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.
That's partly because they're written by two different people at different times. They may well have had different purposes originally. But the redactor of Genesis presumably put the two passages together for a purpose, so you can't ignore the fact that the one comes after the other. I don't see how, if the redactor put the two together, you can ignore the fact that they are part - for him or they - of the same overall scheme.chapter one has a clear distinction between it and chapter 2
QuantumFlux said:I agree with that but you neglect chapter 1. chapter one has a clear distinction between it and chapter 2 which means that chapter 1 has its own seperate meaning. It does not go along with the estrangement from God nor is it concerned with evil. Chapter 1 has it's own purpose and it seems pretty clear what it is.
You hit the nail on the head.Most TE uses the evolution dogma to interpret the scriptures. Since Abraham doesn't contradict this dogma then he is real but Adam isn't real because any evidence, no matter how strong, that stands againest Darwinsm has to be false so you must interpret everything according to Darwinism. So evolution is used by Darwinism as truth. Since our interpretion isn't based Darwinism then in their eyes we are false prophets. Darwinsm is the tool they used to determine truth form error yet amazingly God fail to mention this requirment in the scriptures itself when it comes to spotting error.QuantumFlux said:That is why TE's pretty much have to have their own translation of the Bible. Notice what shernren was arguing about in Mark 10:6. Everyone who has ever translated it, made it pretty clear, but for whatever reason he had to twist it and make it something that it's not in order to prove his point.
Same with the beginning of Genesis. It is clear to anyone reading it (including a jewish audience), Adam was as real as Abraham in the book, but that doesn't coincide with evolution, so Adam is a myth, but Abraham is more believable so he is okay to believe existed.
As for shernren view of Adam being a real man but not the first man, he is just plain making the bible say what he wants. He follows it as long as it fits in with evolution, every part that doesn't has some hidden meaning that could not have been known until now. Why God would hide this meaning until we discovered evolution is another question.
That's partly because they're written by two different people at different times.
1) The Gospels were written at most 50-60 years after the events they are telling us about. The Genesis stories were written thousands of years after the events they wrote about. There is much less scope for the oral tradition to event a whole mythology.ou still mistify me at your reasoning. I have yet to find one justification you use for Genesis as a myth that you couldn't just as easily apply to the gospels.
Proof is for maths and alcohol. All I can say is that the evidence points more toward multiple authorship of the Penteteuch that towards Mosaic authorship.
1) The Gospels were written at most 50-60 years after the events they are telling us about. The Genesis stories were written thousands of years after the events they wrote about. There is much less scope for the oral tradition to event a whole mythology.
2) There are no real links between the Gospel narratives and the mythology of any other nation at the time, unlike the links between Genesis and the Enuma Elish/Gilgamesh accounts.
3) The events of the Gospel take place at a specific, locatable time in a specific locatable time period, so even if they were fictional or had fictional elements, unlike the Genesis accounts they would not be identified as belonging to the genre of "myth." Legend, perhaps; but not myth.
4) On what is our faith based? A highly modernistic literalist reading of the first book of the Bible, or the life, death and resurection of Christ? While I'd accept that there is no absolute proof that any of the Gospels are factual (proof is for maths and alcohol), a Christian's faith depends on Christ, not on a literal reading of Genesis.
QuantumFlux said:You still mistify me at your reasoning. I have yet to find one justification you use for Genesis as a myth that you couldn't just as easily apply to the gospels.
How do you know that the events in Genesis were not written down 50-60 years after the events? You can't say because we dont have the manuscripts to prove it, because we dont have the manuscripts to prove that the gospels were writeen 50-60 years after the events (it was more like 20-30 years btw).
Because I believe the intent of Genesis is to relay theological truths in mythical format. The intent of the Gospels is to give an historical account.
QuantumFlux said:Again this is a swayed view. As a historical account the gospels are severely lacking. You have Jesus birth, Jesus at age 12ish, then you have Jesus at 30. Now that is some huge gaps in this historical account.
Eusebius was the first church historian, his intent was to write down historical events. The Gospels were more focused on giving their accounts of his ministry. You're idea that Genesis was given as theological truth in mythical format is complete assumption based solely on your belief in evolution.
This is shown through your yard stick held up to it, because the same yard stick would prove that the gospels were a myth.
stumpjumper said:Well here is my view on Adam and Eve. First, I am sure we have a different view of the origin of scripture but I have read a TE exegesis from the view that scripture was verbally inspired by God as well as my view that it was an oral tradition passed down over generations. In both views scripture is inspired by God however it is the method of inspiration that is varied.
In Genesis 1:26 Adam is written in the Hebrew as eth-ha-adam and is translated as "let us make man in our image". You also have the plural Elohim for "us". Instead of translating that as man a direct translation of "eth-ha-adam" would be in the context of the passage "human like life forms" because of the plurality of both the object and the plurality of the originator and the commonality of the noun in that case.
stumpjumper said:Now in Genesis 2, you have a different name for God. Elohim has been changed to YHWH Elohim a more personal and singular "Lord God" and Adam has been changed to the singular as well with a simple "eth-adam". I view this change as a literary and contextual change to give the meaning of what happened in the mythical Garden to all man. Because, our estrangement from God is universal whether there was an actual Adam as figurehead of mankind matters not to me. You remember our converstation about Original Sin about 40 pages ago so I won't get into what the Tree of Knowledge means but it is a proper and personal Adam and Eve and a personal God because it is a personal trait that all of us hold between each other and God. I am convinced of original sin and the arrogance and pride of humanity.
stumpjumper said:But, now go to Genesis 4 and the eth in Adam has been changed back to a ha-adam which can never be used to denote an individual person. In fact in my Catholic Bible it states: Gen 4.1 "The man had relations with his wife Eve and she concieved and bore Cain, "Saying I have produced man with the help of the LORD. (just YHWH) Next she bore his brother Abel."
stumpjumper said:It does not say proper Adam in the original hebrew. So the best way to understand this passage is by saying that men (plural) had relations with their wives (singular possesive) and had sons. Now you know the story of Cain and Abel and how Cain killed Abel. It was saying that we multiplied and warred amongst ourselves even though we are all related. The hebrew word for blood was also plural when Cain killed Abel so it says more to the tune: "Our sons killed each other and their blood(s) were on the ground. (It loses its effect in english because of the translation.)
stumpjumper said:Anyway, the early parts of Genesis are primarily concerned with evil, our estrangement from God, and our ontological origin. IMO, not a literal history and that is why I do not believe Adam was a literal person. In parts of the story he is given a life-span and a real wife and children but that is part of the literary garb to denote a personalness about our relationship with each other and the Lord God.
artybloke said:Proof is for maths and alcohol. All I can say is that the evidence points more toward multiple authorship of the Penteteuch that towards Mosaic authorship.
Critias said:I personally wouldn't agree with the definition of "human like life form", I don't think that is a good definition of the Hebrew word ed).
2. On day six of creation, God created Adam and Eve. Thus being two, it ed) is plural to refer to both of them. Look onward to verse 27 of Genesis chapter 1 to see that this is in fact true.
I am sure you are aware that Adam can mean Adam-the first man, man, and mankind depending upon its usage within the given context. We see often in the Old Testament that man is used to speak about more than 1 man and is used to speak specifically of 1 man. The context being the key.
I believe this is where consistency of a rejection of a real Adam has its difficulties.
Just because the Gospels do not depict the entire life of Jesus does not mean that are not historical accounts of his ministry. If you read Colin Hemer's The Book of Acts in The Setting of Hellenistic History you will see that much of the surroundings and history in Acts are accurate.
No yardstick that I would hold up to the NT would conclude that they are myth except for the parables from the historical Jesus.
Again, you are guilty of looking at the Bible with a view that all parts should be read the same way.
So without any modern scientific knowlede I would conclude, as many Christians and Jewish scholars in the past have including St. Jerome, Origen, Philo, and the entire Pharisaical view of scripture , that Genesis is not literal history with or without any knowledge of evolution
At the very least look at the different ways Adam is used in Genesis in how I put them out earlier. Those are facts that are drawn from the original hebrew and that alone shows that parts of the Adam and Eve story a shown to be written to denote that the story is much more than what is just written. Look up for yourself the use of Adam as a common and proper noun even within the parts that included Adam and Eve. Genesis 4 would be a good start.
But, all Mark 10:6 states is "But from the beginning of creation "God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife." Jesus is talking about the importance and sanctity of marraige between men and women. I support legal civil unions between same sexes but for this reason I do object to same sex marraiges. That is about all you can really get out of that passage unless you want to proof-text it out of context.
Also, homo-sapiens were male and female from the beginning of their existence.
QuantumFlux said:Ah, but that isn't quite what he said is it? That is the evolutionary version (there ya go, now you have you're own translation, the EV). What you would have said, had your evolutionary ideals not conflicted would have been "Also, homo-sapiens were male and female from the beginning of creation." where creation is a singular noun not representing just homo-sapiens but creation as a whole.
Mark may have written it, but something tells me he taught Peter enough not to misquote him.
But what part of the "beginning of creation" are you as YEC (if that's your belief) starting from? Animals did not appear until day five with humans on day six. That is not the beginning even in the text of Genesis so using it as proof that Jesus believed in a literal Genesis is problematic. Now depending upon what one would call life, from an evolutionary perspective Mark 10 could still be correct. I do not think Mark endorses evolution any more than it should be used to endorse YEC but it could easily apply to both views.
stumpjumper said:If we are going to proof text, I could prove that dragons are real, God commands swinging, and after women give birth to sons they grow wings. The context of Mark 10 is marraige. Also, homo-sapiens were male and female from the beginning of their existence.
Philo was Jewish. There are some very interesting quotes in On Allegory
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?