Christy, your reply implies that I show no regard for the various genres of Scripture. My point is simply this. When the Bible gives a genealogy that mentions Adam, and the biblical writers refer to him as a real person, we can debate the completeness of the genealogies and what they may or may tell us about the age of the earth, but there should be no argument about Adam being an actual, literal person. I believe that is the very purpose of the genealogies, namely, to show us that the Bible is a book of truth grounded in reality, speaking of real events and real people.
I do not presume to give Luke omniscience, but acknowledge God’s omniscience as he guided Luke to write down His very words as guided by the Holy Spirit. I simply believe the testimony of the Scripture itself:
'For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hear_ts_. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."_ (2 Peter 1:16-21, NASB, emphasis mine
My friend, your issue seems to be with the veracity of Scripture itself. This would seem to be a fatal flaw for the professing Christian.
I would encourage those who read here that to question or attack the veracity of Scripture and to unconditionally believe science is distinctly un-Christian.
Part of the reason I read Biologos.com, and engage these discussions - however sparingly - is to challenge my thinking and prayerfully seek the truth. If you read Biologos.com, read some of Creation.com, for example, to have your mind and assumptions challenged. This is critically important!
My prayer for all is that this would be done in pursuit of the Lord Himself:
“My son, if you will receive my words And treasure my commandments within you, Make your ear attentive to wisdom, Incline your heart to understanding; For if you cry for discernment, Lift your voice for understanding; If you seek her as silver And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will discern the fear of the LORD And discover the knowledge of God.” (Proverbs 2:1-5, NASB)
Blessings and prayers for all, Mark
1 Like
I think you have it wrong here Christy - we may wonder why we cannot turn water into wine, but that in itself does not invalidate the Gospel account. Every Christian believes what the Bible means, we just live in a different age (and a faithless one I might add) which makes it difficult for many to believe that God and Christ care for us. As to excesses by those who want to appear more Christian than Christ (and it appears, may gouge out their eyes), I think they may believe the Bible means more than it does - it is our own nature that is in question, not the meaning found in the Bible.
Why is ignoring the literal meaning on the women should be silent verse and the speaking in tongues verse a “genre sensitivity issue,” but the Adam genealogy is clearly not? Those aren’t “figurative” passages, those are clear, direct instructions. All I’m saying is that everyone picks and chooses to a certain extent how they are going to interpret and apply and that we all have plenty of gaps between what the Bible says and what we think the Bible means. Just because you think that Scripture is abundantly clear on a particular thing doesn’t mean that someone who comes to a different conclusion is taking Scripture less seriously.
When a religion is founded within the context of a pre-scientific culture… it is not wise to think the founders of Christianity knew anything about science.
The most important scientific discovery of the last 100 years was the fact that the universe had a Beginning, just as it says in the Bible.
Why are we quibbling about minor details, when the most important fact was there right before our eyes and the Hebrews could not have known it unless it was revealed to them?
Christy,
This is biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) 101 kind of stuff. You are creating an invalid comparison and a straw man argument. A command and a historical account like a genealogy are not of the same type. The command that you mention has a context in which it should be applied; it’s not a matter of IF it should be applied, but HOW and WHEN. A historical account is a statement of real people and real events. The genealogy I was referring to in Luke 3:23-38 gives us a genealogy of Jesus back to Adam. I understand that ancient genealogies do not necessarily provide every generation, but there is no warrant to believe that any of these people were not real, actual people. Let’s work backwards chronologically, forward in this passage. Was Jesus a literal person? How about his adopted father, Joseph? David? Jacob, Isaac, Abraham? Adam? At what point in the genealogy do people stop being literal and start being symbolic? How do you know? Do you believe in a literal Jesus? It seems to me if you let go of a literal Adam, you must be willing to let go of a literal Jesus as well.
It seems to me that someone who makes such a comparison, bordering on mocking the veracity of the Scriptures, indeed does not take them seriously, and is in need of some hermeneutical training. I certainly hope you can take advantage of such training in your church community.
George -
I understand what you are saying about religion and a pre-scientific culture. But if we are to believe Scripture’s testimony about itself that these indeed are the words of God, then we have to recognize that He knows infinitely more about science than we do and would not give us anything less than the truth. I get that Genesis is not a scientific text per se. My focus here is on the existence of a literal Adam. I just don’t know how you can let go of that and have any credible sense of the Scriptures being true and worthy of being believed.
Thank you again for your engagement on this important topic!
Mark
‘To make you know the certainty of the words of truth…’ - from Proverbs 22:21
And so shall it always be the struggle of what comes first … the words of the bible, or the behavior of nature all around us.
If all physics and chemistry points to an earth that is 5 billion years old… how can you START with a writing that says is just 5 thousands of years old?
If all physics and cosmology points to an earth that is NOT surrounded by a heavenly ocean … how can you start with a book that says it is? It’s not just Genesis… Job says that rain and hail are kept in storehouses (treasure houses). They clearly are not.
Faith is how you navigate from TRUTH YOU CAN SEE to TRUTH YOU READ - - not the other way around.
How did you decide that cultural norms and contexts don’t apply to genealogies and we should interpret them as literal historical facts? It is demonstrable that Jewish genealogies used numerology and other features to make rhetorical points, and were not primarily objective records of information. My main point is that if we agree that cultural context is important to interpreting the commands in the letters or the illustrations in Jesus’ sermons, we shouldn’t forget those principles when we look at the histories of the Bible. They too need to be read in light of how they were meant to be understood and the purposes they served and the authors’ rhetorical intentions. I don’t think it is valid to say, “I have identified this as the genre history, therefore everything it records is an objective fact. and follows the norms of history writing that I have learned from my modern culture.” The histories of the Bible were compiled from different and sometimes competing traditions, were edited and adapted at various points, were often written down years after the facts they record, sometimes many, many, generations later, and they represent varying degrees of actual historicity. And I agree that it is hermeneutics 101 stuff, it just appears we learned from different textbooks.
I actually agree that the people in the biblical genealogies were real historical people. I just think the narratives that describe their histories are mythologized to a degree we as modern westerners would not be comfortable calling “history” or even “fact” at some points and that their stories are not included in the Bible to communicate objective factual information, but to teach and guide and model relationship with God. I don’t think the genealogies in the Gospels are merely historical record, I think they serve the rhetorical purposes of the authors and the “facts” were intentionally manipulated to make the particular Gospel authors’ points, whether it was that Jesus was the new David, or Jesus was the Lord of the Gentiles too.
Even though I prefer to think Adam was a real historical person in the history of Israel, I don’t think it is theologically necessary for him to be. It is his story that is important, because his story summarizes the plight of all humanity and teaches our need for a Savior.
I believe in a historical Jesus and an historical crucifixion and resurrection. Christianity doesn’t make sense without Jesus dying and rising again.
Well, then you are mistaken, because not a single Evangelical I know who thinks Adam is purely allegorical denies that Jesus was a historical person who literally died and rose again.
2 Likes
I understand George, thank you. The Bible does not say anything specific about the age of the earth, and I am not contending that it does.
Christy, it is encouraging that you believe in a literal Jesus and a literal resurrection. Jesus and Adam are in the same genealogy. Upon what basis can one legitimately believe that one is literal and actual while another is not?
Christy, I think you and I have a very different beliefs about the nature, inspiration, and preservation of the Scriptures.
My prayer for all of us is that we would truly be like the Thessalonians as described by the Apostle Paul here:
“For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13, NASB)
I don’t think you can duck behind the idea that the Bible doesn’t STATE the age of the Earth.
It provides a very specific chronology … with very specific dates and ages of the people that lived on Earth. And while sometimes there are awkward conflicts in time frames, they are relatively small and finite conflicts: they don’t leave the reader wondering whether it is 800 years OR 8 million years.
If taken literally, the Old Testament clearly puts the age of the earth less than a single Ice Age … which is why nowhere in its history does it describe an ice age. So how do you explain away the physics and eyeball observation that the Earth is much much older than the Bible thinks it is?
As for how to decide when to ignore a part of a genealogy? As I said - - this is where one’s faith has to step in. There are as many flavors on that conclusion as there are denominations!
If your Grandfather is Italian… where do you draw the line and say you are NOT a descendant of Romulus?
If your Grandfather is a Tyrian … where do you draw the line and say you are NOT a descendant of Melqart, the mortal who threw himself into a sacred fire … so that his descedants would rule Tyre … and which made Melqart into a GOD.
When pressed, I generally assert that there is nothing in Genesis that can be considered reliably historical. The first historical Hebrew might be, to some, as MOSES! Except I would say Moses is a reconstructed character as well.
Japan’s present emperor, Akihito, and mythical first emperor Jimmu, as well as his ancestor the sun-goddess Amaterasu, are all in the same genealogy as well. It’s a genealogy in use in Japan, extended with each new imperial generation, since ancient times: Family tree of Japanese monarchs - Wikipedia . Now, traditional Japanese culture and ancient Near-Eastern culture are certainly very discontinuous and different, but clearly the former culture, at least, violates this principle that you seem to accept as some universal given. On what basis are you sure that the latter does not as well? Especially given the other clues that ANE genealogies are not fundamentally literal, such as the numerological schemes Christy mentioned seen in the biblical genealogies, and the clearly non-literal vast ages given in the Sumerian king lists: Sumerian King List - Wikipedia
3 Likes
And this is a rough list of Sumerian kings from the article just linked above … at what point do we say THESE kings become real?
Ruler Epithet Length of reign Approx. dates Comments
Alulim 8 sars (28,800 years) mythological
Alalngar 10 sars (36,000 years)
En-men-lu-ana 12 sars (43,200 years)
En-men-gal-ana 8 sars (28,800 years)
Dumuzid, the Shepherd “the shepherd” 10 sars (36,000 years)
En-sipad-zid-ana 8 sars (28,800 years)
En-men-dur-ana 5 sars and 5 ners (21,000 years)
Ubara-Tutu 5 sars and 1 ner (18,600 years)
Jushur 1,200 years
Kullassina-bel 960 years
Nangishlishma 670 years
En-tarah-ana 420 years
Babum 300 years
Puannum 840 years
Kalibum 960 years
Kalumum 840 years
Zuqaqip 900 years
Atab (or A-ba) 600 years
Mashda “the son of Atab” 840 years
Arwium “the son of Mashda” 720 years
Etana “the shepherd, who ascended to heaven and consolidated all the foreign countries” 1,500 years
Balih “the son of Etana” 400 years
En-me-nuna 660 years
Melem-Kish “the son of En-me-nuna” 900 years
Barsal-nuna (“the son of En-me-nuna”) 1,200 years
Zamug “the son of Barsal-nuna” 140 years
Tizqar “the son of Zamug” 305 years
Ilku 900 years
Iltasadum 1,200 years
En-me-barage-si 900 years ca. 2600 BC, the earliest ruler on the List confirmed independently from epigraphical evidence
Aga of Kish “the son of En-me-barage-si” 625 years ca. 2600 BC
Mesh-ki-ang-gasher of E-ana “the son of Utu” 324 years ca. 27th
Enmerkar “the son of Mesh-ki-ang-gasher, the king of Unug, who built Unug (Uruk)” 420 years
Lugalbanda “the shepherd” 1,200 years
Dumuzid (Dumuzi) “the fisherman whose city was Kuara.” 100 years ca. 2600 BC
Gilgamesh 126 years ca. 2600 BC
Ur-Nungal “the son of Gilgamesh” 30 years
Udul-kalama “the son of Ur-Nungal” 15 years
La-ba’shum 9 years
En-nun-tarah-ana 8 years
Mesh-he “the smith” 36 years
Melem-ana 6 years
Lugal-kitun 36 years
Mesh-Ane-pada 80 years ca. 26th century BC
Mesh-ki-ang-Nuna “the son of Mesh-Ane-pada” 36 years
Elulu 25 years
Balulu 36 years
Three kings of Awan 356 years ca. 26th century BC
Susuda “the fuller” 201 years ca. 26th century BC
Dadasig 81 years
Mamagal “the boatman” 360 years
Kalbum “the son of Mamagal” 195 years
Tuge 360 years
Men-nuna “the son of Tuge” 180 years
(Enbi-Ishtar) 290 years
Lugalngu 360 years
Hadanish 360 years ca. 2500 BC
En-shag-kush-ana 60 years ca. 25th century BC
Lugal-kinishe-dudu or Lugal-ure 120 years
Argandea 7 years
Nanni 120 years ca. 25th century BC
Mesh-ki-ang-Nanna II “the son of Nanni” 48 years
Lugal-Ane-mundu 90 years ca. 25th century BC
Anbu 30 years ca. 25th century BC
Anba “the son of Anbu” 17 years
Bazi “the leatherworker” 30 years
Zizi of Mari “the fuller” 20 years
Limer “the ‘gudug’ priest” 30 years
Sharrum-iter 9 years
Kug-Bau (Kubaba) 100 years ca. 25th century BC
Unzi 30 years ca. 25th – 24th century BC
Undalulu 6 years
Urur 6 years
Puzur-Nirah 20 years
Ishu-Il 24 years
Shu-Suen of Akshak “the son of Ishu-Il” 7 years
Puzur-Suen “the son of Kug-Bau” 25 years ca. 24th – 23rd century BC
Ur-Zababa “the son of Puzur-Suen” 400 (6?) years ca. 2300 BC
Zimudar 30 years
Usi-watar “the son of Zimudar” 7 years
Eshtar-muti 11 years
Ishme-Shamash 11 years
(Shu-ilishu)* (15 years)*
Nanniya “the jeweller” 7 years ca. 2303–2296 BC (short)
Lugal-zage-si 25 years ca. 2296–2271 BC (short)
Sargon of Akkad 40 years ca. 2270–2215 BC
Rimush of Akkad “the son of Sargon” 9 years ca. 2214–2206 BC (short)
Manishtushu (Manishtusu) 15 years ca. 2205–2191 BC (short)
Naram-Sin of Akkad “the son of Man-ishtishu” 56 years ca. 2190–2154 BC (short)
Shar-kali-sharri “the son of Naram-Sin” 25 years ca. 2153–2129 BC (short)
Irgigi
Imi
Nanum
Ilulu ca. 2128–2125 BC (short)
Dudu of Akkad 21 years ca. 2125–2104 BC (short)
Shu-Durul “the son of Dudu” 15 years ca. 2104–2083 BC (short)
Ur-ningin 7 years ca. 2091? – 2061? BC (short)
Ur-gigir “the son of Ur-ningin” 6 years
Kuda 6 years
Puzur-ili 5 years
Ur-Utu (or Lugal-melem) (“the son of Ur-gigir”)* 25 years
Inkishush 6 years ca. 2147–2050 BC (short)
Zarlagab 6 years
Shulme (or Yarlagash) 6 years
Silulumesh (or Silulu) 6 years
Inimabakesh (or Duga) 5 years
Igeshaush (or Ilu-An) 6 years
Yarlagab 3 years
Ibate of Gutium 3 years
Yarla (or Yarlangab) 3 years
Kurum 1 year
Apilkin 3 years
La-erabum 2 years
Irarum 2 years
Ibranum 1 year
Hablum 2 years
And this list is all before 2000 BCE !!!
1 Like
No doubt. But I would like a smidgin of credit for the fact that I really do love the Bible. We live in a drug war zone in zika, chikungunya, and dengue country, where we get eaten alive by fleas and intestinal parasites, where we spend half our time in a three-room house with “running water” from the creek and intermittent electricity, all because I wholeheartedly believe that Jesus saves and everyone deserves to hear the Good News in their own language. When my life starts bearing bad fruit because of my “low view of Scripture” then you all can call me on it, but in the meantime I think I’ve earned some street cred. 
5 Likes
It’s interesting to me that virtually no one on this thread has either used Scripture or spoken highly of it in this thread. Strange for people who claim to love the Bible.
And Christy, while your ‘street red’ is admirable in one sense, it’s not a works system (as you likely know), and you could still be quite wrong about this regardless of the sacrifices you profess.
That would include you. Most people here don’t feel the need to fill their posts with eulogies about the virtues of Scripture, because that’s pretty much taken for granted around here. But there’s more than enough evidence in this thread that the contributors (including you), have a high view of Scripture, even without them saying so explicitly.
Christy’s point was not that her works demonstrate she is right about this issue, but that her works are incompatible with the idea that she doesn’t really love the Bible and doesn’t have a high view of its inspiration, preservation, and authority. And she’s right.
2 Likes
Well, technically, Mark has “used Scripture” in this thread. And so have several others. But to the rest: Yes!
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.