 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 8/23/2003 6:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | Meph,
I have always believed there was a literal Adam and Eve. Oh, you meant the Apostle Paul, not the possible Paul!  | | Back to Top | | |
|
DrSnug
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 8/23/2003 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | I really like this question because it's so loaded and yet you want to poll people about it. I'll first say that I'm not persuaded either way...yet. But secondly, my question is 'why is it necessary to have a literal Adam/Eve?' Is it the answer for our physical etiology? If not, then what is? As a science nerd, I would say the only other plausible alternative (not Biblically based, of course) is natural selection, which, in my opinion, magnifies God's glory even more simply because it's more intricately complicated.  Don't count me out as an gnostic yet, though. I'm young and impetuous Ok that's enough for now.
"I solemnly swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; so help me God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/23/2003 7:53 AM (GMT -6) | | | Now, this is interesting. I'm wondering, DrSnug. HOW is the question loaded? Seriously, I want to know. The question wasn't INTENDED to be loaded. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/23/2003 8:21 AM (GMT -6) | | YAY! Brandon said:
quote:
While there are difficulties for believing in the historicity of a literal Adam and Eve, more importantly, is the theological significance of "Adam" as marking the beginning of humankind.
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!
You are CORRECT, sir! You called me out. So I guess I may as well say it.
If you look at Paul's argumentation, he uses Adam as the progenitor of humanity to make some THEOLOGICAL implications about sin and it's emergence into the human world. He even uses the Adamic couple to talk about order in the church (1 Tim 2:8-15)
The very power of the arguments Paul uses lie in his belief in the ACTUALITY of Adam and Eve. Especially the one's dealing with SIN. Think about it.
1Cor. 15:42
So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven.
Rom. 5:12
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— 13 sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14 Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.
Rom. 5:15
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. 16 And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17 If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Rom. 5:18
Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. 19 For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Given this, what does it mean for our doctrine of SIN to say that Paul may have been wrong on such a subject? What does it say about our doctrine of SCRIPTURE?
Hmmm...
"He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever." --Chinese Proverb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 8/23/2003 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | DrSnug,
You obviously left out a letter in gnostic or added a letter to "an", since it would be "a" gnostic or "an" agnostic. However, since you made reference to "natural selection" in a positive way, I have to conclude the intent was to let us know that you don't want us to count you as an agnostic, yet.
There really isn't a place on this forum to discuss "natural selection" as one of the cardinal tenents of evolution, unless it is hidden somewhere that I don't know about. As a "science nerd" you might consider the need to extend evolution to its origin, which is of necessity, either abiogenesis or panspermia. One of the major hurdles, in either view, is the racemic nature of the majority of abiotic stereoisomers on earth or in meteors.
As Meph has pointed out, there is an imperative for Adam and Eve to be literal entities. To use non-literal people as examples and etc. would negate the force of the argument and bring into question the veracity of the writer. Really no different than Jesus basing a real event, the time spent in the tomb, to the period of time Jonah spent in the fish. If Jonah and the fish aren't/weren't real, then neither is the resurrection event. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DrSnug
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 24
| Posted 8/23/2003 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph, I should think before I type. I meant loaded with implications...sorry. Also, your point is well-taken. My trouble lately has been with accepting all of the stories of the Bible as literal. It is very difficult to accept that there was a world-wide flood, that Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt, etc. Don't get me wrong, I would like to believe that every story is true because I think it would simply be easier apologetically. My inclination is that some of these stories are symbolic, representing a truth. Deciding which stories are factual or symbolic is a butt-load of work, though. That's why I come to this site. It saves me some time.
Paul, a-g-n-o-s-t-i-c, thanks. You make salient points about origins and the problem with a symbolic original couple. I'm not trained in biological chemistry so I don't pretend to understand the chemical makeup of meteors, but I can confidently say that I don't believe in an abiotic, chaotic origin. It's difficult to be critical of certain passages when you're supposed to just have faith that they are true because they are part of the Bible. Which supports which? A critical evaluation of the Bible as a body of truth directly from God, or faith that a God exists. Do you first unwaveringly believe in God and then sift through a Bible pan for golden truths or do you evaluate the stories of the Bible with your logic, moral instincts and practicality. If you do the latter, then you come across certain contradictions in science, which makes me think that maybe the Bible is not totally literal. This is what I meant when I said that your question is loaded (with implications), Meph. This is too long, sorry.
"I solemnly swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; so help me God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 8/23/2003 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Icon,
You forget that Paul says in I Cor 11 that the woman came from a man originally. We find bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh mentioned in Genesis as the literal process that makes and the two shall be one flesh a fact and not just a possibility. Adam was created while Eve was made by being extracted from Adam. The extraction process, instead of a separate creation, means that the part of Adam that existed as Eve was in transgression, but it was still Adam who transgressed. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 8/23/2003 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | DrSnug,
Agnostic means "without knowledge" and it appears that you have some knowledge. To recognize the abiotic chaotic origin promoted by evolutionists is an error is certainly a step in the right direction.
There are surely some areas of Biblical information that appear to contradict science. The sun backing up 10 degrees is one of those areas. As a physical event it would mean the earth, revolving at about 1,000 mph, has to come to a complete stop, reverse direction, then reverse direction again and finally come back up to speed. Ten degrees is only 40 minutes, which is a very short period of time for all of this to take place in. So, I suppose we could conclude it is a physical impossibility for this to happen in the time allowed. That is the position the naturalist would take, because the supernatural cannot exist. The theist would say, not so, since God created everything by speaking it into existence, it would be a small thing for Him to make this happen. Can I explain the mechanism behind it? Certainly not! However, I can't explain how everything was created from nothing, except to recognize that God did it in a way known only to Him. There are some things the finite mind will never understand and recognizing that makes the need for knowing everything much less compelling. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/24/2003 3:53 AM (GMT -6) | | I’d better deal with something. Paul said:
quote:
As Meph has pointed out, there is an imperative for Adam and Eve to be literal entities. To use non-literal people as examples and etc. would negate the force of the argument and bring into question the veracity of the writer. Really no different than Jesus basing a real event, the time spent in the tomb, to the period of time Jonah spent in the fish. If Jonah and the fish aren't/weren't real, then neither is the resurrection event.
Since we went HERE, let’s go THERE. I wouldn’t go as far as Paul does here in saying that if the Jonah episode wasn’t real then the resurrection event wasn’t. I WOULD say that it seems apparent that Jesus truly BELIEVED in the actuality of the Jonah event. Seems QUITE obvious. And actually, he seemed to believe in the Adamic couple too..
Matt. 19:1
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”
Mark 10:2
Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Again, look at Jesus’s argument. Are we going to say that Jesus KNEW that the Adamic couple really didn’t exist, but just used a literary device referencing the Creation story that the others around them KNEW was true??
Check it. I am very aware of the breadth of biblical interpretation in Jewish culture. Midrash and what have you. But yo, this is distinct from prophetic interpretation or something like that. I am not convinced whatsoever that Jews of Jesus’s time and culture would ACTUALLY DOUBT the actuality of the Creation story. WHAT GOOD REASON would they have for doing this? Do we really believe that from the time that young Jewish males were taught the Torah, they were actually taught that the Creation narrative was only a STORY telling a GENERAL theological truth? HECK, NO! They believed THAT’s what happened! Do we really believe that these youths truly didn’t BELIEVE that Jonah didn’t get swallowed and vomitted up to preach at Ninevah? HECK, NO! They believed THAT’s what happened!
This is what I feel I’m asked to believe by some. Jesus and Paul somehow truly thought that the Adamic couple (and I suppose Jonah too) was truly a FIGURATIVE metaphor of some sort in a creative, yet inspired story that conveyed a theological truth about God’s creation and interaction in the world. When pretty much ALL of their peers would believe otherwise. It’s completely ASSININE to me. How anachronistic can we be! Hey, maybe someone has some REALLY good evidence that demonstrates that they really WOULD have thought this. I am quite open to it. But, it had better be REALLY good!
It gets into the subject of the nature of INSPIRATION and SCRIPTURE. Evangelicals already walk a dangerous line in introducing phenomenology into the discussion. Meaning that it’s possible that the biblical authors conveyed truth from the perspective of what they experienced. Example. These people had NO IDEA that the earth really went around the sun. They perceived the sun as a little ball of light going around the earth. And that’s how they stated it. Now that we KNOW the sun is actually millions of times LARGER than the earth…AND is what holds the earth in orbit by its gravity, we have to deal with the text differently. We say that what the biblical authors stated was true, INSOFAR AS what they knew and perceived about the situation.
But here’s the thing. Talking about whether or not the earth is in the center of the universe is one thing. Talking about whether or not a human couple named Adam and Eve really WERE the progenitors of humanity is something else. Why? Because there is SO MUCH riding on the latter. The Image of God. The emergence of sin. The genealogies. The veracity of the biblical authors. ALL that. Put it this way. If we can think that Paul is genuinely just WRONG about the actual existence of Adam and Eve, ON WHAT BASIS can we hold that anything ELSE he chooses to wax theological on is true? We HAVE none. And the problem is intractable. Why? Because even some of the infallibists want to say that it is the THEOLOGICAL TRUTHS of the Bible that are infallible, but not the more scientific material. But I suppose they fail to realize that if it is that case that a biblical author builds a theological truth inexorably to a PARTICULAR, HISTORICAL EVENT, to the extent that one doubts the event, one doubts the theological truth brought out of the event. Especially if the particular historical event IS a theological event...like GOD'S creation of humanity. (Another example would be the resurrection of Christ.)
And things get even MORE HAIRY if we start attribute this line of thought to the theological claims of JESUS HIMSELF.
Again, look at the 1 Timothy passage…
1Tim. 2:8
I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; 9 also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, 10 but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Would this argument make any sense for Paul to make if he AND THE REST OF HIS AUDIENCE really did believe that the Adamic couple were figurative creations? Sheesh. Would Jesus’s argument from the creation story about marriage or His reference to Jonah and Ninevah make any sense if Jesus and his listeners really believed both stories to be JUST a bunch of metaphor?
I truly believe that it comes down to this: a case of biblical authority. Paul seemed to believe in an actual Adam and Eve. ARE WE GOING TO BELIEVE HIM? Are we going to hold Scripture and what it teaches up ABOVE all the different things that we are discovering about the world? ThePlaidRanger appears that he (or she) has already made his choice. Looking at John Piper, he’s made his choice too. (He has a whole series entitled “Adam, Christ, and Justification” It deals with Romans 5 and demonstrates the importance of maintaining a believe in an ACTUAL Adam!)
So must we all. If any of us are going to DISBELIEVE in the actuality of the Adamic couple, let us make this choice quite soberly, knowing that it NECESSITATES that our view of Scripture and biblical authority WILL be altered!
PS:
I honestly feel a bit vindicated. I brought this whole subject up ALMOST A YEAR AGO and it got little to no response. Kinda sucked. But now this is getting the rigorous discussion it deserves…and I’m really glad about that.
"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
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/24/2003 7:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!
Hey, what did I win? An all expense paid trip to St. Paul MN (including lodging of course) to see my friends? Paid for by WHC? Yipeee!!!  When do I get to claim my gift? 
quote:
Talking about whether or not the earth is in the center of the universe is one thing. Talking about whether or not a human couple named Adam and Eve really WERE the progenitors of humanity is something else. Why? Because there is SO MUCH riding on the latter. The Image of God. The emergence of sin. The genealogies. The veracity of the biblical authors.
I agree with the Eternal one. So far, saying that the Adam story is a humongous metaphor doesn’t EVEN respond to the question. That’s why the talk on the other thread (not only having moved in the direction of the creation/evolution debate) is off kilter. What is the importance of “Adam” in Paul’s thinking? What is the importance of “Adam” in Jesus’ thinking? What does this mean for the image of God and all the other questions brought forth? These are no minor theological truths (THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE). This is why when Iconoclast posts:
quote:
MephEternal
My main point is to say that to the extent that one doesn’t believe in the actuality of the Adamic couple, some necessary modifications will have to take place in one’s doctrine of Scripture, authority, humanity, and sin.
Iconoclast
Like what? I am not seeing what the problem is.
I was like, “What???” I could certainly explain to you the importance of “Adam” for say, the image of God concept in the Bible. But if Adam and Eve is some humongous metaphor, please explain to me what it is trying to convey. This is where GETTING INTO the “SO MUCH IS RIDING” info may probably explain why we should still stick with an actual Adam and Eve.
P.S. I remember this question from before Meph Man. And you are correct. It didn't recieve that much attention. Good to see it back on the front burner. Now, to book my flight...
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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 8/24/2003 8:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
I actually should have said, "the resurrection might not have happened". I carried it to an extreme without leaving room for less extreme events.
DrSnug is correct about the Orthodox Jews having a position that is not consistent with a literal interpretation of the Torah. It is just a guideline for them until you get to dietary restrictions and etc. Of course, they aren't enlightened by the Holy Spirit to actually see the meaning of it all. Many Jewish people are theistic evolutionists at best, but they only have science and logic to depend on for their conclusions. They have no spiritual discernment and therefore are not a good guide to follow. Check out www.OU.org (Orthodox Union) and write to a rabbi about it like I did.
EDIT: Some mistakes aren't caught by a spelling checker!  | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/24/2003 8:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Dr. Snug:
quote:
Meph, I have some Jewish friends who believe the Torah to be figurative, a code to live by, but not literal in nature. I'm not sure if they represent all orthodox Jews today, but I'm inclined to think so.
That’s not surprising. Lots of things have changed in the existence of Judaism that have caused theological adjustment, not the least of which was the Holocaust.
But remember that Jews aren’t Christians. They don’t have a Pauline description of sin’s REDEMPTION in Jesus. That’s the key.
*************************
Dr. Snug:
quote:
Also, I'm interested in your response to the scientific inaccuracies. I do understand that limited scientific knowledge inhibited accurate descriptions, but why does God allow it in His message to us? Isn't it just to project a truth?
Why did God allow it in His message? I honestly don’t know. God truly is a mystery and enigma in a lot of ways.
**************************
Dr. Snug:
quote:
By the way, your arguments about a literal Adam and Eve are very convincing.
Thanks, but the main intention is not to argue for or against belief in the historicity of the Adamic couple. It is to show that WHATEVER one believes will have DRASTIC implications on things central to that one’s Christian faith. I want people to make the choice FULLY COGNIZANT of the ramifications.
Holla,
PS: Good stuff, Brandon!
"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
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 8/24/2003 9:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
You said,quote:
Thanks, but the main intention is not to argue for or against belief in the historicity of the Adamic couple. It is to show that WHATEVER one believes will have DRASTIC implications on things central to that one’s Christian faith. I want people to make the choice FULLY COGNIZANT of the ramifications.
Which sounds very similar to outcome based education. When I was in school, back in the old days, there were only points given for the correct answers and a failing grade was a very present possibility! A grade of 69 was still failing, regardless of how sincere I was. (Some of my GPA in college was based on 70-100 as a passing grade.  ) | | Back to Top | | |
| 46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:29 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|