Open Theism Discussion Board

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

Forum Quick Jump

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

seeker
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 2

Posted 7/29/2001 8:01 AM (GMT -6)

Hello. I have a question about the Bible. Is it possible that the biblical authors had a certain position on things but was wrong in that position? I've been mainly thinking about Paul and his take on the fall. It seems that Paul's view of human sin is very much linked to the idea of an actual human man called Adam. plus, wouldn't Jesus have believed in an actual Adam just like the other jewish people in his time?

It seems to me that if we can say Paul was wrong in believing in the actual existence of an Adam that we could also say that he was wrong on other things. The same would hold for Jesus by extension. The Exodus too. Both Paul and Jesus obviously believed in an exodus, but what if the exodus didn't happen like the Bible says it did? And Jesus and Paul were believing something incorrect there too? Modern scientific evidence seems to o against the view of an actual Adam and Eve being created from dust. Modern archaeology seems to speak against any dramatic Exodus taking place from Egypt. The existence of both are rapidly losing credibility. Unfortunate, Christian ideas of sin, humanity, Mosaic law, and stuff like that are all based on these things.

Is it possible that biblical authors like Paul were wrong in some of the things they affirmed or believed? What things could they be wrong about? Why should we believe that the bible is true if they are wrong?
Is there any non-circular argument for the bible's truth?

Seeker

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/29/2001 5:36 PM (GMT -6)

Are you sincere?

The Bible was established (the New Testament) when a heretic--claiming weird mysticism--tried to use select portions of the writings being circulated by churches to one another to contort into proof for their new ideas. The Church and the Spirit (Like the 1st church council in Jerusalem saying "It seems good to us and the Spirit") had both written and oral testimony. In response they defined which texts were authorized to be Canon. The Bible does not present abstract truths; it withesses to that which was "seen, heard, touched" by real witnesses. As members of Christ's Body, they knew that they had already died with Christ, and were living testimony that the Spirit of God had created new life in them, that the Spirit of Christ lived in them and that they were participants in the future Kingdom even now. Their confessed: "remembering the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into Heaven, the Sitting at the right Hand, and the second and glorious Coming.

These Christians are people for whom time can work both ways. Christ offered his body and blood to his disciples BEFORE he even died. God made Abraham fall asleep and signed the covenant in blood so that He would pay the price for even Abraham and his descendants--and even those who lived before. (Adam and Eve.) The "scientific" stuff you mention...some of it even I know to be reversed. But that bean-counting is winkydink compared to what is ACTUALLY being claimed. You can doubt that the Martyrs really saw God directly (St. Steven.) BUT you can't prove it to them! The Bible is part of a larger tradition--it is the crowing queen of that tradition. But it is the witness of the Church and the Spirit that make the books to be authoritative. Two other books were even in the list for a while. (The Shepherd of Hermas and the Diadach of the Apostles.)

Your criticism's seem circular. That doesn't sound sincere.

They don't ring as true as the witness of the Spirit in me and with the Church.

Believe means "be-live"...to live in accordance with. Millions of Christians have gone to their deaths in this century alone--and NOT for abstract ideas. Certainly not for arguments. (of any shape)

PotOnWheel

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 07/29/2001 10:44:08 PM

chambes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 41

Posted 7/29/2001 7:04 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Seeker,

I see your line of reasoning, but I would argue against your first assumption. I have not seen any reason not to believe that Adam was an actual individual. The fossil record shows species similar to humans well before Adam, and being in scientific academia, I believe that. But, the creation story in Genesis can be interpreted very different ways. Doc has his gap theory, there are the young earth people, and there are those who say "day" means a long period of time. When God created Adam out of dust, He could have used a method similar to evolution, and then Adam would have been the first human with a soul. I don't want to make any claims I'm not prepared to back up, I'm just trying to show that you can mesh an actual Adam with modern scientific evidence.

In regards to the exodus, the Jews left Egypt in a single generation. Archeology works on time scales much longer than that. So, I would be very careful about who is saying that the exodus didn't occur.

Although your line of reasoning was sound, I don't think there is any reason to believe Paul or Jesus were wrong in the first place. So, I don't doubt anything else they said.

I'm sure there are a lot of books and articles about this subject if you're not satisfied.

Hope I helped,
Chambes

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 7/30/2001 4:37 AM (GMT -6)

A friend of mine recommended the works of Immanuel Velikovsky for historical evidence that the events of the Old Testament actually occured. Velikovsky was a friend of Einstein and the journal that they both published there works in was the beginning of the Hebrew University in Israel if I recall what my pal told me correctly.

Some of his best known books are Ages in Chaos and Worlds in Collision. Here is a link to what Amazon has on Ages in Chaos.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0899667279/qid=996502769/sr=1-2/ref=sc_b_2/103-9643964-1269465

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

seeker
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 2

Posted 7/30/2001 5:59 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the comments. I realize that there are different takes on the oregin of the universe. but it seems to me that Paul's view of sin and humanity needs for the Adam and Eve account to be completely true with the tree of life and all of that. Even if the Adam/Eve story is mythological, that still doesnt change the fact that Paul obviously did not look at it that way. (Rom 5:12-19, 1 Cor 15:22, 1 Cor 15:45, specifically 1 Tim 2:12-14)

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Paul obviously believed that the fall happened just like the genesis accounts claimed. This makes it seem to me that any views that say that the Adam/Eve/tree of life/tree of good and evil thing did not actually happen as written would in essence be saying that Paul was wrong in some of his teaching. Because his basis was incorrect. How can someone afirm that the Adam/Eve story was not fully historical and still say that Paul was completely accurate in all that he afirmed? As we can see, Paul's view of sin, humanity, and even other matters seem to come out of Paul's belief in the historical, literal truth of the fall as in the genesis account. Also it is reasonable to say that Jesus and most other Jews at that time basically assumed more than anything that the Adam/Eve account was truly how human oregin came about. Mark 10

5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'
7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

It seems very clear that Jesus and Paul believed in the historical fall in all its central aspects in genesis. Were they wrong due to wrong assumptions about human oregin? Is their room currently to believe in talking serpents, tree of life/good and evil, Adam naming all the animals, etc? Is that responsible scholarship? These are all honest questions for those who may think they are not.

seeker

Edited by - seeker on 07/30/2001 11:06:40 AM

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 7/30/2001 11:40 AM (GMT -6)

Seeker: I certainly agree with you that they are honest questions that should be addressed and looked at (though, I for one think that such questions cannot be truly answered in this format, given that such questions need to be studied fully). Regardless, I would like to make a couple of quick points.
One, it seems to me that you are assuming Paul and Jesus are wrong. Given the impact that these two individuals have had on Western civilization as a whole (and I believe it can be argued effectively that it is predominately a positive effect), I believe it is encumbent on you to prove they are wrong. I believe, for instance, that Jesus's and Paul's take on the human condition is very accurate. And has been demonstarted to be so. So, it would seem to me that you are putting the cart before the horse. First, you would have to show they are wrong, historically.
Hey, you know what? I forgot what else I was going to say...sorry. A good book on the nature of sin as viewed in the Christian Church is "With Willful Intent," by David Smith. Oh, I would check out the works of William Dembski as well. His works deal with Intelligent Design and help one to see science through other lens beside the god of evolution. John 17:3 Harold

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/30/2001 2:29 PM (GMT -6)

Good questions Seeker.

My reasons for thinking the biblical authors couldn't be wrong in what they teach is because Jesus didn't think they could be wrong in what they taught, and I have good reasons for believing he was the Son of God, and thus good reasons for thinking he couldn't be wrong in what he thought about the biblical authors.

If you ask what my reasons are for believing Jesus was the Son of God , check out the "For Skeptics" section of this web cite for starters.

Now, I said that the biblical authors couldn't be wrong in what they taught. But this doesn't mean they had to be correct by modern historical and scientific standards in the way they express their teaching. This is how I account for some of the apparent contradictions in the Bible, the primitive cosmology of portions of the bible (e.g. earth held up by pillars, the sea monsters Leviathan and Rahab, etc.) and culturally relative aspects of the Bible (e.g. women not wearing braided hair or having authority over men in I Tim. 2).

Blessings
Doc

"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:11 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