For Charleen: On Adam...

[seer]

Charleen, were Adam and Eve the parents of all mankind? Were they the first human beings?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charleen, were Adam and Eve the parents of all mankind? Were they the first human beings?

I don't know in what way to take Adam and Eve, whether somehow literal or "mythical" (understand this word before you comment), but I think the theology is what is needed. Since I believe in Christ I only need Him as affirmation of the truth of Adam and Eve and the rest of scriptures.

[seer]

I don't know in what way to take Adam and Eve, whether somehow literal or "mythical" (understand this word before you comment), but I think the theology is what is needed. Since I believe in Christ I only need Him as affirmation of the truth of Adam and Eve and the rest of scriptures.

I do not think that there is any reason in the NT, or the OT, to take Adam and Eve other than literal. And the literal parents of all mankind. And the things that make christians move away from such a conclusion are not biblical...

[oxmixmudd]

I do not think that there is any reason in the NT, or the OT, to take Adam and Eve other than literal. And the literal parents of all mankind. And the things that make christians move away from such a conclusion are not biblical...

I think Charleen is merely saying that she does not know whether they are or are not literal figures, and has no reason to take a stand one way or the other. If they are symbolic representations of all of mankind (adam in hebrew means 'man') or literally the first humans or the first hominds with a soul, the Spiritual truth of the fall and its effect on us remains - as well as the need for Messiah for redemption.

In my opinion it goes like this: It is clear to me from the new testament that the writers of the new testament considered Adam a singular human being. There is no reason to believe it could NOT have been a singular human, except that the Genesis account appears to be highly symbolic. As such, I accept them as an actual first couple at some time and place in the past. But I will not be dogmatic on that point. Genesis and it's 'actual' correlation to reality appears to be shrouded in about much mystery as Revelation. Perhaps that is as it should be. I accept on faith its teachings and do not deny the need for redemption in Christ or the sinful nature of mankind. I also accept the miraculous nature of the prophecy of Messiah in Genesis 3. But there is enough evidence both in the text and from nature that Genesis is not literal that to take a dogmatic stance on a literal Adam and Eve appears foolish to me.


Jim

[seer]

I think Charleen is merely saying that she does not know whether they are or are not literal figures, and has no reason to take a stand one way or the other. If they are symbolic representations of all of mankind (adam in hebrew means 'man') or literally the first humans or the first hominds with a soul, the Spiritual truth of the fall and its effect on us remains - as well as the need for Messiah for redemption.

In my opinion it goes like this: It is clear to me from the new testament that the writers of the new testament considered Adam a singular human being. There is no reason to believe it could NOT have been a singular human, except that the Genesis account appears to be highly symbolic. As such, I accept them as an actual first couple at some time and place in the past. But I will not be dogmatic on that point. Genesis and it's 'actual' correlation to reality appears to be shrouded in about much mystery as Revelation. Perhaps that is as it should be. I accept on faith its teachings and do not deny the need for redemption in Christ or the sinful nature of mankind. I also accept the miraculous nature of the prophecy of Messiah in Genesis 3. But there is enough evidence both in the text and from nature that Genesis is not literal that to take a dogmatic stance on a literal Adam and Eve appears foolish to me.


Jim

Well yes the writers of the NT considered Adam to be a singular human being. Paul builds his theology of sin and redemption on that fact. And since I do believe that they were inspired I would have to go with their conclusion, and not science which denies that they were the first human beings...

[A Beautiful Truth]

Well yes the writers of the NT considered Adam to be a singular human being. Paul builds his theology of sin and redemption on that fact. And since I do believe that they were inspired I would have to go with their conclusion, and not science which denies that they were the first human beings...

Because they considered him literal does not make him necessarily so, IMO. They also thought Christ's return would have happened in their day and that does not make their references to Christ's return invalid. It does not make the theology in error, they were inspired. And, just like the O.T. prophets who did not understand the fullness of what they prophesied, it may be the same here with Paul. But in both the cases of the O.T. prophets and Paul, the theology remains true even if the writer did not have the fullness. The theology remains true because Christ upholds it, not whether or not science can prove it or disprove it--for science cannot even do so.

Everything that Adam represents and the theology pertaining to it is what needs to be true. I believe we can still have that even if Adam was not literal.

Can we understand Revelation as true even if the Lamb is not literal, etc? What truly matters is what these things represent and the theology that surrounds it. By taking this view I have not lost the scriptures or their theological authority nor do I have to bother with trying to reconcile Genesis and science as the YEC's are so obsessed to do as if science can somehow validate their theological position. Where historical evidence matters is in Christ, and His resurrection. Because of Him we know the Bible is true.

I remain open on the matter.

[oxmixmudd]

Well yes the writers of the NT considered Adam to be a singular human being. Paul builds his theology of sin and redemption on that fact. And since I do believe that they were inspired I would have to go with their conclusion, and not science which denies that they were the first human beings...

My only point here is that science does not, and indeed can not, confirm or deny that there were two 'first' human beings. Science can't even fully define what differentiates us from animals. What science can say is that the physical form of man developed in a certain way.


Jim

[seer]

Everything that Adam represents and the theology pertaining to it is what needs to be true. I believe we can still have that even if Adam was not literal.

That is simply false. Sin and condemnation came through one man, just as justification came through one man. All died in Adam.

Can we understand Revelation as true even if the Lamb is not literal, etc? What truly matters is what these things represent and the theology that surrounds it. By taking this view I have not lost the scriptures or their theological authority nor do I have to bother with trying to reconcile Genesis and science as the YEC's are so obsessed to do as if science can somehow validate their theological position. Where historical evidence matters is in Christ, and His resurrection. Because of Him we know the Bible is true.

I remain open on the matter.

Well I agree that it is silly for YEC's to use the scientific method to try and prove their position since science is false and stupid...

http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2006/12/on...empirical.html

[seer]

My only point here is that science does not, and indeed can not, confirm or deny that there were two 'first' human beings. Science can't even fully define what differentiates us from animals. What science can say is that the physical form of man developed in a certain way.


Jim

Science can't even do that Jim. Science is false and stupid...


http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2006/12/on...empirical.html

[oxmixmudd]

Science can't even do that Jim. Science is false and stupid...


http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2006/12/on...empirical.html

Good to know that. Remember that the next time you need medical help, or need help solving a problem with the electronics in your car, or would like to know when a Hurricane or Tornado is on its way, or are listening to the radio, or are using superglue, or talking on a cell phone, or using your GPS or mapquest to find a way to a new destination, or ...

Jim

[seer]

Good to know that. Remember that the next time you need medical help, or need help solving a problem with the electronics in your car, or would like to know when a Hurricane or Tornado is on its way, or are listening to the radio, or are using superglue, or talking on a cell phone, or using your GPS or mapquest to find a way to a new destination, or ...

Jim

My trust does not lie with men Jim. It lies with God, as yours should. A God who can induce truth and ability...

http://www.vincentcheung.com/2006/12...-god-we-trust/

[A Beautiful Truth]

That is simply false. Sin and condemnation came through one man, just as justification came through one man. All died in Adam.

Argue your point, I am open. Show me why it cannot be the case that what is important in Paul is what Adam represents. Jim is right about me having trouble in believing in a literal Adam because of the texts themselves. I see a lot of symbolic elements in Gen. one and two and I see an importance to understand how the ANE mind saw truth. And, as I said before, it is not nessesary that Paul have the fullness of what he taught in order for the theology to be true. Many thought Christ would be returning in their time and spoke of Him coming with that understanding. Though they did not themselves understand the fullness, that has no bearing on the truth of their words.

Well I agree that it is silly for YEC's to use the scientific method to try and prove their position since science is false and stupid...

False and stupid? What, are you Amish or something? No, not Amish for even Amish use simple machines.

Jim made some good points concerning that. If science is so stupid then you are living in such contradiction.

[seer]

Argue your point, I am open. Show me why it cannot be the case that what is important in Paul is what Adam represents. Jim is right about me having trouble in believing in a literal Adam because of the texts themselves. I see a lot of symbolic elements in Gen. one and two and I see an importance to understand how the ANE mind saw truth. And, as I said before, it is not nessesary that Paul have the fullness of what he taught in order for the theology to be true. Many thought Christ would be returning in their time and spoke of Him coming with that understanding. Though they did not themselves understand the fullness, that has no bearing on the truth of their words.

Charleen, perhaps I'm not making myself clear. There is no doubt that the biblical writers (both old and new testaments) believed that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. The parents of all mankind. Now on what basis do you deny this?

False and stupid? What, are you Amish or something? No, not Amish for even Amish use simple machines.

Jim made some good points concerning that. If science is so stupid then you are living in such contradiction

Of course science is false and stupid. It is an invention of men. And I do not live a contradiction - I trust God, not men.

Please take some time to understand my position:

http://www.vincentcheung.com/2006/12...-god-we-trust/

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charleen, perhaps I'm not making myself clear. There is no doubt that the biblical writers (both old and new testaments) believed that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. The parents of all mankind. Now on what basis do you deny this?

Do you think that a complete understanding on the matter was nessesary for them to have their theology inspired?

Of course science is false and stupid. It is an invention of men. And I do not live a contradiction - I trust God, not men.

But I wonder at this, I do. When you hit "send" on this site are you relying upon technology to work as invented by science or do you believe such acts are divine interventions?

Please take some time to understand my position:

http://www.vincentcheung.com/2006/12...-god-we-trust/

If you take the time to articulate it yourself, I will take the time to try to understand.

[seer]

Do you think that a complete understanding on the matter was nessesary for them to have their theology inspired?

No Charleen, but if you are correct Paul was simply wrong. God inspired error...

But I wonder at this, I do. When you hit "send" on this site are you relying upon technology to work as invented by science or do you believe such acts are divine interventions?

I believe it is possible that everything happens by divine intervention. That moment by moment God upholds and directs all we do. Even if that is not true, I do not have believe that because men can figure some things out, that they can figure all things out.

That was my point in this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...2&page=1&pp=16

And this leads to my other point. If one takes scripture at face value it clearly teaches that Adam and Eve were our first parents, the first human beings. You think it might be otherwise - but that thought does not spring from scripture, it comes from "science." So my question always remains - what do we trust - scripture, or the sense experience of fallen men.