Just wanted to mention that there are some parents who refuse the vitamin K injection–the same parents who don’t vaccinate their kids. Are you surprised? Neither am I.
1 Like
I’m pantheist. 
At least in the version I read, “giving my opinion” is exactly what Paul says he is doing. Why should you not believe his own words?
I’ve got the NRSV. It hasn’t got that footnote, but it’s still clear that he’s paraphrasing: “the first man, Adam” are Paul’s words, not Genesis’s. [quote=“Frank, post:97, topic:35009”]
Lynn: Second, nowhere is it stated that Adam was “perfect” as you claim.
Frank: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them… God blessed them …. God saw all that he had made and it was very good.” Genesis 1:27-31
So, Adam was made in the “image” of God meaning that he was sinless and morally pure – and although at that time he was not immortal that state was possible for him to attain.
[/quote]
Once again you are reading more into the text than it says. Humankind was made in the image of God, but there is a wide variety of opinions as to what that means, and unless you want to say that the “image of God” only applies to Adam, Eve, and Jesus, not to the rest of humanity, you have no excuse for saying it means “perfect.” If Adam and Eve were perfect, they wouldn’t have sinned.
Additionally, immortality was possible for them to attain even after they sinned, or God wouldn’t have worried about them eating from the Tree of Life.
Paul doesn’t say “the second sinless and morally pure man,” though. To take him quite literally, there were no other men between Adam and Christ. And we can’t all be 'Adam’s if Jesus was the last one, can we?
Yes, yes, and yes. For what it’s worth, I consider Adam a real literal person as well, just not the first ancestor of all humans.
You JUST defined “the first man,” “the second man” as Paul was talking about them to mean “the first sinless and morally pure man!” If you are going with this definition, you certainly can’t turn around and say that it had anything to do with being the ancestor of all humanity!
Jesus allowed himself to be tortured and crucified on behalf of people who existed with sin. Whether you think it makes sense or not, and wherever those people and that sin came from. You are staking too much on a point which is far from crucial when you insist that they all had to be literal descendants of Adam and Eve, or indeed that sin could only be passed down genetically. The Bible doesn’t say that.
This should be a clue as well. A militant atheist will happily seize upon and proclaim all the most absurd and obviously wrong distortions he can, and try to say that religious people ‘must’ believe all this. You would be wise not to be guided by Dawkins to define your religious beliefs.
Well, that would make Jesus the first Adam and Adam the second Adam, wouldn’t it? (Sorry, Paul.)
Nobody would argue that we are all related to Adam. It is the question of descent which is at hand. Do you understand the distinction?[quote=“Frank, post:97, topic:35009”]
From where does the specified information and the nanomachines in the cell of even the least complex organism come from?
[/quote]
“Even the least complex organism” of today is still the product of billions of years of constant evolving. We like to pretend that we can look at many of these life forms and get a sense of stages of evolution we have passed through, but the truth is that this can take us only so far, because no organism is exactly as it was billions of years ago. Some of us just have more obvious divergences. As far as information goes, it ought to be quite obvious that when you duplicate a bit of genome and then apply a mutation to the duplication, you have an increase in information. And if it happens to be useful information, it is conserved by natural selection. Lots of the genes we see in our genomes are plainly modified versions of other genes. I hope that this is what you mean by “specified information,” because I’m not sure what other kind of information you would find in cells.
2 Likes
We need to get back to discussion on the topic, or close this post. Comments should address issues and avoid personal barbs.
You are under a misapprehension - Paul is an Apostle, and thus his opinion, as you put it, carries apostolic authority, which is clearly discussed and explained in the Gospels, where Christ confers such authority to the Apostles. Not simply an opinion you can toss aside. 
Not “as I put it”—opinion is the word Paul uses in the text. The original context in which I brought this quote up was in response to this statement:
"Frank: My beliefs are informed by the knowledge that ALL Scripture is God breathed and is the inerrant and infallible ( I’m talking here about the original “autographs”)word of the Most High as His revelation to Man.
It seems that you do not share this view.
“Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and sin and death through sin……” Romans 5ff
Here Paul, who wrote that all scripture is inspired of God i.e. God breathed i.e. originating with God and not that of his own originality is talking about the literal historical person of Adam who was created in the manner described in Genesis."
Frank is quite correct that I do not share this view, though I was not attempting to say that Paul was not speaking in an authoritative or trustworthy manner; my concern was specifically about the inerrancy claim being made above. I’m wondering what your take on it is?
I tried to find the previous posts to get a better grasp of the argument/discussion but I could not find a specific statement, so I assume you refer to:
1 Corinthians 7:25-28 (KJV)
1Co 25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
If this is the correct verse, I think the meaning is self-evident. Paul is saying that time was one of distress, so he is saying, if getting married brings greater troubles, think long and hard on such a decision. The rest confirms what the Gospel and Paul taught us, that to be married is good (n sin there) and to be single is also good (no sin there).
If I have misunderstood your comment, please let me know.
The King James Version you quoted is indeed different from the version I was looking at! I got curious and looked it up:
And it does indeed appear that “judgement” is a somewhat more common translation than “opinion,” so I must admit to being not as right as I thought I was. 
The discussion trail here ranges wide and far, so I don’t blame you at all for not finding a particular needle in it! The post of Frank’s I quoted was #69, and my response to it was #76; it’s continued, of course, but I think those two are the most relevant to why we’re talking about this specific quote in the first place. 
Ok - I see the discussion reverts to the often argued case of Adam as a person or a non-person, and if the latter, is discussed in some sort of mythical fashion.
1Cor15:43-50 teaches the distinction between the “earthy” and the “spiritual”; the “first” is natural, the “second” is spiritual, and so on, showing that what is from the earth cannot be the same as what is from, and in, heaven.
I think the argument about some type of historic interpretation is stretched beyond breaking point. Clearly Paul is interested in showing that Christ is from, and in, heaven, and Adam (and all natural persons, who by nature are like him) is from this earth. If you or anyone else refuses to believe Adam is a person, your own theological conclusion would have to be that there are no human beings on this earth, and that is a fallacy. All humans are earthly - that is a clear Biblical teaching.
Frank: If during my rigorous research into the claims for the veracity of the Bible I discovered that the Genesis account of creation and the flood of Noah’s time were “just-so stories” or myths or allegories and were not actual real historical events for which there is reasonable evidence (please note I didn’t say “proof”) I would have dismissed not only Genesis but the entire Bible as maybe accurate in some places but overall quite unverifiable and unreliable.
Mervin: I personally know someone who expressed a similar sentiment about the parables Jesus told. So if it turned out that there wasn’t actually a wealthy father with a couple of sons --one of them a prodigal; or if there wasn’t an actual shepherd who left the 99 and went in search of the one – she was scandalized by the thought that any of these might merely be “just-so” stories. So do you agree with her in that then? That if any parable Jesus told turns out to not be a literal history, then it becomes worthless for anything? If so, then I can only point out that the New Testament peoples (for the most part) did not and were not expected to have this dismissive attitude toward stories spun “merely” for the purpose of making important spiritual points!
Frank (now): Let me say at the top of this latest exchange between us that we don’t yet know each other as individuals well enough and that it seems, to me at any rate, that we may possibly be making the error of “type casting” each other.
What I mean is this. You are, to some degree, addressing me as ‘one of those creationists’ and I am, to some degree, addressing you as ‘one of those theistic evolutionists.’
You see what I’m getting at? Of course you do. And I’d like to speedily add that unlike certain “tolerant” persons in this forum who demonstrate their level of “tolerance” to someone who ‘actually has the brass necked audacity to dare to challenge our infallible beliefs in Darwinian evolutionary naturalism theistic evolution’ (which to me demonstrates a deep insecurity of their belief system – which produces such a strident attitude comparable to certain fundamental atheists) you come across as genuinely tolerant understanding and ‘long in spirit’ and secure in your beliefs.
But until such time as we get to know each other better I would think we’re both likely to continue to make the same error.
Does this make sense to you? Do you agree with this assessment?
Now, to address the point you made above.
In discussions I’ve had with other theistic evolutionists who think in terms of ‘one of those creationists – a fundie literalist who is too thick to understand which way is up’ the same, or similar point, is always raised.
When I read in Scripture that “the land is flowing with milk and honey” and that Jesus Christ “is the Lamb of God” do I really truly literally think that the land actually flows with milk and honey and that Jesus is literally a sheep?
Mervin, you couldn’t, as some theistic evolutionists really do believe, actually believe that’s what I think? Of course you don’t. Maybe you could help out your colleagues to understand what I and other of ‘those thick creationists’ believe.
The Scriptures are full of metaphors to paint vivid word pictures to bring alive the text. A land flowing with milk and honey is descriptive of the rich fertile soil and what it will produce when people work on the land. And Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God was to those people back then who annually offered up a sacrificial lamb THE atoning ransom for all mankind – well, to all those who accept His offer, that is.
So, when you ask me about the parables do I accept they may not have been actual real historical events and were only a teaching device?
Based on what I’ve just said what do you think I think?
Frank: When you make mention of “with certain modern understandings” I assume you mean the findings of science which demonstrates that life in its diversity is the result of natural selection and mutations which is the mechanism for evolutionary change from a self-replicating molecule to all life forms on the planet. Do I understand you correctly?
Mervin: Actually, I didn’t mean evolutionary thought, or deep time, or even science at all by that. What I meant by “modern understandings” as may pertain specifically to our exchange here is this: the understanding that all truth (certainly all truth worth calling by that name) must be empirically verifiable even if just in principle – i.e. that if or when there are truths attached to any narrative, they are subordinate truths to the literal historicity of that event and necessarily evaporate away should that historicity ever be shown to be not factual.
Frank(now): You’re suggesting that in order for me to accept something as true that it must be empirically testable, right?
If I’ve understood you correctly you have not understood me correctly.
How can one empirically test for God who is Spirit and invisible to material flesh and blood humans? But you believe in His existence, right? So too do I.
Mervin: I (somewhat mistakenly) call this a “modern” understanding only because our science-centered mentalities of recent centuries have exacerbated this (hence the revealingly-prized label: “creation science”), but in actuality early disciples struggled with exactly the same thing. “What do you mean we’re supposed to eat your flesh!!?” or “ahhh -we forgot to bring along our lunches – that must be why he’s going on about yeast …” Jesus always seems surprised at how dense they were in not grasping the deeper (and only) points being made. Apparently it was pretty much expected that most folks ought to grasp (without being explicitly told “Okay, now this is only a parable, okay?”) that narratives can and do communicate Truth without needing to first be literally true. But we share in at least some of the early disciples intellectual stuntedness in this.
Frank(now): I think from my above comments that you will have quite clearly understood my position in this issue.
Mervin: Nineteenth-century atheists imbibed this toxin and then fed it to the reactionary fundamentalists who swallowed the bait whole and many of you are still trying (or not as the case may be!) to recover from that today. Hence my use of the word “modern”. Our creationist brothers and sisters need to be called away from these terms that were (and are still being) dictated to you by anti-theists and called back instead to the Bible. So when you say …
Frank: Whoa! Let’s set the record straight on this issue. The nineteenth century atheist/agnostic Darwin who lost his faith and his bulldog Huxley who promoted the notion of evolutionary naturalism did precisely the opposite of what you assert.
They totally undermined Genesis specifically, with the help of Charles Lyell, a lawyer, who was determined to have Moses removed from the Bible i.e. Genesis discredited, and Scripture generally.
Up until that time, I’m speaking generally now, the vast majority of people believed in God and in a young earth. Darwin’s hypothesis presented in ‘Origin of Species’ (the title is actually quite inappropriate because other than a reference to “a warm little pond” he did nothing whatsoever to say how life did originate) required long ages i.e. billions and hundreds of millions of years. Without those billions of years Darwin knew too well his hypothesis was unviable.
When Lyell (some will argue that James Hutton prior to Lyell doesn’t get enough credit) came on the scene with his uniformitarianism idea and the notion that “the present is the key to the past” e.g. past rates of soil erosion MUST have been the same as present day rates (I think I will be correct in saying that you can see the logical fallacy) this was extrapolated to give the long ages which Darwin needed to “validate” his hypothesis.
Such a logical fallacy in extrapolation is like saying: because the cow jumped over the fence “the little dog laughed to see such fun and the cow jumped over the moon.”
You’ll forgive my gentle teasing, brother?
I think, based on my observations, that it is not we creationists, who esteem Scripture highly in that we recognize it as the infallible word of God (I’m talking about the original “autographs”) who need to “be called back to the Bible” rather it is theistic evolutionists who esteem science – which is after all the search of fallen fallible men for knowledge which changes from one day to the next (I’m using hyperbole) – higher than the authority of Scripture.
Paul, was talking about Abraham as the father of faith and that he could be considered almost to be like a spiritual father to all of us who believe in Jesus Christ.
[added emphasis mine.]
Mervin: … it is telling that you aren’t quite willing to concede to Paul that we might actually be heirs to Abraham because … well … how could it actually be true unless it’s not physically true first? (And as Lynn has already noted we are speaking here of being descendants instead of related to … which we are all in agreement here that we are.)
Frank(now): You’re misrepresenting/misunderstanding me on this point.
My original point is that we are all, including Abraham, descendants of Adam a real literal historical figure.
IF there was no real literal historical person of Adam then there was no original sin and no Fall and no need for Jesus Christ to undergo torture and crucifixion.
Therefore, IF there was no literal Adam as recorded in Genesis and you dismiss the Genesis account of Adam what basis do you have for accepting the Genesis account of a real literal historical Abraham?
Paul, or Saul as he had been known, had been a Pharisee and an expert in Scripture and he believed in a literal real historical Adam as described in Genesis, did he not? And Paul did say, did he not, that “All Scripture is inspired of God” i.e. God –breathed.
If he was right back then how can he be wrong now? It would be totally illogical, would it not?
Either he was right or he was wrong? Which is it?
Mervin: Paul probably did think of the O.T. narratives (or some of them anyway) as being literal history.
Frank(now): “Probably”? In 1Corinthians 15 Paul refers to the Genesis account of a real literal historical Adam.
Or do you really truly think Paul is referring to a figment, a non-existent person?
This is why when you said creationists need to be called back to the Bible I replied it’s not we creationists but you theistic evolutionists who needs must do that very thing.
Oh dear, believe me when I tell you that I am not being facetious but I do think that certain persons in this forum who if they read this will be getting very hot.
When you say “some of the OT narratives” which ones are you referring to? How do you know this? What’s your basis for saying so?
Mervin: They would have had no reason to think differently about such things then.
Frank(now): Who are “they”? What “reasons” and knowledge were “they” lacking that we now possess?
Mervin: We know a few more things now that Paul was not privileged (so far as we know) to know for himself.
Frank(now): What few more things do we know now that Paul, an apostle chosen by Jesus Christ, didn’t know? What privileges that we now have were withheld from Paul?
Mervin: If this bothers you, we can discuss it more.
Frank(now): No. Nothing that you said “bothers” me. It is my genuine hope, however, that my questions which hopefully you accept in the right spirit, may cause you to do some serious thinking about how you interpret and esteem the Scriptures.
Mervin: As to whether he [Paul, or Scriptures] is right or wrong – this is a bit of a simplistic question, is it not?
Frank(now): Of course it is a simple question. It’s the principle of Occam’s razor, right? The simplest solution is usually correct.
Either Paul, who was speaking under influence of the infallible Holy Spirit, was speaking the truth or he was not? What needs to be complex about this in order to determine the truth of the matter?
Mervin: Are we not permitted to question your understanding of how to read Scripture without thinking that this must be equivalent to questioning Scriptures themselves?
Frank(now): Of course you are permitted to question me. I’ve no objections at all, why would I?
But you’re attributing to me something I have neither thought nor said, namely, “without thinking that this must be equivalent to questioning Scriptures themselves? “
This is a misrepresentation of my position.
Am I permitted to question your understanding of Scripture?
Are you of the opinion – in the way that you attribute to me something I have not claimed – that to question you must be the equivalent of questioning Scriptures themselves?
Mervin: For you to insist that you have access to the line on how we must understand Scripture is to insist on two things: 1. Scriptures are infallible in all they affirm. 2. You are infallible in determining exactly what that is. On the first proposition, many of us here would accept it though perhaps not all of us. Proposition #2 is not at all biblical in any way or form and is rejected by nearly everyone who has the humility to see this about themselves. It is a huge blind spot for recently fundamentalist creationists who have trouble even acknowledging the existence of #2. We can discuss that more if needed.
Frank(now) Whoa! Where have I said I have “access to the line on how we must understand Scripture” ?
Please do not put words into my mouth that I have not uttered nor have even thought. To do so is to totally misrepresent me.
As to your “fundamentalist” comment this is a word that has come over time to take on different meanings and is very loaded and I should like you to explain in which way you intend it to be taken.
Mervin: More can be said about other interesting observations you made (regarding circumcision), but I see others have given some response already too. Let me just leave this again, with an expression of appreciation for your patience and civility with me (and all of us). You are to be commended, sir. And I hope and pray that I don’t write anything here that will end up discouraging or shipwreck your faith. I am acutely aware of Jesus’ words about those who create stumbling blocks for others. Such a curse falls on me if I do – and also impels me to passionately warn brothers or sisters if I am convicted they may be engaged in the same dangerous practice. Hence our labors here to sharpen each other on these points.
Blessings to you. Will continue responses as you may wish.
Frank(now): Mervin, my brother in Christ, let me put your mind at rest on one thing, please. No man on the planet could shipwreck my faith. My Father is my protector. The only way in which I could become a shipwrecked castaway is IF Father, for some most righteous and justifiable reason – and He has righteous and justifiable reasons for so doing, decided to cast me away. In such an event I would offer no defence. But I have no cause to think that He, who is so merciful forgiving and with Amazing Grace who has filled me to over-brimming with faith and hope would ever do such a thing.
Well, this has been an interesting for me and challenging post and I thank you for exercising my mind and to have done so in such a manner.
It’s also been “lively” and I take your comments good naturedly in the spirit they were intended and I do hope and feel sure you will take my somewhat mildly combative style – some old behaviours die slowly – in the same spirit of respect and friendliness as brothers in Christ.
You’re in my prayers.
[quote=“Frank, post:42, topic:35009, full:true”]
Bald hearsay? [/quote]
You’ve presented hearsay, not evidence, Frank. I’ve challenged two false claims you’ve made:
-
until recently 98 percent of the genome was "dismissed as junk DNA, “”
-
“actually that 98 percent that people thought was junk isn’t junk at all. It’s absolutely essential to the maintenance of life.”
You haven’t supported either one at all. We can’t have a meaningful conversation if we start from falsehoods.
[quote]… leads me to conclude that further discussion will not be meaningful as I have no wish to argue simply for the sake of arguing.
[/quote]I think you found that you couldn’t support your false claims.
By the way, Steve was a bit subtle in pointing this out, but do you realize that you’ve literally expended far more effort defending Tomkins than Tomkins bothered to expend in doing the “work” you are touting?
2 Likes
Given the poster’s history, I did suspect it was wrong, which was why I watched the Super Bowl rather than wasting my time tracking down the error. But, really, there is no point even in that, since it’s the silliest apologetic argument that I’ve ever heard. I can’t imagine bringing it up with one of my atheist friends. They would laugh me out of the building…
2 Likes
Okay, thanks for this which gives me more insight into the membership of this forum - appreciated.
If the time ever comes when you want to seriously discuss matters let me know
A slight problem with this. Hutton proposed uniformitarianism 100 years before Darwin. Many of the early geologists were opposed to evolution but believed in an old earth.
How is it a logical fallacy to say that God created the universe which is controlled by natural laws and those laws are the same today as they were in the past?
1 Like
Hope that clarifies my position a bit!
Yes that clarifies your position. Biblical teaching is that Adam and Eve were the first persons (man and women) that were created by God in His image and with a spiritual nature. It may be inferred that other people existed and that they came to know about God from Adam.
1 Like
This one did actually make me laugh out loud. Also, I note that the text extends well past the chest area.
3 Likes
Indeed. Genesis says that Adam was the first Imago Dei creature. But that doesn’t require that there were no other hominids at the time. It is also possible that Adam could be AN ANCESTOR of all humans today but not be the only hominid of that era from which we are descended. Accordingly, all humans today could have “inherited” the Image of God from Adam but also have inherited genes from other hominids of that era such that there is no “genetic bottleneck” problem with our being Adamic descendants.
Of course, this is just my own approach to making sense of what I know of the Hebrew text of Genesis and what I know of the science. It is my working hypothesis, so to speak.
When Cain fled to another area and married and founded a city, I’ve assumed that Cain’s wife was a non-Adamic hominid, similar to Cain in every genetic sense but lacking the IMAGO DEI endowment that was exclusive to descendants of Adam. Their children would have been Adamic descendants, obviously, so they too would have the Image of God within them. In this manner, after sufficient generations, all Homo sapiens could have eventually become Imago Dei creatures and all would be descendants of Adam.
Hi Frank,
You know that you just accused Lynn Munter of being flippant just because she is not an orthodox Christian. Is that really the direction you want to take? And you make this accusation after all the noise you have made about the tone of the forum?!
Not sure what to make of this latest development. I hope I’m seriously misunderstanding something.
Best regards,
Chris Falter
2 Likes
While I have had similar musings, one problem that that presents is that it implies the IMAGO DEI is somehow endowed through the genetic code. You get the same issues that you do if you consider sin to be an inherited genetic condition. In a sense, they may well be related depending on how you define what it means to be made in God’s image. Perhaps if you define it as being a moral agent, then maybe that capacity is somehow inherited, though perhaps not genetically, but rather through epigenetics and culturally. Just a thought.
I was assuming exactly the opposite. Indeed, as I recall, Roman Catholic theology assumes that a mother and father pass along the Imago Dei to their offspring but not through the DNA. They assume that it is a “spiritual” process, not a genetic code process. (I’ve heard Baptists and IFCA preachers claim virtually the same thing, so your idea is actually new to me. When I was a Young Earth Creationist long ago, that idea of “soul multiplication” was common in my church, though nobody was dogmatic about it.)
In any case, I did not assume that the Imago Dei was just another genetic characteristic of the species. (Of course, theologians assumed that various anatomical capabilities must be present for the Imago Dei to be fully “expressed”, such as the fact that being able to articulate various Image of God thoughts in human relationships requires sufficient vocal cords.)
I think I recall theologians of long ago who discussed whether God endows his image on each new human being at conception by simultaneously giving the person a soul OR whether the parents’ souls somehow “automatically” create a new soul at the moment of conception. There may even have been a Church Father (??) who imagined how “visiting the sins of the fathers on the third or fourth generation” may be imparted through some kind of “soulish inheritance.” (My recollections are vague. I am far too old to remember what I read in grad school.)