy presence of God in heaven.

So, none of the above is considered metaphorical, poetic, allegorical or symbolic. It's all real and true and relevant to us all.

Now compare and contrast what I've learned about the Genesis account of the Fall from non-Fundamentalist Christians, here at C.F.
(Once again folks, if I'm tripping up, please let me know.)

* The Book of Genesis is not a historical document and should not be read literally or as a historical account of actual events.
* It is important to understand the cultural framework in which it was written and realize that symbolism, allegory and metaphor are used in it to promote understanding of it's true meaning.
* Yes, sin did actually enter into the world (requiring Jesus to set things right) but not necessarily via Adam and Eve, because these people may well be literary constructs and not real persons.
* It is important not to take Genesis literally because that then opens up difficult questions concerning the mismatch between the Creation account and what Science tells us about the origins of the universe, the Earth and humans.

So perhaps you can see my difficulties here?

From a straight Fundamentalist p.o.v. there is no tension between the historicity of Jesus and the historicity of Genesis, both are equally true and real and historical. But from a non-Fundamentalist viewpoint surely we cannot see the Fall and the Cross in equally historic terms?
Both cannot be equally factual descriptions of real events, involving real people and causing real consequences if one of them is to be understood in symbolic or allegorical terms?
So if I can accept that everything listed above about Jesus is real, how can I then do the same for the Fall in particular and Genesis as a whole?

Please note that while I am trying to understand the non-Fundamentalist p.o.v. here and would prefer answers from non-Fundamentalist Christians, I am still open to any and all respondents, no matter what their persuasion.

Thanks in advance,

Walter.

Now I am a Fundamentalist, a Baptist, a Calvinist. My seminary education was along the lines of Reformed theology. And I know your not going to like my answers.

Now I personally take the creation account literally. As to the timeline, some argue the six 24 hour timeline, some argue the six 1000 year timeline. And if they advocate either one, I'll not dispute that, for me, it does not matter whether or not it was six 24 hour days, or even six 1000 year days, that does not matter. God being omnipotent, it is entirely within His power to have spoken it and it in a nano-second, come into being.

Now, somebody said on page one:

I believe that actual history starts ether with Noah or Abraham, since Noah could be literal or could be symbolic.

Fact, the first five books of the Bible, the Torah, the Pentatauch, the Law, were attributed to Moses. They were written by as much as 2300 years after Adam.

The Bible tells us that Adam lived 930 years after being cast out of the garden of Eden. Methselah lived some 987 years. Now, up until Noah's time, there is no scripture which tells us what a specific "generation", or how long a generation was. But we do know that Methuselah was was a son of Enoch.

It is possible that anywhere from 1500 to 1800 years of human history passed between these two men. Now, we know also that the Hebrews spent some 430 years +/- a few years in captivity in Egypt. So what we are left with is a long time line before the Pentatauch was written.

If your willing to discount Adam as "metaphorical, poetic, allegorical or symbolic", why not Noah and Abraham also? In fact, why not discount all human history until Moses' time?

Now I take Adam and Eve as being actual, factual, realistic people. They lived "X" amount of time in the Garden of Eden before they were cast out, and Adam lived 930 after being cast out.

The fact that Adam was real is established in the fact that Jesus Christ is called "the last Adam".

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." -1 Cor. 15:45 (KJV)

And the fact that Adam is called a son of God in the scriptures:

"Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." -Lk. 3:38 (KJV)

Yes Genesis does record history, but it is not meant to be "historical document". And something else you are forgetting is that the Bible is not composed historically. The canon of scripture was composed "topically" and not historically as they were written. For if they were, the little book of Job would have been first. Job is mentioned in Genesis:

"And the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Phuvah, and Job, and Shimron." -Gen. 46:13 (KJV)

Job lived after the flood, but before the "Law".

Yes sin did enter the world via Adam.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" -Rom. 5:12 (KJV)

Not to mention that the scriptures refer to themselves as the "God-Breathed" word. (2 Tim. 3:16) And it says "all scripture" not just some.

Adam's sinning destroyed the fellowship we had with God. Christ came to restore that fellowship.

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." -Rom. 5:10 (KJV)

Now you said:

* It is important not to take Genesis literally because that then opens up difficult questions concerning the mismatch between the Creation account and what Science tells us about the origins of the universe, the Earth and humans.

Darwinism, the theory of "evolution" has largely been discredited, but yet there are those who still cling to it.

As to the origins of the universe and the creation account, as I said earlier, it doesn't make a big deal whether it took six 24 hour days, or six 1000 year days for the creation. The thing about the creation account is that it was God who did it! God being omnipotent, isn't it possible for Him to "speak" things into existence?

"(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were." -Rom. 4:17 (KJV)

surely we cannot see the Fall and the Cross in equally historic terms?

Sure we can, as one destroyed, the other restored.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[WalterPlinge]

Hello Deacon Dean & Ebia.

Thanks for your replies.

Currently I find myself drawn to both of your positions, but in different ways, finding strengths and weaknesses in both. Please note that I am trying not to offend either of you, but would like to understand more and so I feel that further questions need to be asked. Once again, let me clearly state that I am not opposing or endorsing either position - I simply wish to learn more.

1. Why is it, Ebia, that from your p.o.v., Adam and Eve should not be seen as real and historical persons?

2. Ebia, you've put forward the argument that later Biblical writers would not have considered these people as real as you and I, but as something else - an allegorical pseudo-personality or similar. Could you please offer some supporting evidence for this position?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deacon Dean, you say to me that, "you're not going to like my answers".
Please note that while my initial question was framed for the non-Fundamentalist members of C.F., I did qualify that statement by also saying that I was open to contributions from all viewpoints. Therefore, I have no real problem with your answers.

However, for the sake of clarity I would just like to point out that where you quote me , saying, "* It is important not to take Genesis literally...
...the Earth and humans.", I was in fact...
A. Declaring what I'd learned from non-Fundamentalist Christians about the Fall.
B. Requesting the non-Fundamentalist Christians here at C.F. to correct me if I was tripping up by incorrectly outlining their p.o.v., not my own. I hope that this clears things up. Sorry if my initial wording was confusing.

So, while I may not be a believer, that does not automatically make me hostile or dismissive of Christian Fundamentalism. Therefore, in the spirit of open-minded inquiry, I'd like to ask you questions that mirror those I put to Ebia.

3. Your position is one that advocates a literal interpretation of scripture. Can you please offer some evidence for why this is a valid means of understanding the Bible?

4. Why is it that you believe that Adam and Eve should be seen as real, historical persons and not as the literary constructs Ebia advocates?

Thanks,

Walter.

 

[aiki]

Ok, I admit that this is highly improbable and totally fictional, but I think it does show how the genealogies of the Bible might, over time, become unintentionally blurred between two different types of personality - the historically real ones and the metaphorical/mythical ones.

I suppose it is possible to offer any number of unlikely scenarios in support of any number of points of view about the Bible...

To Aiki...

Please trust me here. I do not advocate that this actually happened with the Bible. I am simply presenting this fictional scenario to see if this is the sort of process Ebia had in mind. My wish is to understand more fully what he is saying.

Uh huh.

I do have further questions but I think it best not to ask them just yet.

Do you mean for me in particular? I'm happy to answer your questions as I can.

Thank you,

Walter.

You're welcome.

Peace to you.