Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Again. The Bible is not a science textbook. Genesis describes ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern science.None of which negates Paul's usage of Adam as actual. . .
None of which negates Paul's usage of Adam as actual. . .Again. The Bible is not a science textbook. Genesis describes ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern science.
Who woulda' tho't it?Moses isn't Francis Collins.
It tells us that the text is written in an ancient literary context, not a biological one. So if your baseline assumption is that the text is addressing biological issues in a literalistic way, such as we might find in a 21st century biology textbook, then you're reading the Bible out of context. It's the same reason that the Catholic Church was wrong about heliocentrism.None of which negates Paul's usage of Adam as actual. . .
And if your baseline assumption is that Paul did not view Adam as actual, then you're reading Paul out of context.It tells us that the text is written in an ancient literary context, not a biological one. So if your baseline assumption is that the text is addressing biological issues in a literalistic way, such as we might find in a 21st century biology textbook, then you're reading the Bible out of context. It's the same reason that the Catholic Church was wrong about heliocentrism.
Additionally, as noted before, truth can be conveyed theologically, without needing to affirm modern biological concepts. The Bible does this all the time. The truth of the Bible doesn't hinge on scientifically concordant concepts like a genetically ancestral Adam. That's the wrong genre.None of which negates Paul's usage of Adam as actual. . .
No kidding, Sherlock. . .
That's like arguing that Moses viewed the solid dome sky raqia as "actual" and then telling non-literalists that they're reading out of context. That doesn't make any sense.And if your baseline assumption is that Paul did not view Adam as actual, then you're reading the Biblie out of context.
I appreciate your willingness to engage with a brick wall, and wish you luck on that endeavor. Though I will point out, the Catholic Church wasn't opposed to Galileo because of heliocentrism, which is clear because of their support for Copernicus' scientific endeavors. Galileo dared to make theological statements without authorization, which is what got him censured. Heliocentricism was more peripheral to the issue, with the central issue being the Church's restrictions on theological engagement without being trained in the proper avenues and being authorized by the church.It tells us that the text is written in an ancient literary context, not a biological one. So if your baseline assumption is that the text is addressing biological issues in a literalistic way, such as we might find in a 21st century biology textbook, then you're reading the Bible out of context. It's the same reason that the Catholic Church was wrong about heliocentrism.
Red herring. . .Additionally, as noted before, truth can be conveyed theologically, without needing to affirm modern biological concepts. The Bible does this all the time. The truth of the Bible doesn't hinge on scientifically concordant concepts like a genetically ancestral Adam. That's the wrong genre.
None of which negates Paul's usage of Adam as actual. . .That's like arguing that Moses viewed the solid dome sky raqia as "actual" and then telling non-literalists that they're reading out of context. That doesn't make any sense.
Meant to write "your reading Paul out of context" in post #244.Ancient people weren't geneticists.
Sure.I appreciate your willingness to engage with a brick wall, and wish you luck on that endeavor. Though I will point out, the Catholic Church wasn't opposed to Galileo because of heliocentrism, which is clear because of their support for Copernicus' scientific endeavors. Galileo dared to make theological statements without authorization, which is what got him censured. Heliocentricism was more peripheral to the issue, with the central issue being the Church's restrictions on theological engagement without being trained in the proper avenues and being authorized by the church.
Paul didn't write Genesis, did he? Ultimately, the topic of the historicity of Adam, boils down to Moses and Genesis. Not new testament commentary on Adam. Though it's still useful for reference.Meant to write, "You're reading Paul out of context."
A lot of that was more defending the status quo against innovation, though there is naturally an element of such reticence inherent in a religion that places a premium on tradition.Sure.
Many protestant leaders, such as John Calvin, also had issues with concepts of heliocentrism, if it's of a valued reference. And they would reference the Bible in various ways in favor of geocentrism.
Indeed, many early church fathers were also flat earthers.
Ultimately being this issue of concordism, still present throughout history. Though sometimes it may have been of a more dominant interest to some than to others.
Unless it's Jesus of course.Paul didn't write Genesis, did he? Ultimately, the topic of the historicity of Adam, boils down to Moses and Genesis. Not new testament commentary on Adam. Though it's still useful for reference.
Genesis is plain to see.Paul didn't write Genesis, did he? Ultimately, the topic of the historicity of Adam, boils down to Moses and Genesis. Not new testament commentary on Adam. Though it's still useful for reference.
Red herring. . .Paul didn't write Genesis, did he? Ultimately, the topic of the historicity of Adam, boils down to Moses and Genesis. Not new testament commentary on Adam. Though it's still useful for reference.
"Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters"Red herring. . .
The immedite point is not the historicity of Adam. . .it's about Paul's view of Adam, as actual or only figurative.
Paul presents Adam as actual (e.g., 1 Co 15:45) and, therefore, figurative.
Romans 5 definitely draws a parallel between Adam and Christ. But your conclusion assumes that imputation only works if Adam is a specific historical individual. That’s not required by the text.Red herring. . .
The immedite point is not the historicity of Adam. . .it's about Paul's view of Adam, as actual or only figurative.
Paul presents Adam as actual (e.g., Ro 5:12-17,1 Co 15:45) and, therefore, figurative.
Maybe that's even a bigger issue here. You are basing your belief on a literal Adam, by referencing Paul, who isn't even the original author of Genesis. That's like referencing Paul in Ephesians 4 when he quotes Psalm 68;18. You're out of context.Red herring. . .
The immedite point is not the historicity of Adam. . .it's about Paul's view of Adam, as actual or only figurative.
Paul presents Adam as actual (e.g., Ro 5:12-17,1 Co 15:45) and, therefore, figurative.
Yes, the quotation originally referred to God's calling the nation out of Israel in the time of Moses.Unless it's Jesus of course.
But I'll give an example of why this matters. Mathew referenced Hosea. He mentions Jesus coming out of Egypt. Right. But Hosea was talking about Moses.
I think it's a deeper spiritual problem,..... one that deals with regeneration.
Anytime a person goes out of their way to talk themselves out of believing what the scriptures say, and then also tries to talk another person out of their faith in GOD's word, that's a tare.
It's one of those definite tell tell signs that The Holy Spirit will point out to you about people. We just need to acknowledge it and move on.
Am I sure that Paul isn't the author of Genesis?Really? . . .are you sure about that?
Really? . . .
That both Ps 68:18 and Hos apply to Eph 4 and Mt, respectively, negates their meaning/application in their own context?
Explains a lot. . .
Well they apply the texts to Jesus, but they do not re-tell the original narrative. Mathew referencing Hosea to talk about Jesus doesn't make Hosea untrue or less true.Yes, the quotation originally referred to God's calling the nation out of Israel in the time of Moses.
Do you not realize that by inspiration Matthew applies it to Jesus also?
That he sees the history of Israel (God's children) briefly restated in the life of Jesus (God's unique Son).
That just as Israel as an infant nation went down into Egypt, so the child Jesus went there.
And as Israel was lead by God out of Egypt, so also was Jesus.
You think Matthew made a mistake, out of ignorance?
"Ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 3:7)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?