- Overgeneralization: Evidence for Pilate or Hezekiah doesn’t automatically validate Abraham, Adam, or the serpent. The chronological and evidential gaps are vast.
- Genealogical assumption: Lineages in biblical texts do not guarantee historicity; they often serve theological rather than strictly historical functions.
- False dichotomy: Adam frames it as either the Bible is wholly historical or it collapses into meaninglessness, overlooking traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, mainline Protestant) that see deep theological meaning even in symbolic or mythic texts.
- Circular reasoning: He assumes the salvific significance of Christ’s death depends on the historicity of all biblical events, rather than on Christ’s own life and resurrection.
1 Like
-
LOL! Somebody says the salvific significance of Christ’s death depends on the historicity of all biblical events. But every big-name YEC—from Ken Ham to Henry Morris—has admitted that the Gospel does not depend on a Young Earth. They’ll even say openly: “You can be saved without believing the earth is 6,000 years old.”
-
So which is it? If every biblical event has to be literal history for salvation to matter, then by your logic the Gospel already collapsed for YECs the moment they conceded that point. If, on the other hand, salvation does not depend on every single event being historical, then your whole argument against “alternative views” is just a house of cards.
1 Like
Including many fake sayings. It’s not hard to see that the agenda of Thomas was to change Jesus into a Greek philosopher.
Incorrect on both counts.
Great point!
1 Like
That’s not so much circular reasoning as bad Christology and thus bad hermeneutics.
Paul told that if Jesus did not resurrect, our faith is pitiful misunderstanding - we would still be condemned sinners (1 Corinthians 15).
Jesus told to his disciples that it was good that he left them because the Holy Spirit would come after Jesus left (John 16).
The Holy Spirit would lead the disciples to know the truth - the disciples were not ready to receive all the truth when Jesus was with them.
About miracles: if there is just the visible material university, miracles would be difficult to accept. If there is God and He is involved in what happens, then miracles become understandable and logical.
1 Like
Looks like you know your Bible well. Thanks for the info.
Thanks you for the comments. You and Richard G are truly dedicated contributors to Biologos. You might want to read the Gospel of Thomas. When I first was introduced to it 40 years ago, I was amazed.
In Jesus always,
Doug, the biochemist and perhaps a disciple too
I’ve read it in the original. It’s propanganda for Greek philosophy, trying to make Jesus palatable by ditching His real claims. It was plainly written late by someone who wasn’t there.
Im not sure what you mean by created. Your original statement implied one or both of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke may have been simply made up. I would suggest that is not the case, but they differ due to the different emphasis each author had. Matthew, for example, appears to view Jesus as the second Moses. Luke meanwhile views him more in the priestly tradition, like Samuel, and this is reflected in his genealogy. Hence each author included the names of ancestors they viewed as relevant.
Being amazed does not mean what youre reading is true. Why would you choose to believe something written mid to late 2nd century instead of the Gospels, the earliest of which could very well have been written in the 50s or 60s, well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses?