The discussion on Adam and Eve being the first humans (or not)

Faith & Science Conversation
81

The moment the guy claimed that scripture “promotes slavery” he threw out his own argument!

Good video, though – definitely the “post-modern mumbo-jumbo” part.

Only of you ignore the worldview of the time and import a modern, Western, linear-binary approach to the text.

There was none – canonization happened from the ground up, it was not decided by a council, only affirmed.

We are --even according to enthusiastic skeptics – at least 98% sure of what the original NT text was, and about the same for the Old. In term of meaning, we are 99.8% sure according to the same skeptics.

That’s only circular if you impose a MSWV onto the text.

1 Like
82

Because without knowing the original worldview you are only making subjective guesses at what the meaning is.

No, because you still have to go with what the words mean – you can’t just declare that “no one does good” doesn’t mean that or that “that doesn’t count because it’s Jewish” – you have to address the words of the text, not judge the text as you do.

No, it isn’t – but you still have to stick to the text.

Romans 14 doesn’t change the meaning of Acts 15. It represents a development, but not a contradiction.

That’s true but it’s no reason to bail – one should always stick around to see if there is supporting material presented later (unless of course as with AiG material they start out with blatant lies about the evidence).

Or was deliberately changed – the evidence that the Masoretes did exactly that is pretty solid.

1 Like
83

I am not sure where you got that statistic from but I am sure it is wrong. Very few humans dare to claim a nie on perfect understanding of Scripture (Or anything else)

So you allow an ANE view but not a MSWV view?

What makes one more acceptable than the other?

You have yet to convince me that either have any value.

Besides the circular argument is not MSWV it is purely observational. You cannot deny that the HS view is based on 2 Tim 3?
And to Claim that the reason for believing 2 Tim 3 is your nderstanding of 2 Tim 3 is circular, in anyone’s book (except yours and those who think like you)

Would need those editors to be under the influence of the Holy Spirit also.

And here is my big problem with your views.

They are basically cessationist, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit is still at work but you are claiming that only historical (ancient) examples are valid.

If the constant is the Holy Spirit rather than the person, or persons then anyone whos is baptised in, and utilises the holy Spirit is of the same authority.

(I am such a person, but am not seeking to get you recogniition , only to point out your fallacy)

Richard

84

A discussion between Bart Ehrman and a couple of other guys – of the ~2% of passages we aren’t sure about, 80% of those don’t change the meaning in the slightest (I’ve seen it put higher, but stuck with the one source).

Of course. Unless you can show that the original writer(s) and audience(s) held a MSWV, forcing one onto the text is guaranteed to get things wrong.

You constantly use a MSWV (modified by post-modernistic solipsism) to read scripture, so it seems you have convinced yourself of its value.

LOL

By claiming “observational” you just went with a MSWV, because your use of “observational” relies on a linear, binary understanding of the world.

It rests on II Peter 1 as well, plus a multitude of passages in the Prophets.

I made no such claim. Here’s what I wrote:

Specifically, you do not understand how the word “true”, that you employ in your #2, fits into the worldview of the time – “true” as in “trustworthy” – or that under the worldview of the time your #3 and #4 are actually correct. “Scripture” was not a set of books found on some list, it was a category of writing that at the time could (still) be added to, and so when the church canonized II Timothy, it became a member of that category and thus the reflexive description applied.

You have to force a MSWV on the text to see circular reasoning there.

No – the Holy Spirit does not give courses in history, culture, or linguistics, which means that those lacking the appropriate knowledge aren’t going to “bring forth treasure” as well as those who are.
Your statement shows binary thinking again, when things aren’t binary.

2 Likes
85

FOFL

Your true colours at last!

Education, education, eucation.

The OT proves that such education is neither there or required. TheHoly Spirit gives the nececasary information as Scripture itself procllaims.

Next box please?

I have no idea what an MSWV entails.

You are cessationist. (My box for you) as well as… (better not, some Moderator might be watching) Lets just say you put rather alot of store in human knowledge and learning.

The whole poiint of the Gospel is that it is simple. Anyone can understand it. and anyone can witness or proclaim it. (There are too many Scriptural examples to even try and cite.)

Richard

86

Really? Where does the text say that?
The writers of the OT were nearly all highly educated (for their time); the exceptions are among the minor prophets and some of the Psalms.
Besides which Jesus praised learning.

You and YECers – don’t even understand what worldview you’re operating in.

Not by any ordinary definition.

87

Your view of what constitutes HS inspirqtion is…

RIchard

88

I would have to search to get the author right (I have one annoying citation that says “there’s a book written back at this time” without giving other info), but one mid-1600’s writer argued, based on the differences between Genesis 1 and 2 among other exegetical considerations, that humanity was appreciably older than Adam and Eve. Memory is not getting farther than Isaac de la for the author’s name. It’s interesting as an example of speculation on the topic based on exegesis without the impetus of modern science.

2 Likes
89

My view is the historical position of the church.

90

Perhaps Isaac La Peyrère? As I recall he also used Paul’s letters to support his view, not just Genesis.

Those are extremely valuable! It’s why I’ve never had a problem with an “old Earth”: Hebrew scholars as early as the eighth century saw vast amount of time in Genesis 1, which tells me that a truly ancient Earth is not contrary to scripture –
though some of the speculation was rather fanciful, especially the strain that came up with the Creation being a trillion years old before the Earth was made.

1 Like
91

And where is that in Scripture?

Richard

92

Yes, La Peyrère. As Dal Prete ( On the Edge of Eternity. The Antiquity of the Earth in Medieval and Early Modern Europe) has shown, speculation that the earth might have essentially infinite age was present from the early church, as well as a range of other possible ages.

3 Likes
93

I won’t deny that the possibility of Adam and Eve having children while in the garden is possible, though I also wouldn’t say it is necessarily preferable to the view that the people Cain met were not related to him, unless you are an YEC and you have to believe that Adam and Eve were the literal first parents of the entire human race. This is true of a lot of YEC hypotheses, like baraminology or flood geology. They are sometimes logically valid concepts which could work in the the real world, but there isn’t any reason based on the evidence to choose them over a non-YEC view.

1 Like
94

We have danced around literal of the Garden narrative and conveniently ignored the scientific impossibility of creating any viable race from a gene pool of 2 let alone the diversity of the human race as a whole.
I know science is not supposed to impinge on theology but there comes a point (probably several) when you just have to admit that reality denies a literal view of Scripture, be it Genesis 1 or later.

Richard

1 Like
95

It is worth noting how literal reading is understood - literal reading is often used in legal documents, technical manuals, and other texts where precise and unambiguous interpretation is essential. However, it may not always be suitable for literary works, poetry, or texts with rich symbolic content, where deeper or multiple layers of meaning are intended.

2 Likes
96

Then there are a few ancient literary types where a story is to be taken literally within itself but not with respect to anything outside. Though OTOH that’s not a s alien to us moderns as it first seems – we do the same with stories with a moral – yet when that is asserted about the Creation stories in Genesis people insist that it is either totally literal in all instances or is meaningless.

2 Likes
97

Nothing is impossible as long as it doesn’t break the laws of physics (miracles notwithstanding), but it is really unlikely which is why I don’t think that Adam and Eve were the only humans at the time.

98

Generally, I am intrigued by a comparison between oral and literal communication. A summary using AI shows oral communication offers immediacy, emotional richness, and flexibility, while literal reading provides precision, permanence, and the opportunity for deeper analysis. Both modes have their strengths and are often used complementarily to convey and interpret information effectively.

When we get into specific examples, (and especially religious matters), things for scholars become very complicated (and than add inspiration and guidance by the Holy Spirit!)

99

Are you trying to draw a line between Biology and Physics?

Once you start changing the view of what the Garden is telling,how far do you take the literal? If Adam and Eve are not the progenitors of all humanity, as their names would imply, any doctrine based on their ancestrry, such as Original or endemic sin is no longe valid… For Adam (or sin) to have corrupted nature there must have been a literal Adam. with all the details intact.

It would seem that theology (or doctrine) takes presidence over any sort of reaiity.

That sounds like a "“get out claus” so that you can continue to beleive what you will about humanity being corrupt(ed)

Richard

100

Ok let]s strip away the details of the Garden narrative.

Did God intend humanity to be sentient? (To have the knowledge of good and evil)

The Garden narrative says No!

Once we reached sentience. Oncw we could choose whther to obey God or not. (Do evil or not) Did God know that someone, anyone, would say No (Do evil)

The answer to that must be yes! (Otherwise God is a fool or at least not ominpotent)

Therefore when it happened, because happen it must, why would God loose His temper?

And when it happened,if that act corrupted all of humankind, then iGod wuld know thqt also, making Him eithr incompetent, or a fool!

Humanity has to be able to say No to God without consequwnce (Otherwise God is a vicious, selfish and angry God who has lost cotrol of his creation)

@mitchellmckain children say no. Parents do not fly off the handle everytime they do so. Yes there is some monor punishments (Discouraged by modern ethics). but they know and expect it. There is no reason to sggest that once a child says no they will always do it (By habbit!)

@St.Roymond . No matter whether it happened in the Garden or elsewhere, someone was always going to disobey God (as long as they knew what God wanted). That act cannot corrupt creation unless God intended it to! (And that throws up some very uncomfortable repercussions)

No has to be a valid answer… We accept it from God why should He not accept it from us!

God cannot punnish humanty for saying No to Him (sinning)! it makes life absolutely pointless. (And God a meglomaniac)

Richard

Edit.
The whole notion o Good and evil is artificial. It only applies if you factor in God (good) and maybe the Devil (evil). The world is amoral. There is no good and / or evil. Morals only apply to society, as a check . Fairness? compassion? the right to live? theya are human vaues! Claming them on behalf of God is declaring the God inists on them . claiming Hell is to claim that God insists on them.
If you forgive someone who beneifits (most)? The reciever!. God does not beneft from His forgiveness. We do!. It matters not to God whether we accept His forgiveness or not, He has forgiven, that is it…