Why a literalist presumption?

[Vance]

And even if it DID require it to be an historical event, that still does not require a literal Adam as a single, particular individual.

Again, this is just the phantom menace raising its ugly head. "if you don't believe X (which is not an essential in and of itself), then you can't (won't) believe Y (which is an essential belief)."

This is entirely falsified by showing a single person who believes in Y without believing in X.

 

[SBG]

You just refuted the reason for Jesus Christ.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Remus,

Your definition of "true" is dangerous. By your logic, Jesus did not speak the truth when he told parables. By definition, then, Jesus, the Son of God, spoke untruths. This is clearly not what you believe. So you must recognize that your definition is faulty.

Our English phrase "a true story" means "an historical story", so I understand that such a thing would throw you off. We're not using the term as we do in casual parlance, but as a more specialized/philosophical term. When theologians and philosophers use the words "true" and "truth", they refer to how well something matches up to some reality.

But not necessarily all reality. If a story is meant to give history, and the reality of history does not support the story, then it is not a true story. But because fables and parables are meant to share morals apart from whether the events discussed reflect actual history, and the morals are true, then we can say that the story is true in this philosophical sense: that is, anything that reflects reality accurately is true. A story that fulfills its purpose accurately and satisfactorily is a story that is true; a parable that correctly gives the picture of reality is doing its job well, conveying eternal truths via metaphor.

 

[TwinCrier]

You just refuted the reason for Jesus Christ.

Funny isn't it? Sin came into the world through someone who never existed.
Romans 5:12 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:
Once our origin of sin in Adam is dismissed, it becomes quite easy to dismiss our origin as humans through him as well.

 

[SBG]

And even if it DID require it to be an historical event, that still does not require a literal Adam as a single, particular individual.

If it was a literal event, then it would require a literal Adam. That is if you are speaking about the first Adam and his fall from Grace.

Again, this is just the phantom menace raising its ugly head. "if you don't believe X (which is not an essential in and of itself), then you can't (won't) believe Y (which is an essential belief)."

This is entirely falsified by showing a single person who believes in Y without believing in X.

You didn't even make a comment about anything I wrote, which the Holy Spirit Himself, taught me.

This understanding is not required for those who just accept Jesus Christ by faith and follow Him. This understanding is required if you so choose to teach what the Bible says.

Since you Vance, have taken this role of teacher, you must understand what God has said. If you claim that the Holy Spirit doesn't care about how we, as teachers, understand God's Word, then you are completely false and misguided.

If you think you are not taking the role of a teacher, then you are also in error. For you have taken the liberity to speak about what you believe the Bible says, or doesn't say. Thus, you have taken the spot as a teacher. And by taking this spot, you will now be judged according to what you have taught, by God. And if you have lead one astray, you know what God's Word has to say.

As a teacher of God's Word, you must submit yourself to Him, to be taught. You cannot bring in outside sources to teach you. If you want to truly and correctly be taught, then you will listen only to God's Voice. How do you this? By reading His Word. When we read God's Word, this is when God speaks to us.

For all these reasons, stated above, I have called and do call you a false teacher. You do not submit to the Spirit's Authority in these matters. You rather turn to the sayings and teachings of men, thus carrying them above what the Spirit has to say. Let it be known that these matters are not about computers or some random thing of science, but rather the things taught by God's Word that science says cannot be true, as God has written it to be.

 

[Remus]

Does this mean that you believe the creation accounts must be accurate in the scientific and chronological details since otherwise it would not be "true" by this definition? For example, do you believe that the creation account occurred over six 24-hour periods because if it did not, then Genesis is not accurate, and thus not true? Assuming, for the moment, that no other Scripture discussed the matter, would the text of Genesis 1 by itself require a literal six 24 hour periods in order to be "true"?

Or pick any other details you deem factually accurate (ie, literal) in these accounts. Absent any other Scripture discussing them, would you deem them to be literal because otherwise they would not be true?

I believe that "yom" in Genesis 1 does not have to be a literal 24-hour period. I think that answers your question.

I am simply trying to isolate the basis for your (generally) literal interpretation of these creation accounts (recognizing that you find some things, like the "breathing", as figurative). Out of curiosity, are there any other aspects of these accounts besides the breathing that you accept were figurative representations?

I believe that the two trees and the fruit are symbolic.

Now, your acceptance of breathing is a good example. You agree that this is a figurative representation of what really happened. Thus, it is conveying truth (God did something and even gives us the essential point about what was done, that life, or God's Spirit, entered Adam), but that it is not "true" in the sense that it is not a scientifically or historically accurate factual statement. If you went back in time (or before time, if you like), you would agree that you would not see God physically breathing into Adam. So, by your definition, that particular passage is valid and trustworthy, but not "true".

I agree with that entirely (although, again, I would never say it was not "true" since I have a broader definition of that word when it comes to Scripture). What is important is that you seem willing to accept that God is willing and able to tell us the truth about what happened during His creation process using figurative terms and phrases, language that is not strictly "true".

Actually, I believe that something can be symbolic and still be accurate and thus still be true.

And, I would assume you would agree that God could choose to tell as much or as little of the Creation accounts using that literary devise and style as He liked, even the whole thing, if He was so inclined, correct? And, if He HAD chosen to do so (understanding that you might think He did not due to other reasons, just assuming He did), would you still find that account a valid and trustworthy presentation of the truth, even if it was not "true" (using your definition)?

If you are asking would I believe that a creation account that was clearly not literal (something like a parable perhaps), would I still consider it to be valid and trustworthy, then yes. If you're asking something else, then you'll have to rephrase that one.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Once our origin of sin in Adam is dismissed, it becomes quite easy to dismiss our origin as humans through him as well.

Except, of course, for the fact that we exist and we sin.

If someone only believes they're a sinner in need of a Saviour because of their belief about a distant ancestor, then I don't think they have a correct understanding of who they are and what Jesus did for them.

 

[invisible trousers]

SBG I have never seen such an eloquently stated straw man. Kudos.

However, I see we're approaching the "if you don't believe my exact interpretation of genesis then you aren't christian" point of the thread--which seems to happen often with literalists around here, so I'm not sure if it's worth my time to go over your posts, since apparently I've refuted Jesus and am not a real christian.

 

[SBG]

Except, of course, for the fact that we exist and we sin.

If someone only believes they're a sinner in need of a Saviour because of their belief about a distant ancestor, then I don't think they have a correct understanding of who they are and what Jesus did for them.

Then are you claiming God created us original to sin against Him?

 

[SBG]

SBG I have never seen such an eloquently stated straw man. Kudos.

However, I see we're approaching the "if you don't believe my exact interpretation of genesis then you aren't christian" point of the thread--which seems to happen often with literalists around here, so I'm not sure if it's worth my time to go over your posts, since apparently I've refuted Jesus and am not a real christian.

I never said you weren't a real Christian. Do not conviently skip what I actually said to Vance, to say I am talking to you, or that I said he refuted Jesus Christ in and of Himself, but rather that I *did* say he refuted the reason for Jesus Christ.


So, you believe Paul's teaching about Jesus Christ being the second Adam, and my further explanation on what this is, is easily refuted, thus not true?

Then please, explain why Jesus is called the second Adam, if there is no Adam and we were original created by God to sin against Him.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Except, of course, for the fact that we exist and we sin.

If someone only believes they're a sinner in need of a Saviour because of their belief about a distant ancestor, then I don't think they have a correct understanding of who they are and what Jesus did for them.

Then are you claiming God created us original to sin against Him?

God created us able to sin against him.

I am claiming that anyone who points the finger to Adam to justify their sinfulness doesn't realize their own guilt. Such a person obviously hasn't learned from the finger-pointing both Adam and Eve did in the garden.

 

[SBG]

If you are suggesting that I am blaming Adam for my own sinful behavior, then you have not understood anything I have said.

God created us with a choice, to follow Him or to not. Many TE's suggest we weren't created with this choice, but rather we were created originally as sinful.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

If you are suggesting that I am blaming Adam for my own sinful behavior, then you have not understood anything I have said.

If you think belief in a historical, literal Adam is necessary for a person to realize they're sinful, then I think you are falling into that error.

Many TE's suggest we weren't created with this choice, but rather we were created originally as sinful.

Who has said this?

 

[SBG]

If you think belief in a historical, literal Adam is necessary for a person to realize they're sinful, then I think you are falling into that error.

I don't think you have understood what I have said. I have not talked about Adam needing to be literal for me to know I am sinful.

Sigh... communicating or being heard is rather difficult in this forum.

Who has said this?

When on says there was no literal fall, but rather we are all fallen, it is to suggest that we were originally created as fallen.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

When on says there was no literal fall, but rather we are all fallen, it is to suggest that we were originally created as fallen.

First off, as far as I'm aware the claim hasn't been that there was no Fall, but that the Fall may have involved a group of people larger than two, or perhaps it may refer to what each of us goes through when our consciences make us aware and accountable for our sin (Romans 3:20; 2:14-15).

Whether the Fall involved two people, two hundred people or every person, Paul could still summarize it in Romans by just referring to Adam.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Then please, explain why Jesus is called the second Adam, if there is no Adam and we were original created by God to sin against Him.

We were not created to sin against God any more than the first human being was. And, the question isn't whether there is an Adam, but rather what Adam represents. The first person? The first couple? The first population of humans? Paul's words ring true regardless.

 

[SBG]

We were not created to sin against God any more than the first human being was. And, the question isn't whether there is an Adam, but rather what Adam represents. The first person? The first couple? The first population of humans? Paul's words ring true regardless.

Ok. Let us clear up what Paul means by his use of the word man and Adam.

First, look to Luke 3:38 where Jesus speaks of Adam. Notice the Greek word adam(transliteral) means simply Adam, the first man. It cannot mean more than 1 person here.

Now, let us look to Paul's teachings. First, Romans 5:12 where Paul talks about one man bringing sin into the world. The word man, anthropos, means human being, a certain man. This is singular in usage. To further see what Paul means, we can look at the word before man, one. One in Greek is heis and can only mean 'one.'

So now we can understand Paul is talking about one certain human being.

Furthermore examine Romans 5:14 where Paul refers to this 'one certain human being' as Adam. This same word 'adam' in Greek simply means Adam, the first man.

Look to Paul's other teachings on Adam.

1 Corinthians 15:12
1 Corinthians 15:45
1 Timothy 2:13-14

Look to Jude 1:14 where Adam is also talked about as a real person.

All of these refer to a real, literal Adam being the first man to live. Man is defined as a human being.

There can be no question concerning if Paul believed there were multiple Adam's that fell. His writing clearly states one Adam.

 

[SBG]

We were not created to sin against God any more than the first human being was.

We are born in sin, because we live in a fallen world. Look again to Paul's teachings. He teaches that the world longs to be freed of its bondage. This bondage he refers to is sin. This world is already fallen. We are not born as pre-fallen, in a fallen world. We are born, already fallen.

Thus Adam was originally created as sinless and upon his creation, he had yet to fall from Grace.

From your sentence above, you seem to indicate that you believe we are not in a fallen world, therefore we are not born in sin. This is not how God originally intended for us to be, but because He loved us so much, He gave us free will. This free will was thrown in God's face when Adam and Eve disobeyed Him. The consequences we can see everyday.

 

[Vance]

Remus, thanks for the honest and straightforward answers. My comment would be that the creation story need not be akin to a parable in order to be "non-literal". Here is how I (and a LOT of TE's) see it.

I see it an account of literal events, but told with a great deal of non-literal literary devices. I actually think the YOM used by the author is meant in the 24-hour sense, but that the whole "days" motif is just that, a literary motif or framework for presentation of the "truth" about what happened.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I just caught this.

First, look to Luke 3:38 where Jesus speaks of Adam. Notice the Greek word adam(transliteral) means simply Adam, the first man. It cannot mean more than 1 person here.

This begs the question of typology.

Now, let us look to Paul's teachings. First, Romans 5:12 where Paul talks about one man bringing sin into the world. The word man, anthropos, means human being, a certain man. This is singular in usage. To further see what Paul means, we can look at the word before man, one. One in Greek is heis and can only mean 'one.'

So now we can understand Paul is talking about one certain human being.

Yes. Just as Odysseus is one certain human being, and Perseus is one certain demigod. This is begging the question.

Look to Jude 1:14 where Adam is also talked about as a real person.

Look to Psalm 16:7 and Proverbs 23:16 where the kidneys are talked about as the mind or seat of emotions. Why didn't God correct David and Solomon on the spot? In the New Testament Paul in Philippians 1:8, Col. 3:12, and Philemon 7:20 shows that he believes the intestines serve that function. Nowhere in the Bible do we have the word "brain" - because the ancients disregarded that gook in the head, scholars doubt there was even a word for it in the Hebrew language! God evidently didn't have a problem with scientific inaccuracy in His Scriptures. It's beside the point.

Some people want God to have done things the way they would have, and insist that He did, despite all evidence to the contrary. Pretty cheeky, if you ask me.