Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A Literal Adam And Eve?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    That is what I'm asking you. Is she the mother of all humans?
    I believe that I answered that in your thread "You say you want an evolution"

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      I believe that I answered that in your thread "You say you want an evolution"
      You expect me to remember that far back?
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        You expect me to remember that far back?
        roguetech has just the thing for you!



        00000000000000ab000-00aaFb.jpg
        The BRAIN BOOSTER 3000™



        It increases memory and cognitive abilities by 25% and can be concealed under a baseball cap with no provable ill side effects.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          roguetech has just the thing for you!



          [ATTACH=CONFIG]39398[/ATTACH]
          The BRAIN BOOSTER 3000™



          It increases memory and cognitive abilities by 25% and can be concealed under a baseball cap with no provable ill side effects.
          Oh, come on, the only reason there are "no provable ill side effects" is because that's when you use the other device...

          flashy thiingy.jpg
          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            So does that mean Eve is not the mother of all living, or that all men did not die in Adam? Or did those other humans (non-image bearers of God) just die off by Paul's day?
            These are three different issues which I imagine might lead to three entirely different discussion threads, but there are theologians/scholars like Tim Keller and David Kidner who have written about these things. David Kidner explores the issue in this way,

            Source: Genesis by Derek Kidner, InterVarsity Press, 2016

            The answer may lie in our definition of man.
            Man in Scripture is much more than homo faber, the maker of tools: he is constituted man by God’s image and breath, nothing less. It follows that Scripture and science may well differ in the boundaries they would draw round early humanity: the intelligent beings of a remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear status of ‘modern man’ to the anthropologist, may yet have been decisively below the plane of life which was established in the creation of Adam. If, as the text of Genesis would by no means disallow,41 God initially shaped man by a process of evolution, it would follow that a considerable stock of near-humans preceded the first true man, and it would be arbitrary to picture these as mindless brutes. Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity, with already a long history of practical intelligence, artistic sensibility and the capacity for awe and reflection.

            On this view, Adam, the first true man, will have had as contemporaries many creatures of comparable intelligence, widely distributed over the world. One might conjecture that these were destined to die out, like the Neanderthalers (if indeed these did), or to perish in the flood, leaving Adam’s lineal descendants, through Noah, in sole possession.42 Against this, however, there must be borne in mind the apparent continuity between the main races of the present and those of the distant past, already mentioned, which seems to suggest either a stupendous antiquity for Adam (unless the whole accepted dating of prehistory is radically mistaken, as some have tried to show – e.g. Whitcomb and Morris, op. cit.) or the continued existence of ‘pre-Adamites’ alongside ‘Adamites’.

            If this second alternative implied any doubt of the unity of mankind, it would be of course quite untenable. God, as we have seen, has made all nations ‘from one’ (Acts 17:26). Genetically indeed, on this view, these two groups would be of a single stock; but by itself that would avail nothing, as Adam’s fruitless search for a helpmeet makes abundantly clear. Yet it is at least conceivable that after the special creation of Eve, which established the first human pair as God’s viceregents (Gen. 1:27, 28) and clinched the fact that there is no natural bridge from animal to man, God may have now conferred his image on Adam’s collaterals, to bring them into the same realm of being. Adam’s ‘federal’ headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike.

            There may be a biblical hint of such a situation in the surprising impression of an already populous earth given by the words and deeds of Cain in 4:14, 17.43 Even Augustine had to devote a chapter to answering those who ‘find this a difficulty’,44 and although the traditional answer is valid enough (see commentary on 4:13, 14, below), the persistence of this old objection could be a sign that our presuppositions have been inadequate. Again, it may be significant that, with one possible exception,45 the unity of mankind ‘in Adam’ and our common status as sinners through his offence are expressed in Scripture in terms not of heredity46 but simply of solidarity. We nowhere find applied to us any argument from physical descent such as that of Hebrews 7:9, 10 (where Levi shares in Abraham’s act through being ‘still in the loins of his ancestor’). Rather, Adam’s sin is shown to have implicated all men because he was the federal head of humanity, somewhat as in Christ’s death ‘one died for all, therefore all died’ (2 Cor. 5:14). Paternity plays no part in making Adam ‘the figure of him that was to come’ (Rom. 5:14).47

            Three final comments may be made. First, the exploratory suggestion above is only tentative, as it must be, and it is a personal view. It invites correction and a better synthesis; meanwhile it may serve as a reminder that when the revealed and the observed seem hard to combine, it is because we know too little, not too much – as our Lord impressed on the Sadducees about their conundrum on the resurrection. What is quite clear from these chapters in the light of other scriptures is their doctrine that mankind is a unity, created in God’s image, and fallen in Adam by the one act of disobedience; and these things are as strongly asserted on this understanding of God’s word as on any other.

            Secondly, it may be thought that this whole discussion allows science too much control over exegesis. This would be a serious charge. But to try to correlate the data of Scripture and nature is not to dishonour biblical authority, but to honour God as Creator and to grapple with our proper task of interpreting his ways of speaking. In Scripture he leaves us to find out for ourselves such details as whether ‘the wings of the wind’ and ‘the windows of heaven’ are literal or metaphorical, and in what sense ‘the world cannot be moved’ (Ps. 96:10) or the sun daily ‘runs its course’ (Ps. 19:5, 6). Some of these questions are answered as soon as they are asked; others only by the general advance of knowledge;48 most of them are doctrinally neutral. We are asserting our own infallibility, not that of Scripture, when we refuse to collate our factual answers with those of independent enquiry.49

            Thirdly, however, the interests and methods of Scripture and science differ so widely that they are best studied, in any detail, apart. Their accounts of the world are as distinct (and each as legitimate) as an artist’s portrait and an anatomist’s diagram, of which no composite picture will be satisfactory, for their common ground is only in the total reality to which they both attend. It cannot be said too strongly that Scripture is the perfect vehicle for God’s revelation, which is what concerns us here; and its bold selectiveness, like that of a great painting, is its power. To read it with one eye on any other account is to blur its image and miss its wisdom. To have God’s own presentation of human beginnings as they most deeply concern us, we need look no further than these chapters and their New Testament interpretation.



            41. Cf., e.g. Job 10:8ff., Ps. 119:73, where God's use of natural processes is described in terms of the potter's art as in Gen. 2:7

            42. Cf. A. Rendle Short, Modern Discovery and the Bible (IVF, 1942), p. 81, in a discussion of various views.

            43. Cf. Rendle Short's tentative suggestion (op. cit., p. 81) that the dwellers in Cain's city 'may conceivably have been members of a more primitive type of man' -- a suggestion, however, which did not envisage them as fully human.

            44. The City of God, XV, viii.

            45. If Gen. 3:20, naming Eve 'mother of all living', is intended as an anthropological definition, with the sense 'ancestress of all humans', the question is settled. This may be its purpose. But the meaning of her name, 'life', and the attention drawn to it by the term 'living', suggest that the concern of the verse is to reiterate in this context of death the promise of salvation through 'her seed' (3:15).

            46. Isa. 43:27, which may spring to mind against this, is asserting Israel's long history of sin (whether back to Jacob, Abraham or Adam), not Adam's fatherhood of man.

            47. Cf., e.g. C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (A. and C. Black, 1957), p. 111; F.F. Bruce, Romans (Tyndale Press, 1963), p. 130.

            48. It was Galileo's telescope, not his church, that conclusively refuted the interpretation of Ps. 96:10 as a proof-text against the earth's rotation. Galileo incidentally realized that the new astronomy discredited only the expositors, not the Bible. See, e.g. G. Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (John Murray, 1914), pp. 23off.; A. Koestler, The Sleepwalkers (Penguin, 1964), pp. 44off.

            49. 'It is tempting ... to deny the problem, either by discounting one or other set of facts, or by locking them into separate compartments in our minds ... The truth is that the facts of nature yield positive help in many ways for interpreting Scripture statements correctly, and the discipline of wrestling with the problem of relating the two sets of facts, natural, and biblical, leads to a greatly enriched understanding of both.' J.I. Packer, 'Fundamentalism' and the Word of God (IVF, 1958), p. 135.

            © Copyright Original Source

            Last edited by Adrift; 08-27-2019, 04:58 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Oh, come on, the only reason there are "no provable ill side effects" is because that's when you use the other device...

              [ATTACH=CONFIG]39399[/ATTACH]
              smiley shhh.gif
              blabbermouth

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                roguetech has just the thing for you!



                [ATTACH=CONFIG]39398[/ATTACH]
                The BRAIN BOOSTER 3000™


                It increases memory and cognitive abilities by 25% and can be concealed under a baseball cap with no provable ill side effects.

                Jumper Cables for the Mind
                Using less than 1 percent of the electrical energy necessary for electroconvulsive therapy, powered by an ordinary nine-volt battery, tDCS has been shown in hundreds of studies to enhance an astonishing, seemingly implausible variety of intellectual, emotional and movement-related brain functions.

                This needed posting.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  These are three different issues which I imagine might lead to three entirely different discussion threads, but there are theologians/scholars like Tim Keller and David Kidner who have written about these things. David Kidner explores the issue in this way,

                  Source: Genesis by Derek Kidner, InterVarsity Press, 2016

                  The answer may lie in our definition of man.
                  Man in Scripture is much more than homo faber, the maker of tools: he is constituted man by God’s image and breath, nothing less. It follows that Scripture and science may well differ in the boundaries they would draw round early humanity: the intelligent beings of a remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear status of ‘modern man’ to the anthropologist, may yet have been decisively below the plane of life which was established in the creation of Adam. If, as the text of Genesis would by no means disallow,41 God initially shaped man by a process of evolution, it would follow that a considerable stock of near-humans preceded the first true man, and it would be arbitrary to picture these as mindless brutes. Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity, with already a long history of practical intelligence, artistic sensibility and the capacity for awe and reflection.

                  On this view, Adam, the first true man, will have had as contemporaries many creatures of comparable intelligence, widely distributed over the world. One might conjecture that these were destined to die out, like the Neanderthalers (if indeed these did), or to perish in the flood, leaving Adam’s lineal descendants, through Noah, in sole possession.42 Against this, however, there must be borne in mind the apparent continuity between the main races of the present and those of the distant past, already mentioned, which seems to suggest either a stupendous antiquity for Adam (unless the whole accepted dating of prehistory is radically mistaken, as some have tried to show – e.g. Whitcomb and Morris, op. cit.) or the continued existence of ‘pre-Adamites’ alongside ‘Adamites’.

                  If this second alternative implied any doubt of the unity of mankind, it would be of course quite untenable. God, as we have seen, has made all nations ‘from one’ (Acts 17:26). Genetically indeed, on this view, these two groups would be of a single stock; but by itself that would avail nothing, as Adam’s fruitless search for a helpmeet makes abundantly clear. Yet it is at least conceivable that after the special creation of Eve, which established the first human pair as God’s viceregents (Gen. 1:27, 28) and clinched the fact that there is no natural bridge from animal to man, God may have now conferred his image on Adam’s collaterals, to bring them into the same realm of being. Adam’s ‘federal’ headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike.

                  There may be a biblical hint of such a situation in the surprising impression of an already populous earth given by the words and deeds of Cain in 4:14, 17.43 Even Augustine had to devote a chapter to answering those who ‘find this a difficulty’,44 and although the traditional answer is valid enough (see commentary on 4:13, 14, below), the persistence of this old objection could be a sign that our presuppositions have been inadequate. Again, it may be significant that, with one possible exception,45 the unity of mankind ‘in Adam’ and our common status as sinners through his offence are expressed in Scripture in terms not of heredity46 but simply of solidarity. We nowhere find applied to us any argument from physical descent such as that of Hebrews 7:9, 10 (where Levi shares in Abraham’s act through being ‘still in the loins of his ancestor’). Rather, Adam’s sin is shown to have implicated all men because he was the federal head of humanity, somewhat as in Christ’s death ‘one died for all, therefore all died’ (2 Cor. 5:14). Paternity plays no part in making Adam ‘the figure of him that was to come’ (Rom. 5:14).47

                  Three final comments may be made. First, the exploratory suggestion above is only tentative, as it must be, and it is a personal view. It invites correction and a better synthesis; meanwhile it may serve as a reminder that when the revealed and the observed seem hard to combine, it is because we know too little, not too much – as our Lord impressed on the Sadducees about their conundrum on the resurrection. What is quite clear from these chapters in the light of other scriptures is their doctrine that mankind is a unity, created in God’s image, and fallen in Adam by the one act of disobedience; and these things are as strongly asserted on this understanding of God’s word as on any other.

                  Secondly, it may be thought that this whole discussion allows science too much control over exegesis. This would be a serious charge. But to try to correlate the data of Scripture and nature is not to dishonour biblical authority, but to honour God as Creator and to grapple with our proper task of interpreting his ways of speaking. In Scripture he leaves us to find out for ourselves such details as whether ‘the wings of the wind’ and ‘the windows of heaven’ are literal or metaphorical, and in what sense ‘the world cannot be moved’ (Ps. 96:10) or the sun daily ‘runs its course’ (Ps. 19:5, 6). Some of these questions are answered as soon as they are asked; others only by the general advance of knowledge;48 most of them are doctrinally neutral. We are asserting our own infallibility, not that of Scripture, when we refuse to collate our factual answers with those of independent enquiry.49

                  Thirdly, however, the interests and methods of Scripture and science differ so widely that they are best studied, in any detail, apart. Their accounts of the world are as distinct (and each as legitimate) as an artist’s portrait and an anatomist’s diagram, of which no composite picture will be satisfactory, for their common ground is only in the total reality to which they both attend. It cannot be said too strongly that Scripture is the perfect vehicle for God’s revelation, which is what concerns us here; and its bold selectiveness, like that of a great painting, is its power. To read it with one eye on any other account is to blur its image and miss its wisdom. To have God’s own presentation of human beginnings as they most deeply concern us, we need look no further than these chapters and their New Testament interpretation.



                  41. Cf., e.g. Job 10:8ff., Ps. 119:73, where God's use of natural processes is described in terms of the potter's art as in Gen. 2:7

                  42. Cf. A. Rendle Short, Modern Discovery and the Bible (IVF, 1942), p. 81, in a discussion of various views.

                  43. Cf. Rendle Short's tentative suggestion (op. cit., p. 81) that the dwellers in Cain's city 'may conceivably have been members of a more primitive type of man' -- a suggestion, however, which did not envisage them as fully human.

                  44. The City of God, XV, viii.

                  45. If Gen. 3:20, naming Eve 'mother of all living', is intended as an anthropological definition, with the sense 'ancestress of all humans', the question is settled. This may be its purpose. But the meaning of her name, 'life', and the attention drawn to it by the term 'living', suggest that the concern of the verse is to reiterate in this context of death the promise of salvation through 'her seed' (3:15).

                  46. Isa. 43:27, which may spring to mind against this, is asserting Israel's long history of sin (whether back to Jacob, Abraham or Adam), not Adam's fatherhood of man.

                  47. Cf., e.g. C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (A. and C. Black, 1957), p. 111; F.F. Bruce, Romans (Tyndale Press, 1963), p. 130.

                  48. It was Galileo's telescope, not his church, that conclusively refuted the interpretation of Ps. 96:10 as a proof-text against the earth's rotation. Galileo incidentally realized that the new astronomy discredited only the expositors, not the Bible. See, e.g. G. Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (John Murray, 1914), pp. 23off.; A. Koestler, The Sleepwalkers (Penguin, 1964), pp. 44off.

                  49. 'It is tempting ... to deny the problem, either by discounting one or other set of facts, or by locking them into separate compartments in our minds ... The truth is that the facts of nature yield positive help in many ways for interpreting Scripture statements correctly, and the discipline of wrestling with the problem of relating the two sets of facts, natural, and biblical, leads to a greatly enriched understanding of both.' J.I. Packer, 'Fundamentalism' and the Word of God (IVF, 1958), p. 135.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  I brought up the idea that there may be a profound difference between what science calls human and what the Bible refers to human ("Biblical man") several times in seer's previous thread

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    [ATTACH=CONFIG]39400[/ATTACH]
                    blabbermouth
                    What? What are you talking about?
                    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      These are three different issues which I imagine might lead to three entirely different discussion threads, but there are theologians/scholars like Tim Keller and David Kidner who have written about these things. David Kidner explores the issue in this way,

                      Source: Genesis by Derek Kidner, InterVarsity Press, 2016

                      The answer may lie in our definition of man.
                      Man in Scripture is much more than homo faber, the maker of tools: he is constituted man by God’s image and breath, nothing less. It follows that Scripture and science may well differ in the boundaries they would draw round early humanity: the intelligent beings of a remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear status of ‘modern man’ to the anthropologist, may yet have been decisively below the plane of life which was established in the creation of Adam. If, as the text of Genesis would by no means disallow,41 God initially shaped man by a process of evolution, it would follow that a considerable stock of near-humans preceded the first true man, and it would be arbitrary to picture these as mindless brutes. Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity, with already a long history of practical intelligence, artistic sensibility and the capacity for awe and reflection.

                      On this view, Adam, the first true man, will have had as contemporaries many creatures of comparable intelligence, widely distributed over the world. One might conjecture that these were destined to die out, like the Neanderthalers (if indeed these did), or to perish in the flood, leaving Adam’s lineal descendants, through Noah, in sole possession.42 Against this, however, there must be borne in mind the apparent continuity between the main races of the present and those of the distant past, already mentioned, which seems to suggest either a stupendous antiquity for Adam (unless the whole accepted dating of prehistory is radically mistaken, as some have tried to show – e.g. Whitcomb and Morris, op. cit.) or the continued existence of ‘pre-Adamites’ alongside ‘Adamites’.

                      If this second alternative implied any doubt of the unity of mankind, it would be of course quite untenable. God, as we have seen, has made all nations ‘from one’ (Acts 17:26). Genetically indeed, on this view, these two groups would be of a single stock; but by itself that would avail nothing, as Adam’s fruitless search for a helpmeet makes abundantly clear. Yet it is at least conceivable that after the special creation of Eve, which established the first human pair as God’s viceregents (Gen. 1:27, 28) and clinched the fact that there is no natural bridge from animal to man, God may have now conferred his image on Adam’s collaterals, to bring them into the same realm of being. Adam’s ‘federal’ headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike.

                      There may be a biblical hint of such a situation in the surprising impression of an already populous earth given by the words and deeds of Cain in 4:14, 17.43 Even Augustine had to devote a chapter to answering those who ‘find this a difficulty’,44 and although the traditional answer is valid enough (see commentary on 4:13, 14, below), the persistence of this old objection could be a sign that our presuppositions have been inadequate. Again, it may be significant that, with one possible exception,45 the unity of mankind ‘in Adam’ and our common status as sinners through his offence are expressed in Scripture in terms not of heredity46 but simply of solidarity. We nowhere find applied to us any argument from physical descent such as that of Hebrews 7:9, 10 (where Levi shares in Abraham’s act through being ‘still in the loins of his ancestor’). Rather, Adam’s sin is shown to have implicated all men because he was the federal head of humanity, somewhat as in Christ’s death ‘one died for all, therefore all died’ (2 Cor. 5:14). Paternity plays no part in making Adam ‘the figure of him that was to come’ (Rom. 5:14).47

                      Three final comments may be made. First, the exploratory suggestion above is only tentative, as it must be, and it is a personal view. It invites correction and a better synthesis; meanwhile it may serve as a reminder that when the revealed and the observed seem hard to combine, it is because we know too little, not too much – as our Lord impressed on the Sadducees about their conundrum on the resurrection. What is quite clear from these chapters in the light of other scriptures is their doctrine that mankind is a unity, created in God’s image, and fallen in Adam by the one act of disobedience; and these things are as strongly asserted on this understanding of God’s word as on any other.

                      Secondly, it may be thought that this whole discussion allows science too much control over exegesis. This would be a serious charge. But to try to correlate the data of Scripture and nature is not to dishonour biblical authority, but to honour God as Creator and to grapple with our proper task of interpreting his ways of speaking. In Scripture he leaves us to find out for ourselves such details as whether ‘the wings of the wind’ and ‘the windows of heaven’ are literal or metaphorical, and in what sense ‘the world cannot be moved’ (Ps. 96:10) or the sun daily ‘runs its course’ (Ps. 19:5, 6). Some of these questions are answered as soon as they are asked; others only by the general advance of knowledge;48 most of them are doctrinally neutral. We are asserting our own infallibility, not that of Scripture, when we refuse to collate our factual answers with those of independent enquiry.49

                      Thirdly, however, the interests and methods of Scripture and science differ so widely that they are best studied, in any detail, apart. Their accounts of the world are as distinct (and each as legitimate) as an artist’s portrait and an anatomist’s diagram, of which no composite picture will be satisfactory, for their common ground is only in the total reality to which they both attend. It cannot be said too strongly that Scripture is the perfect vehicle for God’s revelation, which is what concerns us here; and its bold selectiveness, like that of a great painting, is its power. To read it with one eye on any other account is to blur its image and miss its wisdom. To have God’s own presentation of human beginnings as they most deeply concern us, we need look no further than these chapters and their New Testament interpretation.



                      41. Cf., e.g. Job 10:8ff., Ps. 119:73, where God's use of natural processes is described in terms of the potter's art as in Gen. 2:7

                      42. Cf. A. Rendle Short, Modern Discovery and the Bible (IVF, 1942), p. 81, in a discussion of various views.

                      43. Cf. Rendle Short's tentative suggestion (op. cit., p. 81) that the dwellers in Cain's city 'may conceivably have been members of a more primitive type of man' -- a suggestion, however, which did not envisage them as fully human.

                      44. The City of God, XV, viii.

                      45. If Gen. 3:20, naming Eve 'mother of all living', is intended as an anthropological definition, with the sense 'ancestress of all humans', the question is settled. This may be its purpose. But the meaning of her name, 'life', and the attention drawn to it by the term 'living', suggest that the concern of the verse is to reiterate in this context of death the promise of salvation through 'her seed' (3:15).

                      46. Isa. 43:27, which may spring to mind against this, is asserting Israel's long history of sin (whether back to Jacob, Abraham or Adam), not Adam's fatherhood of man.

                      47. Cf., e.g. C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (A. and C. Black, 1957), p. 111; F.F. Bruce, Romans (Tyndale Press, 1963), p. 130.

                      48. It was Galileo's telescope, not his church, that conclusively refuted the interpretation of Ps. 96:10 as a proof-text against the earth's rotation. Galileo incidentally realized that the new astronomy discredited only the expositors, not the Bible. See, e.g. G. Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (John Murray, 1914), pp. 23off.; A. Koestler, The Sleepwalkers (Penguin, 1964), pp. 44off.

                      49. 'It is tempting ... to deny the problem, either by discounting one or other set of facts, or by locking them into separate compartments in our minds ... The truth is that the facts of nature yield positive help in many ways for interpreting Scripture statements correctly, and the discipline of wrestling with the problem of relating the two sets of facts, natural, and biblical, leads to a greatly enriched understanding of both.' J.I. Packer, 'Fundamentalism' and the Word of God (IVF, 1958), p. 135.

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      I will read this again Adrift, but it all seems more than a bit ad hoc, don't you think? Sometimes fideism looks more God honoring...
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        I will read this again Adrift, but it all seems more than a bit ad hoc, don't you think? Sometimes fideism looks more God honoring...
                        So, what's this about Seer? Why the interest?
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          I will read this again Adrift, but it all seems more than a bit ad hoc, don't you think?
                          I don't think so, no. But I can imagine why some people might think so. For the record, I'm not arguing for Kidner's personal view (though I think it has merit), I'm merely demonstrating that there are a variety of views out there.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Sometimes fideism looks more God honoring...
                          I don't agree. I think God gave us the ability to reason for a reason.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            These are three different issues which I imagine might lead to three entirely different discussion threads, but there are theologians/scholars like Tim Keller and David Kidner who have written about these things. David Kidner explores the issue in this way,

                            Source: Genesis by Derek Kidner, InterVarsity Press, 2016

                            ...
                            Secondly, it may be thought that this whole discussion allows science too much control over exegesis. This would be a serious charge. But to try to correlate the data of Scripture and nature is not to dishonour biblical authority, but to honour God as Creator and to grapple with our proper task of interpreting his ways of speaking. In Scripture he leaves us to find out for ourselves such details as whether ‘the wings of the wind’ and ‘the windows of heaven’ are literal or metaphorical, and in what sense ‘the world cannot be moved’ (Ps. 96:10) or the sun daily ‘runs its course’ (Ps. 19:5, 6). Some of these questions are answered as soon as they are asked; others only by the general advance of knowledge;48 most of them are doctrinally neutral. We are asserting our own infallibility, not that of Scripture, when we refuse to collate our factual answers with those of independent enquiry.49


                            .....

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            *emphasis mine

                            Nitpick here: "and in what sense ‘the world cannot be moved’ (Ps. 96:10)" - there's no reason that cannot be understood literally. Just because something is in motion doesn't mean mankind can move it or alter that motion.

                            And spelling.

                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              So, what's this about Seer? Why the interest?
                              Just thinking out loud...
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Just thinking out loud...
                                OK, cool.
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Today, 12:37 PM
                                1 response
                                19 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Andius
                                by Andius
                                 
                                Started by Faber, 10-13-2020, 03:13 PM
                                4 responses
                                26 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Faber
                                by Faber
                                 
                                Started by Christian3, 10-09-2020, 08:37 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Andius
                                by Andius
                                 
                                Started by mossrose, 10-07-2020, 08:10 PM
                                6 responses
                                36 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 09-26-2020, 07:50 PM
                                0 responses
                                6 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Working...
                                X