YECs, please explain Gen 3:15 to me.

[Dark_Lite]

I'm not saying science is a house of cards, but the comparison is not far off. All fields of academics continue to build off of past work. Philosophy, psychiatry, even theology and scholastics. Science is no exception. The current models are based on systems of thinking that have been around for a while. What I think creationism is trying to show is that the science itself isn't bad, but the early foundations its built on are false, and without those foundations, things like evolution become pure speculation.

Many creationists do not recognize that science is all interconnected. They reject science that doesn't jive with their beliefs (evolution), but then happily reap the benefits of all the science derived from that rejected science (medicine). In order for creationism to work (YECism in particular), all of modern science would have to be redefined. Standard model of physics? Out the window. Taxonomic classification system? Gone. Of course, the entire field of biology would have to be reinvented.

If the foundations of science are false, then it's up to the creationists to put a new foundation in and rebuild science from the ground up. Nothing less will suffice.

 

[Papias]

AIH wrote:

I'm not saying science is a house of cards, but the comparison is not far off. All fields of academics continue to build off of past work. Philosophy, psychiatry, even theology and scholastics. Science is no exception.

This shows again a huge misunderstanding of science. Science is vastly, vastly different from philosophy, theology, and others. This story may help readers see why:

At a dinner many decades ago, the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to the toast, "To physics and metaphysics." By "metaphysics," people then meant something like philosophy, or truths you could recognize just by thinking about them. They could also have included pseudoscience. Wood answered along these lines:

The physicist has an idea. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it seems to make. He consults the scientifics literature. The more he reads, the more promising the idea becomes. Thus prepared, he goes to the laboratory and devises an experiment to test it. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are checked. The accuracy of measurement is refined, the error bars reduced. He lets the chips fall where they may. He is devoted only to what the experiment teaches. At the end of all this work, through careful experimentation, the idea is found to be worthless. So the physicist discards it, frees his mind from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded as he raised his glass high, is not that the practioners of one are smarter than the practitioners of the other. The difference is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

See the difference? Science is based on evidence. Every idea is falsefiable, and is independently supported by (often tons of) repeatable, testable evidence. If we were to use an analogy, science is like the US highway system, where each road is supported by ground underneath it. Sure, there are a few bridges, but removing the ground from one mile of road will hardly affect the rest of the roads, because they are eachs supported by their own ground, or body of evidence.

The current models are based on systems of thinking that have been around for a while.

No, they are not. They are based on evidence. All kinds of thinking have been around for awhile.

What I think creationism is trying to show is that the science itself isn't bad, but the early foundations its built on are false, and without those foundations, things like evolution become pure speculation.

I hope that the story about Mr. Wood helped show why this isn't the case. Evolution doesn't have "foundations", but is supported and confirmed in so many different ways that they literally can't be listed in even a book for lack of space. Evolution is about as far from pure speculation as anything.

In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of anything that is supported as well as evolution, by so many independent fields of science and ways of testing it. The fact of evolution is more firmly established than things like the idea that the earth goes around the sun, or that the civil war actually happened.

To those familiar with the evidence, the Christian who says "I've decided that my Christian faith means that I must be a creationist" sounds just like a Christian who says I've decided that my Christian faith means that I must believe the earth is flat, with a hard, crystalline dome over it". In both cases, Christianity looks really bad.

Papias

 

[Siyha]

If the foundations of science are false, then it's up to the creationists to put a new foundation in and rebuild science from the ground up. Nothing less will suffice.

While I am not on the side of creationists, I don't think this is a fair expectation of an opposition.

Imagine a different scenario.
Pretend somebody is teaching that 2+2=22.
Say you have proof that 2+2 ≠ 22 by showing them diagram X, but you don't yet know what it does =.... the only thing you can prove is that 2 + 2≠ 22.

In your demands, you are not allowed to show people diagram X, and must let them believe 2+2=22 until you have proof of an alternative. In this sense, since everyone continues work based on 2+2=22, nobody is looking for what it actually does equal.

I think with creationists, they are trying to show that evolution is not true, and hope that science will work "with them" toward discovering proof of what is true.

Unless I am misunderstanding you or oversimplifying something much more complicated.

 

[rcorlew]

Many creationists do not recognize that science is all interconnected. They reject science that doesn't jive with their beliefs (evolution), but then happily reap the benefits of all the science derived from that rejected science (medicine). In order for creationism to work (YECism in particular), all of modern science would have to be redefined. Standard model of physics? Out the window. Taxonomic classification system? Gone. Of course, the entire field of biology would have to be reinvented.

If the foundations of science are false, then it's up to the creationists to put a new foundation in and rebuild science from the ground up. Nothing less will suffice.

To be fair, taxonomy and biology have both been continuously reinvented.

 

[jeffweeder]

Side question 2: Can you show me a Pauline doctrine that depends on Adam being an historical figure in order for it to be true?

Its not Pauline but What do you make of of this?


When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesl, the son of Naggai,
26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,
33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah,
36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.


Adam existed, and so did everyone else in this geneology.

 

[jeffweeder]

javascript:VClk('Ge 3:15')

15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel."

javascript:VClk('Ge 3:15')javascript:VClk('Ge 3:15')


Seed of the woman?

Can only be a ref to the virgin birth, as man isnt involved.
Satan was indeed crushed by the Lord Jesus Christ, born of the seed of God.

 

[Assyrian]

Or it is what people supposed

Its not Pauline but What do you make of of this?

When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesl, the son of Naggai,
26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,
33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah,
36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth,the son of Adam, the son of God.


Adam existed, and so did everyone else in this geneology.

Adam was not the literal biological son of God, the way 'son of Joseph' is talking about literal biology, so, where does the genealogy switch from supposed literal to figurative?

Anyway, do I take it from the way you answered with Luke that you don't have, as Siyha asked "a Pauline doctrine that depends on Adam being an historical figure in order for it to be true".

 

[mark kennedy]

Since TEs are said to be ignorant of understanding the bible and how obviously historical the creation account is, I was wondering if a YEC could enlighten me as to the meaning, in context of Genesis 3:15.

Thanks!!

The curse of the Serpent, which by the way, is a name for Satan:

"The great dragon was hurled down -- that ancient serpent called the devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astray." (Revelation 12:9)​

The way you understand the Old Testament is to look at it through the lens of the New Testament witness. The 'seed of the woman' has long been understood to be a prediction of the virgin birth. Had Jesus had a human father then he would have inherited the sin of Adam.

I think you know what the proper interpretation is, you just don't like it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Or it is what people supposed
Adam was not the literal biological son of God, the way 'son of Joseph' is talking about literal biology, so, where does the genealogy switch from supposed literal to figurative?

That's a false syllogism, your main premise is that Adam had ancestors, the minor premise is that the Bible can be true only if it's figurative. Your conclusion is that it is figurative. Never mind the fact that the New Testament explicitly says that Adam was literal, specially created and without ancestors. Now you can sit there and chant that is figurative till your blue in the face but Luke ends his genealogy the lineage the exact same place Moses did, the exact same place Paul did:

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18,19)​

I looked it up, one man means one man, Adam, the man not the metaphor. Your problem is not that you can't understand the proper interpretation, you just believe the Bible and TOE.

Anyway, do I take it from the way you answered with Luke that you don't have, as Siyha asked "a Pauline doctrine that depends on Adam being an historical figure in order for it to be true".

Adam is an historical figure because Moses in an historical record identifies Adam specifically. This is confirmed in Luke's genealogy and the explicit doctrinal exposition of the Apostle Paul. But you can just say it's figurative because with modernists you can make words mean anything you want them to mean. Sound exegesis on the other hand has rules.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

That's a false syllogism, your main premise is that Adam had ancestors, the minor premise is that the Bible can be true only if it's figurative. Your conclusion is that it is figurative.

Oddly enough your analysis of my argument bears no resemblance whatsoever to what I actually said. It is easier to make up claims of false syllogisms that deal with the analysis of the text I actually gave.

Never mind the fact that the New Testament explicitly says that Adam was literal, specially created and without ancestors.

What you really need to do here is provide some scriptural support for his claim.

Now you can sit there and chant that is figurative till your blue in the face but Luke ends his genealogy the lineage the exact same place Moses did,

But not the same place Matthew did, so what difference does it make where different writers end their genealogy?

the exact same place Paul did:

Paul does not give a genealogy and in fact warns us about getting too caught up in them.

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18,19)

I looked it up, one man means one man, Adam, the man not the metaphor.

The phrase "one man" can't be used in a metaphor? Did you ever consider that Paul might be speaking metaphorically about Adam, so that even though "one man" refers to Adam, Paul is speaking figuratively?

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

Interpreting Adam figuratively wasn't my idea, Paul was at it long before me.

Your problem is not that you can't understand the proper interpretation, you just believe the Bible and TOE.

More ad hom. I learned figurative interpretation from the bible. I went from being a literalist YEC to being a literalist TE when I reread Genesis and realised it does not actually teach a creation in six literal consecutive days, as rcorlew has pointed out too, It was only as a Genesis literalist TE that began to learn from scripture how God loves to speak to us in parable, metaphor, allegory and poetry.

Adam is an historical figure because Moses in an historical record identifies Adam specifically. This is confirmed in Luke's genealogy and the explicit doctrinal exposition of the Apostle Paul. But you can just say it's figurative because with modernists you can make words mean anything you want them to mean. Sound exegesis on the other hand has rules.

Have a nice day
Mark

Are these rules of sound exegesis ones you find in the bible or are they man made rules made up by teachers you approve of?

 

[juvenissun]

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

Interpreting Adam figuratively wasn't my idea, Paul was at it long before me.

Hey, it is not a figurative interpretation, it is a literal one.

You are a figure of your father (or mother), is it figurative? It does not mean you ARE your father (or mother). It is what the word "figure" literally mean.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oddly enough your analysis of my argument bears no resemblance whatsoever to what I actually said. It is easier to make up claims of false syllogisms that deal with the analysis of the text I actually gave.

What analysis?

What you really need to do here is provide some scriptural support for his claim.

It's in Luke's Geneaology, Moses' Geneaology, Paul's discussion in Romans 5 and elsewhere. Your challenging me as if you had some insight I don't, you really just want it to mean something other then what it says.

But not the same place Matthew did, so what difference does it make where different writers end their genealogy?

Your all over the road, Matthew was writting for a different purpose.

Paul does not give a genealogy and in fact warns us about getting too caught up in them.

The phrase "one man" can't be used in a metaphor?​

If you use the way he used 'Adam' then why not David, why not Abraham, why not Jesus? The clear meaning and more importantly, the original intent is the guiding principle of sound exposition, not reconcilling Scripture to Secular skepticism.

Did you ever consider that Paul might be speaking metaphorically about Adam, so that even though "one man" refers to Adam, Paul is speaking figuratively?

Frankly no, it would not have occured to Paul to do that since that interprutation of Genesis did not exist. It does say that Adam prefigured Christ but it nowhere suggests that Adam is figurative. Your begging the question.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

Interpreting Adam figuratively wasn't my idea, Paul was at it long before me.

No he wasn't, your just making the Scriptures mean whatever you want them to mean. It's a common practice among TEs and it's not sound exegesis, it's circlular logic.

Are these rules of sound exegesis ones you find in the bible or are they man made rules made up by teachers you approve of?

I'd say interpreting the Old Testament in light of the New Testament revelation is sound exegesis, it's represented by 2,000 years of scholarship. I didn't learn the Scriptures from Ken Ham if that's what your getting at, nor do I let the world change the meaning of the Scriptures for me.

You keep chanting that Paul meant what he said about Adam figuratively, because Paul can't be right and Adam have ancestors. I'm not taking a couple of isolated texts out of context, the totalaty of Scripture confirms this in no uncertain terms.

Have a nice day
Mark​

 

[Assyrian]

Hey, it is not a figurative interpretation, it is a literal one.

You are a figure of your father (or mother), is it figurative? It does not mean you ARE your father (or mother). It is what the word "figure" literally mean.

You do realise calling Pilgrims Progress figurative, is a literal statement about Pilgrims Progress, but you still mean Pilgrims progress is full of figures and metaphors?

Not sure what you mean by 'you are a figure of your father', you are not claiming Paul is teaching that Jesus looked like Adam?

 

[Assyrian]

What analysis?

Your whole " That's a false syllogism, your main premise is that Adam had ancestors, the minor premise is that the Bible can be true only if it's figurative. Your conclusion is that it is figurative." which completely ignored what I said and made up an unsubstantiated fantasy analysis of my argument.

Mark: Never mind the fact that the New Testament explicitly says that Adam was literal, specially created and without ancestors.

Assyrian: What you really need to do here is provide some scriptural support for his claim.

Mark: It's in Luke's Geneaology, Moses' Geneaology, Paul's discussion in Romans 5 and elsewhere. Your challenging me as if you had some insight I don't, you really just want it to mean something other then what it says.

Don't know about having any special insight, I have read the New Testament, as you have, but I don't know anywhere it "explicitly says that Adam was literal, specially created and without ancestors". I suggested you provided some scriptural support to show where the NT explicitly says these things but so far you haven't.

Your all over the road, Matthew was writting for a different purpose.

Doesn't matter. It shows your argument about Luke and Moses' genealogies ending in the same place is meaningless.

If you use the way he used 'Adam' then why not David, why not Abraham, why not Jesus? The clear meaning and more importantly, the original intent is the guiding principle of sound exposition, not reconcilling Scripture to Secular skepticism.

And the original intent was to use Adam as a figurative illustration of Christ and redemption. Hence telling us Adam was a figure of Christ, and Paul's continued comparison of Adam and Christ from Rom 5:12 just as... so also. Of course in other places Paul uses Moses, Sarah, Hagar. But Paul kept going back to Adam and Eve for figurative illustrations, of marriage, of Christ and the church or Christ and fallen humanity. You really need to get used to the way the bible uses metaphor and figurative illustrations. Jesus loved parables and metaphors and we are supposed to learn from him.

Frankly no, it would not have occured to Paul to do that since that interprutation of Genesis did not exist.

Both Josephus and Philo interpreted Genesis allegorically, so the interpretation certainly did exist in first century Judaism, though of course Paul's application to Christ was new.

It does say that Adam prefigured Christ but it nowhere suggests that Adam is figurative. Your begging the question.

No I quite agree with the distinction you make here. You cannot tell from Paul's statements whether he believed Adam was a historical individual but interpreted him figuratively, or he saw Adam purely as a metaphor. But here's the thing. If all the NT teaching about Adam is the figurative meaning, then it simply doesn't matter for me as a Christian whether I take Adam literally as well.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

Interpreting Adam figuratively wasn't my idea, Paul was at it long before me.

No he wasn't, your just making the Scriptures mean whatever you want them to mean. It's a common practice among TEs and it's not sound exegesis, it's circlular logic.

And that is an ad hom which makes no attempt to address my point.

I'd say interpreting the Old Testament in light of the New Testament revelation is sound exegesis, it's represented by 2,000 years of scholarship. I didn't learn the Scriptures from Ken Ham if that's what your getting at, nor do I let the world change the meaning of the Scriptures for me.

No I was wondering where you got your rules of sound exegesis from, New Testament revelation and 2000 year of scholarship is a bit vague for a set of rules. Though if you studied your 2000 years of scholarship you would realise the church did change its interpretation of scripture when science showed them their old interpretation was wrong, and for a thousand years before Copernicus and Galileo, Christian scholarship from Augustine to Aquinas had taught that if science contradicts your interpretation of scripture then the problem is with your interpretation.

You keep chanting that Paul meant what he said about Adam figuratively,

Are you saying Paul didn't mean what he said about Adam being a figure of Christ

]because Paul can't be right and Adam have ancestors.

I don't think Adam had ancestors, because I think he is a metaphor. Paul certainly didn't mention Adam either having or not having ancestors, so the chant you ascribe to me "Paul can't be right and Adam have ancestors" makes no sense whatsoever.

How about this, Mark? Try concentrating on answering the points people make, and stop analysing what you think their motivation and underlying syllogisms are, and stop trying to make up bizarre arguments for us to chant, because you fail miserably.

I'm not taking a couple of isolated texts out of context, the totalaty of Scripture confirms this in no uncertain terms.

Have a nice day
Mark

Funny thing about this totality of Scripture, it is made up of individual texts. But whether we are talking them out of context or not is something you need to show, not simply claim.

 

[mark kennedy]

Your whole " That's a false syllogism, your main premise is that Adam had ancestors, the minor premise is that the Bible can be true only if it's figurative. Your conclusion is that it is figurative." which completely ignored what I said and made up an unsubstantiated fantasy analysis of my argument.

Again, what analysis?

Don't know about having any special insight, I have read the New Testament, as you have, but I don't know anywhere it "explicitly says that Adam was literal, specially created and without ancestors". I suggested you provided some scriptural support to show where the NT explicitly says these things but so far you haven't.

Sure I have, it's Luke's genealogy, Romans 5 and ICorinthians 15. It's crystal clear when you let the Scriptures mean what they say but with TEs is never that simple, only because they don't want it to be.

Doesn't matter. It shows your argument about Luke and Moses' genealogies ending in the same place is meaningless.

That's not a Biblical response, you really need to learn how to talk to a Bible believing Christian in their own language.

And the original intent was to use Adam as a figurative illustration of Christ and redemption.

Still begging the question of proof on you hands and knees I see.

Hence telling us Adam was a figure of Christ, and Paul's continued comparison of Adam and Christ from Rom 5:12 just as... so also. Of course in other places Paul uses Moses, Sarah, Hagar. But Paul kept going back to Adam and Eve for figurative illustrations, of marriage, of Christ and the church or Christ and fallen humanity. You really need to get used to the way the bible uses metaphor and figurative illustrations. Jesus loved parables and metaphors and we are supposed to learn from him.

Adam being a prefigure of Christ does not make him figurative, that's just plain silly. Sarah and Hagar make nice illustrations of the contrast between slave and free, it does not make them figures of speech as if they did not exist literally as described in the historical narratives describing them. Adam and Eve were literal historical figures and the New Testament treats them as such. You need to quit making the Bible mean whatever satisfies you need to reconcile the Gospel the world's interpretation of the Scriptures because it's wrong.

Both Josephus and Philo interpreted Genesis allegorically, so the interpretation certainly did exist in first century Judaism, though of course Paul's application to Christ was new.

They were not apostles and what they wrote is not canonical. I'm a Biblical Creationist, your going to have to do better then that. The New Testament is creationist, there is no getting around that.

No I quite agree with the distinction you make here. You cannot tell from Paul's statements whether he believed Adam was a historical individual but interpreted him figuratively, or he saw Adam purely as a metaphor. But here's the thing. If all the NT teaching about Adam is the figurative meaning, then it simply doesn't matter for me as a Christian whether I take Adam literally as well.

Yes you can tell but if it's not important to you then what are we talking about?

And that is an ad hom which makes no attempt to address my point.

I'm in the habit of dismissing fallacious lines of reasoning because they are a distraction. Quit using them and we will save time.

No I was wondering where you got your rules of sound exegesis from, New Testament revelation and 2000 year of scholarship is a bit vague for a set of rules. Though if you studied your 2000 years of scholarship you would realise the church did change its interpretation of scripture when science showed them their old interpretation was wrong, and for a thousand years before Copernicus and Galileo, Christian scholarship from Augustine to Aquinas had taught that if science contradicts your interpretation of scripture then the problem is with your interpretation.

First of all the Bible teaches nothing about astronomy but goes to great lengths to establish human lineage. This is key in Paul's discussion of sin in Romans and you would do well to consider this point of doctrine because you are arguing in circles around the clear testimony of Scripture. Wise up dude, I'm not a lightweight and I know the Bible better then you think. I have studied this out and you will find that the Scriptures teach a literal interpretation of Genesis. Arguments to the contrary are fallacious, at least the ones I have encountered on here.

Are you saying Paul didn't mean what he said about Adam being a figure of Christ

Yes Adam, the literal and historical Adam, prefigured Christ. That's not a hard concept to wrap your mind around, you just don't want to.

I don't think Adam had ancestors, because I think he is a metaphor. Paul certainly didn't mention Adam either having or not having ancestors, so the chant you ascribe to me "Paul can't be right and Adam have ancestors" makes no sense whatsoever.

Luke was a disciple of Paul and ended his genealogy with Adam, calling him, 'son of God'. This indicates special creation just as the angels were creation rather then having parents and thus called 'sons of God'. Your chasing the wind, you should be getting tired of it by now.

How about this, Mark? Try concentrating on answering the points people make, and stop analysing what you think their motivation and underlying syllogisms are, and stop trying to make up bizarre arguments for us to chant, because you fail miserably.

I fail to convince those who beg the question of proof, because they don't see the proof right in front of them, none so blind as those who will not see. I'm having no trouble making my points, you just don't want to accept what is right in front of you. That's not my fault.

Funny thing about this totality of Scripture, it is made up of individual texts. But whether we are talking them out of context or not is something you need to show, not simply claim.

Yet it is the most telling aspect of TE arguments that they never appeal to the testimony of Scripture. Don't think for one moment that I take pleasure in having these throughly miserable debates with TEs when I know many, if not most of them, are Christians. I don't have a problem beating up on the cults, they cut Christian theology without remorse.

What I am doing is telling you something I know you know. If your convictions are telling you otherwise perhaps there is good reason for that, I really don't judge, I'm not trying to be condescending here, it's the truth. What I think is happening is I think you are being drawn into a trap and I'm just trying to show you what the Scriptures actually are saying.

Think what you like but I strongly suggest you remember that the Scriptures are not subject to private interpretation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

... and stop trying to make up bizarre arguments for us to chant, because you fail miserably.

Not that there's anything wrong with chanting per se, mind you. It is a most pleasing and edifying exercise for Christians to take part in, and let's not for one moment imply that it should not be done.

It's all about chanting the right things. The Apostles' Creed makes for a good start, as does the Lord's Prayer. Personally, I like the shema for some OT flavor, and Isaiah 53 is good too.

(In other news, I didn't actually have much to contribute at this point, but I wanted to subscribe to this thread. So get right back to the regular vitriol, won't y'all. )

 

[Assyrian]

Again, what analysis?

I have quoted your statement three time already, if you don't want to back it up that's fine.

Sure I have, it's Luke's genealogy, Romans 5 and ICorinthians 15. It's crystal clear when you let the Scriptures mean what they say but with TEs is never that simple, only because they don't want it to be.

Still no evidence the the NT "explicitly says that Adam was literal, specially created and without ancestors" just a vague claim that you think these passages say it. Try not to mistake how you interpret these passages for what they actually say, and if you are going to claim scripture is explicit on a subject, you should be able to point out where it explicitly says what you claim.

That's not a Biblical response, you really need to learn how to talk to a Bible believing Christian in their own language.

If you don't want to back up your argument that is fine with me.

Still begging the question of proof on you hands and knees I see. Adam being a prefigure of Christ does not make him figurative, that's just plain silly. Sarah and Hagar make nice illustrations of the contrast between slave and free, it does not make them figures of speech as if they did not exist literally as described in the historical narratives describing them. Adam and Eve were literal historical figures and the New Testament treats them as such. You need to quit making the Bible mean whatever satisfies you need to reconcile the Gospel the world's interpretation of the Scriptures because it's wrong.

Nice the way you completely ignored what I said. I answered the point you make instead further down my last post.*

They were not apostles and what they wrote is not canonical. I'm a Biblical Creationist, your going to have to do better then that. The New Testament is creationist, there is no getting around that.

Never said they were canonical or inspired, You claimed an allegorical interpretation it would never have occurred to Paul because it never existed. I showed you that it did exist at the time. It was there in first century Jewish interpretation, from Hellenistic Judaism to the Jerusalem priesthood, it is an interpretation which Paul as a former Rabbi would have been well aware of. If you want canonical passages all we can do is look at scripture, which is what we have been doing. As for you claim the bible is creationist, it certainly teaches Creation - again and again, but that does not make the NT modern literalist creationism.

* No I quite agree with the distinction you make here. You cannot tell from Paul's statements whether he believed Adam was a historical individual but interpreted him figuratively, or he saw Adam purely as a metaphor. But here's the thing. If all the NT teaching about Adam is the figurative meaning, then it simply doesn't matter for me as a Christian whether I take Adam literally as well.

Yes you can tell but if it's not important to you then what are we talking about?

* This was where I answered the point you made. Notice you make no attempt to discuss the distinction I make here, other than an unsupported claim 'yes you can tell'.

In answer to your question why does it matter, what matters is trying to understand what Paul is teaching here, his comparison of Christ and Adam he describes as a figure of Christ. Whether Adam was literal or not does not make any difference to a figurative teaching on Adam.

I'm in the habit of dismissing fallacious lines of reasoning because they are a distraction. Quit using them and we will save time.

Maybe I should just ignore all yours.

First of all the Bible teaches nothing about astronomy but goes to great lengths to establish human lineage. This is key in Paul's discussion of sin in Romans and you would do well to consider this point of doctrine because you are arguing in circles around the clear testimony of Scripture. Wise up dude, I'm not a lightweight and I know the Bible better then you think. I have studied this out and you will find that the Scriptures teach a literal interpretation of Genesis. Arguments to the contrary are fallacious, at least the ones I have encountered on here.

While you think the bible teaches nothing about astronomy, scripture scholars before Copernicus interpreted it differently and thought the bible did teach about the movements of the sun, moon and stars. The historical interpretation changed as a result of worldly science. You made no attempt to deal with the rest of my point and the rest of your point is simply a digression.

Yes Adam, the literal and historical Adam, prefigured Christ. That's not a hard concept to wrap your mind around, you just don't want to.

Oh I can get my head around it all right. What you can't get your head around is that if we are just given Paul's figurative meaning of Adam, we cannot tell if Paul thought Adam was historical but could be interpreted figuratively, or if Paul thought Adam was a figurative to start with. Both a historical Adam interpreted figuratively and a figurative Adam interpreted figuratively give the same figurative meaning.

Luke was a disciple of Paul and ended his genealogy with Adam, calling him, 'son of God'. This indicates special creation just as the angels were creation rather then having parents and thus called 'sons of God'. Your chasing the wind, you should be getting tired of it by now.

You have yet to get back to my original point about the meaning of what Luke said, you know the whole thing you dismissed as a 'false syllogism. There is no point in dealing with what you claim Luke meant if you don't want to answer that.

I fail to convince those who beg the question of proof, because they don't see the proof right in front of them, none so blind as those who will not see. I'm having no trouble making my points, you just don't want to accept what is right in front of you. That's not my fault.

You might be better off backing up your points rather than just claiming the proof is right in front of us.

Yet it is the most telling aspect of TE arguments that they never appeal to the testimony of Scripture. Don't think for one moment that I take pleasure in having these throughly miserable debates with TEs when I know many, if not most of them, are Christians. I don't have a problem beating up on the cults, they cut Christian theology without remorse.

The problem is I can't help feeling when people talk about the totality of scripture or the whole testimony of scripture, what they are referring to is an amalgam of all their interpretations, misinterpretations and partial understandings. Which is why I prefer to look at individual passages, at the actual scripture, with reference where needed to other passages on the subject, and look at what the texts actually say, rather than appealing to a vague sense of the overall picture.

It is one thing to be wary of an interpretation of a passage that contradicts our overall understanding of the rest of scripture, but it is worth re-examining our overall understanding if passage after passage seems to disagree with it. Unfortunately, in discussion with creationists I find that no matter how many individual passages you show don't fit, their view of 'the whole testimony of scripture', their idea of what scripture should mean, takes precedence over what it actually says.

What I am doing is telling you something I know you know. If your convictions are telling you otherwise perhaps there is good reason for that, I really don't judge, I'm not trying to be condescending here, it's the truth. What I think is happening is I think you are being drawn into a trap and I'm just trying to show you what the Scriptures actually are saying.

Then please show us from scripture. Talk with us about our interpretation of the texts and show us where they are wrong, don't just make vague claims about our philosophy or presuppositions deceiving us, or that you think it goes against what you consider sound scholarship. Don't just claim passages mean what you say they mean. Show us from scripture and discuss our points with us if we happen to disagree.

Think what you like but I strongly suggest you remember that the Scriptures are not subject to private interpretation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I take it that is your interpretation of 2 Pet 1:20?

 

[juvenissun]

You do realise calling Pilgrims Progress figurative, is a literal statement about Pilgrims Progress, but you still mean Pilgrims progress is full of figures and metaphors?

Not sure what you mean by 'you are a figure of your father', you are not claiming Paul is teaching that Jesus looked like Adam?

Some kids looked more like mother, but have the rest like father.

 

[Assyrian]

Some kids looked more like mother, but have the rest like father.

So why do you think Paul wanted to tell us Jesus looked like Adam?