Christians Believing Badly

[Tassman]

Again, whether or not it is speculation isn't really my point. My point is that Christians can, and sometimes do hold a view that is like this. Concerning Historical Creationism itself, Sailhamer has a few chapters devoted to the story that "has been understood for most of Judeo/Christian history". He argues that the story that you're probably most commonly aware of finds its roots in Hellenism, and he lays out an (in my opinion) convincing argument for how that came about.

Nevertheless, according to your synopsis of Sailhamer, Adam and Eve were not the first created humans (despite what appears to be the intent of the authors), but merely “the first humans who’d been uniquely created in the image of God”, i.e. his elect, living amongst possibly millions of other Homo sapiens who weren't so favoured. But, presumably, ALL were nevertheless descended from the same common ancestor. I note that neither you nor Sailhamer can say at what point in history this extraordinary event occurred, just that, according to Genesis it did.

And the great flood? Why did God wipe out the majority of humanity who had NOT been uniquely created by Him in his own image? It wasn't their fault that God bypassed them in the "made in God's image" stakes. He saved the innocent animals on the ark but let the rest of humanity drown. Frankly, I don’t think this interpretation holds up very well.

Neither am I, and I'd argue neither are a lot of Christians. Again, though, I realize attempting to convince you otherwise is fruitless.

I know of no substantiated evidence that your beliefs in Christianity are true so I guess I’m not among the elect of God. Hence it is indeed "fruitless" to convince me otherwise.

Sailhamer argues that the Genesis narrative was intended by its author to be taken historically. Of course, whether or not we take it historically is another matter, and for many Christians that starts with their acceptance of Christ. As a specialist in the Old Testament, though, Sailhamer doesn't have a lot to say on the effects of the Atonement.

Most certainly! Whether or not we take it historically is indeed another matter. But why should the acceptance of Christ make any difference to the factuality or otherwise of an historical event?

[Adrift]

Nevertheless, according to your synopsis of Sailhamer, Adam and Eve were not the first created humans (despite what appears to be the intent of the authors), but merely “the first humans who’d been uniquely created in the image of God”, i.e. his elect, living amongst possibly millions of other Homo sapiens who weren't so favoured. But, presumably, ALL were nevertheless descended from the same common ancestor.

No, that's not quite accurate. Sailhamer does hold that Adam and Eve were the first humans, but (I believe) this view can be modified slightly and not greatly affect his overall interpretive point that the Genesis narrative (taken literally) does not describe the creation of the entire earth, rather it describes the preparation of the Promised Land.

I note that neither you nor Sailhamer can say at what point in history this extraordinary event occurred, just that, according to Genesis it did.

You note correctly.

And the great flood? Why did God wipe out the majority of humanity who had NOT been uniquely created by Him in his own image? It wasn't their fault that God bypassed them in the "made in God's image" stakes. He saved the innocent animals on the ark but let the rest of humanity drown.

I can't remember if Sailhamer deals with the flood much in Genesis Unbound, but as you know many Christians hold to a local flood event. If I'm remembering correctly, Sailhamer leaves open the feasibility of a local flood interpretation in his Genesis commentaries, and of course, it accords with his view of a local creation narrative. I believe John Walton discusses the feasibility of a local flood interpretation in his commentaries as well, and Sailhamer seems to have high regard for his work.

Frankly, I don’t think this interpretation holds up very well.

That's fine. I don't imagine any interpretation of the Genesis narrative will impress you much.

I know of no substantiated evidence that your beliefs in Christianity are true so I guess I’m not among the elect of God. Hence it is indeed "fruitless" to convince me otherwise.

Yes, I understand quite well that that is the view that you hold.

Most certainly! Whether or not we take it historically is indeed another matter. But why should the acceptance of Christ make any difference to the factuality or otherwise of an historical event?

A lot of Christians hold to a top down or spider-web view concerning their doctrinal beliefs. If one finds it reasonable to believe, based on say, inferential evidence or experience (or both) that a divine being exists, then its plausible that miracles exist. If miracles exist, then one may find the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus acceptable, if one accepts the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, then one may accept the Hebrew Bible that predicted his coming, and so on.


Just to reiterate, I am not attempting to convince you that any interpretive view is viable, nor am I interested in going into detail with you about various interpretative models. The only reason I even mentioned alternative views was to suggest that one may hold to a literist interpretation that does not forgo a belief in evolution. A modified version of the Historical Creationist view (essentially theistic evolution with a Historical Creationist backdrop) would fit this interpretive model. It may not be the only one, it may not even be a very good one, but alternative models do exist.

[Adrift]

Please be specific. I want to know what you consider "badmouthing."

I'm going to go ahead and grant this ridiculous request as though it weren't common knowledge. Note that this a random selection from within just the first 10 pages of your post history.


Christianity is absurd:

The only saving grace for Christianity, I would agree, is indeed Universalism (the preferred theology of realistic religionists everywhere). It rescues the religion from the absurd idea that "only ONE God has the answer, and golly, gee willakers; it just happens to be the one that I believe in!"

Christians are divisive, selfish, greedy and arrogant:

As far as I can tell, the only things most Christians agree on are ones that don't matter to the rest of the world: miracle stories, the trinity, Jesus resurrection and atonement on the cross. What Jesus actually taught, as you suggest in your post, is not really emphasized, or is the subject of such internal argument that these teachings remain impotent. It's all about the afterlife to them. They could give a • Edited by a Moderator • about us in the here and now - made even more obvious with their embracing of Rush Limbaugh and the political right (at least the majority of T-Webers seem to be so aligned if one peruses the "christian only" threads).

I think this is mostly true of Christians in Western societies. If you go on the Tektroniks website of the T-Web hero and guru, JP Holding, and look through their gloating and boasting of how effectively they've "beaten" Atheists and Agnostics over here on Apologetics, you can get a sense of that. They really could care less about us as people, and that's fine. They think they are just passing through.

Now days, it appears that Christians embrace the Republicans and the worship of gaining and maintaining wealth. They shun the poor (calling them lazy and unproductive), and mock those who feel the Christian mission is to heal the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the naked and come to the aid of the defenseless.

Christians are arbitrarily disobedient and are accused of oversimplification and obsessive behavior:

Christians grossly oversimplify what Jews call "obeying the Law." The deeper meaning is living one's life in obedience to G-d, which includes ALL of the Law. And, of course, the Christian Testament tells Christians that it is OK to break the Law - they were intentionally moving away from the Jewish faith.

It really is that simple. Notice that all the Christian apologists are quoting the Christian Testament when justifying their arbitrary disobedience to G-d's Law. And the references in the Tanakh that they suppose are referring to the so-called New Covenant, are merely referring to a hoped-for unification of a divided kingdom.

I really struggle with this obsession of Christians to prove that they are just as Jewish as anyone in the Kosher community. They have their own religion. Why do they need to take over Judaism as well?

Christianity is unevolved/outdated:

For the majority of Jewish folks, this question has already been exhausted. The minority hold out hope for a fully human Messiah with big ideas, mostly around the notion of setting up some kind of theocracy. The rest have come to realize that G-d is an enabler, allowing us to realize our full potential as secular human beings. We have the power within us to affect change in our world.

I think Christians should evolve to this next level, but I won't hold my breath.

Christians are deceived and blasphemous heretics:

Christians have been deceived into thinking that they worship the G-d of the Tanakh, but that is clearly not the case. They worship Jesus of Galilee. Just peruse any Christian hymnal, and you will see 90 percent of the songs are directed toward Jesus, not G-d. Before nearly every Christian worship service, some sort of creed vowing allegiance to Jesus is recited.

In our services, we sing the Psalms in Hebrew (G-d's language).

I know that they think the manufactured mechanism of the so-called Holy Trinity ameliorates the blasphemy of worshiping a false god, but according to my sources, G-d is not fooled.

Men wrote the Christian Testament. You are merely deceived into believing that they are "inspired," but it doesn't change the fact that mere mortals wrote your scriptures.

On the other hand, G-d wrote the Pentateuch.

The Christian heresy has deceived and shielded your mind from the Truth.

Nevertheless, the Christian understanding is a reinterpretation of Jewish beliefs. The Jewish feasts were given to us by G-d for OUR edification and the pedagogy of our youth, not to foretell future events - particularly blasphemous events.

Christians are wantonly disobedient:

At any rate, most Christians I know wantonly disobey even these moral laws (idolatry, sexual purity and the prohibition of eating non-Kosher prepared meats are the biggest ones).

Christianity does not concern itself with doing what G-d wants.

Christians make Jihad:

If you want to believe that posting nonsense on an Internet forum is preaching the Gospel, then more power to you. I get it. Preaching in the real world is dangerous and hard.

Like I said; it makes me less afraid, because it is one less Christian making jihad.

Christians cherry pick the Bible to suit their lifestyles:

You should understand that the Pentacostal Church (which is the Christian group who discipled me) does not believe in trying to understand the context of the times or any number of the exegetical gymnastics modern Christians use these days to arrange Christianity to suit their liferstyles.

As far as I'm concerned, I simply disagree that Christianity is the only true religion, that it has incorrectly redefined Judaism, and that taking any religion too seriously can be dangerous. I also think that by viewing the scriptures (any scriptures) as literal history rather than human, moral writings and parables distorts the nature of the original intent. I try to bring these things up with thoughtful dialogue, but inevitably, you (and those of your ilk) attack me personally rather than address the content of my posts.

You don't simply disagree with Christianity. As the quotes above indicate, you have a particularly hostile view of Christianity. And its of course untrue that I and those of my ilk (whoever those might be) do nothing but attack you personally rather than address the content of your posts. I don't even care that much that you hold a hostile view of Christianity, its the hypocrisy I can't stand.

And, BTW, I've critiqued Judaism equally to Christianity.

No you haven't. Occasionally you have something negative to say about more fundamentalist strains of Judaism, but that's relatively rare.

I do not "[identify] with Judaism, and other times non-theism,"

Oh yes you do! The quotes above even demonstrate that. You have a habit of talking about Jewish religious beliefs as though you yourself hold them, but then shed those same beliefs when its convenient, and I'm not the only one who's mentioned this to you.

I am Jewish by birth, so, it's more of a roots thing than a religious choice. I don't accept any supernatural nonsense - Jewish, Islamic, Christian or otherwise.

So what? A lot of people are part Jewish. Heck, I'm part Jewish (a very small part, but a part nonetheless), you don't see me saying things like "we Jews believe this" or "we Jews believe that".

I think that you just can't deal with the content of my posts, hence, the personal attack. I'm used to it, so it doesn't really bother me.

I've dealt with the content of your posts on many occasions.

PS - Looking at random posts of yours since the forum's relaunch, just about every single one of your posts on this forum has the tone that Atheism and Agnosticism is wrong, outdated, that it leads to doing evil, committing abuse, and instilling fear and guilt.

You're like, what, 50? and your best rebuttal is "I know you are but what am I?" I jumped through your hoops, now its your turn to jump through mine. Show me my worse atheist/agnostic badmouthing posts.

[NormATive]

I'm going to go ahead and grant this ridiculous request as though it weren't common knowledge. Note that this a random selection from within just the first 10 pages of your post history.

Well, I guess I set myself up for that one. Nice try, though.

You've pulled all of these out of the context of the conversation (such as when I am comparing the Jewish view to the Christian view on the Tanakh, for example. I maintain that Christians interpret the Jewish scriptures incorrectly from a Jewish perspective). I've also maintained CONSISTENTLY that Christianity is a complete religion as is Judaism, and that the God of Christianity is different from the G-d of Judaism. No one has successfully refuted that.

Nevertheless, none of what you just posted shows "badmouthing" as you claim. And, if one goes back to those posts you cherry-picked, one can see that the arguments weren't refuted -they were turned into an attack on me personally (like calling me a hypocrite).

I'll admit, I got pretty heated with Seer in the exchange that begins "As far as I can tell, the only things Christians agree on..." But, if you look at the entirety of that thread, you will see that he was dishing it out just as hard. I said some things that I shouldn't have said out of anger. I even apologized toward the end of the thread, I believe. But, you will never, ever, ever see me calling someone a name like stupid, idiot, moron, and etc. that some of the most popular Christians on T-Web use with frequency. BTW, I know that you don't do that, Adrift. At least, I have not seen it.

I find the philosophy of Judaism compelling, and I've spent enough time in Shul and with a one on one relationship with our local Rabbi, that I have a deep respect for those folks. They took me in without condemnation (which I can't say for my Christian experience), and helped me flesh out my spiritual crisis after some personal tragedy in my life. So, yeah. I may have a bit of hostility toward a certain mindset within Christianity, but certainly not all of Christianity. I have many dear, dear friends who are Christians. However, I cannot share my inner thoughts with many of them, for fear of losing them as friends.

I really would like to go through each one of those snippets you pulled out of context, but I just don't have the time right now. I am under pressure to get a manuscript to the publishers.

NORM

[Jedidiah]

Yeah! I don't think anyone thinks God created horses, zebras, and donkeys separately! Or created dogs, wolves, and coyotes separately!

I do. Well not dog and wolves, they are one species (not sure about coyotes, I suspect they are part of the same species). I believe all the millions of species, either in existence or in the fossil record, were fiat creations of God.

[rogue06]

I do. Well not dog and wolves, they are one species (not sure about coyotes, I suspect they are part of the same species). I believe all the millions of species, either in existence or in the fossil record, were fiat creations of God.

The Gray wolf's binomial name is Canis lupis. The domestic dog is Canis lupus familiaris meaning that they are a sub-species of gray wolves. A different wolf, the Red wolf is Canis rufus, which some hold is a subspecies (Canis lupus rufus) while many others think that they are separate species. A coyote is Canis latrans and a separate species from wolves/dogs.

They are all still closely enough related that they can interbreed. A particularly troublesome crossbreed is the so-called "coywolf." Thanks to hunting and deforestation in the eastern portion of North America the native wolf population was driven to near extinction. This allowed the smaller but more versatile coyotes to start moving into the area.

Since the two canines can breed and the result was that a hybrid starting to appear that was part coyote and part wolf that has wolf's tendency towards pack hunting and predation (although the packs seem to be smaller) and the coyote's lack of fear of human-developed areas. That makes for a dangerous combination.

Genetic tests reveal that the new species known as the coywolf or eastern coyote has a majority of coyote ancestry and is thriving in the Northeast. The rest comes from the gray wolf, though occasionally red wolf, and even a bit of dog genes.

The same thing appears to be starting to happen in northern Mexico (the first coywolf in the northeastern part of North America was identified in 1918) and may even be behind some of the reports of "chupacabras."

Genetic Characterization of Eastern Coyotes in Eastern Massachusetts Pdf

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm going to go ahead and grant this ridiculous request as though it weren't common knowledge. Note that this a random selection from within just the first 10 pages of your post history.

Good job, but you're wasting your breath. Norm doesn't admit to errors, being wrong, or making mistakes. He hates Christians and Christianity and will expose this hate he holds, while claiming he has none. Shoot, he accused RTT and myself of being 'lukewarm Christians' because we make post here on tWeb (he also says stuff about Christians plotting jihad, while saying he's writing a 'book about religious extremism'). Here is a pretty darn funny statement he made to add to your list:

Well, we weren't talking about those situations, but one can make good arguments that the first world war was fought to keep Islamic powers from gaining ground in Europe. And WWII was not without it's Christian Triumphalistic overtones. Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler based his Arian superiority claims on certain interpretations of the Bible.

In Norm land, everything can be blamed on Christianity and religion, no matter what! Don't worry though, he'll deny it all and make up something to cover up his bozo errors.

[Tassman]

No, that's not quite accurate. Sailhamer does hold that Adam and Eve were the first humans, but (I believe) this view can be modified slightly and not greatly affect his overall interpretive point that the Genesis narrative (taken literally) does not describe the creation of the entire earth, rather it describes the preparation of the Promised Land.

In you post #123 you argue: “I'm not positing that Adam and Eve are the first humans ever, or that they existed 200,000 years ago, or that they were created in the African Savannah, rather they were the first humans uniquely created in the image of God, created sometime in the distant past, within the promised land, and that their descendants intermingled with other not-so-uniquely created humans.”

So what are you (and Sailhamer) seem to be saying is that Adam and Eve were the first humans uniquely created in the image of God – as opposed the (possibly millions) of Homo sapiens already in existence that were bypassed. Is that it? And I’m guessing that the soul was inserted at this point as a part of the being "made in the image of God" bit. Frankly, I think this is rather tortuous conjecture based upon no evidence whatsoever and seems little more than an attempt by inerrancists to rationalize the Genesis narratives in the light of the undoubted facts of evolution.

You note correctly.

OK, but the fact that you say these events could have occurred at any point prior to OT times, during the preceding 200,000 years of anatomically modern humans, renders it a faith-based argument only. Outside of Genesis there's no other evidence to support this view.

I can't remember if Sailhamer deals with the flood much in Genesis Unbound, but as you know many Christians hold to a local flood event. If I'm remembering correctly, Sailhamer leaves open the feasibility of a local flood interpretation in his Genesis commentaries, and of course, it accords with his view of a local creation narrative. I believe John Walton discusses the feasibility of a local flood interpretation in his commentaries as well, and Sailhamer seems to have high regard for his work.

Certainly the local flood event theory is the only one that holds up. I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable that the ancient Sumerian myths, which form the basis of the Genesis accounts, simply extrapolated from a devastating local flood and in their mind believed that it encompassed the whole world.

Nevertheless, Genesis claims that its divine purpose was to wipe out ungodly humanity (apart from Noah et al) and many of these people presumably consisted of the Homo sapiens NOT made in God’s image and who did not possess a soul. One wonders why they were not saved on the ark along with the other innocent animals.

That's fine. I don't imagine any interpretation of the Genesis narrative will impress you much.

Not so. I’ve already said that an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis story is just fine. Like all good poetry it contains some valuable truths about the human condition.

Yes, I understand quite well that that is the view that you hold.

If I’m not among ‘God’s elect’ it is, as you say, quite fruitless to try and convince me otherwise. I'm doomed, thanks be to God. <sarcasm>

A lot of Christians hold to a top down or spider-web view concerning their doctrinal beliefs. If one finds it reasonable to believe, based on say, inferential evidence or experience (or both) that a divine being exists, then its plausible that miracles exist. If miracles exist, then one may find the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus acceptable, if one accepts the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, then one may accept the Hebrew Bible that predicted his coming, and so on.

I understand this, but my point is that one is required to accept the unevidenced premise of God’s existence before the rest slots into place.

Just to reiterate, I am not attempting to convince you that any interpretive view is viable, nor am I interested in going into detail with you about various interpretative models. The only reason I even mentioned alternative views was to suggest that one may hold to a literist interpretation that does not forgo a belief in evolution. A modified version of the Historical Creationist view (essentially theistic evolution with a Historical Creationist backdrop) would fit this interpretive model. It may not be the only one, it may not even be a very good one, but alternative models do exist.

Fair enough. Although you will not be astonished that I do not find these alternative models convincing. But at least they take evolution into account which is a good start.

[seer]

Genetic tests reveal that the new species known as the coywolf or eastern coyote has a majority of coyote ancestry and is thriving in the Northeast. The rest comes from the gray wolf, though occasionally red wolf, and even a bit of dog genes.

I came face to face with two of these bad boys in the woods a couple of years back. Nice looking animal.

[Adrift]

In you post #123 you argue: “I'm not positing that Adam and Eve are the first humans ever, or that they existed 200,000 years ago, or that they were created in the African Savannah, rather they were the first humans uniquely created in the image of God, created sometime in the distant past, within the promised land, and that their descendants intermingled with other not-so-uniquely created humans.”

So what are you (and Sailhamer) seem to be saying is that Adam and Eve were the first humans uniquely created in the image of God – as opposed the (possibly millions) of Homo sapiens already in existence that were bypassed. Is that it?

Well, Sailhamer doesn't say that, but I believe something like that is feasible from the Christian perspective, and can be worked into Sailhamer's model. Instead of asking me over and over again what Historical Creationism posits, here is the link that Whag posted earlier that pretty much goes into it in full. Once you've read that link, you can read this brief article by Tim Keller at the Biologos website discussing a model proposed by Derek Kidner. Though Sailhamer believes that Adam and Eve are the first humans, it seems to me (and others apparently agree) that one could harmonize something like Derek Kidner's model with Sailhamer's model without doing much harm.

And I’m guessing that the soul was inserted at this point as a part of the being "made in the image of God" bit.

Eh, sort of. For a discussion about the possible distinctions between body, soul, and spirit you may want to read this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...dy+soul+spirit

Frankly, I think this is rather tortuous conjecture based upon no evidence whatsoever and seems little more than an attempt by inerrancists to rationalize the Genesis narratives in the light of the undoubted facts of evolution.

Yes, I realized that this was likely your opinion from the start. Thankfully no one is asking you to accept it, so there really isn't any need to continue repeating yourself.

OK, but the fact that you say these events could have occurred at any point prior to OT times, during the preceding 200,000 years of anatomically modern humans, renders it a faith-based argument only. Outside of Genesis there's no other evidence to support this view.

Right. As Kidner puts it, his model is an “exploratory suggestion…only tentative, and it is a personal view. It invites correction and a better synthesis.”. Though, separate from Kidner's view, I do believe that Sailhamer's interpretation of Genesis is an accurate account of what the author intended his audience to understand (based on Sailhamer's expertise of the Hebrew language and culture). Of course, there are other opinions on that matter. And also, it goes without saying that just because Genesis' author intended the narrative to be understood a certain way it does not follow that one will agree with his narrative. I wouldn't expect an unbeliever to accept the Genesis narrative no matter the interpretation.

Nevertheless, Genesis claims that its divine purpose was to wipe out ungodly humanity (apart from Noah et al) and many of these people presumably consisted of the Homo sapiens NOT made in God’s image and who did not possess a soul. One wonders why they were not saved on the ark along with the other innocent animals.

One may wonder that regardless of the interpretation laid out before you. That's a discussion for another thread and another poster though.

Not so. I’ve already said that an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis story is just fine. Like all good poetry it contains some valuable truths about the human condition.

Oh, well I stand corrected then.

If I’m not among ‘God’s elect’ it is, as you say, quite fruitless to try and convince me otherwise. I'm doomed, thanks be to God. <sarcasm>

The great thing about Christianity is that its not a closed club. All are invited to make Jesus Lord. Romans 10:9-10 lays out the basics. That doesn't really have anything to do with what we've been discussing here though.

I understand this, but my point is that one is required to accept the unevidenced premise of God’s existence before the rest slots into place.

I guess that depends on what you consider evidence. As you know, there have been many books written on the evidence for God's existence (Scaling the Secular City, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, The Analytic Theist, The Existence of God, etc.). Whether or not you consider the available evidence convincing is another matter entirely.

Fair enough. Although you will not be astonished that I do not find these alternative models convincing. But at least they take evolution into account which is a good start.

Right. I think we've firmly established your view of these alternative models.

[whag]

Yes, I realized that this was likely your opinion from the start. Thankfully no one is asking you to accept it, so there really isn't any need to continue repeating yourself.

I like this because it encapsulates a primary annoyance of talking about one's teleology. Belief always being subject to ridicule and mockery, particularly of the Christian kind which advocates a forward evangelistic posture, the believer must endure the constantly defensive posture of the skeptical "protagonist" saying he can't connect with that particular interpretation. If I were a believer, I would hate if people assumed I'm selling the belief to them by simply linking to it.

[Adrift]

I like this because it encapsulates a primary annoyance of talking about one's teleology. Belief always being subject to ridicule and mockery, particularly of the Christian kind which advocates a forward evangelistic posture, the believer must endure the constantly defensive posture of the skeptical "protagonist" saying he can't connect with that particular interpretation. If I were a believer, I would hate if people assumed I'm selling the belief to them by simply linking to it.

I don't know about all that, but your post reminds me of this scene, cept ironically the Drill Instructor is the skeptic.

[Tassman]

Well, Sailhamer doesn't say that, but I believe something like that is feasible from the Christian perspective, and can be worked into Sailhamer's model. Instead of asking me over and over again what Historical Creationism posits, here is the link that Whag posted earlier that pretty much goes into it in full. Once you've read that link, you can read this brief article by Tim Keller at the Biologos website discussing a model proposed by Derek Kidner. Though Sailhamer believes that Adam and Eve are the first humans, it seems to me (and others apparently agree) that one could harmonize something like Derek Kidner's model with Sailhamer's model without doing much harm.

Nevertheless Tim Keller’s case is based upon special pleading – as when he argues:

“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….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….Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity…

Pure conjecture, all of it!

Eh, sort of. For a discussion about the possible distinctions between body, soul, and spirit you may want to read this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...dy+soul+spirit

I know of no reason to separate the spiritual part of a human from the physical part. Or indeed what could form the nexus between the material and non-material components of a human being if they were so divided.

Yes, I realized that this was likely your opinion from the start. Thankfully no one is asking you to accept it, so there really isn't any need to continue repeating yourself.

Well you’re the one presenting the evidence, as you see it, so presumably you are trying to make a convincing case regardless of whether or not I will ‘buy’ it.

Right. As Kidner puts it, his model is an “exploratory suggestion…only tentative, and it is a personal view. It invites correction and a better synthesis.”. Though, separate from Kidner's view, I do believe that Sailhamer's interpretation of Genesis is an accurate account of what the author intended his audience to understand (based on Sailhamer's expertise of the Hebrew language and culture). Of course, there are other opinions on that matter. And also, it goes without saying that just because Genesis' author intended the narrative to be understood a certain way it does not follow that one will agree with his narrative. I wouldn't expect an unbeliever to accept the Genesis narrative no matter the interpretation.

So, again, one must be a believer before one can make sense of any form of literal interpretation of Genesis. But then, once one is a believer, anything at all can be accepted as a matter of faith. A somewhat circular argument don’t you think?

One may wonder that regardless of the interpretation laid out before you. That's a discussion for another thread and another poster though.

Not really. If you are going to argue that among the millions of Homo sapiens existing over c.200,000 years, the only true humans are the relative few whom God breathed life into (thus transforming them into God’s image), the question left dangling is what about the rest of humanity in the general scheme of things?

Oh, well I stand corrected then.

OK! In fact I think allegory works very well for the whole of the Jesus story - so long as one is not expected to actually believe it.

The great thing about Christianity is that its not a closed club. All are invited to make Jesus Lord. Romans 10:9-10 lays out the basics. That doesn't really have anything to do with what we've been discussing here though.

…other than your repeated refrain: “attempting to convince you otherwise is fruitless". Because, as a Protestant (I’m assuming you are) you believe that grace is given by God based on the faith of the believer. But the faith of the believer can only be granted by God’s grace. So, we’re back to the circular arguments.

I guess that depends on what you consider evidence. As you know, there have been many books written on the evidence for God's existence (Scaling the Secular City, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, The Analytic Theist, The Existence of God, etc.). Whether or not you consider the available evidence convincing is another matter entirely.

Despite the welter of written material in favour of the philosophical model that God exists the fact is that (divine inspiration aside) the writers of the bible had no more evidence of the existence of God than we do today, so using the Bible - and biblical hermeneutics – as evidence for the existence of God is simply at bottom, restating the assertion that God exists. In short, no good evidence at all merely a faith-based belief.

Right. I think we've firmly established your view of these alternative models.

Good! They’re tortuous and unconvincing.

[seer]

I don't know about all that, but your post reminds me of this scene, cept ironically the Drill Instructor is the skeptic.

Hehe, love that movie. The most realistic view of boot camp I have seen, with some great pointers on evangelizing!

[Adrift]

Nevertheless Tim Keller’s case is based upon special pleading – as when he argues:

“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….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….Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity…

Pure conjecture, all of it!

1st of all, that's not Tim Keller's case, that's Derek Kidner's case. 2nd of all, Kidner is making this remark from a scriptural point of view, this is how it is (or how it seems to him) "in Scripture". 3rd of all, for the thousandth time, I KNOW YOU THINK IT'S ALL CONJECTURE. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU TO ACCEPT IT. I'm sharing this with you purely to make the case that such views do exist. What is so hard for you to understand about that? Why do you keep constantly telling me that you think its all made up when I know that's what you think? I knew you were going to think that before I even shared it with you. You're not telling me anything new.

I know of no reason to separate the spiritual part of a human from the physical part. Or indeed what could form the nexus between the material and non-material components of a human being if they were so divided.

Tassman. Hey buddy. Read the words I'm typing. THAT'S OK. No one is asking you if you have a reason to separate the spiritual part of a human from the physical part. If your motivation for continuing to post is to find some way to get me to argue with you, its not going to happen. I'm not trying to tell you what to do, what to believe, or even that the views I'm sharing with you are right. All I'm doing is relaying an alternative point of view that you may not be familiar with. I'm in no way whatsoever trying to win you over. At all. Period.

Well you’re the one presenting the evidence, as you see it, so presumably you are trying to make a convincing case regardless of whether or not I will ‘buy’ it.

No. I'm not. This is neither "evidence" nor "as I see it". This is just an alternative view that I know of. I think a lot of it makes good "food for thought" for the believer, but I'm not 100% sold on it. So, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I've never suffered from any delusions that I could convince you of anything.

So, again, one must be a believer before one can make sense of any form of literal interpretation of Genesis. But then, once one is a believer, anything at all can be accepted as a matter of faith. A somewhat circular argument don’t you think?

Well, no. I don't think its true that once you're a believer anything at all can be accepted as a matter of faith.

Not really. If you are going to argue that among the millions of Homo sapiens existing over c.200,000 years, the only true humans are the relative few whom God breathed life into (thus transforming them into God’s image), the question left dangling is what about the rest of humanity in the general scheme of things?

Well, first of all, no one is arguing anything here; simply positing a view. Second of all, if you read the Keller/Kidner article, one view is that after the creation of Eve, God's image is conferred on Adam's collaterals. Third, if one were to hold to a local flood I imagine that wouldn't affect the rest of humanity. Fourth, I still don't see the difference between holding this view or a more well known view when it comes to the destruction of humanity. Regardless of what view the theists holds on this matter, it seems to me that in your view it'd still be an issue.

OK! In fact I think allegory works very well for the whole of the Jesus story - so long as one is not expected to actually believe it.

Ok. Well, whatever you want to believe. That's great.

…other than your repeated refrain: “attempting to convince you otherwise is fruitless". Because, as a Protestant (I’m assuming you are) you believe that grace is given by God based on the faith of the believer. But the faith of the believer can only be granted by God’s grace. So, we’re back to the circular arguments.

That's not my view, but, sure, whatever you want to think.

Despite the welter of written material in favour of the philosophical model that God exists the fact is that (divine inspiration aside) the writers of the bible had no more evidence of the existence of God than we do today,

If you say so.

so using the Bible - and biblical hermeneutics – as evidence for the existence of God is simply at bottom, restating the assertion that God exists.

Agreed. That would be terribly circular. That's why so many apologetic works employ natural theology.

In short, no good evidence at all merely a faith-based belief.

I recognize that that's the view that you hold.

Good! They’re tortuous and unconvincing.

Message received, loud and clear.