Adam in Rom 5 and Gen 1-3. OEC comment wanted

[Solly]

This is strictly Christian only, I am asking for OEC comment on the role that Adam plays in Paul's theology, and whether Adam can be seen as an historical person as in YEC, or they have another explanation that still maintains Christian orthodoxy.
YEC's may reply, but remember, this is not for debate, I just want info.
I did put this in intro the theology, but it looks like it will get missed, so i have moved it here.

Was Adam historical.

If yes, how does he fit into the OEC schema of an already existing and evolving world which I assume includes human evolution

If no, how does he fit into Paul's theology in Rom 5, and the direct comparison between Adam and Christ as the heads of two humanities.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Today @ 11:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351035#post351035)
Solly:

This is strictly Christian only, I am asking for OEC comment on the role that Adam plays in Paul's theology, and whether Adam can be seen as an historical person as in YEC, or they have another explanation that still maintains Christian orthodoxy.
YEC's may reply, but remember, this is not for debate, I just want info.
I did put this in intro the theology, but it looks like it will get missed, so i have moved it here.

Was Adam historical.

If yes, how does he fit into the OEC schema of an already existing and evolving world which I assume includes human evolution

Solly,

I am an OEC (I also like the framework hypothesis--I think Genesis is understood exegetically within the literary framework, but is also scientificially accurate understood with an OEC interpretation) and believe in the special creation of Adam and Eve thousands of years, not billions of years ago.

I do not believe in evolution, I believe God created each species miraculously and that the lack of transitional species attests to this. A handful of supposed transitional species barely accounts for the countless needed to support Darwinian evolution. Those few supposed (whales, horses) transitions can be reasonably explained, IMO.

After billions of years of preparing the universe and earth for human life, (a day is as a watch in the night to Him, who are we to judge God for taking billions--God is not weaker for taking so "long"--no, He designed the universe with laws and orders that are conducive to life on earth, and out of these laws He chose to use at His command. Creating and using these laws not only gives us a world fit for life, but a world with predictability. Without predicatability, decisions would not be ours. But that is a different topic and I wrote on this aspect, the Natural Law Theodicy, in the Thread, "Is Meticulous Control a Serious Error" in the Theology forum, it was a month or so ago.) he created man. He gave us a world ready for human life.

As to the controversy over the "day" issue, I hope you have seen the good arguments from the old earth camp. Many respected conservative evangelical scholars subscribe to the day age view. You may or may not know that Gleason Archer, a respected Hebrew scholar, co-authored a book supporting the day age view in the book "The Genesis Debate." Even with all the arguments by YE scholars over gramatical structures, there is no Hebrew grammar "rule" that says it has to be 24 hours. The day age view does not compromise Biblical authority or infallibility. All the day-age, old-earth friends I have all believe God created in six days, the Bible to be inerrant and believe that Adam and Eve were specially created by God--that there is no evolution to explain life or the speciation of life.

On to your question on Romans 5. Romans 5 has been held by YEC as their support that the earth cannot be billions of years old because if the earth was billions of years old, you have an earth with nature red, tooth, and claw--death. They argue that Romans 5 cleary says that "death" entered at the Fall and therefore no animals would have died prior to man's creation and fall. THis clearly is poor exegesis. Romans 5 deals with man only and speaks nothing of animals. "Death spread to all *men*, not animals. Exegetically the death is speaking of man, for only man can be made righteous in CHrist. Animals attain no such gift, the death speaks not of them, but man alone. This goes the same with I Cor. 15 as well. The death and resurrection are spoken of together. For animals to be included in the death, they would also have to be included in the resurrection. And for Romans 8, I started a thread entitled "Death before the Fall" in the Christianity forum last month which dealt with "bondage to decay" and "slavery to corruption" and gave support that these terms have nothing to do with death entering at the Fall, but of man's failure to fulfill his original commission thereby subjecting the world to futility and slavery to man's sinful, corrupt rule. The creation will be set free from such slavery and futility when mankind is revealed in righteousness. I also dealt with the curse in Genesis 3 and gave support that the curse on the ground because of Adam had nothing to do with death entering then, either. It spoke of man's work on the ground. Instead of the ground yielding the miraculous garden, it would yield thorns and thistles instead. Futile, and not God's orignal purpose for earth and man.

I know what the next posts may be like if the usual YEC comments are given, but just try to remember the following in spite of the YEC posts:

1) Respected Hebrew scholars accept the word day, even with an ordinal, to be long ages. To question their motives to be other than honest scholarship is presumptuous and to question their honesty as scholars.

2) Belief in long ages and billions of years in no way means one must also believe in the evolutionary process.

2) The death in Romans 5 and I Cor. 15 exegetically speaks of man only. Animals are not made righteous nor resurrected and Christ's blood was not shed for them.

3) Romans 8 speaks nothing of the context of death but of the subjection to futility earth has to endure because of man's sinful rule over it.

Cheers,

Charleen

[Solly]

Thanks charleen. Re the various threads you have mentioned, i haven't done more than look into them. i am not a scientist, and most of it seemed to be of that nature, arguing the meaning of the evidence, hence this thread, perhaps for those who also aren't into the scientific aspects, but want to keep up.

I do not believe in evolution, I believe God created each species miraculously and that the lack of transitional species attests to this. A handful of supposed transitional species barely accounts for the countless needed to support Darwinian evolution. Those few supposed (whales, horses) transitions can be reasonably explained, IMO.

OK, thanks, that is something i did not realise, since i took it that Glenn Morton did; I was not aware of different OEC views.

After billions of years of preparing the universe and earth for human life, ... he created man. He gave us a world ready for human life.

Again, I was not aware of that aspect. So, as already said, you see nothing wrong with an historical Adam, I take it. And the so-called family tree of human evolution would be other creatures who either were or were not human, within speciation limits??

day/age *snip
Separate matter.

On to your question on Romans 5. Romans 5 has been held by YEC as their support that the earth cannot be billions of years old because if the earth was billions of years old, you have an earth with nature red, tooth, and claw--death. They argue that Romans 5 cleary says that "death" entered at the Fall and therefore no animals would have died prior to man's creation and fall. THis clearly is poor exegesis. Romans 5 deals with man only and speaks nothing of animals. "Death spread to all *men*, not animals. Exegetically the death is speaking of those who also will be made righteous in CHrist. Animals attain no such gift, the death speaks not of them, but man alone. This goes the same with I Cor. 15 as well. The death and resurrection are spoken of together. For animals to be included in the death, they would also have to be included in the resurrection.

So, the mention of death in Romans 5 is to do with judgment for sin, as applied to humans, which of course can't be applie to animals.


And for Romans 8, I started a thread entitled "Death before the Fall" in the Christianity forum last month which dealt with "bondage to decay" and "slavery to corruption" and gave support that these terms have nothing to do with death entering at the Fall, but of man's failure to fulfill his original commission thereby subjecting the world to futility and slavery to man's sinful, corrupt rule. The creation will be set free from such slavery and futility when mankind is revealed in righteousness. I also dealt with the curse in Genesis 3 and gave support that the curse on the ground because of Adam had nothing to do with death entering then, either. It spoke of man's work on the ground. Instead of the ground yielding the miraculous garden, it would yield thorns and thistles instead. Futile, and not God's orignal purpose for earth and man.

Thanks, something to add to my thoughts, i'll check the threads mentioned.

Summary
1) Respected Hebrew scholars accept the word day, even with an ordinal, to be long ages. To question their motives to be other than honest scholarship is presumptuous and to question their honesty as scholars.
Though a separate issue to thoughts here, I will take it into consideration, though I tend to the view that there is no real difference in the text, nor any noticeable point of division.

2) Belief in long ages and billions of years in no way means one must also believe in the evolutionary process.
You have a time scale? Billions up to what point - 5mill ago, 1mill, 100,000, 10,000, 6000? Then, special creation of life on earth?

2) The death in Romans 5 and I Cor. 15 exegetically speaks of man only. Animals are not made righteous nor resurrected and Christ's blood was not shed for them.
Generally granted, under the terms noted above. Paul is only speaking about men here.

3) Romans 8 speaks nothing of the context of death but of the subjection to futility earth has to endure because of man's sinful rule over it.
OK, something to look into.

Thanks charleen

[Jedidiah]

Solly,



Was Adam historical.

If yes, how does he fit into the OEC schema of an already existing and evolving world which I assume includes human evolution

Adam was a historical person, in exactly the same way as YEC folks believe. The difference is Adam and Eve were created relatively recently, but not 6,000 years ago. The flood was universal, destroying all humans except Noah and his family. The cursing of the ground simply meant exactly what God told Adam, "In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

I do not believe in evolution.

beeman

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351309#post351309)
Charleen Lohman:

Solly,

I am an OEC (I also like the framework hypothesis--I think Genesis is understood exegetically within the literary framework, but is also scientificially accurate understood with an OEC interpretation) ...

They are mutually exclusive. The FC is a bizarre 20th century novelty which accepts the days as 24 hours, but a literary framework.

... and believe in the special creation of Adam and Eve thousands of years, not billions of years ago.

Which is itself a problem, because there are anatomically modern human skeletons that are "dated" (using methods that Charlene's mentor Hugh Ross accepts as valid) at far older even than her stretched date for Adam.

I do not believe in evolution, I believe God created each species miraculously and that the lack of transitional species attests to this.

This is an unsound equation of the biblical "kinds" with modern so-called "species". It is fallacious because we know that new species have arisen today (see Speedy species surprise (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n2_speedy.asp)).

After billions of years of preparing the universe and earth for human life, (a day is as a watch in the night to Him, who are we to judge God for taking billions--

Who are we to judge that He can't communicate what He means? I.e. that He took so long when He said he took 6 days with evening-morning and a numeric, the same length as the days of our working week.

God is not weaker for taking so "long"

He may be weaker if He is restricted to uniformitarian processes. And I have no interest in Charleen's emotional arguments about judging God or what makes Him weaker. I'm interested only in what God SAID He did.

As to the controversy over the "day" issue, I hope you have seen the good arguments from the old earth camp.

:huh: What good arguments? :lmbo: All I ever see is claims that "science" has proven an old earth, therefore the days must be long periods of time, or there must be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, or that the days were a literary framework. Or there are outright falsehoods claiming that the church fathers believed in long creation days.

Many respected conservative evangelical scholars subscribe to the day age view. You may or may not know that Gleason Archer, a respected Hebrew scholar, co-authored a book supporting the day age view in the book "The Genesis Debate."

And Gleason Archer is a prime example -- he agrees that the straightforward meaning (which he pejoratively calls "superficial") teaches 24 hours, but he doesn't believe it because of "science". Then he rationalizes this away.

Even with all the arguments by YE scholars over gramatical structures, there is no Hebrew grammar "rule" that says it has to be 24 hours.

Yes there is -- with an evening and morning and a numeric, especially in the particular pattern of Genesis 1, as Andrew Steinmann shows (see the AiG summary The numbering pattern of Genesis: does it mean the days are non-literal? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_numbering.asp)).

The day age view does not compromise Biblical authority or infallibility. All the day-age, old-earth friends I have all believe God created in six days,

That's double talk. They would never ask their boss for 6 days leave then dare to claim that the days were anything other than 24 hours.

[More guff deleted]

Yes, Romans 5:12 and 1 Cor. 15 deal with human death, but in both cases this must include the physical death that began in Genesis 3:19. And this is a problem because even human skeletons are "dated" before Adam.

I've shown that animals and humans were originally vegetarian (Gen. 1:29-30), and will be restored that way (Isaiah 11, 65). Amazingly, the OEC Norman Geisler agrees, as inconsistent as this is.

I also dealt with the curse in Genesis 3 and gave support that the curse on the ground because of Adam had nothing to do with death entering then, either. It spoke of man's work on the ground. Instead of the ground yielding the miraculous garden, it would yield thorns and thistles instead.

Actually the curse on the ground was introducing something new to the whole earth. It wasn't to Eden, and they were expelled from there anyway!

1) Respected Hebrew scholars accept the word day, even with an ordinal, to be long ages. To question their motives to be other than honest scholarship is presumptuous and to question their honesty as scholars.

I question whether they got their view from the text, as opposed to being intimidated by uniformitarian "science". It's strange that the Church Fathers and Reformers all believed the earth was thousands of years old if the text really teaches billions.

2) Belief in long ages and billions of years in no way means one must also believe in the evolutionary process.

Maybe not in biological evolution, but it is entirely based on astronomical and geological evolution.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Today @ 01:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351966#post351966)
Socrates:



there are anatomically modern human skeletons that are "dated" (using methods that Charlene's mentor Hugh Ross accepts as valid) at far older even than her stretched date for Adam.

I do not believe mankind evolved, and I do not believe even Neandertal is in anatomically modern human as YEC's do. YEC has its own brand of evolutionism. Neandertals and other primates are not related to mankind in any way but are seperate creatures that never possessed spirit expression. Adam was the first man, man was the first of God's creatures who could have a spiritual relationship with Him. There were no men before Adam.


It is fallacious because we know that new species have arisen today

Your definition of species varies depending on what point you are trying to prove. I would not make out a sub species to be what you try to make it be. You concede much to the evolutionists.

Who are we to judge that He can't communicate what He means? I.e. that He took so long when He said he took 6 days with evening-morning and a numeric, the same length as the days of our working week.

The seventh day is God's Sabbath rest and it continues to this day as evidenced in scripture....

:huh: What good arguments? :lmbo: All I ever see is claims that "science" has proven an old earth, therefore the days must be long periods of time, or there must be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, or that the days were a literary framework. Or there are outright falsehoods claiming that the church fathers believed in long creation days.

I think Socrates is very defensive because he thinks the Bible's authority is questioned with a day age view. It is not. I am glad that there are Christians who want to defend what they believe to be scriptural truth, as Socrates does, but we must understand that our interpretation of scripture is not scripture.

The essentials of Christianity are clear and debate over the word "day" is not one of them.

OEC's have a scripturally sound case for an "ancient" earth from scripture alone. OEC's do not need science to believe in an ancient earth, the Bible itself says the earth is ancient.

And Gleason Archer is a prime example -- he agrees that the straightforward meaning (which he pejoratively calls "superficial") teaches 24 hours, but he doesn't believe it because of "science". Then he rationalizes this away.

I think it is unfair to question his motives like this. Your throw doubt on his integrity because you don't like his support for the day age view and yet he is a great Hebrew scholar. But have you actually talked with him yourself? Do you know that he was willing to hang up his Hebrew scholarship to be "intimidated" by "science"? You are accusing him of dishonesty, aren't you?


Yes there is -- with an evening and morning and a numeric, especially in the particular pattern of Genesis 1, as Andrew Steinmann shows (see the AiG summary The numbering pattern of Genesis: does it mean the days are non-literal? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_numbering.asp)).

You like to reference your man Andrew Steinmann alot whenever this topic arises. Even so, there are plenty of proficient Hebrew scholars who agree with long ages and who disagree with the supposed Hebrew grammar "rule" of ordinals before "day" to always mean 24 hours. YEC's do not have the corner on this Hebrew "grammar rule". The truth is, there are no Hebrew grammar rules, and, as I said, there are many Hebrew scholars who agree with OEC. You cross the line to accuse them of dishonest scholarship.

Yes, Romans 5:12 and 1 Cor. 15 deal with human death, but in both cases this must include the physical death that began in Genesis 3:19.

Alright, we agree that the text speaks of human death only?


Maybe not in biological evolution, but it is entirely based on astronomical and geological evolution.

Nay, the universe and earth are not products of blind chance but careful crafting by a Designer. There is a proponderance of evidence of "fine tuning" from scripture and the creation itself that attest to God's handiwork. "The heavens declare the glory of God..."

[Solly]

:ahem:
Let's rmember the question folks: historical Adam; if you wish to discuss, then please focus on this theme.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Sorry, Solly :doh:

[rmwilliamsjr]

Your immediate question is concerning the age of the earth. Genesis says nothing about the age of the earth or of the universe. It talks about Adam, maybe even two adams, one in Genesis 1 and another in Genesis 2.

"So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." this is the creation of generic man. those in the image of God.
done 120K or so ago, the rise of modern man.

"And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed." and this is the creation of a specific Adam, the progenitor of the particular race that would give rise to Abraham-David- Jesus roughly 6K years ago.
-=the generations of the covenant people=-

the big difference between YEC and OEC is the age of the earth/universe.
the big difference between OEC and TE is the evolution of human beings. Every OEC i've ever met contents for a special creation of Adam's body as well as his spirit.
TE propose a natural evolutionary development for Adam's body or at the worse loose the historicity of Adam.

I think that the federalheadship doctrine requires an historical Adam. the two adams idea does so without accepting the documentary hypothesis just the idea that Gen1 and Gen2-3 are different creation stories of different adams.

As an orthodox and conservative Christian i accept the principle that Scripture speaks authoritatively, what i do not believe is that any particular hermeneutic shares that attribute of Scripture as reliable, for the hermeneutics are human interpretative principles not the very words of Scripture.

I look at two books of God: the book of works written in creation and interpretated by science, and the book of Words written in human words but reliable and trustworthy as a revelation from God, read by theology.

[BrianB]

Because there are misunderstandings in this post, I shall add some corrections for the benefit of those reading this thread, since I happen to have a little knowledge about the nature of the Framework Interpretation and Steinmann's research.


Today @ 01:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351966#post351966)
Socrates:

They are mutually exclusive. The FC is a bizarre 20th century novelty which accepts the days as 24 hours, but a literary framework.


Actually, the Framework Interpretation accepts that all six of the Genesis 1 creation days means _normal_ days (not just 24 hours), as opposed to the Day-Age view (they are long ages) and the 24-hour view (the first three 'days' are not days but abnormal non-solar 24-hour periods).



Even with all the arguments by YE scholars over gramatical structures, there is no Hebrew grammar "rule" that says it has to be 24 hours.


Yes there is -- with an evening and morning and a numeric, especially in the particular pattern of Genesis 1, as Andrew Steinmann shows (see the AiG summary The numbering pattern of Genesis: does it mean the days are non-literal? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_numbering.asp)).


Steinmann's research shows that the straightforward reading of the Genesis 1 narrative is that it is NOT an enumeration of time periods, which goes against the 24-hour and Day-Age interpretations. Moses specifically avoids the pattern that Steinmann's work shows to be what is used when one wants to enumerate a time period.

And the grammatical analysis of the evening/morning refrain and addition of a number to the days shows that they mean ordinary days, which, of course, rules out the 24-hour interpretation as well as the Day-Age, since the latter says the yom are long ages and the former says that the first three yom were not days either.

Just wanted to clear up some misunderstandings,
Brian


[See the "and now, the bomb" thread in Biblical Languages forum for the analysis of Steinmann's very helpful research.]

[Sinai]

Yesterday @ 11:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351035#post351035)
Solly:

This is strictly Christian only, I am asking for OEC comment on the role that Adam plays in Paul's theology, and whether Adam can be seen as an historical person as in YEC, or they have another explanation that still maintains Christian orthodoxy.
YEC's may reply, but remember, this is not for debate, I just want info.
I did put this in intro the theology, but it looks like it will get missed, so i have moved it here.

Was Adam historical.

Solly:

I think you will find a wider range of answers among "old earth creationists" [those who generally accept modern mainstream scientific evidence that the universe is probably 11-20 billion years old] than you are likely to find among "young earth creationists" [those who generally think the universe is probably 6-50 thousand years old].

Some OECs believe that Adam is historical, while others regard him as figurative or something other than a literal person. Since I am more familiar with the former position than the latter, I will only discuss that one; perhaps someone else can give more details on the beliefs of those OECs who think Adam is figurative.

If yes, how does he fit into the OEC schema of an already existing and evolving world which I assume includes human evolution

Again, you will find differing views among various old earth creationists. Charleen Lohman has answered for one who thinks that "Adam was the first man, man was the first of God's creatures who could have a spiritual relationship with Him. There were no men before Adam." I shall therefore attempt to answer your question regarding how Adam can indeed "fit into the OEC schema of an already existing and evolving world."

Hebrew has two words for soul, nefesh (or nephesh) and neshama (or nishmath), and both come into play in the first two chapters of Genesis. When Genesis 1:21 tells us that “God created…every living creature,” it signifies that all animals (humans included) are infused with the nefesh or soul of life--i.e., they are living creatures--or some would say they are soulish creatures. When humans are mentioned a few verses later (Genesis 1:27 and 2:7), the text tells of a further creation that distinguishes humans from lower animals: The third “creation” mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis is of our human soul (or God's spirit or God's breath of life or the capacity to fellowship with God), our neshama (the first two “creations” were of the universe and of life).

The closing of Genesis 2:7 has a subtlety lost in the English: It is usually translated as: “…and [God] breathed into his nostrils the neshama of life and the adam became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). Dr. Gerald Schroeder has noted that the Hebrew text actually states: “…and the adam became to a living soul.” Nahmanides, over seven hundred years ago, wrote that the “to” (the Hebrew letter lamed prefixed to the word “soul” in the verse) is superfluous from a grammatical stance and so must be there to teach something. Lamed, he noted, indicates a change in form and may have been placed there to describe mankind as progressing through stages of mineral, plant, fish, and animal. Finally, upon receiving the neshama, that creature which had already been formed became a human. He concludes his extensive commentary on the implications of this lamed by saying that “it may be that the verse is stating that [prior to receiving the neshama] it was a completely living being and [by the neshama] it was transformed into another man.”

According to Nahmanides, who is generally regarded as being one of the all-time greatest Jewish theologians and commentators on the Bible, the biblical text has told us that before the <I>neshama</I> there could have been something like a man that was not quite a human. Note that Nahmanides’ writings preceded discoveries of modern paleontology by hundreds of years---and the Bible said it three thousand years before discoveries of modern science.

One of the reasons old earth creationists are not as likely to feel threatened by modern scientific evidence--even that pertaining to humanoids who apparently lived much longer than 6-30 thousand years ago--is that they generally understand that the Bible itself is not being contradicted or challenged by such evidence. On the other hand, those whose interpretation of scripture requires a 6000-year old earth (and universe) may well feel quite threatened by it.

If no, how does he fit into Paul's theology in Rom 5, and the direct comparison between Adam and Christ as the heads of two humanities.

Just as Christ did not come to save us from physical death, Paul's theology does not require that there be no physical death prior to the first sin.

[Socrates]

Today @ 10:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=353483#post353483)
Sinai:

Hebrew has two words for soul, nefesh (or nephesh) and neshama (or nishmath), and both come into play in the first two chapters of Genesis.

Neshama means "breath", so it's the nefesh which is definitive. It's only non-scholarly charlatans like the anti-Christian Gerald Schroeder who spruik about neshama to keep his old earth bias. He was splattered on the AiG site at www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4355news8-1-2000.asp

According to Nahmanides, who is generally regarded as being one of the all-time greatest Jewish theologians and commentators on the Bible,

You've gotta be joking. :lmbo: He was a fanatical anti-Christian bigot, and was a kabbalist, one of the lunatic fringes of Judaism. Josephus and Ibn Ezra reflect Jewish Orthodoxy in believing in creation in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago.

One of the reasons old earth creationists are not as likely to feel threatened by modern scientific evidence--even that pertaining to humanoids who apparently lived much longer than 6-30 thousand years ago--is that they generally understand that the Bible itself is not being contradicted or challenged by such evidence.

They can delude themselves all they like, but anatomically modern humans "dated" as older than Adam mean that either the Bible or the modern "dating" methods are wrong. And since the Bible is God's eye-witness account, while dating methods are fallible and assumption-laden and interpreted by people who weren't there, I know which I pick!

On the other hand, those whose interpretation of scripture requires a 6000-year old earth (and universe) may well feel quite threatened by it.

Only those with a faulty evidentialist view of science. Those who recognize the role of presuppositions in interpreting scientific data will not be threatened.

Just as Christ did not come to save us from physical death, Paul's theology does not require that there be no physical death prior to the first sin.

This is heresy worthy of Meert! Jesus' resurrection was physical -- this is the only type a Jew would understand -- and was the first fruits, prefiguring the future physical resurrection of His followers. This is a prime of example of how consistent application of long-age beliefs to Scripture lead to rank heresy.

[Socrates]

Today @ 08:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=353364#post353364)
BrianB:

Because there are misunderstandings in this post,

:soc: Yes there are, in this post and all your other ones around here!

I shall add some corrections for the benefit of those reading this thread, since I happen to have a little knowledge about the nature of the Framework Interpretation and Steinmann's research.

:soc: A little knowledge is right, and we all know it's a dangerous thing. :lmbo:

Actually, the Framework Interpretation accepts that all six of the Genesis 1 creation days means _normal_ days (not just 24 hours), as opposed to the Day-Age view (they are long ages) and the 24-hour view (the first three 'days' are not days but abnormal non-solar 24-hour periods).

:soc: Nothing abnormal about them. People like Basil, Augustine, Ibn Ezra, Luther, Calvin had no problem with believing that the days were ordinary length before the sun was created. They were less inclined to try to tell God that He meant something else just because many fallible humans could not imagine days before the sun. Of course, God created light on Day 1, and a rotating earth and directional light would give a day-night cycle. Steinmann likewise has no problem seeing the days as 24 hours even before the sun was made.

:soc: Yes there is -- with an evening and morning and a numeric, especially in the particular pattern of Genesis 1, as Andrew Steinmann shows (see the AiG summary The numbering pattern of Genesis: does it mean the days are non-literal? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_numbering.asp)).


Steinmann's research shows that the straightforward reading of the Genesis 1 narrative is that it is NOT an enumeration of time periods, which goes against the 24-hour and Day-Age interpretations.

:soc: Not serious :dufus: This is the typical double-speak of framework advocates in pushing their view, which is ultimately motivated by old-earth dogma as Kline explicitly admits and is clear from BB's earlier postings on TWeb.

If the framework were truly taught by Scripture, then one must wonder why the greatest Hebrew scholars in Judeo-Christendom never thought of it till about 1924 -- of course when long ages were entrenched in "science".

Moses specifically avoids the pattern that Steinmann's work shows to be what is used when one wants to enumerate a time period.

:soc: Although Steinmann makes it clear that they WERE 24 hours.

And the grammatical analysis of the evening/morning refrain and addition of a number to the days shows that they mean ordinary days, which, of course, rules out the 24-hour interpretation

:soc: That would be news to just about all Hebrew scholars, such as James Barr and Klaus Westermann, who regarded this as unambiguous support for the 24-hour view. In fact, HALOT gives Genesis 1:5 (before the sun!) as an example of yôm meaning 24 hours. What a preposterous bluff-and-bluster artist BB is.

TWeb's resident Hebrew scholar Gray Pilgrim pointed out at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=165376#post165376 :

As Claus Westermann and James Barr, neither of whom are known his evangelical leanings, both point out, the use of יום in Genesis 1 paired together with ויהי-ערב ויהי-בקר יום and then add a number is only used to refer to 24 hour days. Barr, whose career can be summed up as a methodological critic and is no friend of evangelical approaches, actually finds absurd anyone view of the text that does not find this to equal 7 24 hour days.

[See the &quot;and now, the bomb&quot; thread in Biblical Languages forum for the analysis of Steinmann's very helpful research.]

:soc: What a joke -- maybe BB should submit that guff to JETS :rofl:

[A Beautiful Truth]

Today @ 11:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=353864#post353864)
Socrates:



They can delude themselves all they like, but anatomically modern humans &quot;dated&quot; as older than Adam mean that either the Bible or the modern &quot;dating&quot; methods are wrong. And since the Bible is God's eye-witness account, while dating methods are fallible and assumption-laden and interpreted by people who weren't there, I know which I pick!

(sorry, Solly....)

Soc falls into the evolutionists hands by believing that there were modern humans "older" than Adam. Such "finds" are peer reviewed and Soc needs to be honest to realize not even all the evoutionists believe the pre Adam finds are modern man. Soc needs to be honest as well and realize that even many evolutionists would not even put Neandertal in the human line, they would describe him as an evolutionary "cousin" while the YEC believe he WAS man. The OEC I know all put Neandertal and the other primates as a seperate creation of God--they were not human.




This is heresy worthy of Meert! Jesus' resurrection was physical -- this is the only type a Jew would understand -- and was the first fruits, prefiguring the future physical resurrection of His followers. This is a prime of example of how consistent application of long-age beliefs to Scripture lead to rank heresy.


You tried this before on me, Soc. You misunderstand what Sinai meant (perhaps on purpose?). In his post, Sinai is not denying that Jesus rose physically, Soc. Since I've been through this before with you, I see where your accusation can take a thread--where one has to spend time defending their own Christianity instead of staying on topic.

Poor Solly...

~Charleen

[Sinai]

Today @ 11:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=353864#post353864)
Socrates:



Neshama means &quot;breath&quot;, so it's the nefesh which is definitive. It's only non-scholarly charlatans like the anti-Christian Gerald Schroeder who spruik about neshama to keep his old earth bias. He was splattered on the AiG site at www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4355news8-1-2000.asp
Thank you for the site. I read what AiG had to say. Rather than Dr. Schroeder being "splattered" as you assert, it appears that what was really revealed was AiG's bias and failure to conduct proper research before expouning upon a topic the AiG writer apparently does not understand (or chose not to understand).

At least the AiG writer was candid enough to admit that his review of Dr. Schroeder was based upon viewing a video of an appearance Dr. Schroeder made on a TV program. The AiG writer claims that Dr. Schroeder's theory asserts that "we can arbitrarily divide that period into six age-long periods of time which he chooses to call ‘days’" and concludes that "He does not rest this choice of variable ‘day’ lengths on any discernible scientific reasoning, nor does he offer any Biblical basis for such a division."

Had the AiG writer bothered to read either of Dr. Schroeder's books on that topic [Genesis and the Big Bang and The Science of God], said writer would have found that both his assertions are erronious, since Dr. Schroeder provides full documentation. The writer also displays his inability to work basic math and logic problems, and makes several other errors that indicate that he was more interested in displaying his bias than in making a rational response to a rather interesting theory.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your passing on the citation--even if you apparently delight in insulting persons you think you disagree with (such as calling Dr. Schroeder--who is both a physicist and a Hebrew scholar--a "non-scholarly charlatan") .



You've gotta be joking. :lmbo: He was a fanatical anti-Christian bigot, and was a kabbalist, one of the lunatic fringes of Judaism. Josephus and Ibn Ezra reflect Jewish Orthodoxy in believing in creation in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago.

Do you always resort to such snide remarks when referring to scholars of a different faith? Although I may disagree with my Jewish brethren who have not accepted Jesus as the Christ, I still respect the serious study they make of the original Hebrew texts and will check the commentaries by such theologians as Nahmanides, Maimonides, Josephus and Rashi on especially difficult Hebrew passages. They tend to be more objective than AiG, ICR or TO (yes--both sides are often biased)....




They can delude themselves all they like, but anatomically modern humans &quot;dated&quot; as older than Adam mean that either the Bible or the modern &quot;dating&quot; methods are wrong. And since the Bible is God's eye-witness account, while dating methods are fallible and assumption-laden and interpreted by people who weren't there, I know which I pick!

Thank you for explaining your reasoning for considering anyone who disagrees with your interpretation as being deluded.



Sinai:Just as Christ did not come to save us from physical death, Paul's theology does not require that there be no physical death prior to the first sin.

Socrates:This is heresy worthy of Meert! Jesus' resurrection was physical -- this is the only type a Jew would understand -- and was the first fruits, prefiguring the future physical resurrection of His followers. This is a prime of example of how consistent application of long-age beliefs to Scripture lead to rank heresy.


Interesting observation, Socrates. I had no idea that you consider a statement that "Christ did not come to save us from physical death" as being "heresy worthy of Meert!" Is the reason you accepted Christ as your savior the belief that such salvation will somehow save you from physical death?

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=353961#post353961)
Charleen Lohman:

Soc falls into the evolutionists hands by believing that there were modern humans &quot;older&quot; than Adam.

:soc: I fall into no-one's hands, despite the deceitful way that many evolutionists and their OEC parrots like Hugh Ross try to paint YECs as hyperevolutionists. Meanwhile, OECs avidly accept geological and cosmological evolutionary timescales and orders of events.

Such &quot;finds&quot; are peer reviewed and Soc needs to be honest to realize not even all the evoutionists believe the pre Adam finds are modern man.

:soc: Not ALL of them have to be, just ONE. But if they are classified as Homo sapiens, even the recent idalt&ugrave; ones "dated" at 160 ka, then they are real humans. And there are many such fossils of anatomically modern humans associated with modern human behavior. It's a shame that Charleen has more faith in secular dating methods than in God's written Word.

Soc needs to be honest as well ...
:soc: What's dishonest about anything I said? :fight: I know perfectly well what evolutionists believe.

... and realize that even many evolutionists would not even put Neandertal in the human line, they would describe him as an evolutionary &quot;cousin&quot; while the YEC believe he WAS man. The OEC I know all put Neandertal and the other primates as a seperate creation of God--they were not human.

:soc: Who cares what they think? Neandertals had bigger brains on average than most modern men, made tools, buried their dead, had dextrous hands, made high-tech superglue, hybridized with undoubted modern humans http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3129654.stm had similar behavior www.sciam.com/2000/1200issue/1200scicit2.html Rather it's the likes of Ross who arbitrarily deny their humanity.

You tried this before on me, Soc.

:soc: Yes, because you worded your beliefs so badly that DD also "misunderstood" you at first.

You misunderstand what Sinai meant (perhaps on purpose?). In his post, Sinai is not denying that Jesus rose physically, Soc.

:soc: My problem was his Hymenaean denial of our future Resurrection. This is a logical outcome of his OEC compromise. However, the whole point of 1 Corinthians 15 is to teach about Jesus's physical resurrection that vacated the tomb, as the first-fruits of a promise for our future resurrection. It makes no sense whatever if any of these resurrections are not physical; ergo is makes no sense that the death Christ overcame was anything but physical death, the return to the dust man was made from (Genesis 3:19).
1 Corinthians 15 NIV

The Resurrection of Christ

1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[1] : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[2] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

[Here, no doubt Jesus rose physically/bodily from the dead, overcoming the physical death indicated by His burial -- :soc:]

....

The Resurrection of the Dead

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

[See, here is the connection between Jesus' Rez and ours -- :soc:]

21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

[And now, the important connection of the death that Adam brought with the Rez from the dead that Christ brought; ergo same type of death -- :soc:]

23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

[Death is clearly called an enemy. And what type of death -- again the same sort that Jesus's Rez overcome -- must be a component of physical/bodily death -- :soc:]

...

29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31I die every day--I mean that, brothers--just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
"Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die."[4] 33Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." 34Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God--I say this to your shame.

[Once again, Jesus' Rez is connected to our future Rez, again physical. And Paul repeatedly condemned the denial of both, which is why Sinai and Meert were heretical in denying that Jesus would raise us physically -- :soc:]

The Resurrection Body

35But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

[The heretics and compromisers manage to mangle the term "spiritual" (pneumatikoV so badly here, thinking that it means non-corporeal. It actually means controlled by the spirit, and is used of believers today who are most definitely corporeal -- :soc:]

45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.

This totally splatters the denial of a literal Adam by many theistic evolutionists, although OECs don't tend to deny that.

46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

[Once again, Jesus's Rez is connected with ours -- :soc:]

50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."[7]
55"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?" 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

[And once again, this whole chapter has been talking about Jesus's Rez that emptied the tomb. So this is something that believers have to look forward too -- :soc:]Since I've been through this before with you, I see where your accusation can take a thread--where one has to spend time defending their own Christianity instead of staying on topic.

:soc: It's hardly my fault that OEC has such logical problems if carried through consistently. It's a shame that people like Charleen have been sucked in by the smooth-talking of Ross to accept uniformitarian dating methods.

[Socrates]

Today @ 07:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=354174#post354174)
Sinai, replying to:

:soc: Neshama means "breath", so it's the nefesh which is definitive. It's only non-scholarly charlatans like the anti-Christian Gerald Schroeder who spruik about neshama to keep his old earth bias. He was splattered on the AiG site at www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4355news8-1-2000.asp

Thank you for the site. I read what AiG had to say. Rather than Dr. Schroeder being "splattered" as you assert, it appears that what was really revealed was AiG's bias and failure to conduct proper research before expouning upon a topic the AiG writer apparently does not understand (or chose not to understand).

:soc: As if you are in a position to judge. :dufus: The purpose was very clear -- to refute the nonsense Schroeder propounded on those TV programs which accurately reflected the nonsense he propounds in his books.

At least the AiG writer was candid enough to admit that his review of Dr. Schroeder was based upon viewing a video of an appearance Dr. Schroeder made on a TV program.

:soc: Admitting?! Since when did the AiG writer claim anything to to contrary?! :hrm:

The AiG writer claims that Dr. Schroeder's theory asserts that "we can arbitrarily divide that period into six age-long periods of time which he chooses to call ‘days’" and concludes that "He does not rest this choice of variable ‘day’ lengths on any discernible scientific reasoning, nor does he offer any Biblical basis for such a division."

Had the AiG writer bothered to read either of Dr. Schroeder's books on that topic [Genesis and the Big Bang and The Science of God], said writer would have found that both his assertions are erronious, since Dr. Schroeder provides full documentation.

:soc: Not at all -- reference to loopy Kabbalistic numerology doesn't count as real Hebrew scholarship.

The writer also displays his inability to work basic math and logic problems, and makes several other errors that indicate that he was more interested in displaying his bias than in making a rational response to a rather interesting theory.

:soc: Of course, Sinai doesn't provide any proof of this. He's evidently more interested in defending compromise.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your passing on the citation--even if you apparently delight in insulting persons you think you disagree with (such as calling Dr. Schroeder--who is both a physicist and a Hebrew scholar--a "non-scholarly charlatan").

:soc: What are his qualifications in biblical Hebrew? He is at odds with just about all Hebrew scholars, who most certainly don't agree with his nonsense.

:soc: You've gotta be joking. He was a fanatical anti-Christian bigot, and was a kabbalist, one of the lunatic fringes of Judaism. Josephus and Ibn Ezra reflect Jewish Orthodoxy in believing in creation in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago.

Do you always resort to such snide remarks when referring to scholars of a different faith?

:soc: What snide remarks? :huh: I was stating a fact. Do you always avidly defend anti-Christians? :poke:

Although I may disagree with my Jewish brethren who have not accepted Jesus as the Christ,

:soc: Then they are not brethren at all!

I still respect the serious study they make of the original Hebrew texts and will check the commentaries by such theologians as Nahmanides, Maimonides, Josephus and Rashi on especially difficult Hebrew passages. They tend to be more objective than AiG, ICR or TO (yes--both sides are often biased)....

:soc: What piffle. The ones after Christ twisted the Messianic passages beyond breaking point to avoid the reference to Jesus. Rashi and Nahmanidies were especially bad at this. Anyway, Jospehus explicitly taught a young Earth, and the Jewish commentator Ibn Ezra, who was greatly respected by Maimonides, believed that the Creation days were rotations of the (Ptolemaic) celestial sphere and that the sun was really made on Day 4. This reflects Jewish orthodoxy more than Kabbalists like Nahmanides.

:soc: They can delude themselves all they like, but anatomically modern humans "dated" as older than Adam mean that either the Bible or the modern "dating" methods are wrong. And since the Bible is God's eye-witness account, while dating methods are fallible and assumption-laden and interpreted by people who weren't there, I know which I pick!

Thank you for explaining your reasoning for considering anyone who disagrees with your interpretation as being deluded.

:soc: You're welcome. And you have no answer to the real problem of undoubted Homo sapiens "dated" older than Adam.

[QUOTE]Sinai:Just as Christ did not come to save us from physical death, Paul's theology does not require that there be no physical death prior to the first sin.

:soc: This is heresy worthy of Meert! Jesus' resurrection was physical -- this is the only type a Jew would understand -- and was the first fruits, prefiguring the future physical resurrection of His followers. This is a prime of example of how consistent application of long-age beliefs to Scripture lead to rank heresy.

Interesting observation, Socrates. I had no idea that you consider a statement that "Christ did not come to save us from physical death" as being "heresy worthy of Meert!"

:soc: What I consider is of no acount. It is objectively heresy because it contradicts the Bible.

Is the reason you accepted Christ as your savior the belief that such salvation will somehow save you from physical death?

:soc: My reasons are of no account, so your pathetic appeal to emotions falls flat. What matters is that 1 Corinthians 15 says that Jesus's physical resurrection is the promise of our own. But it's not surprising that you defend heresy, given that you are so enamored with anti-Christian Jewish numerology.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yesterday @ 11:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=354215#post354215)
Socrates:



::soc: ...But if they are classified as Homo sapiens, even the recent idalt&amp;ugrave; ones &quot;dated&quot; at 160 ka, then they are real humans.

The scientific literature says homo sapiens idaltu is anatomically distinct and an intermediate between Homo rhodesiensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. Your idaltu example is shown to be anatomically distinct from modern humans. But then again, I am not surprised that YOU would call them modern humans because you believe that even Neandertal is modern human. Perhaps you even believe Homo habilus is as well. I stand by my assessment that you are a hyper evolutionist if you believe these bi pedal animals were actually human beings.


And there are many such fossils of anatomically modern humans associated with modern human behavior. It's a shame that Charleen has more faith in secular dating methods than in God's written Word.

You have more of a problem with calling anatomically *distinct* animals human beings then I have with dates.


:soc: My problem was his Hymenaean denial of our future Resurrection.

Soc, let me spell it out for you again...Sinai did not deny our future physical resurrection. I believe you are trying to cause a distraction or something because I cannot believe you could really have lost the logical connection so badly.

This is a logical outcome of his OEC compromise. However, the whole point of 1 Corinthians 15 is to teach about Jesus's physical resurrection that vacated the tomb, as the first-fruits of a promise for our future resurrection. It makes no sense whatever if any of these resurrections are not physical; ergo is makes no sense that the death Christ overcame was anything but physical death, the return to the dust man was made from (Genesis 3:19).

Your point, Soc? This has absolutely NOTHING to do with any point Sinai raised or contrary to any beliefs of OEC Christians. I am floored that you would go on and on about something that has no bearing on our discussion here or on any Old Earth beliefs.

But maybe I am being too hard on you. Maybe you really did not understand that he meant that Christ did not come to save our bodies from physical death while we are still in our earthly flesh corruptable perishable bodies while on this present earth. Otherwise, there would be no physical graves for believers! While our current body of corruption will indeed die, we will be raised to physical spiritual material bodies (excuse the redundant wording but I learned from past mistakes to spell this out very clearly...) at the resurrection.

"...It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body...it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." I Cor. 15:42,44

The old earth position says nothing of man not being raised physically as Christ was raised physically, you have misunderstood and I hope this clears it up for you.

~Charleen

[Sinai]

Today @ 01:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=354255#post354255)
Socrates:



Thank you for the site. I read what AiG had to say. Rather than Dr. Schroeder being &quot;splattered&quot; as you assert, it appears that what was really revealed was AiG's bias and failure to conduct proper research before expouning upon a topic the AiG writer apparently does not understand (or chose not to understand).

:soc: As if you are in a position to judge. :dufus: The purpose was very clear -- to refute the nonsense Schroeder propounded on those TV programs which accurately reflected the nonsense he propounds in his books.

Oh, really? Have you read his books? If so, which one(s)...and which part(s)? Or do you merely parrot thoughts and words from other people's websites?

The AiG writer claims that Dr. Schroeder's theory asserts that "we can arbitrarily divide that period into six age-long periods of time which he chooses to call ‘days’" and concludes that "He does not rest this choice of variable ‘day’ lengths on any discernible scientific reasoning, nor does he offer any Biblical basis for such a division."

Had the AiG writer bothered to read either of Dr. Schroeder's books on that topic [Genesis and the Big Bang and The Science of God], said writer would have found that both his assertions are erronious, since Dr. Schroeder provides full documentation.

:soc: Not at all -- reference to loopy Kabbalistic numerology doesn't count as real Hebrew scholarship.

Congratulations, Soc! You apparently have been reading so many non-researched non-scholarly rebuttals on those loopy websites you apparently frequent that you have now adopted the same style for your own responses. Had you bothered to read Dr. Schroeder's books, you would have discovered that his theory is not based upon "loopy Kabbalistic numerology."


The writer also displays his inability to work basic math and logic problems, and makes several other errors that indicate that he was more interested in displaying his bias than in making a rational response to a rather interesting theory.

:soc: Of course, Sinai doesn't provide any proof of this. He's evidently more interested in defending compromise.

I'm sorry, Soc. Since you had provided the link, I naturally assumed that you had read the AiG article. If you do bother to read it, the basic errors in math and logic should be so obvious that even you should be able to see it.....but if not, please let me know and I will be happy to spell it out for you.

And since you purport to be such an expert at knowing my thoughts, motives and interests, perhaps you would be so kind as to reveal precisely what compromise I am allegedly defending. Thank you.


Nevertheless, I appreciate your passing on the citation--even if you apparently delight in insulting persons you think you disagree with (such as calling Dr. Schroeder--who is both a physicist and a Hebrew scholar--a "non-scholarly charlatan").

:soc: What are his qualifications in biblical Hebrew? He is at odds with just about all Hebrew scholars, who most certainly don't agree with his nonsense.

Dr. Schroeder is fluent in Hebrew, has taught for many years at at a Hebrew university, and is certainly not "at odds with just about all Hebrew scholars" as you assert. Did you poll all the Hebrew scholars before making your ludicrous assertions--or is this another "fact" you decided to make up to bolster a rather pathetic argument? For that matter, since you called Dr. Schroeder a "non-scholarly charlatan," what are your academic and scholastic qualifications?



Do you always resort to such snide remarks when referring to scholars of a different faith?

:soc: What snide remarks? :huh: I was stating a fact. Do you always avidly defend anti-Christians? :poke:

What snide remarks? You've got to be kidding! Unless, of course, you have made it such a habit to belittle and run down anyone you think you might disagree with that you no longer notice when you're doing it.... And if you think quoting a respected Jewish expert on the Hebrew language constitutes avidly defending anti-Christians, then you may have a serious problem with bias and prejudice.


Although I may disagree with my Jewish brethren who have not accepted Jesus as the Christ, I still respect the serious study they make of the original Hebrew texts and will check the commentaries by such theologians as Nahmanides, Maimonides, Josephus and Rashi on especially difficult Hebrew passages. They tend to be more objective than AiG, ICR or TO (yes--both sides are often biased)....

:soc: Then they are not brethren at all!

You are apparently at odds with the writers of the New Testament....



Thank you for explaining your reasoning for considering anyone who disagrees with your interpretation as being deluded.

:soc: You're welcome. And you have no answer to the real problem of undoubted Homo sapiens &quot;dated&quot; older than Adam.

Problem? What problem? I don't have a problem with the possibility that there may have been humanoids that were physically similar to humans prior to Adam and God's creation of an everlasting soul. And--as I pointed out in my post answering Solly's questions--neither does the Bible.


Sinai:Just as Christ did not come to save us from physical death, Paul's theology does not require that there be no physical death prior to the first sin.

:soc: This is heresy worthy of Meert! Jesus' resurrection was physical -- this is the only type a Jew would understand -- and was the first fruits, prefiguring the future physical resurrection of His followers. This is a prime of example of how consistent application of long-age beliefs to Scripture lead to rank heresy.

Interesting observation, Socrates. I had no idea that you consider a statement that &quot;Christ did not come to save us from physical death&quot; as being &quot;heresy worthy of Meert!&quot;

:soc: What I consider is of no acount. It is objectively heresy because it contradicts the Bible.

If you really think that saying that "Christ did not come to save us from physical death" constitutes heresy and contradicts the Bible, you may need to spend more time in prayerful Bible study, my friend. And if you really think that Jesus's purpose in becoming flesh and dwelling among us was to keep us from physically dying--and that no Christians' bodies have physically died over the past 2000 years, then you may have more serious problems than can be quickly dealt with on a thread that is supposed to be dealing with a different topic anyway.....



Is the reason you accepted Christ as your savior the belief that such salvation will somehow save you from physical death?

:soc: My reasons are of no account, so your pathetic appeal to emotions falls flat. What matters is that 1 Corinthians 15 says that Jesus's physical resurrection is the promise of our own. But it's not surprising that you defend heresy, given that you are so enamored with anti-Christian Jewish numerology.

I did not mention resurrection nor did I deny that Jesus physically rose from the dead (He obviously did do so)--and I am certainly not "enamored with anti-Christian Jewish numerology" (though you seem to have some kind of preoccupation with it, since you keep adding it to discussions on other topics). Let me refresh your memory about what was initially said. First, Solly posted these questions:
Was Adam historical.

If yes, how does he fit into the OEC schema of an already existing and evolving world which I assume includes human evolution

If no, how does he fit into Paul's theology in Rom 5, and the direct comparison between Adam and Christ as the heads of two humanities.

The part of my response that you seem to think is constitutes heresy:
Just as Christ did not come to save us from physical death, Paul's theology [in Romans 5--which is what Solly asked about] does not require that there be no physical death prior to the first sin.

Jesus' purpose was to save his people from their sins. Jesus did not die on the cross as a sacrifice to keep our physical bodies from wearing out or dying; he died to save our spiritual bodies: our souls--so that we may have eternal fellowship with God, which is what the Bible calls everlasting life.

[dizzle]

Okay I have a request that this thread be restricted to OEC comments as requested in the opening post. Thank you.

[Sinai]

12-22-2003 @ 11:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351035#post351035)
Solly:

This is strictly Christian only, I am asking for OEC comment on the role that Adam plays in Paul's theology, and whether Adam can be seen as an historical person as in YEC, or they have another explanation that still maintains Christian orthodoxy.
YEC's may reply, but remember, this is not for debate, I just want info.
I did put this in intro the theology, but it looks like it will get missed, so i have moved it here.

Was Adam historical.

If yes, how does he fit into the OEC schema of an already existing and evolving world which I assume includes human evolution

If no, how does he fit into Paul's theology in Rom 5, and the direct comparison between Adam and Christ as the heads of two humanities.

Solly:

Have any of the posts thus far been along the lines of what you were requesting? Do you have other questions or comments?

Thank you

[rmwilliamsjr]

12-22-2003 @ 11:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=351035#post351035)
Solly:

This is strictly Christian only, I am asking for OEC comment on the role that Adam plays in Paul's theology, and whether Adam can be seen as an historical person as in YEC, or they have another explanation that still maintains Christian orthodoxy.
YEC's may reply, but remember, this is not for debate, I just want info.
I did put this in intro the theology, but it looks like it will get missed, so i have moved it here.

Was Adam historical.

If yes, how does he fit into the OEC schema of an already existing and evolving world which I assume includes human evolution

If no, how does he fit into Paul's theology in Rom 5, and the direct comparison between Adam and Christ as the heads of two humanities.



What appears to me to be the important and inescapable theme of federal headship is how the first Adam is symmetrical to the second adam-Jesus. Put into the same situation where obedience is required, the first disobeyed and the 2nd followed through to the point of death.

I'd refer you to something like:
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/full.asp?ID=353
or C.Hodge's _systematic theology_ for the details on the doctrine of federal headship, imputation of Adam's sin and the effects on your view of the atonement when you vary principles in the first two doctrines.

For these reasons, i find any understanding of Genesis 1-4 where Adam is taken historically to be perferred to a position that allegorizes or takes the more figurative route. The doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin is extremely important to the overall atonement.

The big question is how does Adam fit into an evolving world. I would refer you to online references like the church trial of T. Gray
at: http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/
to show how important the issue is in the conservative churches. I think T.Gray does a fine job defending not an OEC view but TE which is numerically a much smaller part of the orthodox or conservative churches.

I don't think we will solve the issues in a forum such as this, but share the fact that there are people working on the issues and trying to do justice to both the book of Words and the book of Works, and to the fact that they are from the same Author.

Simply asserting that the YEC and AiG are the only ones concerned with the doctrinal issues is wrong and doesn't do justice to those brethren seriously concerned with the issues and trying to deal with them in their work. I hope that points the way to a scheme that you can use to understand the issue for yourself.

[learning]

since i consider myself an OEC, I thot I'ld add my 2 cents.
I have not even read the second page, as it seemed the topic was getting off topic.

I have gone from OEC, to YEC after being at a seminar of theirs and reading info, to back to OEC to TE, to back to OEC as I really didn't think I had substantial info to handle evolution (punctuated evolution and reading of the history of science sort of made me think that there are gaps that I couldn't mentally handle right now.) I am hoping to keep an open, faithful mind.
so, here goes my view of Adam

well, I see that Adam was a real person, and Eve too. But I fit the old age in, in that we really don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. My reasoning goes, that if they were eternal, that their dating of their age goes 'after they sinned' because they would have been eternal up to then. I could be off here, but when I discussed this with atheists, they only said 'Prove there was a fall' and all I could say was 'Well, there is death and sin in this world, so I don't know what I am missing.'

now, I'm not so sure of the dating of mankind since Adam, since there could be controversy about that, cause of some things I read on the homeschool web site of Sonlight, where he discussed how ages in African genealogy could be set (or ancestor dates) by how many of famous ancestors that were 'of importance' were listed. These Africans wanted to know why the Hebrews only could remember so many of their Hebrew ancestors at certain times.

anyhow, I believe God created, He MAY have used some parts of evolution (for instance, I read where clay is connected to sparking RNA -life thing) and I wondered if that is connected to Genesis, and Adam etc.

But, I kinda think God looks at us arguing over all of this and shakes His head and says "Get on with my work."

well, that's my two cents worth.

Oh, and sin and death, I believe sin began with Adam but not death, as it would have to be something he knew that God was talking about for it to have any meaning to him when God threatened death for man. I believe that Adam and Eve had to see it (death), but that sin did begin when they disobeyed, and that spiritual death, but not physical death, happened when they disobeyed God. (the gift of God was that He banned Adam and Eve from living in sin eternally, that He banned him from the tree of life, for it would have been horrible for us to live in sin eternally. For Adam did not die physically that day when he and Eve sinned, but many years later, but he did die spiritually.

[learning]

hi, Just so you know, I do believe that mankind began dying physically with the first Adam, and I do believe we also will have a new physical-spiritual body too.

but I am trying to point out the importance of how sin has infected us, and that the important thing that Jesus came to save us for, isn't just to live eternally, but to live eternally without sin.
For the angel said when announcing Jesus' name, that "He will save His people from their sins" (not save them from the Romans, or other Gentiles, or from physical death, but 'from their sins')

anyways, when I mentioned 'get on with My work' in the last post, this is what I was referring to Matthew 25:31-46.

that's what HE is going to ask us about, not how we interpreted His word, I think.