Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

109 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/23/2003 4:34 AM (GMT -6)

The question is very simple...

Do you believe that there was a literal Adamic couple? An Adam and Eve.

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 8/23/2003 6:35 AM (GMT -6)

Meph,

I'm amazed at the results to this point. Sad

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/23/2003 1:28 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388

Meph,

I'm amazed at the results to this point.

Yes, it is indeed amazing that some would vote yes.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/23/2003 5:17 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388

Meph,

I'm amazed at the results to this point.

Hi Paul5388,

Of course you probably are already well aware of the fact that this board is by no means limited to fundamentalists or even evangelicals.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 8/23/2003 5:31 PM (GMT -6)

John,

I really had not consider that to be a possibility in light of those I have come in contact with so far. I guess that just goes to show I haven't come in contact with everyone yet. Smile

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 8/23/2003 5:35 PM (GMT -6)

No one has yet answered the question:

If Adam and Eve are symbolic or literary or whatever and NOT real people, then WHERE in the genealogies listed in scripture, do the names listed, turn from symbolic people to real people?

Adam symbolic
Seth symbolic?
Enosh symbolic?
Cainan symbolic?
Mahalaleel symbolic?
Jared symbolic?
Enoch symbolic?
Methuselah symbolic?
Lamech symbolic?
Noah symbolic?
Japheth symbolic?
Arphaxad symbolic?
Cainan symbolic?
Eber symbolic?
Peleg symbolic?
Reu symbolic?
Serug symbolic?
Nahor symbolic?
Terah symbolic?
Abraham symbolic?
Isaac symbolic?
Jacob symbolic?
Judah symbolic?
.
.
.
maybe Jesus was symbolic as well, a "type", the hero of a thousand faces... Knife

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/23/2003 5:39 PM (GMT -6)

Excellent point, Laika. It seems to me that the primary reason people deny the historicity of Adam and Eve is that they accept the presuppositions of modern evolutionary theory.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/23/2003 6:15 PM (GMT -6)

Laika

No one has yet answered the question:

If Adam and Eve are symbolic or literary or whatever and NOT real people, then WHERE in the genealogies listed in scripture, do the names listed, turn from symbolic people to real people?

Adam symbolic
Seth symbolic?
Enosh symbolic?
Cainan symbolic?
Mahalaleel symbolic?
Jared symbolic?
Enoch symbolic?
Methuselah symbolic?
Lamech symbolic?
Noah symbolic?
Japheth symbolic?
Arphaxad symbolic?
Cainan symbolic?

Iconoclast

That's easy. Think about it. When did the story of Adam and Eve and the genealogy actually get written down? Moses wrote it down HOW many years after the supposed facts? (that would be LOTS) And how exactly was this information handed down to Moses? (story form by his wife's father) And how long exactly does it take for legend to form? (400 years or so)

Have you ever played the "whisper game"? And have you ever noticed people's propensity to make a story coherent even when it isn't quite?

But please answer this question for me. If Adam and Eve were really the first people then what was that whole bit about Cain being concerned that other people would kill him? Seemed to me there was a whole civilization at that point. Was that a whole bunch of brothers and sisters of Cain? Did they come about before or after Seth? Why don't we get a genealogy of them?

Adam and Eve is a story meant to convey the fundamental truth of the human condition. There are several creation stories that are very similar in other cultures. The genealogy naturally grew up around the story because everyone wants to know where they came from.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/23/2003 6:26 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp

Excellent point, Laika. It seems to me that the primary reason people deny the historicity of Adam and Eve is that they accept the presuppositions of modern evolutionary theory.

Iconoclast

Presuppositions? Do you mean the factual evidence that the world is some 4.7 billion years old and that humans have been around for tens of thousands of years?

Actually, I think Adam and Eve are not historical because the story itself is clearly a STORY. It is filled with mythical / metaphorical language. The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", the "tree of life", a talking serpent?!?! Do you really think that God put the knowledge of good and evil in a tree?

Do you really think that snakes EVER really TALKED? The story is meant to convey humongous metaphysical truth but you want it to simply be a literal historical account?!?! What up with that?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/23/2003 6:37 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast

That's easy. Think about it. When did the story of Adam and Eve and the genealogy actually get written down? Moses wrote it down HOW many years after the supposed facts? (that would be LOTS) And how exactly was this information handed down to Moses? (story form by his wife's father) And how long exactly does it take for legend to form? (400 years or so)

John

Of course you are leaving out the possibility that Genesis was an inspired account, inspired by GOD.

Iconoclast
But please answer this question for me. If Adam and Eve were really the first people then what was that whole bit about Cain being concerned that other people would kill him? Seemed to me there was a whole civilization at that point. Was that a whole bunch of brothers and sisters of Cain? Did they come about before or after Seth? Why don't we get a genealogy of them?

John

Given the extremely long average lifespan in that pristine age, it takes no great leap in logic to accept the fact that many generations of people could in fact have been already in existence at the time. The reason these generations are not described in detail is that Genesis was intended primarily to give the genealogy of the Hebrew people and only the "important" ones generally were included.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/23/2003 6:43 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast:

quote:
Do you really think that snakes EVER really TALKED? The story is meant to convey humongous metaphysical truth but you want it to simply be a literal historical account?!?! What up with that?

I hear ya. It’s about as believable as a donkey talking, huh?

Numbers 22:27
When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, it lay down under Balaam; and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he struck the donkey with his staff. 28 Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” 29 Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a fool of me! I wish I had a sword in my hand! I would kill you right now!” 30 But the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey, which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I been in the habit of treating you this way?” And he said, “No.”

Heh. Ha. Muhahahahahah!

Admit it, Iconoclast. There’s TONS of freaky stuff in the Bible. How in the world can we truly tell nonsense from truth in it?? We believe that the Creator of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE with BILLIONS and BILLIONS of star clusters with still more amounts of PLANETS… became a all-too-fragile HUMAN BEING on ONE MINISCULE little planet…only to DIE a gruesome death for the microbes that live on that planet. What is more absurd than that?? Talking snakes, debating donkeys, and resurrected corpses are NOTHING to this. What we preach makes crop circles, vampires, and the Loch Ness Monster look like documentable FACTS.

SK was right!

"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."

--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God

ThePlaidRanger
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 3

Posted 8/23/2003 6:46 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast
Presuppositions? Do you mean the factual evidence that the world is some 4.7 billion years old and that humans have been around for tens of thousands of years?

ThePlaidRanger
Are you implying that we are to interpret infallible Scripture in light of our own fallible science, rather than the other way around, or are you simply implying that Scripture is fallible?

Iconoclast
Actually, I think Adam and Eve are not historical because the story itself is clearly a STORY. It is filled with mythical / metaphorical language. The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", the "tree of life", a talking serpent?!?! Do you really think that God put the knowledge of good and evil in a tree?

ThePlaidRanger
Why the appeal to "common sense" instead of Scripture? Do you really think that Christ was really born to a virgin? Do you really think that He actually rose from the dead? Why can you accept these seeming impossibilities - which are more common as religious literary devices than talking animals, certainly - but not those in the creation story?

Iconoclast
Do you really think that snakes EVER really TALKED?

ThePlaidRanger
If Scripture says so.

Iconoclast
The story is meant to convey humongous metaphysical truth but you want it to simply be a literal historical account?!?! What up with that?

ThePlaidRanger
You seem to imply that there is some reason why it can't both give an accurate historical account and convey humongous metaphysical truth. Care to enlighten me?

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/23/2003 6:47 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp

Of course you are leaving out the possibility that Genesis was an inspired account, inspired by GOD.

Iconoclast

What do you assume this? I think it would be pretty hard for people to come up with the humongous metaphysical truth in the Adam and Eve story. Of course it was inspired. Now, I really doubt that God made sure that Moses got the exact genealogy with the exact number of years and the exact number of children with the exact ages correct. Do you?

I also believe the parables that Jesus told were inspired by God, but if taken literally their deep meaning is destroyed. And why would we want to do that?

John Earp

Given the extremely long average lifespan in that pristine age, it takes no great leap in logic to accept the fact that many generations of people could in fact been already in existence at the time. The reason these generations are not described in detail is that Genesis was intended primarily to give the genealogy of the Hebrew people.

Iconoclast

If this is so, then why does the genealogy mention all the other children that each of the patriarchs had? Why doesn't it mention at least the one girl that Adam and Eve would have had to have had in order for Cain or Abel to have had offspring?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/23/2003 6:47 PM (GMT -6)

[quote]Originally posted by Iconoclast

John Earp

Excellent point, Laika. It seems to me that the primary reason people deny the historicity of Adam and Eve is that they accept the presuppositions of modern evolutionary theory.

Iconoclast

Presuppositions? Do you mean the factual evidence that the world is some 4.7 billion years old and that humans have been around for tens of thousands of years?

John

There is no factual evidence to support the idea that the world is 4.7 billion years old. That is an assumption made by scientists, but even they must admit there is no way they can say this with certainty. Personally, I think the gap theory makes the most sense. As to "tens of thousands of years," that too is conjecture based on the presuppositions of modern evolutionary biologic and geologic theory.

Iconoclast
Actually, I think Adam and Eve are not historical because the story itself is clearly a STORY. It is filled with mythical / metaphorical language. The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", the "tree of life", a talking serpent?!?! Do you really think that God put the knowledge of good and evil in a tree?

Do you really think that snakes EVER really TALKED? The story is meant to convey humongous metaphysical truth but you want it to simply be a literal historical account?!?! What up with that?

John

On what basis would you contradict a person who claimed ALL of the Bible was a myth?

I personally see absolutely no advantage to making Genesis out to be nonhistorical. In fact, I see many disadvantages to such an approach. To do so undermines the very core beliefs of Christianity. The earliest Christians all believed in a real Adam and a real Eve and a historical Fall. This was never seriously questioned within Christianity until the late 1800s with the advent of Darwinism.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/23/2003 6:50 PM (GMT -6)

PlaidRanger

Are you implying that we are to interpret infallible Scripture in light of our own fallible science, rather than the other way around, or are you simply implying that Scripture is fallible?

Iconoclast

Scripture is not fallible. But your interpretation is.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/23/2003 6:53 PM (GMT -6)

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 8/23/2003 7:02 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp

The earliest Christians all believed in a real Adam and a real Eve and a historical Fall. This was never seriously questioned within Christianity until the late 1800s with the advent of Darwinism.

Iconoclast

They also believed that the sun went around the earth. Are you gonna stick with that one also? Never know - it could just be astronomical THEORY with some of them presuppositions.

John

A literal truth (like the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) can have a very powerful metaphysical and spiritual effect (REAL salvation for all who will believe). In other words, your point that taking these things as literal deprives them of "deep" meaning (whatever that is) is simply false.

As to the sun going around the earth, that would be the natural conclusion based on the facts they had available to them. As to the Genesis account, as none of them doubted its veracity and inspiration, they would have no reason to believe otherwise concerning the Genesis account.

As to talking serpents, etc., it was not my understanding that embracing the Open View required one to dismiss the possibility of miracles or even quite extraordinary happenings; to the contrary, the Open View has tended to promote the idea, to my mind.

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 8/24/2003 5:08 AM (GMT -6)

Icon,

Science says the earth is 4.8 billion years old due to an assumption on their part that may be in error. That assumption is, the original content of radioactive material was at the max (100%) while the "daughter" isotope was at the minimum (0%). It has been clearly shown there is "excess argon" in material that should have zero argon. The dating method K/Ar gives dates in the millions of years when the actual date is less than 50 years.

It is similar to 14C dating where the assumption is, 14C has always been constant and the ratio present determines the date of demise. However, one can have a high intake of non-atmospheric C (think in terms of Nehi red belly-washers, i.e carbonated soft drinks) where the carbonated water has a zero 14C content and one who is still alive may test as being dead for hundreds of years. The reason a living mollusk can test as 2300 years old, is the non-atmospheric carbon environment it lives in, i.e. hard water high in calcium carbonate from rock formations.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/24/2003 5:28 AM (GMT -6)

Paul,

A question. Given more anthropological and archaeological studies, how old would you say the HUMAN RACE is?

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 8/24/2003 8:25 AM (GMT -6)

Meph,

I am a young earth creationist(YEC), so that should give you an indication that I would place it as < 10K.

Many people overlook the verse in Genesis that says Eve WAS the mother of all living and still conclude the next generation started with Cain and Able. In Genesis 3.16 there is the comment about pain in child birth being multiplied. Mathematically, no child birth would be equivalent to zero child birth and zero times any number is still zero. Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. There can be a lot of begetting done in 130 years.

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 8/24/2003 8:30 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Paul5388

Meph,

There can be a lot of begetting done in 130 years.

How so without Viagara? Eyebrow

You knew that was coming didn't you?

Brandon

"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 8/24/2003 9:04 AM (GMT -6)

Brandon,

That might have been necessary in the 800 years that followed! Big Smile

ThePlaidRanger
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 3

Posted 8/24/2003 10:56 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast

Scripture is not fallible. But your interpretation is.

ThePlaidRanger
But you are claiming my interpretation is false because it disagrees with science, not because of any lack of exegetical merit.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 8/24/2003 11:40 AM (GMT -6)

ThePlaidRanger

But you are claiming my interpretation is false because it disagrees with science, not because of any lack of exegetical merit.

Iconoclast

Exactly. At one point people interpreted the bible to say that the sun goes around the earth. I believe they even made a big deal of this. When it became clear due to the convergent evidence brought about by critically thinking people that it is indeed the earth that goes around the sun then it seems wise to claim that maybe the interpretation is somewhat flawed.

There is enough convergent evidence from MANY sources to convince me that the earth is actually billions of years old. Therefore I reject any INTERPRETATION of the bible that suggests the earth is some 6000 years old. Furthermore, when I then look at the bible through less of a literal lense I see that it contains much deeper truth about how great and loving God really is.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/24/2003 11:47 AM (GMT -6)

Ok. Question for Iconoclast. Why should I or anyone else believe in the Incarnation of God in Christ? Given all that we know about reality, and all of the DIFFERENT stories about demigods and things we have in VARIOUS world religions, why should I believe that Jesus Christ is God?

Isn't this the most absurd claim you've ever heard? That the Creator of ALL THE UNIVERSE would Incarnate itself into one FRAIL being on ONE planet...to die?

Seriously, taking a VERY RATIONAL approach, why do YOU believe? I feel that there are tons of warrants for NOT believing in such an assinine thing. Believing in a sentient Creator is ONE thing. Believing in the Incarnation is something else. So, why DO you believe it?

My eventual point is this: After believing in the Incarnation, EVERYTHING ELSE SHOULD BE GRAVY! Now, am I saying that there are no arguments against the historicity of Adam and Eve? Of course not. But what I'm saying is that the INCARNATION is much, much, MUCH more absurd than any type of young earth idea. So, how is it that you will swallow the CAMEL of the Incarnation, but strain at the relative GNAT of an actual Adamic couple?

109 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:54 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual