The Historicity of Adam: how important?

[Yeshua1]

​

Here's the first challenge I put to non-concordists like Walton. The Israelites and their culture did not exist at the time of the Genesis accounts. Non-concordists often accuse Biblical creationists of forcing modern culture onto the Genesis account. But the truth is, they force ANE culture onto the Genesis account even though the Genesis text is pre-ANE, and even pre-Flood for the first 8 chapters.

Yet Walton and others insist on harmonizing the text with ancient cosmologies that were popular thousands of years after many of the Genesis patriarchs died.

God gave to Moses what really happened, was and is inspired text, so why the need to harmonize?

 

[Yeshua1]

It is in your court then to prove that those earlier documents were inspired.
I'll only stick my neck out so far to say that Moses (and his writings) were inspired - only they carry the authorized message of God to his people.

"Why would Moses impose a culture onto historical documents?" - inspiration perhaps?
Moses communicated (like other biblical authors) from within the culture in which he lived.

SO WHAT ARE THE CULTURAL IDEAS BEHIND Genesis 1? Our first proposition is that Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology. That is, it does not attempt to describe cosmology in modern terms or address modern questions. The Israelites received no revelation to update or modify their “scientific” understanding of the cosmos. They did not know that stars were suns; they did not know that the earth was spherical and moving through space; they did not know that the sun was much further away than the moon, or even further than the birds flying in the air. They believed that the sky was material (not vaporous), solid enough to support the residence of deity as well as to hold back waters. In these ways, and many others, they thought about the cosmos in much the same way that anyone in the ancient world thought, and not at all like anyone thinks today. And God did not think it important to revise their thinking.
John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 14.
​

Rob

Jesus and Paul accepted genesis as being historaical account recording of real events, not myths or allogories, and not fitting into what other text in other cultures recorded down!

 

[Yeshua1]

I would argue the opposite. The ball is in the court of the non-concordist to explain how Genesis can be inspired. If the Genesis accounts are pre-mosaic, and many of them pre-Abrahamic and even pre-Flood, why would God change the accounts to reflect a modern culture? Did Moses change the original accounts he drew from, and add in modern cultural beliefs? That seems to go against all the examples of inspiration we have.

My view is very straightforward. God inspired Moses to compile an accurate historical account of his ancestors and the creation. That by definition is inspiration.

All you've done so far is quote Walton's false view of Genesis being a made-up document during ANE times, and somehow inspired.

This redefining genesis to fit into cosmological assumptions, to be the Temple of the Lord, to try to fit modern accepted scientific so called facts seem to be the one to get to a non inspired text!

 

[Calminian]

God gave to Moses what really happened, was and is inspired text, so why the need to harmonize?

If God gave the text to Moses via direct revelation, they're in the same boat. But I believe Genesis likely came about the way most biblical historical narratives came about. Per Henry Morris,

“Visions and revelations of the Lord” normally have to do with prophetic revelations of the future (as in Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc.). The direct dictation method of inspiration was used mainly for promulgation of specific laws and ordinances (as in the Ten Commandments, the Book of Leviticus, etc.). The Book of Genesis, however, is entirely in the form of narrative records of historical events. Biblical parallels to Genesis are found in such books as Kings, Chronicles, Acts, and so forth. In all of these, the writer either collected previous documents and edited them (e.g., I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles), or else recorded the events which he had either seen himself or had ascertained from others who were witnesses (e.g., Luke, Acts).​

 

[Deacon]

He denies literal 6 days, denies a single Adam and Eve, God used evolution etc!

You do not speak the truth!

"These are seven twenty-four-hour days. This has always been the best reading of the Hebrew text. Those who have tried to alleviate the tension for the age of the earth commonly suggested that the days should be understood as long eras (the day-age view). This has never been convincing" Walton, LWOG1 p. 90

"When we identify Adam and Eve as historical figures, we mean that they are real people involved in real events in a real past. They are not inherently mythological or legendary, though their roles may contribute to them being treated that way in some of the reception history. Likewise they are not fictional" Walton, LWOA&E, p. 101

“If Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins, then it offers no mechanism for material origins, and we may safely look to science to consider what it suggests for such mechanisms. We may find the theories proposed by scientists to be convincing or not, but we cannot on the basis of Genesis 1 object to any mechanism they offer.” Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One. p 162

Rob

 

[Calminian]

You do not speak the truth!

"These are seven twenty-four-hour days. This has always been the best reading of the Hebrew text. Those who have tried to alleviate the tension for the age of the earth commonly suggested that the days should be understood as long eras (the day-age view). This has never been convincing" Walton, LWOG1 p. 90

"When we identify Adam and Eve as historical figures, we mean that they are real people involved in real events in a real past. They are not inherently mythological or legendary, though their roles may contribute to them being treated that way in some of the reception history. Likewise they are not fictional" Walton, LWOA&E, p. 101

“If Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins, then it offers no mechanism for material origins, and we may safely look to science to consider what it suggests for such mechanisms. We may find the theories proposed by scientists to be convincing or not, but we cannot on the basis of Genesis 1 object to any mechanism they offer.” Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One. p 162

Rob

Walton's Adam is not the biblical Adam—progenitor of the humans race. And his six days are not the creation of the actual universe. He believes it's all literary myth. So long as we're being honest.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I'm using the word allegory in the way the OP said that the man in question used it.
Opposite of literal.
Possibly fictitious.
Making the truth of God up for debate.

 

[TCassidy]

I'm using the word allegory in the way the OP said that the man in question used it.
Opposite of literal.
Possibly fictitious.
Making the truth of God up for debate.

In that case I will agree with you. I was just making the point that all who use the word "allegory" in reference to Genesis are not necessarily wrong. We have to discern what they mean by the word.

 

[Rob_BW]

If God gave the text to Moses via direct revelation, they're in the same boat. But I believe Genesis likely came about the way most biblical historical narratives came about. Per Henry Morris,

“Visions and revelations of the Lord” normally have to do with prophetic revelations of the future (as in Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc.). The direct dictation method of inspiration was used mainly for promulgation of specific laws and ordinances (as in the Ten Commandments, the Book of Leviticus, etc.). The Book of Genesis, however, is entirely in the form of narrative records of historical events. Biblical parallels to Genesis are found in such books as Kings, Chronicles, Acts, and so forth. In all of these, the writer either collected previous documents and edited them (e.g., I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles), or else recorded the events which he had either seen himself or had ascertained from others who were witnesses (e.g., Luke, Acts).​

Not that I have anything against writing, but that seems to leave out oral history.

I mean, secular academics don't bat an eye at Greek, Norse, or Frankish bards (or an ἀοιδός) memorizing and accurately transmitting reams of information.

 

[Deacon]

Walton's Adam is not the biblical Adam—progenitor of the humans race. And his six days are not the creation of the actual universe. He believes it's all literary myth. So long as we're being honest.

True Walton’s:Adam is not the one in the photo in your bible.
And his books certainly do not teach you what you have been taught all your life. ... but that’s what learning is all about.

Walton makes a strong biblical case for what the Bible tells us about creation and relates how other biblical authors use Adam’s life to tell us about God’s plan for mankind.

Nuff said, read the books!

Rob

 

[HankD]

Without a real historical Adam and Eve Christianity comes unraveled.

 

[Calminian]

Without a real historical Adam and Eve Christianity comes unraveled.

I have to agree.

True Walton’s:Adam is not the one in the photo in your bible.
And his books certainly do not teach you what you have been taught all your life. ... but that’s what learning is all about.

Walton makes a strong biblical case for what the Bible tells us about creation and relates how other biblical authors use Adam’s life to tell us about God’s plan for mankind.

Nuff said, read the books!

Rob

I've got both of his books, genesis and the flood. Almost done with genesis. Walton promotes non-concordist nonsense and even a form of gnosticism. He believes you cannot understand Genesis without some hidden knowledge of the ancient world—a world thousands of years after the Genesis events ironically. Del Tackett nails it: The Gnostic World of John Walton.

 

[church mouse guy]

I wish you’d read his material rather than parrot his detractors.
It’s the other way around, TE accommodates (adjusts to) much of the Biblical theology of John Walton.

"The position that I have proposed regarding Genesis 1 may be designated the cosmic temple inauguration view. This label picks up the most important aspect of the view: that the cosmos is being given its functions as God’s temple, where he has taken up his residence and from where he runs the cosmos. This world is his headquarters.
The most distinguishing feature of this view is the suggestion that, as in the rest of the ancient world, the Israelites were much more attuned to the functions of the cosmos than to the material of the cosmos. The functions of the world were more important to them and more interesting to them. They had little concern for the material structures; significance lay in who was in charge and made it work"

If Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins, then it offers no mechanism for material origins, and we may safely look to science to consider what it suggests for such mechanisms. We may find the theories proposed by scientists to be convincing or not, but we cannot on the basis of Genesis 1 object to any mechanism they offer. The theological key is that whatever science proposes that is deemed substantial, our response is, “Fine, that helps me see the handiwork of God.” Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One. p 162
​

Rob

Sounds like the majority view. If space is the second heaven, then God is not "headquartered" here but in the third heaven. So I wonder if the universe is finite? The problem with secular science is that it really falls of its own weight and has no answers at all. Does anyone believe Darwin anymore? Does anyone believe Big Bang anymore?

More importantly, as everyone has said, if there is no first Adam, why do we need a last Adam? Is Jesus a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord?

Finally, I think that Adam wrote a book that came to Noah and then to Moses. Noah has been underestimated and Adam had to have been the smartest man because some of his sons have been wise, such as Solomon and John the Baptist.

 

[Mikey]

Was talking to a christian I met, and we began discussing origins. He informed me did not believe Genesis was literal, in fact he believed it was all allegory. When asked if Adam and Eve were real people he answered, it's up for debate.

I can deal with some alternative views on origins, even though I disagree. I can get along and fellowship and exercise grace, even though I strongly disagree. Denying the historicity of Adam and Eve, though, is a bit of a stumbling block.

Thoughts appreciated.

As it should be . A real Adam and Eve are necessary .

allegory is harder to challenge as it depends what form this allegory takes place. 1. The story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor ( didn't exist) 2. Adam and Eve existed but were leaders/King and Queen of a tribe( often dismisses other elements of the story. 3. many more

 

[Aaron]

It is in your court then to prove that those earlier documents were inspired.
I'll only stick my neck out so far to say that Moses (and his writings) were inspired - only they carry the authorized message of God to his people.

"Why would Moses impose a culture onto historical documents?" - inspiration perhaps?
Moses communicated (like other biblical authors) from within the culture in which he lived.

SO WHAT ARE THE CULTURAL IDEAS BEHIND Genesis 1? Our first proposition is that Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology. That is, it does not attempt to describe cosmology in modern terms or address modern questions. The Israelites received no revelation to update or modify their “scientific” understanding of the cosmos. They did not know that stars were suns; they did not know that the earth was spherical and moving through space; they did not know that the sun was much further away than the moon, or even further than the birds flying in the air. They believed that the sky was material (not vaporous), solid enough to support the residence of deity as well as to hold back waters. In these ways, and many others, they thought about the cosmos in much the same way that anyone in the ancient world thought, and not at all like anyone thinks today. And God did not think it important to revise their thinking.
John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 14.
​

Rob

In another place, Christ said if something wasn't so, He would have told us. Yet, you and your author are saying that His prophets may assert things that aren't so, and He sees no need to correct that.

So, where, exactly, can we have assurance that Christ is relating things that are so, and where He is relating things that are not so?

 

[Rob_BW]

Finally, I think that Adam wrote a book that came to Noah and then to Moses. Noah has been underestimated and Adam had to have been the smartest man because some of his sons have been wise, such as Solomon and John the Baptist.

I can't quite follow that logic. If we give him credit for the smart ones, then we have count all of the morons against him, too.

 

[church mouse guy]

I can't quite follow that logic. If we give him credit for the smart ones, then we have count all of the morons against him, too.

Oh, I am speculating that Adam was perfect and so genetically some of his descendants inherited some of his brains. In other words could a descendant be smarter than any ancestor? I don't know. Maroons like me were afflicted by the curse.

 

[Rob_BW]

Oh, I am speculating that Adam was perfect and so genetically some of his descendants inherited some of his brains. In other words could a descendant be smarter than any ancestor? I don't know. Maroons like me were afflicted by the curse.

Ah, ok, got ya.

 

[church mouse guy]

Ah, ok, got ya.

Evolution suggests that we are evolving higher and higjer but the truth is that there are more and more errors in the transmission of DNA so that we are doomedby our own genetics in the long run.

 

[Calminian]

Oh, I am speculating that Adam was perfect and so genetically some of his descendants inherited some of his brains. In other words could a descendant be smarter than any ancestor? I don't know. Maroons like me were afflicted by the curse.

Don't be so hard on yourself. I see you more as burgundy.