YECs, please explain Gen 3:15 to me.

[Siyha]

That is simple. plants.

You appear very Clintonesque with your splitting of hairs on the contextual meaning of the word "as". You miss the very important modifier just before the word which is the word "just". The phrase "just as" means exactly the same, it becomes a simile when used this way "you are as red as an apple". Now you can see the differences in function for the word "as".

Reading the OT as allegory requires the reader to later allegorize many parts of the NT. The OT is mostly historical, with only metaphorical descriptors, not metaphorical events. The fact that many people come at reading any book, especially the Bible, with many beliefs already, they carry those into their new learning, these are called suppositions. When one reads the OT and comes across something that goes against their suppositions they must then square the two, which one is right, are they both right, am I wrong, those are all questions that must be asked whenever one encounters materials contrary to their own beliefs.

So in Genesis 2 when it says that man was made first, it is wrong?

Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, (G)for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.

7Then the LORD God formed man of (H)dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and (I)man became a living being.

8The LORD God planted a (J)garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

9Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow (K)every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; (L)the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10Now a (M)river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers.

11The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of (N)Havilah, where there is gold.

12The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there.

13The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush.

14The name of the third river is (O)Tigris; it flows east of Assyria And the fourth river is the (P)Euphrates.

15Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

16The LORD God (Q)commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;

17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it (R)you will surely die."

18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; (S)I will make him a helper [a]suitable for him."

19(T)Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and (U)brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

I don't read the OT as allegory. I read it as history, psalm, prophetic, epic, poetic, etc... etc... etc... Each text should be given the right to speak on its own terms.

There is also no reason to take the NT as allegorical in light of a non-literal historic view of Genesis 1-3. Nothing Paul claims in founded in their historicity, or derived from their historicity, but rather the figure of Adam is used to explain things about Christ and humanity as a whole. If anything, Romans 5 speaks for a non-historic Adam in the sense that it applies Adam to each and every person.

"Just as" is not the same as saying, "Christ is a real person because Adam was." or "the significance of Christ is dependent on Adam's existence." If we were to take the comparison of Adam and Christ using "just as" the way you do, we would end up with an equation of Adam and Christ rather than a comparison.

If you suddenly did learn that Adam was not a literal individual, would that destroy your faith?
How about learning the world is not flat?

 

[rcorlew]

"Just as" is not the same as saying, "Christ is a real person because Adam was." or "the significance of Christ is dependent on Adam's existence." If we were to take the comparison of Adam and Christ using "just as" the way you do, we would end up with an equation of Adam and Christ rather than a comparison.

It is a direct comparison, both were men, Adam brought death through sin but Christ brings life through life. A metaphor cannot be used in direct comparison.

If you suddenly did learn that Adam was not a literal individual, would that destroy your faith?
How about learning the world is not flat?

That is a red herring and I will not follow.

 

[philadiddle]

It is literally correct. Isn't it?

No, serpents do not literally bruise our heels, and we literally do not bruise the heads of serpents.

 

[philadiddle]

If you suddenly did learn that Adam was not a literal individual, would that destroy your faith?

That is a red herring and I will not follow.

It's a legitimate question. If you say that Adam needs to be literal for parts of the new testament to be historical, then answering that question will show just how your theology is actually tied to the historicity of Adam.

 

[philadiddle]

Reading the OT as allegory requires the reader to later allegorize many parts of the NT.

Which parts of the NT do we later need to allegorize and how does that affect their meaning?

 

[rcorlew]

Aye yae yae, another of the classic round about threads. This same topic has been beat to death, brought back to life and beat back to death.

 

[Siyha]

It is a direct comparison, both were men, Adam brought death through sin but Christ brings life through life. A metaphor cannot be used in direct comparison.

That is a red herring and I will not follow.

Adam wasn't god.
Adam didn't speak Aramaic.
Adam didn't have 12 disciples.

Jesus didn't sleep with eve.
Jesus didn't have kids.
Jesus didn't sew fig leaves for clothing.

Maybe "just as" doesn't mean a direct comparison after all, but maybe Adam is being used as an illustration?

Or is Adam perhaps being used as an illustration for the point Paul is making?

In fact, the truth of Paul's claim here is not dependant on Adam at all, but on the preceding verse. Modern translations do the text injustice when they ad subheadings because it makes it look like Paul is talking about something new, whereas the first 9 chapters of Romans are all one big sentence (metaphorically speaking), with the climax in Romans 8.

"Therefore" at the beginning of verse 12 (literal translationed "through this" with the anticedent of this being the preceding thoughts) points back to the verses before it. You see that Paul is continuing a train of thought from the last paragraphs. He has already made his point in earlier verse, now he's just trying to make it understandable. That lies independent of an historical Adam.

and ὥσπερ, the word translated "just as" that you are positive means Jesus must have been historical is most often translated, "just like" or simply "like" in the NASB, in addition to, "just as" and even only, "just." It is a word use for similies.

And if you continue in the verses, what is Paul's ultimate conclusion on the human condition? Not that because Adam sinned, all will die, but that death came to all men because ALL have sinned. We can't blame our fallen state on Adam, because we are all Adam-like. His story is your story and my story as well.

In the Old Testament, names were everything. i.e. Elijah means, "Yahweh is my God" and his ministry was one that sought to show Yahweh as God over Baal. The names tell you their purpose.

Adam's name simply means, "man." He is man. All of us have eaten the fruit.

Jesus' sacrifice was enough for all humanity because he was the sinless man who was both fully God and fully human. Not because Adam ate the apple.

*edit: I didn't except you to follow that herring, it was simply there to make a point. However I am dissapointed you aren't following the other herring of showing 2 different creation accounts in 2 different orders and somehow they are both true?

 

[philadiddle]

Aye yae yae, another of the classic round about threads. This same topic has been beat to death, brought back to life and beat back to death.

This is important and I've never heard an answer from you (maybe because I simply haven't read all of your posts in every thread). If you think that a historical Adam is necessary for the NT to be true, then I want to hear the DETAILS of how, not just vague assertions. So I'll ask again: If Adam is allegorical, then which parts of the NT do we later need to allegorize and how does that affect the meaning of those NT passages?

 

[rcorlew]

This is important and I've never heard an answer from you (maybe because I simply haven't read all of your posts in every thread). If you think that a historical Adam is necessary for the NT to be true, then I want to hear the DETAILS of how, not just vague assertions. So I'll ask again: If Adam is allegorical, then which parts of the NT do we later need to allegorize and how does that affect the meaning of those NT passages?

I have already posted them, Paul states that because sin entered through one actual man a price must be paid by a man. Sin entering though a mythological man would not require payment, every direct effect has a direct cause.

I do not know where else to go with this as you are having problems with sin entering into mankind through one man's sin because you are an evolutionist which requires populations to develop in a systematic fashion over time. Given that a population does not all think the same way they are not all inclined to do the same things, here is the problem with that thinking; was there a member of that population which did not sin and if so what about their offspring for generations to come, I mean, are there still people alive today who are without sin?

It appears as though you have been subjected to post-modern thinking far too long. How do we know that Jesus lived and Jesus died and was resurrected, after all, the same book that says that Jesus was an actual man also claims things you say are not physically possible. Some even say that Jesus is a myth, what do you say to them, how can you use the Bible as evidence of the truth of Jesus to those who believe that Jesus is a myth?

 

[philadiddle]

I have already posted them, Paul states that because sin entered through one actual man a price must be paid by a man. Sin entering though a mythological man would not require payment, every direct effect has a direct cause.

I do not know where else to go with this as you are having problems with sin entering into mankind through one man's sin because you are an evolutionist which requires populations to develop in a systematic fashion over time. Given that a population does not all think the same way they are not all inclined to do the same things, here is the problem with that thinking; was there a member of that population which did not sin and if so what about their offspring for generations to come, I mean, are there still people alive today who are without sin?

It appears as though you have been subjected to post-modern thinking far too long. How do we know that Jesus lived and Jesus died and was resurrected, after all, the same book that says that Jesus was an actual man also claims things you say are not physically possible. Some even say that Jesus is a myth, what do you say to them, how can you use the Bible as evidence of the truth of Jesus to those who believe that Jesus is a myth?

Sihya addressed this so I will let you respond to his statements about the context and conclusion of that passage.

I will say that if Adam must be literal for the gift of Jesus death to be real, then God is a liar and the bible isn't true. We know, through genetics, archeology, and anthropology that there was no Adam and Eve in a garden in the middle east 6,000 years ago. Hence my other thread; Creationist theology disproves Christianity

 

[Siyha]

I have already posted them, Paul states that because sin entered through one actual man a price must be paid by a man. Sin entering though a mythological man would not require payment, every direct effect has a direct cause.

I do not know where else to go with this as you are having problems with sin entering into mankind through one man's sin because you are an evolutionist which requires populations to develop in a systematic fashion over time. Given that a population does not all think the same way they are not all inclined to do the same things, here is the problem with that thinking; was there a member of that population which did not sin and if so what about their offspring for generations to come, I mean, are there still people alive today who are without sin?

It appears as though you have been subjected to post-modern thinking far too long. How do we know that Jesus lived and Jesus died and was resurrected, after all, the same book that says that Jesus was an actual man also claims things you say are not physically possible. Some even say that Jesus is a myth, what do you say to them, how can you use the Bible as evidence of the truth of Jesus to those who believe that Jesus is a myth?

Actually, you may be surprised to learn that the Bible is a collection of books, not just one big one. Different authors in different periods of time wrote them, so it wouldn't make sense to view them all as the same type of literature.

And no, there are no people alive today who are without sin. All men have sinned. My daughter sinned the moment she came out of the womb. We didn't need Adam to sin ourselves. But we do need Jesus Christ.

If you want to blame everything on Adam thats fine, but Paul said WE are the ones who need salvation. Maybe you should read more of Romans than just a couple verses in chapter 5. There are none righteous, not even one. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

The post modern comment is a nice touch in your post, although I'd say only a post modern would accept a literal view of Genesis since it requires contradictory accounts to both be true. The same systems of scholarship and history that show Jesus lived, died, and rose again, also show that Genesis 1-3 is not a literal historic account. Picking and chosing what to believe like you are doing is what post moderns do.

post 28 also address a lot of things you have been claiming without foundation.

 

[rcorlew]

Actually, you may be surprised to learn that the Bible is a collection of books, not just one big one. Different authors in different periods of time wrote them, so it wouldn't make sense to view them all as the same type of literature.

And no, there are no people alive today who are without sin. All men have sinned. My daughter sinned the moment she came out of the womb. We didn't need Adam to sin ourselves. But we do need Jesus Christ.

If you want to blame everything on Adam thats fine, but Paul said WE are the ones who need salvation. Maybe you should read more of Romans than just a couple verses in chapter 5. There are none righteous, not even one. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

The post modern comment is a nice touch in your post, although I'd say only a post modern would accept a literal view of Genesis since it requires contradictory accounts to both be true. The same systems of scholarship and history that show Jesus lived, died, and rose again, also show that Genesis 1-3 is not a literal historic account. Picking and chosing what to believe like you are doing is what post moderns do.

post 28 also address a lot of things you have been claiming without foundation.

Your accusations might be better served on someone who is not attending a Christian college and has written a 33 page summary on every book of the Bible.

Some interesting facts about the Bible:

Xerxes' (famous from the battle at Thermopylae) wife was Esther

Xerxes' son Artaxerxes was the king Nehemiah served

Job was before Abraham

A WWII battle was fought in the same place as a battle fought by Joshua, the General studied the passage and applied the knowledge and won the battle in the same fashion Joshua did

There are 2 books of the Bible written by non-Jews

 

[rcorlew]

and ὥσπερ, the word translated "just as" that you are positive means Jesus must have been historical is most often translated, "just like" or simply "like" in the NASB, in addition to, "just as" and even only, "just." It is a word use for similies.

The word used ὥσπερ G5618 means "just as, that is, exactly like: -(even, like) as

That still does not address the problem of interpreting the phrase "for just as in Adam all die" as being a simile, then is it a simile that we will all have life in Christ?

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Again, the problem you have is evolution requires you to make that comparison a simile, you have not addressed that yet but I am interested to hear what you have to say on the matter.

 

[Papias]

rcorlew wrote:

No, the verse says "and He will crush your head", the operative phrase is will future tense, it does not say: has, is, or right now, nothing that leads to immediate action. The crushing of the head of Satan occurs after the final judgment.

OK, then would you please cite the verse then in Revelation where Satan's head is crushed? Since one is a future prediction, what about the other - has Satan bruised Jesus' heel? Is that in Revelation?

For the record, I am not a YEC'er, but that is a whole different story all together.

If you can see the clear text giving a 6,000 year date as figurative, and other passages as figurative, and much of Jesus' preaching as figurative, then why the hang up over the magical fruit/creation story being figurative?

And yes Paul states that Adam was certainly an actual man,

aside from the "like" issue, there is another angle on that - see below:

and philadiddle wrote:

I will say that if Adam must be literal for the gift of Jesus death to be real...

Note that literally hundreds of millions of TEs support the idea that evolution occured *and* that Adam was a real person. There had to be a first human - the first transitional ape to human who was able to reason and decide to rebel against God. This is the Catholic position.

rcorlew wrote:

Your accusations might be better served on someone who is not attending a Christian college and has written a 33 page summary on every book of the Bible.

Some colleges do a poor job of holding up the academic rigor that has been found at times in Christianity. Some even teach YEC, or otherwise ignore evidence.

You might want to broaden your sources in the chance that your one source is not giving you a complete view of the world God created. You might want to read/watch on DVD "The Bible Unearthed" (google it), check out various views of the Bible based on the evidence, and such. For instance, it is practically undisputed amoung scholarly theology that the whole Exodus story is a legend that never happened, etc. At lot of time many clergy know this and simply don't tell the laypeople. It's a shame, really, to feel one has to hide a truth.


Papias

PS - I'm out for the weekend camping. It'll be nice to check in with everyone when I return.

 

[juvenissun]

No, serpents do not literally bruise our heels, and we literally do not bruise the heads of serpents.

Yes, they do and we do.

 

[theFijian]

Yes, they do and we do.

The only times I've ever literally had a bruised heel was literally from sports injuries, not serpents.

 

[philadiddle]

Yes, they do and we do.

you are being vague. Could you provide an example of someones heel being bruised by a serpent who in turn bruised (or crushed) the serpents head?

 

[Siyha]

The word used ὥσπερ G5618 means "just as, that is, exactly like: -(even, like) as

That still does not address the problem of interpreting the phrase "for just as in Adam all die" as being a simile, then is it a simile that we will all have life in Christ?



Again, the problem you have is evolution requires you to make that comparison a simile, you have not addressed that yet but I am interested to hear what you have to say on the matter.

You should use more than the short definition of Strong's numbers to define a word. Usage and comprehensive studies are great ways. If you have access to TDNT, you can see how the word is used in all contexts. There are great online sources that allow you to search for a word and see all the verses it is used in in a variety of translations. Even still, picking one word to prove your point shows the weakness of it. Romans 5:12 is part of a whole book, not a stand alone verse. As I mentioned, the "therefore" points back and connects it to the preceding verse. Maybe you should reread my last two posts and see all the information I've given you and think about it rather than continually bring up "just as" and ignore everything else.

I thought we were talking about Romans. But instead of addressing the things I said about it, you switched to Corinthains. Does that mean you accept my view of Romans?

Did I mention evolution? Why are you drawing it in? Why are you not addressing anything I'm talking about except the "just as" you are so hung up on. I had this view long before I thought about evolution. You can even check out the commentary by F.F. Bruce on Romans, where he gives a similar interpretation, and doesn't even care for or think about whether or not Adam is historical and whether or not evolution is real. He shows how the figure of Adam is clearly being used symbolically by Paul here. The passage in Romans stands independant from the debate, but creationists always draw it in because they did a Bible gateway search for "adam" and saw a reference to him by Paul, therefore he was historical.

By the way, just as King Arthur had a round table for his knights, our pastoral team meets around a round table every week.

*edited for some grammer, 2:11pm

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Oh course Adam has to be historical in Romans! How else do you explain people dying!?

 

[Siyha]

I should be more clear on what I am trying to get at with the "just as". It very well can compare two real objects, and in the Bible it is used on many occasions to do so. However the word doesn't demand this reading, the context does. The same word is used for compare a real thing with a figurative thing as well. It is possible that you're use of "just as" is what is going on here, but not conclusive.


Creationist scholar Utley says this in his commentary on Romans:

"In the theological contrasts and parallels between Adam and Jesus two possible implications are present.
1. Adam was a real historical person.
2. Jesus was a real human being."

Utley, R. J. D. (1998). Vol. Volume 5: The Gospel According to Paul: Romans. Study Guide Commentary Series (Ro 5:12). Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International.

What he does not say is, "therefore Adam was historical." What he says is that an historical Adam is a possible implication, not a definate one. There is nothing in the text to demand an historical Adam for the truth of Paul's claims to be true.

Of course, as you keep reading you find out that Jesus must, in fact, be a real person for the salvation Paul speaks of to exist, but the historicity of Adam remains up in the air.

Utley drops the historical question there, and continues explaining that the thrust of the passage is the universality of sin, and Christ's ability to single handedly deal with it all.

if you put the emphasis of the passage on Adam, then you would have to interpret the passage to say, "Because Adam sinned, all mankind was put to death." This understanding would absolve people of personal responsibility for their own sins, and make God incredibly vengeful for condemning them for something they had no choice in doing, but were forced to do through Adam's fall.