A Literal Adam And Eve?

[rogue06]

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"

[seer]

I believe that I answered that in your thread "You say you want an evolution"

You expect me to remember that far back?

[rogue06]

You expect me to remember that far back?

roguetech has just the thing for you!

00000000000000ab000-00aaFb.jpg

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

[Cow Poke]

roguetech has just the thing for you!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39398[/ATTACH]

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

[Adrift]

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^41424344 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,^45464748 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.⁴⁹41. 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

[rogue06]

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

[Juvenal]

roguetech has just the thing for you!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39398[/ATTACH]

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.

[rogue06]

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^41424344 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,^45464748 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.⁴⁹41. 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

[Cow Poke]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39400[/ATTACH]
blabbermouth

What? What are you talking about?

[seer]

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^41424344 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,^45464748 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.⁴⁹41. 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...

[Cow Poke]

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?

[Adrift]

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.

Sometimes fideism looks more God honoring...

I don't agree. I think God gave us the ability to reason for a reason.

[Teallaura]

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

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: "

[seer]

So, what's this about Seer? Why the interest?

Just thinking out loud...

[Cow Poke]

Just thinking out loud...

OK, cool.