Home | Forum | Arcade
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
genea
Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 13
|
 Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 9:09 pm Post subject: Adam; a real man in history. |
 |
|
What a great idea to have a place called the Lions Den. Sort of like going to Millwall  not a place for pussy cats  oh well here goes 
I have been reading some of the creationism threads and must admit to being challenged by Bobby C's view of Adam and Eve as figurative persons representing mankind and that Gen 1-11 is a poetic representation rather than literal historical account of creation. ( hope I am not misrepresenting you Bobby).I have some degree of sympathy with that view as I certainly view the Psalms and the Prophets of speaking figurativley about Christ but I find the idea of Adam not being an historic individual one idea that I'm not yet prepared to take seriously.
Im going to start off the top of my head Bobby but I promise to get studious as we go on.
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
OK I know that there are important issues in Hebrew numerology and I confess I havn't a clue what 930 signifies....so someone please help.
Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Luk 3:34 Which was [the son] of Jacob, which was [the son] of Isaac, which was [the son] of Abraham, which was [the son] of Thara, which was [the son] of Nachor,
Luk 3:35 Which was [the son] of Saruch, which was [the son] of Ragau, which was [the son] of Phalec, which was [the son] of Heber, which was [the son] of Sala,
Luk 3:36 Which was [the son] of Cainan, which was [the son] of Arphaxad, which was [the son] of Sem, which was [the son] of Noe, which was [the son] of Lamech,
Luk 3:37 Which was [the son] of Mathusala, which was [the son] of Enoch, which was [the son] of Jared, which was [the son] of Maleleel, which was [the son] of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
so it seems to me that Luke wishes us to believe that Adam was an individual who is a direct ancestor of the Messiah. The fact of his name I do not feel is reason enough to assume an allegorical meaning wrt his nature. It is true that Hebrew names tell us important truths about the named but can we not say that as Adam is named man he is the embodyment of men? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sisyphus
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 2142
Location: United Kingdom, Not Europe....
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | so it seems to me that Luke wishes us to believe that Adam was an individual who is a direct ancestor of the Messiah. |
Just a thought, albeit muddled Genea, welcome BTW:
If Adam, whether he be real or figurative, was created by God in his image (spiritual), could it be that Luke is trying to convey the idea that the Messiah is in a direct line from the God created spiritual being and therefore identical to the God created spiritual being, as he was prior to his disobedience. If that makes sense...
_________________
".... love thy neighbour as thyself." is the hardest thing I have ever done.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
genea
Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sisyphus wrote: | | Quote: | | so it seems to me that Luke wishes us to believe that Adam was an individual who is a direct ancestor of the Messiah. |
Just a thought, albeit muddled Genea, welcome BTW:
If Adam, whether he be real or figurative, was created by God in his image (spiritual), could it be that Luke is trying to convey the idea that the Messiah is in a direct line from the God created spiritual being and therefore identical to the God created spiritual being, as he was prior to his disobedience. If that makes sense... |
makes perfect sense  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject: Re: Adam; a real man in history. |
|
|
| genea wrote: | What a great idea to have a place called the Lions Den. Sort of like going to Millwall not a place for pussy cats
Oh yes it is 
oh well here goes
I have been reading some of the creationism threads and must admit to being challenged by Bobby C's view of Adam and Eve as figurative persons representing mankind and that Gen 1-11 is a poetic representation rather than literal historical account of creation. ( hope I am not misrepresenting you Bobby).
I did not think Bobby had actually expressed a view, except to question the very literal interpretation of the 6-day creationists (including me) & I do not think he has mentioned the flood. A point not openly acknowledged by those on the forum who have a high regard for Scofield, is that he believed in a creation gap, & a non-literal day creation scenario, but is not dismissed as an unbeliever as Bobby was by some.
I have some degree of sympathy with that view as I certainly view the Psalms and the Prophets of speaking figurativley about Christ but I find the idea of Adam not being an historic individual one idea that I'm not yet prepared to take seriously.
Im going to start off the top of my head Bobby but I promise to get studious as we go on.
We need to recognise that according to our Lord, teaching in Luke 24, that the Scriptures primarily relate to the Lord Jesus. We have therefore a faithful historical record that has woven intimately within it a picture of Christ on every page. We can see this in the way the New Testament writers use the OT Scriptures. However literally we take the OT, if we do not see the Lord Jesus Christ there, we have not begun to understand it.
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
OK I know that there are important issues in Hebrew numerology and I confess I havn't a clue what 930 signifies....so someone please help.
Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Luk 3:34 Which was [the son] of Jacob, which was [the son] of Isaac, which was [the son] of Abraham, which was [the son] of Thara, which was [the son] of Nachor,
Luk 3:35 Which was [the son] of Saruch, which was [the son] of Ragau, which was [the son] of Phalec, which was [the son] of Heber, which was [the son] of Sala,
Luk 3:36 Which was [the son] of Cainan, which was [the son] of Arphaxad, which was [the son] of Sem, which was [the son] of Noe, which was [the son] of Lamech,
Luk 3:37 Which was [the son] of Mathusala, which was [the son] of Enoch, which was [the son] of Jared, which was [the son] of Maleleel, which was [the son] of Cainan,
Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
so it seems to me that Luke wishes us to believe that Adam was an individual who is a direct ancestor of the Messiah. The fact of his name I do not feel is reason enough to assume an allegorical meaning wrt his nature. It is true that Hebrew names tell us important truths about the named but can we not say that as Adam is named man he is the embodyment of men?
The NT writers make it clear that Adam was one man who, in sinning, brought sin upon all his posterity - all mankind. If that is figurative, then please explain e.g. 1 Cor. 15:21 ff.
|
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| genea wrote: | | Sisyphus wrote: | | Quote: | | so it seems to me that Luke wishes us to believe that Adam was an individual who is a direct ancestor of the Messiah. |
Just a thought, albeit muddled Genea, welcome BTW:
If Adam, whether he be real or figurative, was created by God in his image (spiritual), could it be that Luke is trying to convey the idea that the Messiah is in a direct line from the God created spiritual being and therefore identical to the God created spiritual being, as he was prior to his disobedience. If that makes sense... |
makes perfect sense |
Sorry, Genea, Sis,
Doesn't make sense at all to me. Does "identical to the God created spiritual being" mean that Adam was a theophany of Jesus, or that Jesus, like Adam, was a "God created spiritual being?"
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sisyphus
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 2142
Location: United Kingdom, Not Europe....
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Covenanter wrote: |
Doesn't make sense at all to me. Does "identical to the God created spiritual being" mean that Adam was a theophany of Jesus, or that Jesus, like Adam, was a "God created spiritual being?"
|
Oh, I wasn't trying to be as deep as that at all Cove. I think my suggestion was simply that Luke was conveying that Jesus was not just man but in the image of God, was God, nothing more. Put as you do I can perhaps see the falacious aspect of my muddled thought. Perhaps I am trying to read too much into Lukes narative.
_________________
".... love thy neighbour as thyself." is the hardest thing I have ever done.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1351
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The NT writers make it clear that Adam was one man who, in sinning, brought sin upon all his posterity - all mankind. If that is figurative, then please explain e.g. 1 Cor. 15:21 ff. |
Many evangelicals believe that a literal acceptance of Genesis 2 and 3 is essential not least because Paul (the Apostle not the KTF member ) infers it to be the historical point at which sin and death entered the world. Karl Barth once called advocates of such literalism 'friends of the speaking serpent' and it is a point that Nigel Wright takes up in 'The Radical Evangelical'.
| Quote: | | Yet something may be true without being literally true, since there are many vehicles of truthful communication. A portrait of a person is not as accurate as a photograph but may actually capture depths to a person more truthfully than a camera ever could. Truth can be expressed through symbol, poetry and legend. Even the category 'myth' can be employed if it is understood, not as is popularly the case, as something which is untrue but as the true description of reality in the form of a symbolic narrative. The simplest and least problematic way of understanding the Eden narrative is as a symbolic description of an historical reality. What it describes is historical in the sense that human beings of all generations are fallen. But there must also have been those first human beings who first did what we all do, namely fall away from god in primal and wilful disobedience. So sin and spiritual death entered in. The important truth about this narrative is that it describes 'Adam', whose name means humankind, and in a way destined to seize the imagination of people across hugely different cultures and at many different times; it lays bare the truth about our alienated and tragic existence. It is a symbolic way of speaking of historical realities. |
(My emphases)
Hopefully this post also addresses one made earlier by genea. Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, by the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
genea
Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bobbyc wrote: | | Quote: | | The NT writers make it clear that Adam was one man who, in sinning, brought sin upon all his posterity - all mankind. If that is figurative, then please explain e.g. 1 Cor. 15:21 ff. |
Many evangelicals believe that a literal acceptance of Genesis 2 and 3 is essential not least because Paul (the Apostle not the KTF member ) infers it to be the historical point at which sin and death entered the world. Karl Barth once called advocates of such literalism 'friends of the speaking serpent' and it is a point that Nigel Wright takes up in 'The Radical Evangelical'.
| Quote: | | Yet something may be true without being literally true, since there are many vehicles of truthful communication. A portrait of a person is not as accurate as a photograph but may actually capture depths to a person more truthfully than a camera ever could. Truth can be expressed through symbol, poetry and legend. Even the category 'myth' can be employed if it is understood, not as is popularly the case, as something which is untrue but as the true description of reality in the form of a symbolic narrative. The simplest and least problematic way of understanding the Eden narrative is as a symbolic description of an historical reality. What it describes is historical in the sense that human beings of all generations are fallen. But there must also have been those first human beings who first did what we all do, namely fall away from god in primal and wilful disobedience. So sin and spiritual death entered in. The important truth about this narrative is that it describes 'Adam', whose name means humankind, and in a way destined to seize the imagination of people across hugely different cultures and at many different times; it lays bare the truth about our alienated and tragic existence. It is a symbolic way of speaking of historical realities. |
(My emphases)
Hopefully this post also addresses one made earlier by genea. Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, by the way. |
my immediate problem with that view is that it is not stated in the opening chapter. The reason I take Revelation for example as a book of symbols reflecting contemporary 1st century realities is because it says as much in the opening verse. But Genesis does not make such a modest claim. Jacob means usurper Abraham means or implies father ...Adam means mankind....Genesis claims to explain the origins of our existense. "In the beginning"....why are we to understand this as symbolic...and seriously I am all ears  I really do not have a principled objection to Genesis as symbol....and yes indeed ...a theological truth is greater than a literal truth.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1351
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My immediate (and hurried) response is that very little literature declares its genre as openly as you seem to be expecting. A large part of our problem with scripture particularly is that our English translations are quite bald. By that I mean that we cannot truly appreciate the poetry of many of the psalms for example nor the significance of their styling from the texts as they are translated. A case in point is Psalm 119. It is impossible when using any English translation to recognise that it is written in a very precise way, namely each section begins with the next corresponding letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In English it would be written in 26 sections each section starting with A to Z in the correct sequence.
Since it's late (and I have an early start tomorrow) I promise to come back to this as soon as possible. Thank you for your genuine interest though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
The talking snake is the immediate challenge to the taking the opening chapters of Genesis literally. Interpretation of the text becomes absolutely necessary. Otherwise God becomes the creator of a sinful creature, placed in the garden to tempt Eve. That does not make the creation of one man & one woman, parents of all mankind, a myth.
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1351
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Point taken Cov but I do think it's more logical and rational to assume that "let us make adam (mankind) in our own image" implies the making of humanity not a single human being. Also it is (to my mind anyway) more consistent to read all the elements of talking snake, magical trees and Man symbolically not literally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bobbyc wrote: | | Point taken Cov but I do think it's more logical and rational to assume that "let us make adam (mankind) in our own image" implies the making of humanity not a single human being. Also it is (to my mind anyway) more consistent to read all the elements of talking snake, magical trees and Man symbolically not literally. |
While the literalists were arguing, I indicated that interpretation of the creation of man, male & female, needed interpretation to avoid contradicting with Gen. 2. The specific creation of Adam & Eve is stated in 2, & can be seen as an expansion of Gen. 1. I see no problem with the tree of knowledge, as simple disobedience brought the curse. There is more problem with the tree of life.
These can, of course, symbolise the Law versus Christ as indicated by Paul in Romans.
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21)
Last edited by Covenanter on Wed May 16, 2007 9:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1351
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think I have come across one or two of the problems associated with the tree of life. Maybe another thread some other time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jesus believed Adam was a real person. So did the Apostle Paul.
Posters need to decide whether they believe Jesus, or the vain ideas of people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1451
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you Paul
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
