Ringwoodite...is it a direct result of Noahs flood

Faith & Science Conversation
21

That’s an interesting path to me because I never considered YEC to be any more than an interesting bit of conjecture, which was how I regarded TOE; they were just human ideas I could be entertained by. For me that changed when I learned ancient Hebrew and how it fit into the ancient near east, and studied the cultures and the common worldview and the types of literature. My deep “Aha!” moment came in a seminar where a visiting scholar described a certain kind of literature that is found throughout the ancient near east pretty much right up to the time of the Babylonian Exile, and as I was taking notes I suddenly stopped writing as it hit me that he had just described the first Genesis Creation account. For the first time I grasped on a deeper level than the intellectual that Genesis really was ancient literature, and that God had spoken to people back then in ways that they could understand.

That totally wiped out YEC as a possibility because it made clear that the opening chapters of Genesis are completely a wrong type of literature for YEC to be correct, that if someone toady could tell someone from back then about the YEC view of that Creation account that ancient believer wouldn’t have the slightest idea what they were talking about because YEC addresses the Creation account on only a superficial level and in a way that arose in western society some two millennia later. The YEC view throws out almost all the meaning of the ancient literature by trying to force it to be modern American English prose, totally losing the triumphant messages it really contains.
And when it comes to the Flood, the YEC view is automatically suspect because it is the same distortion that reduces the Creation account to something like a diary entry by a friend’s great-grandfather writing about something he observed – but even more, it is suspect because it operates on the premise that God forced the ancient writer to set things down using a worldview that wouldn’t arise for centuries, namely that in order to be true an account has to be scientifically and historically accurate, which happens to be a premise that cannot be found in the scriptures but comes instead from scientific materialism (a human philosophy that is at root atheistic).

The conditions of such a “breakup” are the exact opposite of what would form ringwoodite, which you would know if you’d actually read the articles you linked. Ringwoodite forms when you increase temperature and pressure enough, not when you suddenly decrease them.

original text:

הָאָ֗רֶץ הָֽיְתָ֥ה תֹ֨הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְח֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְה֑וֹם וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם:

I highlighted the word for “the deep” because it’s critical. The term doesn’t refer to an ocean, it refers to the universe itself. So when we read that the Spirit was hovering/meditating over the surface of the waters, it isn’t talking about a planet covered with water, it;s talking about a universe filled with waters. We don’t get a planet covered with waters until verses 6-7.

This is a case of “the question is wrong”: it’s reading Genesis 1 like it was a train schedule when it’s actually literature totally unlike that. It’s also making the error of thinking that Genesis is meant to be teaching science for modern humans rather than speaking to the people millennia ago in terms they understood.
These are insulting to the ancient audience, along with the ancient writer, and to the Spirit whose inspiration was given to communicate to those people at that time.

2 Likes
22

Talk about using verses to deceive! Rev. 21:4 has absolutely nothing to do with Adam and Eve.

Because physical death is a result of spiritual death.

Science isn’t even involved. Claiming it is is the huge error on which YEC is founded.

23

Joining late. I just skimmed …

I am not going to read everything, but … I think I have a few things to add to the conversation …

I have a masters in physics. I was a classroom science teacher for nine years. Mostly I taught high school physics, but … Pretty much all of the geology I know I taught myself for 3 years when I had to teach 8th grade earth science at this one private school (Read: Not a geology expert.) … I grew up a YEC, but I no longer interpret Genesis literally. I love Jesus and try to attend church every Sunday. (Now you know my backstory.)

Adam, I really appreciate your candor and eagerness to engage. You seem very genuine. I appreciate your willingness to have a scientific dialogue and delve into these issues. You’ve been civil and appear earnest. I respect that, and I believe you to be acting in good faith.

But why are you here? I know you stated in your opening that you wanted some counter perspective on the YEC ringwoodite claim—but why are you really here? What are you looking for? What are you hoping to accomplish?

Did you come for a scientific debate? Well, you got it. I saw a flurry of articles getting posted back and forth with arguments and rebuttals. If you came for that, you got it. Objective achieved.

Did you come here hoping to be proven wrong? If you did, that option is available to you. I skimmed over some pretty good “debunking” posts explaining away the presence of ringwoodite and explaining where the water comes from … if you came seeking to be convinced the YECs are wrong on that, you can have that if you want it—if that’s what you came for …

Did you come to be proven right? Are you just here to convince yourself that you aren’t wrong—that your YEC ideas are correct? If that’s the case, no one here will be able to convince you. The matter is already settled in your mind.

YEC is rightly labeled as a “pseudoscience” because it is unfalsifiable. You believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and that’s it. There is no evidence which can convince the YE Creationist. As soon as a counter argument is presented to the YEC, they just pivot and come up with some new or alternative way that God might have done things. You want there to be water deep within the earth, because Genesis says waters welled up from deep within the earth and that contributed to the flood. That’s your starting assumption, and you won’t break with that. It is your unfalsifiable premise. In science, there is no such thing as an unfalsifiable premise. We change our starting assumptions all the time. (Except for two: That the universe is orderly and that it can be understood.) If you’re unwilling to admit the possibility that you could be wrong (by holding on to an unfalsifiable premise), then you can’t possibly hope to have an honest scientific dialogue …

Which brings me back to my question: Why are you here? Are you looking to be convinced? Are you trying to convince yourself that you’re right? Or, are you engaging in an honest pursuit of the truth?

If you want to be convinced on the science, I think there’s enough of that here … you wrote:

Yes, but in what form? As St.Roymond pointed out, that graphic was extremely misleading (either willfully or ignorantly so). That water is locked up in the crystals. It’s not liquid. Is there water there? Yes. Is it easy to extract? No.

NileRed posted an interesting video, “I still can’t believe that Epsom Salt is mostly water”. Give that a watch. (NileRed puts out some of the best chemistry content on all of YouTube.) Yes, it’s true that there is water in epsom salt, but … it’s locked up pretty tight. I only glossed over the “science” arguments on this thread briefly, but … it seemed to me the “water” in the ringwoodite is analogous to the “water” in the epsom salt …

Is that the source of the water that God used to create the flood? When the water receded, is that where it went? Sure—if you want to believe that. You can believe whatever you want, and no one on here will be able to convince you otherwise … because the answers and conclusions were decided before the questions were even asked …

… but notice how DIFFICULT it was for NileRed to extract that water from the Epsom salt … Was it easy for him? No. Would it be easier for God? Sure. He can do anything … but, in science, we seek natural explanations for things … Science is wholly incapable of dealing with the supernatural, so … Scientists tend to just steer clear of it, because it is outside of their purview, but … If you want to believe that was the water God used, then sure—you can craft some YEC explanation that involves that fact … If it’s very clever and sounds really smart, maybe you can convince Ken Ham to include your new theory as another possibility whenever they get around to updating the signage at the Creation Science Museum …

[That’s a sarcastic joke—but it’s also not … There are a LOT of scientists in the world. If you can find three of them that agree with you, all it would take is for them to collaborate together, write an article for Answers in Genesis, contact the CSM, and I’m 99.9% convinced you could make this happen … I’m not sure how sarcastic the joke is when it can so easily become a reality … I think it’s more of an observation at that point …]

But is that what actually happened? We’ll never know. No one was there. All anyone has are their best guesses, but … How many times must God intervene? Extracting the water from those rocks—it’s pretty tough. Will you be satisfied with a natural explanation? Sure—you’d be delighted if you could find one which fits your priors. But what if there isn’t one? Well … then you just have to default to “God did it”—but how many times are you going to fall back on that? Which brings me to my next question: Which is more likely: that your interpretation of Genesis is correct and God intervened over and over and over again—supernaturally—circumventing the laws of nature in novel ways that have never before been done and were never done again since then and that every single minor detail of every part of the Genesis story played out exactly as the Bible says … is ALL of that true and the case … or are you wrong and maybe things played out a different way?

Neither of those answers is easy to choose—by the way … I sigh and shake my head when I see YECs arguing. Those mental gymnastics aren’t easy—but what is their alternative? Admit they are wrong and give up their literalist view of the Bible … but that requires an entire rethinking of one’s worldview—which is REALLY hard to do … and, Ken Ham has most of them scared that if they take one step towards the TE camp they will slide fast and hard towards atheism—which isn’t true, but … That’s the kind of binary thinking that gets people trapped …

You seem to have pivoted to theology in your last post, Adam. I’d be happy to engage on that, but I think this long monologue is sufficient for now—as I’ve “added to the conversation”, provided some perspective (maybe shed some light on the motivation behind your question?), and also dropped some “easy science” (via NileRed) which tangentially addressed your opening post …

For me, the science became overwhelming. I couldn’t hold onto my intellectual integrity and interpret Genesis literally. Did I throw out my Bible? No—but if I was looking for an excuse to “deconvert” and turn to atheism, I had one … I just didn’t want to, so I kept my faith.

I read Genesis as allegory. It can be spiritually true without being literally true. What happened in the garden and whether or not there was a flood has NOTHING to do with what Christ did on the cross … so it’s not a big deal for me. It doesn’t change my daily Christian faith practice. I had to adjust some of my theology, but that was preferable to the mental dissonance required for me to toss out large swathes of science I knew was true …

I hope this was useful food for thought. What you choose to believe is your choice. All I can do is share my own thinking and chain of logic. You have to craft your own.

7 Likes
24

Well said!

I’m with St.Roymond … it reads more like a metaphor to me …

In my mind, the core issue is biblical authority. YEC protects literalism/inerrancy which protects a high view of scripture. It is VERY EASY to say the Bible is infallible, perfect, and can only be interpreted literally … It takes out a LOT of the guesswork, and you never have to worry about biblical authority or doubting the Bible, because you’ve wrapped it all into one big, unquestionable ball … Once you drop YEC, you drop your certainty and things become a LOT messier … there is a new set of uncomfortable questions and issues to work through, but … you get to believe in science—which is a nice perk.

And I half agree with:

A literal interpretation of Genesis is incompatible with modern science. One cannot fully embrace both. Either you trust the Bible and its 6000 year old age of the earth, or you trust science (Astronomy, Physics, Geology, Biology—which ALL point to an old earth in various ways) and its 4.5 billion year estimate …

It SHOULDN’T involve science—but it does … The YECs have tied their literal interpretation of the Bible to their belief in its authority, so for them, it does involve science … it does not have to—but it does for them, because they have attempted to inextricably link inerrant Bible with literalist interpretation and trustworthiness of scripture and God. So long as all of those issues are bound up together, this debate will ALWAYS involve science …

So, that’s where you’re half wrong, but then you’re also half right, because Bible interpretation does not necessarily have anything to do with science … For you and I and everyone else who’s not a YEC, that’s true—but it’s not for them.

In my mind, the most difficult part of walking away from YEC is answering the question, “So what do I do with the Bible now?” When the only way you comprehend the trustworthiness of scripture is through the lens of your literalist interpretation, walking away from YEC means devising a new framework—and that’s not easy. It’s not enough to accept the science. One must also devise a way to hang on to their faith, and you need a different mechanism by which you can establish biblical authority in order to maintain a high view of scripture …

1 Like
25

The Flood story is, in literary terms, myth, which does not mean “fiction”, it means taking a real event and adding mythological features which include poetical, symbolic, hyperbole, and more. To avoid confusion I prefer to call it “mythologized”.

Ironically, though, there is nothing anywhere in the scriptures that even remotely suggests that there should be any science content at all. Historically, the idea that the scriptures teach science came from the philosophy of scientific materialism infecting the church with the idea that to be true, accounts have to be 100% scientifically and historically accurate – a definition of truth that would baffle most of the ancient writers (if not all of them).

Long ago the answer to this was given in the Nicene Creed, which affirms the essential elements of what the scriptures tell us about God, and at the center is the Incarnation: we don’t trust the Bible because it is inerrant, we trust it because it tells us about the One Who is both God and Man.

2 Likes
26

What is the Hydroplate theory?
The earth had: a layer of subterranean water, at least 1 mile thick, 60 miles below the surface between the granite crust and the mantle; a globe encircling granite continent that is sealed. About half the earth’s water is in the subterranean layer, the other half on the surface. In time the granite crust develops a crack, the super critical water erupts, ripping the crust roughly along the path of the mid oceanic ridges, 40,000+ miles long. The super critical water near the rupture expands and cools as pressure drops to zero shooting water up into the atmosphere carrying rock and sediment with it. With the crust now in multiple large pieces, it flexes and bends putting stress on the quartz in the granite, generating electrical currents leading to creation of the earth’s radioactivity, adding more energy to the subterranean water allowing it to launch rock and water into space. The rupture above the mid oceanic ridges erodes to a width 1400 miles. In time the top of the mantle at the soon to be formed oceanic ridges became unstable with the crust removed from above it. Starting in the Atlantic the top of the mantle sprang upward forming the oceanic ridge, the Pacific basin was sucked downward, the continents slid away from the rising Atlantic towards the sinking Pacific. The supercritical water remaining under the crust lubricated the slide. When the continents ran into resistance they ground to a halt forming mountain ranges etc. The continents stopped in their current positions.

In relation to this thread: the deep water in the ringwoodite would have nothing to do with the water used to eject rock into space.

In relation to the closed thread on asteroids: The Hydroplate theory makes even larger claims. The flood ejected the material that formed meteorites, asteroids, irregular moons in the solar system, comets and TNO’s. 3-4% of the earth’s mass.

In the sedimentary rock thread I will address sediments.

What I wrote is the briefest of overviews. Read Dr Brown book online for all the details.

27

Right there is enough to show that the so-called hydroplate theory is nothing but bad science fiction.

And that’s arguably even worse science fiction, since such a process would vaporize the planet.

1 Like
28

“Alice laughed. ‘There’s no use trying,’ she said. ‘One can’t believe impossible things.’

I daresay you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

  1. Super critical water could be contained in subterranean caverns

  2. Electric currents would create the earth’s radioactivity

  3. Atlantis was an advanced alien civilization consisting of an enormous flying saucer from the planet Zorg.

  4. There was sufficient energy to eject material to make up all the asteroids and various moons in the solar system, without vaporizing the earth.

  5. That cooling could take place without heat transfer.

  6. We do not already have a detailed and continuous record of the state of the planet for the past tens of thousands of years, in tree rings, carbon dating, lake varves; and extending to hundreds of thousands of years in ice layers, speleothems, coral formations, magnetic features, and geological formations.

Porridge.

Of the above, perhaps #3 warrants consideration.

3 Likes
29

Dear Y E C; can I ask you to reconcile Day Two - lifting half the waters of Creation above the vault of the sky (firmament) leaving the other half below to be seas (I don’t think earth even emerged until Day Three?)
Then on Day Four the rest of the visible universe winds up within the vault of the sky, hence beneath the waters of Day Two. Yet Creation cannot lie and does not deliberately mislead. It includes Planet Earth in orbit around the nearest star.
Then peek at the first three verses of Genesis. God invents time (in the beginning) space and matter (created the heavens and the earth) -
and light in verse 3; do you see the Holy Spirit leaning over Moses’ shoulder, and winking at the Age of Science, saying in effect “you have described the moment of Creation as the Big Bang - spot on!!”
Yet verse two grandfathers in the pagan vision of the universe beginning as vast waters, with unformed earth lurking beneath, plus firmament and so on?
Genesis is about the Creator. Ask yourself why God would hint at the Big Bang yet, vs. a choice to simplify - one chapter revealing God as Creator - intentional, holy, all powerful - rather than ten thousand pages of technospeak to describe the 13.78 billion year history of the universe - galaxies, stars, fusion of elements up to #26 (iron) then fusion of all other elements via (choose one) colliding neutron stars vs uber-supernovae.
Sun age 5 billion years, all planets about 4.5 billion years, collision of something the size of Mars with earth resulting in our moon, - - really? Ten thousand pages of literal science, fact, notebook, diary - - - or one page that reveals God as Creator. Take your pick?
My inclination is that God had two issues to address, one being the specifics of Creation (those ten thousand pages) and the other, of actual importance, displacing the pagan cast of half a thousand godlets with sinful natures (lazy, promiscuous, needy, woundable, killable, and SO much more) with One GOD Almighty, righteous, holy, intentional, all knowing.
The real Flood covered the flat floodplain of Mesopotamia about 30 feet deep, over such a vast distance that the curvature of the earth meant the only horizon was water (“covered the mountains”.) The pagan view was that the godlets killed one of their number to get blood. They mixed it with dust [hint - we are made from dust] to generate seven breeding pairs of humans to do the labor necessary to feed the gods. We were made to be drudges, but they forgot (ooooops) that we were good little breeders and filled the earth. Our noise destroyed the godets’ quality of life, so they made a Flood, a deliberate genocide.
God’s Flood, like the watery beginning, firmament, waters above it, and so on, was a must-specify element. God’s holiness appears when only (and all ) pagans die - the death pains of a million pagan souls moved God to endure the inevitable apostasy of Noah’s tribe rather than use a second (up to Nth) Flood and start over “anew” time after time. The original pagan choice, since the Flood nearly committed them to starvation, was to curse the offspring of Utnapishtim (the precursor to Noah) with disease and plague, to keep their numbers reasonable.
Turn by turn, Genesis uses vignette - story - to illustrate God as Love, Power, Forethought, Righteousness, and Parent. Story uses simple but pungent details and simple choices to illustrate profound theological truths. Bible stories today deliver these deep messages to five-year-olds. Let that instruct your thinking about the use of Story in Genesis.
Genesis collides head on with the fact of the real Creation, beginning with the Big Bang.
Dwell on that.

30

“A literal interpretation of Genesis is incompatible with modern science. One cannot fully embrace both. Either you trust the Bible and its 6000 year old age of the earth, or you trust science (Astronomy, Physics, Geology, Biology—which ALL point to an old earth in various ways) and its 4.5 billion year estimate …”
Since science is all fact all the time;
and Since science adores and obsesses over Creation;
and Since Day Four placing the rest of the visible universe beneath the waters set above the vault of the sky (firmament) on Day Two;
and Since verses 1 and three literally show God causing the Big Bang (inventing time, space, matter, and light)
AND Since Creation features planet earth in orbit around the nearest star,
THEREFORE Genesis is theology delivered in small bites (stories) that are easy to remember, are simple enough to pass down to children, and which encapsulate profound theology.
Or would you prefer that God, in order to make Genesis literal, had spent ten thousand pages explaining the laws of physics, the cosmology of the big bang, the fusing of lighter elements into heavier ones in stars, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. etc. - - Or would it have served God’s purpose better to assert being Creator, holy, loving, righteous, intentional, and forgiving?
Umm, Rabbi, can I leave now? My brain is full.
Where would the glory of God as author of the universe, Who created it so that we would be here to love? Where would be that glory, if filtered among then thousand pages of technospeak?
Dwell on that.

1 Like
31

The claim that there is an underground ocean is the direct result of journalistic hype. It’s geologically highly inaccurate. Although YEC aren’t to blame for such hype, they often build unjustifiable claims on such hype.

Certain minerals at earth’s surface contain water in their crystal structure. Perhaps the most familiar is gypsum, aka plaster. Mixing the plaster of Paris powder (powdered anhydrite) with water leads to the formation of gypsum crystals that include the water as part of the crystal structure. Heat plaster enough, and it will crumble and release the water. But the ringwoodite and other deep mantle “water” is minerals containing OH groups, which is not even having water in the crystal structure. Ringwoodite forms deep in the earth simply because there is a lot of silicon, magnesium, and oxygen down there, and at those pressures and temperatures, the ringwoodite structure is the most stable form. It would have been there before the Flood, even under a YEC scenario.

The ringwoodite in the lower mantle is too deep down for any volcanic eruption to bring to the surface. The crystal in the meteorite formed from magnesium, silicon, and oxygen, as did much of the earth, but there’s no closer connection than that for a source.

4 Likes
32

There is clearly two different firmaments: the “firmament” and the “firmament of the heavens.”
The “firmament” is the earth’s granite crust, with preflood water below and above it.
The “firmament of the heavens” is above the earth: sky, space, etc.
Not the common view, but what I believe to be the correct interpretation.
A deeper discussion of this concept on the linked page plus several pages after it.

33

I appreciate your nuance and like your categorization. For myself, I look at the flood myths of other cultures, and since there are so many, I conclude that there probably was some event in the distant past which inspired them. There seems to be geological evidence of large scale regional floods which could have been “the flood” the Bible talks about. (The exact details escape me, but a simple Google search should render possibilities.)

The account of the Garden of Eden is interesting. Many Christians believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I do not. The Hebrew creation myth seems to have a lot of similarities with the Sumerian creation myth. Some say they stole it and “monotheized” it. I find that argument to be very plausible.

I agree. Science is a modern convention. The ancient understanding of these things was much different … but that makes the Bible tricky, because often the Bible claims specific facts which have since been confirmed by modern archaeology. Today, our libraries make the distinction between “fiction” and “nonfiction.” We have science and history and then in a different category, we have literature. These classifications didn’t exist firmly inside the minds of ancient man.

The story of Juris Zarins’ research is interesting. He believed there was a physical, historical location which inspired the story of Adam and Eve. In particular, he was drawn to the Bible’s description of the four headwaters: the Tigris, Euphrates, Pison, and Gihon. He used satellite photography to find a dried up river in Arabia he believes is the Pison. In many places in the Bible, “Cush” refers to Ethiopia, but here, he believes “Cush” is another word for Iran. He says the Gihon is now called the Karun. These four rivers join together and flowed through Eden—which is now under the Persian Gulf. Six thousand years ago, during the ice age when sea levels were much lower, he believes this would have been a lush, swampy, garden region. For him, the story of the Garden of Eden is about transitioning from a hunter-gather lifestyle to an agrarian one. Everything man needed to survive was in paradise, but then paradise was lost, and he had to work the land to survive.

Juris Zarins is an atheist (or was—he died recently), but his whole take sounds correct to me. The documentary “The Hunt for the Garden of Eden” presents his journey through history, literature, archaeology, and science to piece this hypothesis together. His work was published in Smithsonian Magazine.

For me, interpreting Genesis requires a holistic approach. We have these “myths” in Genesis (I take more or less the rest of the Old Testament at face value.), but the Bible does also contain verifiable historical facts. Genesis says there were four headwaters. Were the ancient authors lying? Did they make that up? I don’t think so. I think Zurins’ explanation fits. So, we have this mixing of facts and fiction, and it’s not completely clear where one begins and the other ends …

There are some people in the Reformed tradition who fully believe: “The Bible is inerrant because it came from God, and what we know about God from the Bible is true, because the Bible is inerrant.” They fully admit to using this circular reasoning, and some of them are even proud of it. I believe they have many YECs in their ranks. So while you and I may not subscribe to this kind of thinking, there are many who do. Some are even consciously aware.

I find the Bible to be trustworthy due to affirmations of the Holy Spirit. Believers for thousands of years have considered the Bible to be authoritative. In the book of Nehemiah, Ezra reads the scrolls aloud, and the people were moved. The Corinthians who received Paul’s epistles made copies and spread them around, because the Spirit who resided within them confirmed that Paul’s writings were true. Today, I can open up my Bible, and the scriptures speak to me. How can this be? It’s because the same Spirit who inspired Moses and Paul still exists today and continues to move in the hearts and minds of men and women. He is the “Spirit of Truth” whom Jesus referenced in John 15:26 and John 16:13.

The Nicene Creed is a wonderful artifact of our Christian Heritage. I believe it contains the essentials of the faith, and it was decided upon at a time orthodox Christian doctrine was being challenged. There are other books and writings which discuss Jesus, but I trust the Bible because of how it has impacted and changed my life and the lives of many others going back to the time of Christ.

3 Likes
34

This is incredible. The escape velocity one would need to achieve those large masses reaching orbits … It’s astronomical amounts of kinetic energy. A few simple calculations could demonstrate that easily. Where could that energy possibly have come from? It’s a ridiculous proposition one might only entertain if they are backed into a corner, desperate to honor their preconceived notions …

Well put, Joel!

I was doing research on the topic of biblical inerrancy a few years ago. I watched many of the keynote addresses of the 2015 Shepherd’s Conference which was dubbed, “The Inerrancy Summit.” I wanted to see what the best arguments for inerrancy were. Well, R. C. Sproul gave a presentation with his best argument for inerrancy. (Audio and video both available at that link.) Now, one day, when I get to heaven, I will greet RC as a dear brother and thank him for his dedicated work to build God’s Kingdom. He was a great man. (May he rest in peace.) But I found his argument suspect, and the way I debunked it in my mind was to basically use the same argument you just presented here, Joel.

RC’s thesis is that Jesus—based on the accounts given in the gospels—believed in a literal Adam. Since Jesus was perfect, He would have been incapable of lying. So, to not believe in a literal Adam would be to call Christ a liar, which, if He wasn’t perfect, then the Christian faith fails, because our theology requires a perfect sacrifice and a perfect god-man to enact substitutional atonement. Therefore, Adam was real. Therefore, we should interpret Genesis literally.

Now, everything RC says about the need for Christ to be perfect—I agree with that. (After all, RC is a theologian. I’m not surprised he gets the theology right.) But, it’s like you pointed out, Joel … How would Jesus have explained all of physics and evolutionary theory—everything the crowd would have needed to understand their creation myth as a myth? No, they weren’t ready for that. God “met them where they were”—as is so often the case. So, Christ could have referred to a literal Adam while knowing it was figurative, and I don’t think that necessarily would have been “wrong”—a “sin”—or deceptive or misleading. He was presenting truth to them in a context they could understand.

3 Likes
35

More like >12,000 years ago.

It is specified that he was not omniscient in his human form (not knowing the timing of the second coming, growing in wisdom as a child, etcetera), so that may be a component as well. I am personally inclined towards a literal Adam and Eve, but not certain of it.

36

Scripture is not unitary. We have theology delivered in story-board form (all of Genesis up to chapter 11 verse 10), wisdom, poetry, prophecy, history - and the New Testament is the literal part: eye witness reporting (four gospels and acts) plus letters that embody teaching learned from Christ and the Spirit.
No single part of Scripture is a useful measuring rod for any other part.

37

Christ derived power from the Father, and it fizzled in Bethlehem when the people he grew up among disbelieved Him. It left him again on the Cross when he became sin in our place: God ejected him from his presence (Psalm 22, which Jesus “read into the record” by reciting its first line, depicts crucifixion in agonizing detail, yet shifts, and ends in reconciliation, as a perfect vision of Grace.)
He also disavowed knowing when the End would come.
The first ten chapters and ten verses of Genesis are theology delivered in the form of Bible Stories - they manage to implant profound, subtle theology into the minds of children, much less adults from that early era. Adam and Eve do have real-world counterparts, but so many tens fo hundred-plus thousands of years ago that it is “unllikely” that they every met. Their story, and the Fall, are beautiful; the reality is that as products of evolution every single forbear, all the way back 3.5+ billion years, survived long enough to breed, and bred. We, as products of that long process of selection, are incapable of loving our neighbor equally to ourselves. We are born prewired and preprogrammed to stay alive, and to reproduce. Surely, we are born in sin.
Christ’s perfection lies in never having sinned. That validates his “holy innocent bitter suffering and death” when he became Sin in our place.

1 Like
38

Clear to whom? The text, if literal, allows no such ratiocination,. To be treated as literal, there can be no partial measures. The preflood water above the firmament did not run out - God simply shut off the gates. The “firmament” is the “vault of the heavens” both on Day Two, Day Four, and during the Flood.
Your choice to believe a partial form of a literal Genesis with enabling “disables” to its literality are your privilege, but not the sort of thing that translates into a solid theology.

39

That butchers the text: the expanse/firmament introduced in verse 6 is named by God as “heaven” – and heaven is not made of rock.

2 Likes
40

Not only is this not at all clear, but it is exegetically and lexically unjustifiable. Hydroplate theory is neither Biblical nor scientific, and as it is presented without mathematical support, is not really a theory.

2 Likes