The Bible Is Clear: Adam Was a Historical Person

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Revmitchell, Jun 13, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    780
    Did God create the first human being from nonliving matter and breathe life into him, or is another interpretation possible? Scripture doesn’t leave room for doubt.

    Attempting to bridge the gap between the idea of evolution and the Bible’s clear teaching about creation, some Christian leaders have tried many creative ways to reinterpret Scripture. Today a new focus questions whether Adam was a real, historical person. Did God create the first human being from nonliving matter and breathe life into him, or is another interpretation possible? Scripture doesn’t leave room for doubt.

    https://answersingenesis.org/bible-...al&utm_campaign=facebooktwittergooglelinkedin


    https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/am/v7/n1/detachable-chart.pdf
     
  2. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
  3. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,022
    Likes Received:
    47
    ONLY view that would agree with jesus and pauland Moses would be that he was a real/historical human being, and that He experience a literal Fall, and that God created Him directly, not via an evolutionary process from lower primates!
     
  4. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    Let me nuance that. I'm not so concerned with what Paul and Moses believed about the historicity of Adam. I think they can write inspired Scripture and still be incorrect as to the historicity of what they are writing even though the theology of what they were saying was good. Jesus is a different problem, being God incarnate and all. I know some have stated that he communicated to the people in the jargon and expectation of the day. Or he was speaking of Adam as a character form a story, not necessarily as an actual historical person.

    Me... I lean towards him being a historical person. But I really don't care. The text, not the person or the event, is inspired. What we glean from the story is more important than whether Adam actually lived or not. Same thing with the flood and Noah. Historical or not, the text is what matters. The story that is communicated and leading to Abraham then Jesus is how Scripture works. It is not giving history lessons but telling the drama of God saving his creation.
     
    #4 Greektim, Jun 13, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 13, 2014
  5. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is on my list too, after the following:

    Biblical Inerrancy: Four Views
    Three views on Creation and Evolution
    Show them no mercy: 4 View on God and Caanaanite Genocide
    Divine Providence: Four Views
    Five Views on Santification
    Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism
    Almost forgot to add:
    The Myth of Certainty
     
    #5 quantumfaith, Jun 13, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 13, 2014
  6. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,502
    Likes Received:
    40
    I'm sure I'm misinterpreting what you are saying, but my understanding is that you are equating the scriptures with a good historical novel, such as GONE WITH THE WIND; IE: the basic facts are true (Yankees invaded the South, Sherman burned Atlanta etc.) but the details are just there for glue to hold the narative together; IE: Scarlet, Rhett, Melanie etc.

    Surely this is not your rendering of His Word?!?!
     
    #6 just-want-peace, Jun 13, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 13, 2014
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    780
    Another low view of scripture.
     
  8. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, and there is plenty of essential theology tied to the literal existence of Adam and Eve.
     
  9. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,022
    Likes Received:
    47
    God inspired Moses and paul to record down revelation regarding Adam and the Fall, and Jesus upheld their views as being correct!

    IF Adam was not a real historical human, if the Fall never literally happened, then paul was bogus in what he wrote, and Jesus mislead us, as EVERY word in the Bible has jesus speaking in them to us!

    IF paul stated a teaching/doctrine, it was the SAME as if jesus spoke it himself!
     
  10. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    Just the opposite, actually. I don't squabble over the historicity of any event save Jesus and other NT texts (for various reasons). What I am most concerned about is the text. What is in the text is inspired. The events that the text speak of are not inspired. So I don't focus on what God may be teaching through an event. I focus on what God teaches through the text.
     
  11. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    If the the first Adam was not historical, there is no need for the historicity of the Second Adam.

    Was the story of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness a literal event? Is it important that it was?
     
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    780
    A very low view of scripture.
     
  13. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    What are those reasons? For "squabbling over the historicity of the NT texts, I mean.
     
  14. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    The historical setting for most NT documents is not only attainable but very relevant to the genre of the documents. At least Paul's letters and maybe a couple of the gospels. Rev. of course. Also, the event of Jesus is a defining and salvific event. Therefore, the event matters, its historicity and everything. But not necessarily the details just the big picture. For example, if Jesus was scourged w/ a cat of nine tails or a whip or a reed doesn't much matter to me. That he was tortured does.

    Take my initial sentence and apply it to the OT. Not only is the historical situation unattainable (and highly disputed) but it helps little in interpretation aside from a few points. For example, who wrote the book of Judges or Ruth is not certain. We can only guess. And that info helps us very little even if we were pretty sure it was Samuel. But what is in the text, i.e. what the text says and communicates and how the biblical metanarrative as a whole moves forward, is extremely enlightening w/out all of that background info.
     
    #14 Greektim, Jun 14, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2014
  15. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    780

    So folks like you who have such a low view of scripture have to decide for yourselves which parts are inspired and which parts are not and which parts of parts are inspired and which parts of parts are not. You, yourself, end up being the standard for what is inspiration. What a burden it is to carry such a low view of scripture. I am glad that the SBC ran folks like yourself out of our seminaries.
     
  16. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Doesn't Paul state that as one man's obedience makes many righteous, so the disobedience of one man made many sinners?

    If the nature of the remedy is historical, doesn't that demand an historical nature of the fault?
     
  17. Rolfe

    Rolfe
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    391
    To suggest that Our Lord inspired error is to call him a liar. Be careful.
     
  18. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    To neglect the human element in Scripture is to miss what Scripture is. Be careful.
     
  19. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I think we need to be careful that we not go beyond or less than what scripture is and teaches. To teach that all of the words of scripture are correct such as '"One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."' would be to sell scripture out for less than it really is. Who says this saying is correct? Scripture is God's message He wants us to have. He chose how He wanted it delivered and who would write it and the languages to communicate that message. God also chose the time.

    Scripture is far more than the words of what we claim as scripture.

    Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

    Scripture is dynamic not just a static historical text from antiquity.

    Another example would be if we treat the action of Abraham toward Isaac the same way we treat Exodus 20:13, "You shall not murder." If we do not take into account the historical background of scripture and treat it as one unit that completely agrees then we would have a hard time reconciling the command to not murder and God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. If one takes the position that God is testing Abraham then how is that in agreement with the command to not murder. Why would God test one in an areas that violates His command?
     
  20. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Of course. Which Greek translation of the OT did the NT writers use when they said "scripture says_________"? Paraphrase, direct quotation, or a quotation or paraphrase from some other translation we know nothing about. Obviously OT are applied to something completely different in the NT than in the OT. Essentially the writers often lifted scripture out of the OT context and applied it to completely different issues in the NT.

    Certainly John when he begins Jn 1:1 he uses the same exact wording that is in a Greek translation of Gen 1:1. The grammar and words Paul uses are very different than what John uses.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...