Why a literalist presumption?

[shernren]

The YEC belief is much older than you might realize. It goes back to the Apostles and even further.

And the TE belief is much older than that. It goes all the way back to the time of Moses.

YECs are not claiming that the Bible is a scientific manual. We are claiming that God does tell us how He created and what He created when.

And yet YECs feel qualified to make scientific statements from the Bible, such as:
-Isochron dating must be invalid in all cases where it gives an age of more than 6000 years
-Galaxies manifesting extreme age have only had the time to do so because of massive edge-of-universe gravitational time dilation.
-Evolutionary processes are insufficient to cause "macroevolution"

We should only predicate scientific statements from a text if the author meant it to be a scientific text, right?

Now you are taking it in the opposite way saying it must mean the samething.
You may have a point, if the geneologies were not there, and if Paul and Jude didn't teach of a literal Adam.

Well, the genealogies are one thing that is often used as proof of Adam. So I had a point to make.

 

[shernren]

Can we ban the word "arrogance" here? Let's be either right, wrong, or ambiguous. No point accusing other people sinning.

And guess what? I do believe in a literal Adam. I don't think that is ample evidence for taking it all the way to believe in the literal-historical 6-day creation though.

 

[Remus]

Actually, that's precisely what YECs think. No, it's not enough that Genesis 1 be a fantastic creation account that seals God's ownership over the universe: it has to be a scientific manual as well.

Please tell me more about what I think. I really need to know so I don't mess up and say something that I don't actually think.

And guess what? I do believe in a literal Adam. I don't think that is ample evidence for taking it all the way to believe in the literal-historical 6-day creation though.

What do you believe was before Adam? Did humans evolve up to a certain point or something like that?

 

[Didaskomenos]

Can we ban the word "arrogance" here? Let's be either right, wrong, or ambiguous. No point accusing other people sinning.

Let's be realistic. If arrogance is causing someone to be wrong, let's cut at the root of the problem, not put a Band-Aid on it.

 

[gluadys]

Yet, Paul speaks about such a man, using the Greek word 'adam' which means first human, not first human(s).

Please. "Adam" does not mean "first human". It means "human". period.

Paul compares a real literal Jesus Christ to a real literal Adam.

Jesus speaks of a literal Adam.

The geneologies speak of a literal Adam

What, in any of these references, requires Adam to be a literal individual?

Furthermore, Vance here ignorantly refutes God when He says in Genesis that Eve will bring forth the One who will crush Satan's head. To state that Eve is not real is stating this figurative person will bring about the figurative 'One.' Or simply, God is wrong.

Would you agree that the One who will crush Satan's head is Jesus Christ?
Well, who brought forth Jesus? (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7)

As a literal individual Eve did not bring forth the One. So this reference to Eve giving birth to the One requires that she be a type or figure of Mary who is the one who literally gave birth to Jesus.

 

[gluadys]

If Paul wanted to speak of more than one man to refer to Adam, all Paul had to do was change the usage of anthropos. When he is talking about Adam Paul uses the form of anthropos as anthropou, which is singular in usage. Just as we can make words plural in english, so can the Greek language.

And I expect that in Greek as in English, when a type is referred to, the singular is used.

In Romans 5, it is very clear that Paul is speaking of a certain individual, because he further speaks of him by name, Adam.

But the name is a transliteration of a word.

There would be no reason for Paul to believe Adam was not real. Jesus spoke of Adam as a real person. The lineage was traced from Jesus back to Adam. Why would Paul refute this teaching from God? Why would Paul refute God's teaching in Genesis 3 as Vance tries to do?

Neither Paul nor Vance are refuting God. Neither Paul, nor Vance are saying Adam was not real. In fact, if Paul was referring to Adam as a type, he would likely consider the type to be more real than any individual could be.

Paul grew up in the Greek-speaking city of Tarsus. He would have some familiarity with Greek philosophy. Even if his principal studies were rabbinical. Some influential Jewish teachers of his time (e.g. Philo of Alexandria) were attempting reconciliations of Hebrew and Greek philosophy.

So I think Paul was certainly very familiar with the principal concept of Plato's philosophy, which is the "form" or "idea". Today's world has abandoned much of Plato's teaching. To us, the word "idea" implies something insubstantial flitting through the mind like a will-o-the-wisp. We don't see an idea as real until it takes physical form. To Plato, and to those (Greek, Jewish or Roman, Christian or non-Christian) who followed him, the idea was real precisely because it was not physical. They saw physical things as changeable, corruptible, mortal shadows of the idea which was unchangeable, incorruptible and eternal. The idea was much more real than its physical representatives.

So it would be very inconsistent with a dominant philosophy of the day, one that had Jewish as well as Greek interpreters, to suppose that if Paul was referring to Adam as a type, he was referring to him as "not real". From the perspective of a Hellenized Jew, Adam as type would be more real than Adam as literal individual.

 

[SBG]

Please. "Adam" does not mean "first human". It means "human". period.

Really? What Greek language are you refering to?

If I wanted to talk about man or men, I would use anthropos. If I wanted to talk about the first man, I would say Adam. Alpha-delta-alpha-mu.

Are you that insistent to hold onto your doctrine of refuting Adam as the first literal man, that you will argue against the Greek language and what it really means?

What, in any of these references, requires Adam to be a literal individual?

So when Paul says to Timothy that Adam was first formed, then Eve, Paul is speaking about a figurative Adam?

And when Jude talks of Enoch and says Enoch is the seventh generation from Adam, he was refering to a mythical Adam?

Would you agree that the One who will crush Satan's head is Jesus Christ?
Well, who brought forth Jesus? (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7)

As a literal individual Eve did not bring forth the One. So this reference to Eve giving birth to the One requires that she be a type or figure of Mary who is the one who literally gave birth to Jesus.

Yes, Jesus Christ crushed Satans head when He died on the Cross. That is what I previously said.

So you are now arguing that Jesus, the man, was not descendant of Eve, as the Bible says?

Genesis 3:15
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Jesus is the seed of Eve, or are you going to now refute this to uphold your doctrine?

 

[SBG]

And I expect that in Greek as in English, when a type is referred to, the singular is used.



But the name is a transliteration of a word.

The same is said about the Hebrew word Adam. It is pronouced aw-dawn. It is written with an aleph-dalet-mem. So what is your point?

Neither Paul nor Vance are refuting God. Neither Paul, nor Vance are saying Adam was not real. In fact, if Paul was referring to Adam as a type, he would likely consider the type to be more real than any individual could be.

I would never consider Paul to be refuting God. I have seen Vance refute what the Bible says. You all simply try to cover this up by saying it is the interpretation you are refuting. But when verses are presented and you say the same thing, it is clear you are refuting God and His Word.

How far do you feel you need to go? Why do you desire destruction?

Where is your proof that Paul believed Adam wasn't real? There are many words Paul could have used to indicate that he wasn't refering to a literal Adam. Why doesn't he use them, if you say he believe it?

Paul grew up in the Greek-speaking city of Tarsus. He would have some familiarity with Greek philosophy. Even if his principal studies were rabbinical. Some influential Jewish teachers of his time (e.g. Philo of Alexandria) were attempting reconciliations of Hebrew and Greek philosophy.

The same Philo who said the days of creation are not literal days, but the earth is less than 6,000 years old.

Are we starting to teach that Paul was influenced by Greek philosophy, so much so that he followed Plato? Paul teaches as if he followed Christ, not Plato.

So I think Paul was certainly very familiar with the principal concept of Plato's philosophy, which is the "form" or "idea". Today's world has abandoned much of Plato's teaching. To us, the word "idea" implies something insubstantial flitting through the mind like a will-o-the-wisp. We don't see an idea as real until it takes physical form. To Plato, and to those (Greek, Jewish or Roman, Christian or non-Christian) who followed him, the idea was real precisely because it was not physical. They saw physical things as changeable, corruptible, mortal shadows of the idea which was unchangeable, incorruptible and eternal. The idea was much more real than its physical representatives.

So it would be very inconsistent with a dominant philosophy of the day, one that had Jewish as well as Greek interpreters, to suppose that if Paul was referring to Adam as a type, he was referring to him as "not real". From the perspective of a Hellenized Jew, Adam as type would be more real than Adam as literal individual.

I see. So you think because there was a dominant philosophy of the day, Paul would have followed it? For the record, Paul didn't follow Plato. Paul refuted his teachings. You might want to read Acts.

 

[Didaskomenos]

What? Exactly where in Acts did Paul "refute" Plato's teachings?

 

[SBG]

Plato's teachings are reminicent in Acts, the ones Paul taught against. Plato believed in spontaneous production, a local flood, an acient earth, and not in God, but in gods.

You might want to read all of Acts, it is beneficial to all.

 

[gluadys]

Really? What Greek language are you refering to?

If I wanted to talk about man or men, I would use anthropos. If I wanted to talk about the first man, I would say Adam. Alpha-delta-alpha-mu.

Are you that insistent to hold onto your doctrine of refuting Adam as the first literal man, that you will argue against the Greek language and what it really means?

Do you know the difference between transliteration and translation? Paul did not always translate "Adam" into Greek. He transliterated it. So the meaning of "Adam" in Paul's letters goes back to the meaning of the Hebrew.

Where Paul uses 'anthropos', that is a translation.

Note that both when he is translating and when he is transliterating, the Hebrew word is the same: 'adam'.

Neither "adam" nor "anthropos" mean "first human". They both mean simply "human".

So when Paul says to Timothy that Adam was first formed, then Eve, Paul is speaking about a figurative Adam?

And when Jude talks of Enoch and says Enoch is the seventh generation from Adam, he was refering to a mythical Adam?

No reason that would be impossible. Remember that "figurative" and "mythical" do not mean "not real". Certainly not in the 1st century CE. In those days people took their myths seriously.

Yes, Jesus Christ crushed Satans head when He died on the Cross. That is what I previously said.

What you previously said was:

Vance here ignorantly refutes God when He says in Genesis that Eve will bring forth the One who will crush Satan's head. (bolding added)​

I was pointing out that Eve did not literally bring forth Jesus. Mary did.

So you are now arguing that Jesus, the man, was not descendant of Eve, as the Bible says?

Genesis 3:15
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Jesus is the seed of Eve, or are you going to now refute this to uphold your doctrine?

Jesus is the seed of Eve as we all are.

 

[gluadys]

How far do you feel you need to go? Why do you desire destruction?

You are forgetting that IMO it is YEC that is destructive of Christianity.

Where is your proof that Paul believed Adam wasn't real? There are many words Paul could have used to indicate that he wasn't refering to a literal Adam. Why doesn't he use them, if you say he believe it?

My point was that Paul, like many in his day, might well consider a typological Adam to be more real than a literal individual named Adam.

The same Philo who said the days of creation are not literal days, but the earth is less than 6,000 years old.

Yes. Another indication that non-literal interpretations of scripture are not modern inventions.

Are we starting to teach that Paul was influenced by Greek philosophy, so much so that he followed Plato? Paul teaches as if he followed Christ, not Plato.

Paul certainly followed Christ. But he may very well have used commonly-known philosophical ideas to express his ideas about Christ. He was, after all, preaching the gospel mostly to Greeks and to Hellenized Jews. It would not be surprising if he couched his preaching in their cultural outlook.

I see. So you think because there was a dominant philosophy of the day, Paul would have followed it? For the record, Paul didn't follow Plato. Paul refuted his teachings. You might want to read Acts.

Not followed it. Used it. And corrected it as needed. In the early centuries as Christians engaged in apologetics, a lot of Plato's thinking was used for this purpose. You will find echoes of Plato in many of the patristic writings.

 

[SBG]

Do you know the difference between transliteration and translation? Paul did not always translate "Adam" into Greek. He transliterated it. So the meaning of "Adam" in Paul's letters goes back to the meaning of the Hebrew.

I do understand the difference, thanks.

There are two Greek words here. These are not transliterations, but actual words in Greek. They are, adam and anthropos. Anthropos means man. Adam means Adam, the first man. If you do not have a lexicon available take a look here, so you don't have to take my word for it.

http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=76&version=kjv

ÅAdavm - Adam - Adam, first man.

Where Paul uses 'anthropos', that is a translation.

I have been studying the Greek language for a while now. I am aware of this. You do not seem aware, or you prefer to deny, that Adam is an actual word in the Greek.

Note that both when he is translating and when he is transliterating, the Hebrew word is the same: 'adam'.

Neither "adam" nor "anthropos" mean "first human". They both mean simply "human".

Did you take a look at the link I gave you? Do you have another lexicon available in case you don't believe that one? Look up Adam in the Greek language, it will say Adam, first man.

Anthropos does not mean first man, nor did I ever say it did. You are insisting on confusing the two.

Furthermore, Adam does not simple mean human, in Greek.

No reason that would be impossible. Remember that "figurative" and "mythical" do not mean "not real". Certainly not in the 1st century CE. In those days people took their myths seriously.

I see. Next you will claim Paul spoke of a mythical Jesus. You clearly show you have no respect for the teachings within the Bible.

What you previously said was:

Vance here ignorantly refutes God when He says in Genesis that Eve will bring forth the One who will crush Satan's head. (bolding added)​

I was pointing out that Eve did not literally bring forth Jesus. Mary did.

You were aware of what I meant, you just need something to argue against me.

Jesus is the seed of Eve as we all are.

How can Jesus be the seed of one who does not even exist.

Do you honestly have to uphold evolution this badly that you will just believe what you want and dismiss what you don't want in the Bible.

You truly show that you are more concerned with scientific teaching than the Biblical teaching. Science won't do you one bit of good on judgement day.

 

[gluadys]

I do understand the difference, thanks.

There are two Greek words here. These are not transliterations, but actual words in Greek. They are, adam and anthropos. Anthropos means man. Adam means Adam, the first man. If you do not have a lexicon available take a look here, so you don't have to take my word for it.

http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=76&version=kjv

ÅAdavm - Adam - Adam, first man.

Whoever compiled that lexicon is adding a reference to the meaning. In both Hebrew and Greek "Adam" is the name given to the first man. So to say that the Greek refers to the first man when it says "Adam" is correct.

But to say that "Adam" means "first man" is not. The meaning is "red earth, human".

I have been studying the Greek language for a while now. I am aware of this. You do not seem aware, or you prefer to deny, that Adam is an actual word in the Greek.

Of course it is an actual word. But it is still a word translitered, not translated, from the Hebrew. Think of how in English a couple of decades ago, we transliterated, rather than translated, the Russion term 'glasnost'. Now 'glasnost' is an English as well as a Russian word. But the transliteration does not change its meaning.

I see. Next you will claim Paul spoke of a mythical Jesus.

Jesus was an actual human being. But Paul also spoke of him in terms that would not apply to a human being and considered that knowing Christ spiritually was of greater worth than knowing him in the flesh.

How can Jesus be the seed of one who does not even exist.

This question would not even arise in a first-century context. It is only a conundrum to the modern literalist mind.

Do you honestly have to uphold evolution this badly that you will just believe what you want and dismiss what you don't want in the Bible.

There you go again. Assuming that anyone who does not agree with your reading of the bible is "dismissing" it. I don't "dismiss" a single word of the bible.

You truly show that you are more concerned with scientific teaching than the Biblical teaching. Science won't do you one bit of good on judgement day.

On judgment day, neither scientific teaching nor biblical teaching will avail. But a commitment to the way, the truth and the life in Jesus will. And we will all find out that scientific truth and biblical truth are one and the same truth.

 

[shernren]

Eh, SBG, this is directly from the site you quoted:

[font=Arial, Helvetica]Adam = "the red earth"[/font]

agree?

Also:

1) man, mankind

a) man, human being

b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)

c) Adam, first man

d) city in Jordan valley

from: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1116162010-1642.html (emphasis added)

I see. Next you will claim Paul spoke of a mythical Jesus. You clearly show you have no respect for the teachings within the Bible.

I refute that by the simple fact that she didn't.

You truly show that you are more concerned with scientific teaching than the Biblical teaching. Science won't do you one bit of good on judgement day.

We believe that God didn't create the earth a liar. Do you?

 

[SBG]

Eh, SBG, this is directly from the site you quoted:



agree?

[font=Arial, Helvetica]You left something out (purposely??):

"Adam, the first man, the parent of the whole human family"


[/font]

Also:



from: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1116162010-1642.html (emphasis added)

We are talking about Greek not Hebrew.

I refute that by the simple fact that she didn't.



We believe that God didn't create the earth a liar. Do you?

Ok. So you claim Eve didn't existed.

I believe God created the earth. I believe man would rather deny God's Truth and turn to himself to understand. There is too much of this self-help, self-understand, all about me attitude.

God simply told us where we came from and how we got here. If you want to deny what the Bible teaches, it is your choice.

Explain this verse for me, if you can please.

Mark 7:21-23
""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

 

[SBG]

Whoever compiled that lexicon is adding a reference to the meaning. In both Hebrew and Greek "Adam" is the name given to the first man. So to say that the Greek refers to the first man when it says "Adam" is correct.

Try another lexicon.

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=76
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1116197374-1738.html


Dictionary:

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/isbe/isbe.cfm?id=168
http://www.bible.org/smith.asp?id=90

Look in Strongs #76.

But to say that "Adam" means "first man" is not. The meaning is "red earth, human".

Are you really going to keep denying what the word means? It isn't that hard, you just have to read. It says, first man. This is what is taught in the Bible. I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand and believe.

You must really *need* evolution badly to flat out deny what the Greek word, Adam means: Adam, first man.

Of course it is an actual word. But it is still a word translitered, not translated, from the Hebrew. Think of how in English a couple of decades ago, we transliterated, rather than translated, the Russion term 'glasnost'. Now 'glasnost' is an English as well as a Russian word. But the transliteration does not change its meaning.

It is still a word that is in the Greek language that means Adam, the first man. Your insistence on denying this shows to everyone who reads this, that you must uphold evolution and deny Biblical teaching at all cost.

This is truly sad, Gluadys. Evolution will not save you. Belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God will not save you, even the demons know this and they will not be saved. You must follow Jesus, and this includes belief in Him, His Word, His Testimony and living as He did. Genesis is part of His Word. Science is *not* part of His Word.

Jesus was an actual human being. But Paul also spoke of him in terms that would not apply to a human being and considered that knowing Christ spiritually was of greater worth than knowing him in the flesh.

Paul spoke of Jesus as who He truly is, whether in human form or not. Just because Jesus takes human form, does not mean He is not who He is anymore. This never changed.

This question would not even arise in a first-century context. It is only a conundrum to the modern literalist mind.

It was you who didn't understand what I was saying, not the other way around.

There you go again. Assuming that anyone who does not agree with your reading of the bible is "dismissing" it. I don't "dismiss" a single word of the bible.

You are dimissing it, if you do not agree with what is written. The Bible teaches Adam is the first man, you deny this. Paul teaches Adam brought death(physical and spiritual) into the world as a result of his sin. You deny this.

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ embodied the Godhead fully, as He was here on earth. Many TEs deny this.

The Bible teaches Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, many TEs deny this.

The Bible teaches Jesus Christ rose from the dead, many Christians deny this.

If you deny anything that is written, in God's Word, you are dismissing it. You are deny what Jesus Christ says.

On judgment day, neither scientific teaching nor biblical teaching will avail. But a commitment to the way, the truth and the life in Jesus will. And we will all find out that scientific truth and biblical truth are one and the same truth.

The Bible teaches of Jesus Christ. Without the Bible in existence, you would not know or have heard of Jesus Christ. Biblical teaching is more important than you give it credit for. It teaches how to receive eternal life, it teaches Who gives this eternal life. It teaches how to live in faith. It teaches what is true and truth. It teaches Who made this universe and how He made it, and why. It teaches that He will come again, and if we are not watching, not living as if He is coming tomorrow, we may forfit our gift.

Biblical teaching lead you to know Jesus Christ. So on Judgment Day, you will realize that the only way you can receive eternal life is through Jesus Christ, whom you learned about through God's Word - The Bible.

You will not simply be saved by just claiming He is the Son of God, the True God. The demons know this and believe it, yet they will spend their eternity in the lake of fire. Satan bows to Jesus Christ and yet he will not be saved. You must believe and follow.

 

[gluadys]

Are you really going to keep denying what the word means? It isn't that hard, you just have to read. It says, first man. This is what is taught in the Bible. I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand and believe.

You must really *need* evolution badly to flat out deny what the Greek word, Adam means: Adam, first man.

I know what the word means. I also know that dictionaries and lexicons reflect usage as well as meaning. Because the word 'adam' was also treated as the name of the first man, it is natural that the name would be used to designate the first man. That is what the dictionaries and lexicons are showing. It still does not mean that the word 'adam' has that meaning.

It is still a word that is in the Greek language that means Adam, the first man.

It is not a common word. The common word for 'human/man' in Greek is 'anthropos'. 'Adam' is used in NT Greek only as a proper noun--i.e. as a name. That name does designate the first man. But while the name refers to a person, the meaning of the name does not.

This is truly sad, Gluadys. Evolution will not save you.

I don't expect that. The only reason I accept evolution is because I am convinced that it is true, and I know God would want me to believe the truth.

Belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God will not save you

I am really glad to hear you say that, because a lot of people mistakenly think that this is the case. But I agree, it is not belief that Jesus is the Son of God that will save anyone, but belief in Jesus as the Son of God that is saving faith. There is a distinct difference between those two that is often muddied.

It was you who didn't understand what I was saying, not the other way around.

I understood what you were saying. My point was that in a first-century context, it was meaningless.

You are dimissing it, if you do not agree with what is written.

Please---just because I am disagreeing with you does not mean I am disagreeing with the biblical text.

The Bible teaches Adam is the first man, you deny this. Paul teaches Adam brought death(physical and spiritual) into the world as a result of his sin. You deny this.

I don't deny any of this as spiritual teaching. But IMO you are incorrect in thinking that it must be actual history.

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ embodied the Godhead fully, as He was here on earth. Many TEs deny this.

I am not one of them.

The Bible teaches Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, many TEs deny this.

I am not one of them either.

The Bible teaches Jesus Christ rose from the dead, many Christians deny this.

I am not one of these either.

The Bible teaches of Jesus Christ. Without the Bible in existence, you would not know or have heard of Jesus Christ.

You do not know that this is true at all. Do you think God needed the bible to have the gospel preached?

It's great to have the bible, but let us not claim that God is so powerless that he could not make his Word heard without it.

Biblical teaching is more important than you give it credit for. It teaches how to receive eternal life, it teaches Who gives this eternal life. It teaches how to live in faith. It teaches what is true and truth. It teaches Who made this universe and how He made it, and why. It teaches that He will come again, and if we are not watching, not living as if He is coming tomorrow, we may forfit our gift.

The point is that nothing in science--including evolution--denies this. I do believe all the bible teaches on these matters. That doesn't require me to deny scientific truth as a condition of believing it.

You must believe and follow.

I do believe and I follow as best I can, God helping me. I have never found God to ask me to take leave of sense and reason in order to do so.

 

[shernren]

No, SBG, I didn't leave anything out. I was just completing the entry you had posted. Note I didn't leave "first man" out of the blueletterbible quote.

And please read carefully! You had said (predicted, almost, actually) that Gluadys was going to go on to say that Paul taught that Jesus was just a myth. I said that she wouldn't for the simple reason that she didn't. I had nothing to say about Eve there.

We are talking about Greek not Hebrew.

But the meaning of a Greek word that is a direct transliteration of the Hebrew word, must directly be equal to or derive from the meaning of the Hebrew word it is a transliteration of, right?

For example, the English language has a word "amuck / amok" that derives from the Malay word "amuk". The word in Malay roughly means "murderously crazy". And so that is also what it means in English. You get my drift? A word's meaning in Language B must respect and be derived from its meaning in Language A.

So fine, you say that Adam in Greek means only "the first man". But its meaning in Greek should respect its meaning in Hebrew, namely "man". Furthermore, is "Adam" used anywhere in Greek other than in the Bible? Because that would strongly support the hypothesis that Adam is a direct transliteration of Hebrew and would thus not have any special meaning in Greek logically independent of its meaning in Hebrew.

You are dimissing it, if you do not agree with what is written. The Bible teaches Adam is the first man, you deny this. Paul teaches Adam brought death(physical and spiritual) into the world as a result of his sin. You deny this.

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ embodied the Godhead fully, as He was here on earth. Many TEs deny this.

The Bible teaches Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, many TEs deny this.

The Bible teaches Jesus Christ rose from the dead, many Christians deny this.

If you deny anything that is written, in God's Word, you are dismissing it. You are deny what Jesus Christ says.

If a girl is raped in the city, should she be stoned?
[sarcasm on]How dare you argue that she's innocent! Then you must be dismissing God's Word! You must be denying what Jesus Christ says! [/sarcasm off]

I don't deny that Jesus was, is and will be God, was Virgin-born through the miraculous agency of the Holy Spirit, and that He rose from the dead. Stop blaming TEism for these heresies: if TEism was directly responsible I would believe these heresies, and yet I don't.

You will not simply be saved by just claiming He is the Son of God, the True God. The demons know this and believe it, yet they will spend their eternity in the lake of fire. Satan bows to Jesus Christ and yet he will not be saved. You must believe and follow.

You know what? If the world was really created in 6 days 6000 years ago, the demons and Satan must have had a first-class seat watching it. Will their knowledge that the world was created in 6 days save them?

No?

Because you act like it will save you.
And you act like our denial of it will damn us.

SBG, you might as well be completely honest and say that you believe TEs will go to hell. That's what you're implying anyway: in various places you have called us false prophets, unsaved people, deceivers and wolves. If this gets me a warning, so be it. If this causes the thread to close, so be it. Better this thread be closed and I be banned than to have to senselessly beat up people who are in the same Kingdom and under the same King I'm under.

This is a perfect example of the damage AiG's brand of militant creationism has done to the Body of Christ.

Sorry if I have hurt you or anyone. But it needs to be said.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I'm going to have to side here with SBG. The word "Adam" in the New Testament is definitely nothing but the proper name of the character seen in Genesis 2. "Adam" is thus to Hebrew like "Guy" is to English. The NT is definitely referencing the Genesis character every time it uses the word "Adam". It is true, however, that at least in Pauline theological references, he is to be taken as a type for humanity, whether or not Paul took it that way personally. We have no reason to doubt that Paul believed he was an historical figure. Adam's theological significance as simultaneously a type of humanity and a shadow of Christ is perfectly intact either way.