How many study the other side?

[ted]

The story of Adam and Eve is figurative, not literal.

Can it not be both?

Some references to Adam in other Biblical books, certainly point to a literal man, and other books, such as some of Paul's letters, also use the reference to Adam in figurative ways, as well.

t.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

When Jesus said I am the vine you are the branches He didn't mean He transformed into a plant.

There are some things in the Bible- like the vine example- which are clearly metaphors.

It is a very real parable. In like fashion we are branches of the root vine. If we do not abide in our Lord and the very real aspect that His Word is True. We will fall for the lie.

The lie is this, "Did God really say"?

Was there really a man named Adam? That was Created.

When you no longer abide in the Truth of Gods Word. You have become a detatched branch..

Please folks, do not allow logic and reason to steal away the Blessing of Gods Truth as found in His Word. Abide in Him and be nourished.

It is a metaphor but a very real Spiritual application to abide in Jesus and His Word.

The very reason that Solomen could trace his lineage to Adam has a very real applicable reason. It showed the lineage of our Lord Jesus Christ. Trust me if the Pahrisee of the day had been able to discount the lineage of Messiah. he would have thus cutting Him off from His calim to be such as He indeed was. They simply couldn't.

The fact that Jesus can be traced back to Solomen and yes even David and then on back to Adam is important.

He is our Kinsmen Redeemer.

He is the Messiah who came to wash away the stain of sin that has polluted mankind beginning in Adam.

How did the stain get there?

Adam believed the lie;

"Has God really said"?

That is the trick and the lie of your enemy. Begin to doubt God and His Word and your done before we even get started.

Our Salvation is built upon Faith. Faith in what? Gods Word.

This is our Blessed Hope Saints of God.

Logic and Reason will fail but Love abideth forever. Love is the embodiment of Gods Word.

Much Grace to you.

Peace,

Dave

[Guest Car54WhereRU]

The story of Adam and Eve is figurative, not literal.

Can it not be both?

Some references to Adam in other Biblical books, certainly point to a literal man, and other books, such as some of Paul's letters, also use the reference to Adam in figurative ways, as well.

t.

If the story of Adam and Eve is figurative, then does that mean we are figurative too? How could it be both? Where is Adam referred to as a figurative way other than Christ being the second Adam? Just curious.

[RGR]

The story of Adam and Eve is figurative, not literal.

Can it not be both?

Some references to Adam in other Biblical books, certainly point to a literal man, and other books, such as some of Paul's letters, also use the reference to Adam in figurative ways, as well.

t.

If the story of Adam and Eve is figurative, then does that mean we are figurative too? How could it be both? Where is Adam referred to as a figurative way other than Christ being the second Adam? Just curious.

Now there's a user name you don't see every day, lol!

[Crisor]

I have read Paine, Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Kierkegaard (I know the two are Christian, however, modern secular thought is based on their philosophies), Sarte, Nietzsche, and Russell. Though I admit the list is relatively small, I do believe that I have done a fair share of exploring the "other side." In fact, I have read more athiestic "apologists" than I have Christian ones. On the Christian side my reading is limited to Lewis, Schaeffer, Craig, and Pearcey. I am left believing that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, that God is trinity, that He is exactly who the Bible says He is, that Christ died for my sins and was resurrected, and that He will return one day to redeem this world from its fallen state.

Also, it would be wise to drop the discussion on Adam and Eve, lest we bring up infinite regression for the Darwinian evolutionists in the room

I'll ask you the same questions as I asked above. Did you agree with anything they said, with what did you disagree? How is it you came to your conclusions about the bible being "the inerrant Word of God?" Did you study into any other religions before coming to this conclusion? How about ancient religons and what they taught? Do you try to keep up with what modern scholars are saying about the bible outside of your own belief system?

And I do agree, if we could, please keep this on topic. While the Adam and Eve part is interesting to some, this tread is for a completely different purpose.

Thank you

Crisor

[apothanein kerdos]

I have read Paine, Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Kierkegaard (I know the two are Christian, however, modern secular thought is based on their philosophies), Sarte, Nietzsche, and Russell. Though I admit the list is relatively small, I do believe that I have done a fair share of exploring the "other side." In fact, I have read more athiestic "apologists" than I have Christian ones. On the Christian side my reading is limited to Lewis, Schaeffer, Craig, and Pearcey. I am left believing that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, that God is trinity, that He is exactly who the Bible says He is, that Christ died for my sins and was resurrected, and that He will return one day to redeem this world from its fallen state.

Also, it would be wise to drop the discussion on Adam and Eve, lest we bring up infinite regression for the Darwinian evolutionists in the room

I'll ask you the same questions as I asked above. Did you agree with anything they said, with what did you disagree? How is it you came to your conclusions about the bible being "the inerrant Word of God?" Did you study into any other religions before coming to this conclusion? How about ancient religons and what they taught? Do you try to keep up with what modern scholars are saying about the bible outside of your own belief system?

I do agree with certain premises. Such as with Kant, I believe that it is entirely possibly to have knowledge of something without experiencing it (a priori). Likewise, surprisingly enough, I agree somewhat with Nietzsche's "Eternal Recurrence" (found in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"), though I do not agree completely nor draw the same conclusion as he does. He hits on a valid point though, that men attempt to name themselves as the most accomplished in the world, but the fact is, we are merely repeating what someone else has done, we are no better than those before us. To Nietzche, this was despair that lead to Nihilism.

With what did I disagree...I could go on for days. Hume's utilitarian principle doesn't work because it lacks a cause for the utility of man. Kierkegaard's existentialism allows for vastly immoral things so long as they are done in faith. I could go on, but the grounds upon which I disagree rests upon two vital questions:

1) Does this philosophy contradict itself?

2) Does this philosophy work in a real world situation?

If the philosophy cannot work in either setting, then it has become worthless.

I came to my conclusions about the Bible being the inerrent Word of God by studying history, learning the languages, looking at archeological findings, and logical reasoning. If we just look to the four Gospels, we have extra-biblical sources that agree mostly with what the Bible says, archeology has proven them correct (specifically Luke who was doubted but recently many of the things that were doubted have found to have existed during this time), the manner in which it is written is not fantastical or in a mythilogical manner. It is written in a matter of fact way. The evidence simply piles up to prove that it is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the absolute Word of God. Now, there are grammar errors and even translation errors, yet the truth that it presents is consistent and provable. At this point you would probably point to the creation story, to which I respond with the fact it is written poetically and not as an actual account. The message is to show God as the creator and that He placed a special emphasis upon man, not to show the method in which He created.

Did I study any other religions or any ancient religions before comming to this conclusion? No, I came to this conclusion without studying other religions first. However, that being said, I have studied other religions without comparing them to the Bible. I simply use logic and its own writing. Too often they are not livable or are self-contradicting and thus cannot be true. Likewise they do not fit within the method of the world or simply deny human nature. To this day, the only religion I have found that takes a true account of human nature is Christianity. It realizes that we are capable of both good and evil and gives an explanation as to why.

Finally, do I keep up with modern scholars? Of course, I enjoy a good laugh.

Generally, those outside of Christianity that study the Bible do not hold valid qualifications to study the Bible. Most do not know Greek, much less Hebrew. Those that do know Greek know classical Greek, not Koine Greek (what the New Testament was written in). Likewise, the conclusions they draw lack any merit behind them. I point to the "Jesus Seminar" as an example. These modern "scholars" make amazing claims, but when you look for evidence or the reasoning for their claims we find little to none.

[Crisor]

Finally, do I keep up with modern scholars? Of course, I enjoy a good laugh.

Generally, those outside of Christianity that study the Bible do not hold valid qualifications to study the Bible. Most do not know Greek, much less Hebrew. Those that do know Greek know classical Greek, not Koine Greek (what the New Testament was written in). Likewise, the conclusions they draw lack any merit behind them. I point to the "Jesus Seminar" as an example. These modern "scholars" make amazing claims, but when you look for evidence or the reasoning for their claims we find little to none.

No offense, apothanein kerdos, but all this does is show your own ignorance. Basically what your saying is that if you don't agree with what they are saying, then their not true scholars and the only true scholars are those of which you agree. You state that these scholars do not know Koine Greek but Classical Greek. How do you know this? You state "the conclusions they draw lack any merit behind them" and once again I have to ask, how do you know? Are you a biblical scholar to judge wither or not their papers have any validity? If so, please point me to something you have published so that I may read it. You state that those outside of Christianity "do not hold valid qualifications to study the bible," but what of those within Christianity that disagree with your conclusions about the bible being "inerrent?" Are you going to say that they, too, lack the qualifications to study the bible?

You speak of the "Jesus Seminar" as a bad example of modern scholarship. By what method have you come to this conclusion? While I may not agree with their conclusions on the matter, I would not go as far as to call thier findings completely without merit or close my mind to what they have to say on the subject.

we have extra-biblical sources that agree mostly with what the Bible says, archeology has proven them correct (specifically Luke who was doubted but recently many of the things that were doubted have found to have existed during this time), the manner in which it is written is not fantastical or in a mythilogical manner. It is written in a matter of fact way. The evidence simply piles up to prove that it is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the absolute Word of God. Now, there are grammar errors and even translation errors, yet the truth that it presents is consistent and provable. At this point you would probably point to the creation story, to which I respond with the fact it is written poetically and not as an actual account. The message is to show God as the creator and that He placed a special emphasis upon man, not to show the method in which He created.

You can make grandious statements like this, apothanein, but please back up your claims. What extra-biblical sources are you refering? What archeological evidence are you speaking about? You state that "the manner in which it is written is not fantastical or in a mythological manner." What? Walking on water, casting out demons, raising the dead is not mythological? I hope your kidding here, apothanein, because if you not, there are going to be a lot of happy deimigod and heros of myth?

And no, I am not going to point to the creation story. I do not want to dive into the waters of an evolution/creation debate which would take this conversation way off course, and I wish very much for it to stay on course.

[Crisor]

And just for your viewing pleasure, a list of some of those who worked on the Jesus Seminar, including their "qualifications." Are you going to tell me that none of these people knew Koine Greek? Are you going to convience me that all of these people are somehow beneath your intellect and know nothing about the New Testament? If so, I would ask for you to let them know so they might quite wasting both their and the rest of the schoarly worlds time with such nonsense.

Fellows of the Westar Institute

or how about this guy

Bart D. Ehrman

laughing yet? No? Then how about one more:

Bruce Metzger

Of course, your right. None of these people could possibly know Koine Greek or Hebrew despite their postitions.

Crisor

Edited June 1, 2006 by Crisor

[apothanein kerdos]

There is a way to disagree without being rude and condenscending Crisor. I highly suggest you learn that method.

No offense, apothanein kerdos, but all this does is show your own ignorance. Basically what your saying is that if you don't agree with what they are saying, then their not true scholars and the only true scholars are those of which you agree.

There are athiest scholars on this issue who, though I do not agree with them, I respect their claims because they have done extensive searches. Those in the Jesus seminar really are a laughing stock because their claims lack any true merit. For instance, they assume that in the Lord's Prayer the only thing Jesus really said int hat was, "our father." Their qualification? "That sounds like the only thing Jesus would really say." C'mon mate...

You state that these scholars do not know Koine Greek but Classical Greek. How do you know this?

I said that most do not, and that of those that do know Greek, most know Classical and not Koine. Of those that do know Koine they draw incorrect conclusions. I know this because I know Koine Greek. Most of the time, however, they do not appeal to Greek but instead appeal to naturalistic ideas and how the Bible could not possibly match up with naturalism.

You state "the conclusions they draw lack any merit behind them" and once again I have to ask, how do you know?

Surprisingly enough, I happen to know what they teach and how to evaluate it because I learned this amazing skill called reading. Now I know a uneducated and unintelligent Christian like myself should probably not dabble in the lingquistic arts, but I simply could not help myself.

Are you a biblical scholar to judge wither or not their papers have any validity? If so, please point me to something you have published so that I may read it.

My book is currently being edited. Would you like me to send you a copy when it is finished? It's also being edited (or I should say will be this summer and into the fall) by a scholar review board from a few seperate universities. I would be more than happy to send you a copy when it's published.

You state that those outside of Christianity "do not hold valid qualifications to study the bible," but what of those within Christianity that disagree with your conclusions about the bible being "inerrent?" Are you going to say that they, too, lack the qualifications to study the bible?

I'm going to say they have come to an improper conclusion based upon their studies. Generally I find that athiests have more qualified reasons for not believing the Bible than Christians do. A Christian "scholar" who denies the inerrency of scripture is, in my opinion, quite worthless because they have dejustified their own position.

You speak of the "Jesus Seminar" as a bad example of modern scholarship. By what method have you come to this conclusion? While I may not agree with their conclusions on the matter, I would not go as far as to call thier findings completely without merit or close my mind to what they have to say on the subject.

I close my mind because, honestly, they're absurd. THey came out with a seven step method to determining the truth of something. The problem is, even secular scholars who simply study historical findings could not use these, and dutibly note that. For instance, the Jesus Seminar teaches that one reference...even four references....is not enough to validate something in history. If this is the case, then Alexander the Great never existed. Now do you see why I don't trust them? It's not because I don't agree with them. It' sbecause of the methods they use to come to the conclusions they have.

You can make grandious statements like this, apothanein, but please back up your claims. What extra-biblical sources are you refering? What archeological evidence are you speaking about?

The usual suspects. Tacticus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, etc. Pool of Siloam was not thought to exist and was used to discredit Luke until it was found recently. There are about twelve baths/pools I believe that were doubted to exist and that LUke was wrong, but later turned out to exist and we found them through digs. That's what I'm refering to. You should really look it up, it's quite amazing.

You state that "the manner in which it is written is not fantastical or in a mythological manner." What? Walking on water, casting out demons, raising the dead is not mythological? I hope your kidding here, apothanein, because if you not, there are going to be a lot of happy deimigod and heros of myth?

I'm going to encourage you to study the difference between mythylogical writing and "matter of fact" writing. I say that because I am refering to the method and style of writing. When we look to the Illiad it is written in a mythological style; it's poetic, it's huge, it's an epic, etc. When I look to the Gospel of Luke, it's an account, it looks to what happens, it is taken as real and not written in an exagerated manner, etc. That is what I am refering to.

As to what you wrote....do some serious study on the Jesus Seminar, not a one hour google session. If you look at their methods of how they deduct the things they do, it's easy to see how they are not legitimate. It is the same as say, Pat Robertson or someone like that. They make some good conclusions, but I don't take him seriously when it comes to academic findings because of the methods he uses. I treat the Jesus Seminar in the same manner. I mean, these are the same people who concluded that Jesus had homosexual relations with Judas because Judas kissed Jesus. They ignore the fact that back then, and even in modern times, it is customary in the middle east to kiss a man on the cheek as a greeting. Do you really think they are legitimate when they ignore such an obvious fact?

[secondeve]

Apothanein:

Out of interest, do you know of either Shani Berrin or Lucy Davies? They were my Biblical Studies lecturers at Sydney University.