Was Adam an historical figure?

[Calminian]

And geocentrists quoted their scriptures that show heliocentrism was wrong. ...

Actually the geocentrists were quoting the Aristotelian Astronomers (the scientists of their day). Just like today, some theologians went along wanted to be on the side of "science." But countless other theologians were very open to heliocentrism.

Sorry Assyrian, I couldn't let you get away with that little fib.

 

[Assyrian]

Actually the geocentrists were quoting the Aristotelian Astronomers (the scientists of their day). Just like today, some theologians went along wanted to be on the side of "science." But countless other theologians were very open to heliocentrism.

Sorry Assyrian, I couldn't let you get away with that little fib.

It wouldn't have been a problem if it was just Aristotelian astronomy that was challenged by Copernicus, the problem was it contradicted the plain reading of passages like Joshua's long day, where it is the sun Joshua commands to stand still or Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. Here is what Cardinal Bellarmine said in 1615

Untitled Document

And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe..

“Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith...It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.” ...

“I add the words ‘the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.’ were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God...​

 

[Calminian]

It wouldn't have been a problem if it was just Aristotelian astronomy that was challenged by Copernicus, the problem was it contradicted the plain reading of passages like Joshua's long day, .......[/INDENT]

Utter nonsense. Countless theologians then and now believe God merely stopped the rotation of the earth supernaturally or used some other means as they were fine even then with heliocentrism.

The truth is, christian geocentrists were really just like you and modern TE's. They wanted desperately to be on the side of modern science, so they bent scripture whichever way that can to make if fit. You are, indeed, a modern version of an ancient geocentrist. Your thinking is identical to theirs.

 

[Assyrian]

Certainly the "let us..." may be the Father and the Son in conversation. But not necessarily so, as even many Christians hold other opinions. The concept of a divine council is entrenched in both Israelite and Caananite cultures. And the highest-ranking beings in it, the "sons of God", were certainly freewill beings with authority, because God put them in charge of mankind from the dispersion to perhaps as recently as the resurrection (Deut 32:7-9, Matt 28:18). How could they have been placed in charge of men if they were lesser beings than ourselves?

But in truth I'm not really sure how to respond to you, because you believe the oldest parts of the Bible are allegorical. I don't know if you believe that the sons of God were ever actually in charge of mankind, or if you even believe they actually exist.

Why not just discuss what scripture has to say about them? With the divine council interpretation of Genesis 1, do you elevate the angelic sons of God to image of God status, though it is never said that angels were created in his image? Or do you reduce the image of God in mankind to the attributes God shared with created angels, free will as you have mentioned and intelligence?

 

[Calminian]

Why not just discuss what scripture has to say about them? With the divine council interpretation of Genesis 1, do you elevate the angelic sons of God to image of God status, though it is never said that angels were created in his image? Or do you reduce the image of God in mankind to the attributes God shared with created angels, free will as you have mentioned and intelligence?

Nor do you have any reason to be dogmatic they are not in the image of God. You just assume it for unknown reasons. But when you look at what makes us different from the animals, it would seem our moral awareness is what sets us apart, and both us and angels have that.

Plus, angels are referred to as the sons of God. That's a huge clue right there.

 

[Assyrian]

Utter nonsense. Countless theologians then and now believe God merely stopped the rotation of the earth supernaturally or used some other means as they were fine even then with heliocentrism.

Who believed God stopped the earth rotating before Copernicus showed us the earth was rotating? The bible says Joshua commanded the sun to stop, the only reason not to take that literally was discovering from science that it was really the earth that was rotating rather than the sun moving round the earth.

The truth is, christian geocentrists were really just like you and modern TE's. They want desperately to be on the side of modern science, so they bend scripture whichever way that can to make if fit. You are, indeed, a modern version of an ancient geocentrist. Your thinking is identical to theirs.

People didn't need science to think the sun went round the earth, they just had to look outside and see the sun seeming to cross the sky day after day. Christians didn't need science to read about Joshua commanding the sun to stand still and think Joshua stopped the sun moving across the sky. It is the simple plain meaning of the text.

 

[Assyrian]

Nor do you have any reason to be dogmatic they are not in the image of God. You just assume it for unknown reasons. But when you look at what makes us different from the animals, it would seem our moral awareness is what sets us apart, and both us and angels have that.

Plus, angels are referred to as the sons of God. That's a huge clue right there.

I'm not being dogmatic, I am just saying there is a huge assumption that isn't supported in scripture and cuts across what we do understand about the image of God, limited and all as it is. We cannot arbitrarily ascribe meaning to the term 'sons of God' just because they suit our p.o.v. We don't know where the term came from, or why it was given, but scripture certainly ascribes limits to the angel's relationship with their creator. Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?

 

[ChetSinger]

Why not just discuss what scripture has to say about them? With the divine council interpretation of Genesis 1, do you elevate the angelic sons of God to image of God status, though it is never said that angels were created in his image? Or do you reduce the image of God in mankind to the attributes God shared with created angels, free will as you have mentioned and intelligence?

What do you think the "image of God" is?

 

[Assyrian]

What do you think the "image of God" is?

Matt 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Eph 5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.
2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

1Pet 1:16 since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy."

1John 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

 

[Calminian]

Who believed God stopped the earth rotating before Copernicus showed us the earth was rotating? The bible says Joshua commanded the sun to stop, the only reason not to take that literally was discovering from science that it was really the earth that was rotating rather than the sun moving round the earth.

But the sun would literally stop if the earth stopped rotating. All movement is relative and can only be described from a point of reference. If the sun stopped today, modern astrophysicists would describe it as stopping in the sky, just as they refer to dusk as sunset. It is literally true from the reference of one standing on the earth. Now they also could get technical was to why the sun stopped and speak of the earth's orbit, but that doesn't meant that in reference to the land and sky it stopped.

 

[Assyrian]

But the sun would literally stop if the earth stopped rotating. All movement is relative and can only be described from a point of reference. If the sun stopped today, modern astrophysicists would describe it as stopping in the sky, just as they refer to dusk as sunset. It is literally true from the reference of one standing on the earth. Now they also could get technical was to why the sun stopped and speak of the earth's orbit, but that doesn't meant that in reference to the land and sky it stopped.

How could the sun stop if it isn't moving? Stopping the earth rotating a force acting on the earth to decelerate its rotation. Stopping the sun orbiting the earth, if it did orbit the earth, would require a force acting on the sun to decelerate it.

How about you go (carefully) and stand in the middle of a round about and watch the traffic driving in circles around you. Then go into a car park and start spinning around in circles. Is it the same? If so, why do you fall over in the car park? Motion in a circle is very different from motion in a straight line which is relative. Circular motion involves a constant change in the direction you are moving in. This is acceleration too and requires a force constantly acting on the body to accelerate it. It take the gravitational pull of the sun to make the earth orbit around it. For the sun to orbit the earth the earth would have to have the mass and gravitational pull of the sun, as well as having another mystery force holding the earth still to counteract the sun's gravitational pull on the earth. Of course if the earth was the mass of the sun, i.e. 330,000 heavier, you would weigh 330,000 times more and be flat as a pancake.

 

[Calminian]

How could the sun stop if it isn't moving?

But wait, the sun is moving! Right! Isn't the sun orbiting the center of the milky-way? See what a mess you get your self into when you deny the relativity of movement? You're trying to impose your own points of reference on the the Bible writers, and yet you are ignoring other points of reference.

The only way to intelligently describe movement is via points of reference. Otherwise you start to sound crazy.

 

[ChetSinger]

Matt 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Eph 5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.
2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

1Pet 1:16 since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy."

1John 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

OK. It seems to me that you're describing loving behavior, which might be described as "behaving" in the image of God.

But I've always been taught that all of us have been "made" in the image of God, whether we "behave" like him or not. For NT support I'll quote James:

How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.

I see nothing in that text that teaches only loving people have been made in the image of God. Rather, one reason we shouldn't curse people is because they've been made in the likeness of God.

So I don't think we're going to agree on whether any angelic beings are made in the image of God we don't agree on what that term means.

 

[Assyrian]

But wait, the sun is moving! Right! Isn't the sun orbiting the center of the milky-way? See what a mess you get your self into when you deny the relativity of movement? You're trying to impose your own points of reference on the the Bible writers, and yet you are ignoring other points of reference.

The only way to intelligently describe movement is via points of reference. Otherwise you start to sound crazy.

The sun and earth are both moving around the centre of the galaxy at the same rate, both experience the same gravitational pull, are in the same free fall orbit. It makes no difference to the motion of the solar system itself, and it is the motion of the earth and sun that was being discussed in Joshua. In the solar system it is the earth that orbits the sun, the sun only appears to move around the earth because the earth is rotating.

You haven't answered my illustration of spinning in circles in a car park vs standing in the middle of a roundabout (I think they are called traffic circles in the US). While cars appear to move around you in both cases, only one will set the fluid spinning in you inner ear and make you dizzy.

 

[ChetSinger]

How could the sun stop if it isn't moving? Stopping the earth rotating a force acting on the earth to decelerate its rotation. Stopping the sun orbiting the earth, if it did orbit the earth, would require a force acting on the sun to decelerate it.

There are no preferred reference points anywhere in the universe. Should the earth stop rotating, from Joshua's reference point on the earth's surface it's perfectly proper to say the sun stopped. Because it's what he observed from his point of view. Just as it's perfectly proper to conclude that the earth is moving under you when look down from an airplane. That's just Special Relativity being applied.

If I've misunderstood you, or am barking up the wrong tree, let me know.

 

[Lollerskates]

What are your thoughts?

Yes.

There is always a prime. Adam was split into two to reproduce (similar to bacterial binary fision.) Binary, tertiary, etc. produce populations quickly.

 

[Calminian]

The sun and earth are both moving around the centre of the galaxy at the same rate, both experience the same gravitational pull, are in the same free fall orbit. It makes no difference to the motion of the solar system itself, and it is the motion of the earth and sun that was being discussed in Joshua. In the solar system it is the earth that orbits the sun, the sun only appears to move around the earth because the earth is rotating

But you said the sun wasn't moving. By your own standards you're promoting a false cosmology. You see, even you are using a point of reference for movement, in this case the sun.

But the truth is, all descriptions of movement must have points of reference. If you ask your kids to sit still in the back seat, the point of references is the car. You're are speaking literally and you're not asking them to jump out of the car, jump off the planet, or out of the galaxy. If a policeman says you failed to stop at the stop sign, the point of references is the land on which the street is. He's not asking you to stop rotating with the planet.

Joshua was speaking literally and properly in saying the sun stood still. If he wasn't then you also blundered saying the sun wasn't moving.

 

[Assyrian]

But you said the sun wasn't moving. By your own standards you're promoting a false cosmology. You see, even you are using a point of reference for movement, in this case the sun.

As you said yourself, motion is relative and you need a frame of reference to describe it. In terms of our orbit around the centre of the galaxy, the sun and the earth are both in free fall. They share the same frame of reference and are not moving relative to each other because of the the gravitational pull of the galaxy. The movement in this frame of reference is made up of the earth's orbit around the sun and the earth's daily rotation.

If astronomy used the sun as the point of reference how could they talk of the movement of the sun caused by the earth's gravity? Both the earth and the sun rotate around the centre of mass of the sun earth system. This centre of mass is deep within the sun but is not the sun's own centre. The earth still goes around the sun, while the sun itself wobbles.



The gravitational pulls of the sun and of the earth are real and powerful forces, they cause acceleration and real changes in velocity. The seeming motion of the of the sun around the earth isn't real. It is caused by the earth's actual rotation due to its angular momentum. This is real motion too not just an apparent or relative motion. It causes hurricanes and typhoons to rotate in different direction in the northern and southern hemispheres, it gives us the band of trade winds that circle the planet, easterly winds on either side of the equator below 30°, the prevailing westerly winds between 30° and 60° and the polar easterly winds above 60°.

But the truth is, all descriptions of movement must have points of reference. If you ask your kids to sit still in the back seat, the point of references is the car. You're are speaking literally and you're not asking them to jump out of the car, jump off the planet, or out of the galaxy. If a policeman says you failed to stop at the stop sign, the point of references is the land on which the street is. He's not asking you to stop rotating with the planet.

And if little Damian was jumping up and down on top of Tarquin would you tell Tarquin to sit still? You still haven't addressed the difference between spinning around in car park and watching cars drive around you on a traffic roundabout. There is a real difference between them which is why you fall over when you keep spinning around.

Joshua was speaking literally and properly in saying the sun stood still. If he wasn't then you also blundered saying the sun wasn't moving.

I agree Joshua was speaking literally, unfortunately the literal meaning is that it was the sun was moving around the earth and that it stopped moving when he commanded it.

 

[Assyrian]

There are no preferred reference points anywhere in the universe. Should the earth stop rotating, from Joshua's reference point on the earth's surface it's perfectly proper to say the sun stopped. Because it's what he observed from his point of view. Just as it's perfectly proper to conclude that the earth is moving under you when look down from an airplane. That's just Special Relativity being applied.

If I've misunderstood you, or am barking up the wrong tree, let me know.

Do you think Joshua was speaking in terms of Special Relativity or do you think he really thought the sun went round the earth?

While it may appear the same to Joshua (apart from slamming into a tree at 900 miles per hour if he didn't stop too) the reality of the physics is very different because you have to apply a force to the object that is actually moving to get it to stop. The energy that would needed to stop the earth rotating is a whopping 2.138×1029 Joules (equivalent to 4.363×1026 Big Macs) or, since that amount of energy would melt the planet, you need some way to remove the earth's 2.138×1029J of rotational kinetic energy, as well as remove its rotational angular momentum. If the sun really was moving around the earth it would take 7.055×1034 Joules to stop it moving. In each case the work needs to be done to the object that is actually moving.

 

[Assyrian]

OK. It seems to me that you're describing loving behavior, which might be described as "behaving" in the image of God.

But I've always been taught that all of us have been "made" in the image of God, whether we "behave" like him or not. For NT support I'll quote James:

I see nothing in that text that teaches only loving people have been made in the image of God. Rather, one reason we shouldn't curse people is because they've been made in the likeness of God.

I think it is in our capacity for mercy, empathy, love, even self sacrificial love that human beings most show the image of God who created us. Whether we actually act on that capacity or not is another matter. If people act in a way that is mercilessly selfish and cruel could they even be judged for that if there was nothing within them telling them they should act differently?

So I don't think we're going to agree on whether any angelic beings are made in the image of God we don't agree on what that term means.

Which is why I said you risk downgrading the image of God if it only refers to the characteristics God shares with angels. I think the image of God is something we are both only beginning to understand, I certainly am. The thing is, there is so much more potential to what the image of God can mean if it is the image of God, rather than the image of angels.

Think where we see the image of God in man most perfectly represented in in Christ himself, but there is a flip side to this. I don't think the incarnation would have been possible, I don't think God could have become man, if human nature had not been created in some way God shaped, Heb 10:5 a body have you prepared for me.