In some circles these days, it has become almost a badge of honor to doubt the historicity of the first man, Adam, and to assert that the first two chapters (or first eleven chapters) of the Bible in the book of Genesis are mere mythology. Karl Barth, considered by some to be the greatest theologian of the 20th century, wrote in his multi-volume work Church Dogmatics, “We have to … be clear that in the Bible it may be a matter of simply the Word of God, even though it meets us, not in the form of what we call history, but in the form of what we think must be called saga or legend” (see here for other statements of Barth on Scripture).
Yet, there is more to Adam that Genesis 1-2. This week I have been preparing for a sermon on Genesis 3:1-7, and I came across these observations in Derek Kindner’s commentary on Genesis (part of the Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series):
… [T]he New Testament assumes it and argues from it, making the first Adam as literal as the last, who genealogy is indeed traced back to him in Luke 3:23ff. According to Romans 5:18, 19; 1 Corinthians 15:20, 21, Adam was ‘one man’, and his sin ‘one trespass’, as factual as the cross and resurrection.
I would add that there are other places in the NT (e.g., Matthew 19:4-6 ; 23:35; Hebrews 11:4; 1 John 3:12) that presuppose the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis. The Scriptures are an integrated whole; you cannot cast dispersion on one section without calling into question the entire account.
But apparently the denial of these events is nothing new, as Calvin, speaking nearly 500 years ago (in a sermon preached in 1559 on Genesis 3:1-3), says these words:
Now here those who are mocking God and His word think that Moses is relating a fable when he says that the serpent spoke, for that is, as everyone knows, against nature, and they even use the story to belittle faith in the entire holy Bible. And yet they do not take into consideration that God can produce voices when He pleases without the presence of a human body. … God, who created all things from nothing, can indeed speak and make Himself understood without there being an external means. … [W]e must not think that it was natural for a serpent to come and reason that way with the woman. [Eve] realized it was an extraordinary and miraculous thing. That is why she is moved to lend an ear to Satan’s illusion and deceit.
It is no coincidence that the deceit in the Garden revolved around casting doubt on the word of God; we should not be surprised with there are those who do the same with this very passage. It is not something new, nor will such scoffing pass away before the end of the age.
UPDATE: A good friend of mine, Glynn R., has posted this link on another site. It delves more deeply into the theological issues underlying Adam’s historicity.
Tim —
Thank you for arguing in favor of the historicity of Adam.
I would also appreciate your detailing your ideas about women in seminary, the veracity of creationism, and the proper place of intelligent design in the biology classroom.
If you have any thoughts on the historicity of Noah’s Flood or the Tower of Babel (especially re. the origin of different human languages), or if you are inclined to accept within a reasonable margin of error Bishop Ussher’s calculation for the age or the earth, I would be most appreciative to know what they are.
I’ll be glad to exchange views with you on these subjects.
Thanks in advance.
Dr. C./Bill/Ishmael — call me Starbuck, or call me confused. As my post had little to nothing to do with those issues, it would seem (from a critical thinking perspective) that they examples of the informal logical fallacy known as red herrings. If I did not know better, I would think your post was written in somewhat sarcastic tones, which is a deviation from the respectful nature of your previous posts, and that is disappointing.
The purpose of the previous post was to point out that a denial of the historicity of Adam necessitates a denial of Scripture beyond the opening chapters of Genesis. Also, it was to show that “casting doubt on the word of God” is nothing new.
You have asked several questions, but it seems you have left several other questions from a previous post unanswered yourself. Of course, you are under no obligation whatsoever to do so, but volunteered to do so.
As an ordained minister in the ARP church, my views are no secret. I fully scribe to the Westminster standards. As are other ministers, I was examined by presbytery as to my views on various issues, including the historicity of Genesis 1-11 (which, of course, I affirm). You cannot be a member of my presbytery and deny the historicity of Genesis 1-11, and I would suspect the same would be true in all other presbyteries as well. Of course, that does not preclude certain ministers from lying about their beliefs in order to secure a job, but that is a terrible tactic, I’m sure we would both agree. If anyone claims a certain set of beliefs (and takes vows to those, in one form or another) but is not being truthful about those beliefs, it would see doubtful as to the fitness of that person for the position. I think this would be applicable to ministers, college professors, and many other professions I’m sure.
My views on most of the questions you’ve asked can be found with a simple use of the search feature on this site. I can also recommend some reading for you on these matters, since there sometimes much misunderstanding (and many erected straw men) when these matters come up. Vern Poythress’ Redeeming Science is quite helpful in dispelling some of the myths of conflicts between science and faith (the erroneous “conflict thesis”). Christopher Stewart’s essay “Science and Religion” in Reason for the Hope Within also discusses the conflict thesis and explains such things as the difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism, which I have discovered that many, include those in the science fields, are largely ignorant of, since they are often untrained in philosophical categories. For issues dealing with the OT, I would recommend Greg Beale’s The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism and K.A. Kitchen’s On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Both are quite good in discussing many of these matters in great detail.
“Untrained” indeed. Perfect word, Tim. Thanks.
And thanks also for the reading suggestions, but you misunderstand what I’m looking for, I guess.
Making this point got me in trouble with my new Presbytery (they thought it was harsh), but I stand by it: denying the historicity of Genesis 1-2 does violence to the Scriptures and damages key doctrines.
Lots of straw men from Bill…
Affirming the historicity of Adam makes Christians look like, in Augustine’s word, idiots. No straw men there.
Please keep publishing these views — the more the better. Talk about women’s secondary role, for example. The age of the earth. Noah’s flood. Please. Talk about the giants that roamed the earth. Man coexisting with dinosaurs. The creation of languages at Babel. Tell us why the speed of light is variable. Dismiss radiometric dating. Please tell us why the theory of evolution is a myth.
Come on — stand up for your ideas. Broadcast them. Don’t be afraid or ashamed. If you don’t think the world is 4.5 billion years old, say so. If you don’t think that all life on earth is related to all life on earth, brag about it.
The more you reveal the implications of your theological claims, the more you marginalize yourself.
So please. Stop trying to distract with “straw men” — which doesn’t fit this argument by the way.
Talk to me about how you’d fix Erskine’s science department so it would teach your vision of science. Unless you really ARE embarrassed by your vision of science.
Bill,
First, some preliminary observations and then a few responses.
As I read through you comments, I am forced to wonder if you are as careless in theology as you are condescending in speaking to others. Your arrogant tone is unseemly, especially from someone who purports to be a scholar and a Christian.
Looking at some of your comments:
Affirming the historicity of Adam makes Christians look like, in Augustine’s word, idiots. No straw men there.
I agree, that is ad populum coupled with ad hominem, lacking in an actual citation.
Come on — stand up for your ideas. Broadcast them. Don’t be afraid or ashamed. If you don’t think the world is 4.5 billion years old, say so. If you don’t think that all life on earth is related to all life on earth, brag about it.
OK, I will. And the more you reveal the implications of your claims, you damn yourself.
You make science the final arbiter of faith. You do not walk by faith, but by sight. Could create trouble down the road.
With regards to Adam, if Adam did not exist, when the Bible treats him as an historical figure, then the Bible errs at a critical spot: we cannot know if God exists, if he created, if he entered into a covenantal union with Adam, promising life if he obeyed. We cannot know if Adam sinned, and God responded in judgment, cursing all creation, yet promising a redeemer.
We cannot know from whom Christ descended as to his human nature, if Adam is not historical. We cannot understand or follow the NT teaching that Adam’s guilt is imputed to us if he never existed. We cannot understand how the actions of an ahistorical man passed a sentence of death on the whole race. We cannot make sense of Christ being the second Adam, in whom all life, if the first Adam, in whom all die, never existed.
Without Adam there is no sin, no imputation of sin , no gospel, no Second Adam, no imputation of righteousness. In short, there is no salvation. None is needed.
So yes, I will continue to crow for historicity. Faith does that and leads ultimately to glory.
Calling God a liar cannot lead to the same destiniation, though I am sure it heads to a very warm destination.
Regards
TE Kevin Carroll
Gentlemen, let’s play nice with one another. Feel free to disagree, of course, but no personal attacks. Also, let me add that any further posts that personally insult Christians and especially the word of God will not be posted at this site. You may not like this, but my blog and my rules. You have been warned.
I will add one thing to Kevin’s post: I don’t believe Augustine ever said anything of the sort. He did make a rather lengthy comment about observable data and such, but Augustine himself held to the historicity of Adam (e.g., he formulated the doctrine of original sin, which was dependent upon human descendants of Adam inheriting the guilt and consequences of his sin, which presupposes he actually existed). If I am incorrect on this, please give a citation. Furthermore, Augustine held to an “instantaneous” view of creation (a rather unique view in the history of the church), but to the best of my knowledge held to a type of young earth view to the best of my recollection. Once again, if I am incorrect, please provide citation.
Also, I would add that the preaching of the cross itself is seen as foolishness in the eyes of world (1 Cor. 1:18ff). Furthermore, there are many more things that naturalism and materialism would deem idiotic, outdated, foolish, whatever. For instance, dead men don’t rise from the dead. Does that mean we jettison the doctrine of the resurrection? Water cannot turn to wine under naturalistic presuppositions? Do we likewise discount the miracles of Jesus? If we do so, we cease to have anything remotely approaching historical Christianity.
TE Kevin Carroll
Thanks for your response. Hope to see more in this vein.
Point taken, Tim. Please pardon immoderate tones.
Tim — speaking to the issue with a different tone: the historicity of Adam is not an issue of faith. Historicity is an issue of history, that is, of events that occurred in the physical world and therefore are subject to being studied and confirmed or falsified by methods used to study the physical world.
Despite the claims of many on the religious right, we have a pretty good understanding of the natural history of the planet and we have mountains, Everests, of evidence that 1) contradict the idea of the sudden appearance of human beings on the planet, and 2) cannot be explained by those who make claims for the sudden appearance of human beings on the planet.
None of this, of course, diminishes the theological importance of the Eden story, although the story is, as Dr. Evans said regarding all human interpretations, subject to a variety of understandings.
Now, since I do think that elements of the religious right are trying to extend influence into areas in which I think such influence is inappropriate [attempts to wedge ID or creationism into public school science classroom, subsidizing like-minded congressmen and senators at C-street, trying to codify specific beliefs into law, Dominionist movements, trying to ruin a perfectly good college], I am always glad to see public statements by the religious right that will tend to discredit them with thoughtful conservatives. Statements regarding the historicity of Adam, Noah’s Flood, the Tower of Babel, and the like are the kind of statements I mean. The religious right will not win moderates or conservatives to their point of view with such statements.
Why would I say these things? Shouldn’t I just be quiet and and not warn the right of these mistakes?
No — because the right will not believe me. Instead of considering that they may be undercutting their own credibility, they will attack me (in this case) and the very idea that any true Christian could say such a thing.
Which again undercuts the credibility of the right.
I’ll offer another example — one that I think is a terrible move as far as the right is concerned but which the right thinks is, well, righteous. You yourself linked another website to the story about the Session of Unity ARPC bringing charges against the Rev. Dr. James Hering of ETS. I’m sure if I check back to that site that there will be many “I like this” thumbs-up and many comments supporting these charges as well as many other comments attacking those who dare to defend Dr. Hering.
What a disaster — how can this move and the comments that will follow do anything other than further tarnish the extreme right of the Synod and ARPC? Especially coming as it does on the heels of SACS and ATS visits to Erskine, and in the middle of an appeal of the injunction ruling, and in the general atmosphere of increasing disapproval of the March actions and subsequent responses.
Don’t get me wrong — if it weren’t for the unnecessary and gratuitous anguish the action will cause to Dr. Hering and his family, colleagues, and students, I’d be all for this. In strictly political terms, I guess I am. It is a remarkable error, a self-destructive error.
But the right won’t see it that way. I’ll be attacked, Hering will be attacked. The rightness of the move will be pressed on readers and no doubt congregants. But the right will be preaching to the choir, which is probably beginning to lose a member or two.
I could be wrong in all of this, of course. The test is time. Time will tell.
“Please keep publishing these views… stand up for your ideas. Broadcast them. Don’t be afraid or ashamed.”
Thank you, sir, for the opportunity. I believe in Noah’s flood, the tower of Babel, the sun standing still over Gibeon.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
Amen.
Louis DiBiase
“the historicity of Adam is not an issue of faith. Historicity is an issue of history, that is, of events that occurred in the physical world and therefore are subject to being studied and confirmed or falsified by methods used to study the physical world.”
Don’t mean to butt into a conversation, but I have to ask: The Bible records that Jesus rose from the dead. That’s a historical claim. Do you believe that is true? I mean, “methods used to study the physical world” suggest that people don’t rise from the dead. So is it historically true that Jesus rose from the dead?
The Resurrection IS a question of faith, not history. It is a supernatural event; supernatural events are by definition and necessity beyond the scope of events that occur in the natural world. A world-wide flood would leave evidence. The Resurrection — except for the women at the tomb and disciples — left no evidence.
Dr. C., I truly appreciate the modified tone of your recent posts. It goes a great way to understanding your position, particularly in the lengthy at 2 pm. While you and I obviously do not agree on many of these issues, I do appreciate you expressing your opinion on these issues in such a way.
A few additional comments. First, I would not utilize the term “religious right.” It connotes a particular political affiliation, which goes outside the scope of these discussions, imo (but perhaps I am misunderstanding you). As far as Dr. Hering goes, as of 9:49 pm, there were exactly three “likes” and one comment about following proper procedure. That is a far cry in tone from what I have read in the past on alumni site. I personally wish neither Dr. Hering, nor Dr. Burnette, nor yourself any ill will, and I hope you do not think I am attacking you. I mean that in all sincerity. Sometimes I let my own foolishness get the better of me, but most folks will even tell you I am a pretty easy to get along with guy, even among people who disagree with me (or I with them). We even have a mutual friend in common, I think. I will not mention her name here, but a certain English professor Dr. K.S. was a congregant of mine when I pastored in Mississippi. She always spoke very highly of you. I, of course, have never met you, but I highly respect K.S. and her opinions.
BTW, congratulations to you. I understand you were voted professor of the year at Erskine.
I would, of course, disagree with the Kantian-esque bifurcation of history/science and faith, but I also have little desire to trade tit for tat on the issue. However, I will follow up Louis’ recent post by saying that he asked a question about whether you personally believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And by that, I am certain he meant the literal, bodily, physical resurrection. A dead body being raised to life. May I ask, simply yes or no, without qualification, whether you believe in the resurrection of Christ?
Yes, of course, would be my answer. If Christ did not rise from the dead, I would be numbered, along with Paul, as those most to be pitied.
Tim — Sorry about “religious right.” I’m apparently not aware of the cross-currents that term may carry. I’d be glad for a substitute.
RE. the Hering issue — specific thumbs up or thumbs down aside, I believe you will find that this will not rebound to the credit of Mark Wright, 2cd Presbytery, or ARPC. Time will tell. We but have to wait.
Thank you for you good wishes. The award was an unexpected honor.
Yes, of course, is my answer also.
Dr. C., I do not currently have a better word. Fundamentalist used to be a good word almost 100 years go, but then it lost its meaning and became something else. Evangelical was a good word for a while, but now it is being robbed of its meaning (see my most recent post for examples). So I suspect I am in some ways like certain politicians — complaining but not having any solutions. 🙂
Mark Wright is a good friend of mine and a former pastor (when I was in seminary). He is good and honorable man. You are correct, though; time will tell. Sometimes, though, not even in our own lifetime. I think of the battles between Henry Emerson Fosdick and J. Gresham Machen in the early 20th century. Their present day judged them one way and history has judged them in another. Perhaps we have much to learn here. And we do indeed have to wait (and be patient in the interim).
I am very glad your answer is yes. I will only add that Paul connects the resurrection to a literal Adam in 1 Corinthians 15. I believe this was part of Kevin’s point in his posts above.
“Yes, of course, is my answer also.”
I’m wondering why you believe that. The only evidence we have in support of this claim is the testimony recorded in scripture. And yet, apparently, we can’t take scripture for its word in all cases. What criteria do you use for determining which parts of scripture to believe and which not?
Tim — “And we do indeed have to wait (and be patient in the interim).”
We won’t have to wait that long for time to tell. I think the presbytery and the church as a whole are already being damaged by this action against Dr. Hering.
I appreciate your comments about Mark Wright. I know him only from comments such as these:
“Mary Lou, yes, we have asked professors at Erskine to agree to “someone else’s doctrine”, our doctrine – the statement of what an Evangelical Christian is. Part of that statement says, “The Bible alone, being God-breathed, is the Word of God, infallible in all that it teaches, and inerrant in the original manuscripts.” Professors at Erskine must bow down to this statement about the Bible. I refuse to bow down to evolution in the sense that I will not allow that a belief in evolution is compatible with Christianity in any sense. I will not bow down, as an ARP presbyter and accept that it is OK for evolution to be taught at Erskine.”
If I may use a tempered tone in commenting on the comment, let me say that this is exactly the kind of statement I want to see more of. Does he really think professors at Erskine will “bow down” to his vision of inerrancy? The idea is Kafkaesque in its absurdity, as is his statement that he will “refuse to bow down to evolution.” Denial of reality does not generally raise one’s standing.
I want more statements like this — and this from you: “We have a Ph.D. in science who attends our church. He does not believe in evolution. Ergo, not all Ph.Ds in science being (sic) in evolution.”
So? A meaningless observation. A Ph.D. in science? What science?
Does not “believe” in evolution? Evolution is not a matter of faith; it’s a matter of fact and analysis. One believes in God; one accepts the theory of evolution based on the evidence. And since clarification of terms is important, I’m using “believe” in the sense of “to accept something as true in the absence of evidence.”
Not all PhD’s in science believe in evolution? So? Are you arguing that the theory of evolution is invalid because you have a church member who doesn’t buy it? I think you’ll agree that is an example of neither logic nor critical thinking.
Now I’m not trying to change your mind about the theory of evolution — and certainly not Mark Wright’s (whose comments about women are even worse). All I’m saying is what I said at the first: if you keep saying things like this, you make yourselves look absurd. I know, that’s a strong word. But for the most part your blog is an echo chamber — you don’t get many dissenting views, so your own views seem normal and mainstream. They’re not. With most rare exceptions, no professor I know, for example, would ever “bow down” to a thought-stopping, anti-intellectual doctrine such as inerrancy. Now, Mark Wright might not like to hear that, but that’s just the weather and I’m the weatherman. Blame me for the drought if you want; that won’t change the reality.
Other comments made about evolution also reveal an almost total lack of understanding of science in general and the theory of evolution in particular on the part of the anti-evolution crowd on Rhyne’s blog, so their arguments are not going to be taken seriously by those who do understand the science more fully. If preaching to the choir is the goal, it is being accomplished. But that won’t grow the denomination.
A historical note: when the church has opposed the findings of science based on its reading of the scripture, the church has always lost. Always. There’s no reason to think that will change.
The Bible is not the best book through which to study the natural world; history shows this; and yet fundamentalists (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) still try to make it so; all three Abrahamic faiths they think Genesis can work as science. I know that they’ll continue to do so. I am grateful for that persistence — it can only lead to continued marginalization of fundamentalist ideas.
Theology is not the study of God, of course. It’s the study of man’s ideas about God. And man’s ideas about God are just that — man’s ideas.
That’s something I think theologians sometimes forget.
Dr. C., you are, of course, correct about a few things and incorrect about many more. For starters, weathermen are often wrong about the weather. But call me a weatherman for point that out. 🙂
We won’t have to wait that long for time to tell. I think the presbytery and the church as a whole are already being damaged by this action against Dr. Hering.
Damage was actually done when Christians chose to take other Christians to civil court, but that is not a matter I wish to debate on this blog. I referenced Fosdick and Machen in my previous comments. Unfolding history can be a tricky thing. If you were in the mix at the time, it would have seemed obvious to all that Fosdick was a winner and Machen a loser. Fosdick was the most popular preacher in his day and was financially supported by the Rockefeller fortune. Machen was forced out of a teaching position and a denomination by a group that rejected fundamental doctrines of Christianity and went on record as doing so. At that time, the winners and losers were “clear.” But less than a century of history proved otherwise. Fosdick is largely a forgotten name. The denomination that forced out Machen has continued its descent into apostasy and is dying a slow and painful death. Machen, on the other hand, is revered as one of the theological stalwarts of the 20th century. His works are still widely read. His Christianity and Liberalism is considered a classic. He founded one of the great theological seminaries in this country. History does tend to bear these things out, but not always in the time frame we would like.
The comments you copied and pasted from the Facebook page were written in a certain context. It is difficult to know someone simply by reading certain quotes written by them elsewhere; all of us make certain statements that do not always do justice to who we really are (I’m sure many have judged you for certain comments you have made w/o really knowing the real Ismael). I cannot speak for the comments of others, of course, but my comment came in response to an absurd one that suggested that all scientists believed (or accepted, if you prefer) evolution. I simply pointed out that we have someone in our church (now a member) with a Ph.D. in science (employed at the University of Louisville) who would not fit into that narrow statement. He openly rejects macroevolution. His Ph.D. is in some branch of biochemistry. He grew an atheist and came to believe in God by studying the complexities of protein molecules for hours on end. He later became a Christian. I casually mentioned to him one day the statement on the FB page about all scientists believing in evolution, and he laughed out loud without hesitation at the thought. I was simply pointing at the illogical nature of the statement on the FB and how it was fallacious (by means of counterexample). But I have asked the scientist to perhaps write something up about the subject (I will merely link it from this blog most likely), so perhaps you will have the opportunity to interact with him in the future.
I would, btw, refrain from telling the scientist that he is not really a scientist or how he should do science, just as I would recommend you not telling the theologian how he should do theology. At the same time, I would extend to you the courtesy of not telling you how you should teach English lit. in your classroom (which I have all indications you are quite excellent at, if you will excuse me ending my phrase with a preposition).
Yes, I suppose my blog is an echo chamber, but that is the nature of most blogs. I usually get no comments at all. At the same time, I do not try to post things that are pleasing in the eyes of the secular world. We are told in the Scripture that the gospel itself is foolishness to such a world. As has been pointed out on this thread, the belief that a man could rise physically from the dead is considered absurd from the world. Furthermore, holding to some sort of theistic evolutionary belief will not win you any friends among the more hardened supporters of evolution either. Read Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris and see what they think of those who claim to hold a belief in both God and evolution. Dawkins, I believe, holds them in lesser regard than those who deny evolution. But I don’t really respect the opinions of Richard Dawkins, so I wouldn’t recommend you do so either. Science actually presupposes the existence of the Christian God.
The problem with theology is that everyone is a theologian. That is, everyone has ideas about God. And most people have wrong ideas about God. In part, this is because many people have their own self-generated concepts about God that have little to do with reality. That is why the doctrine of revelation is so important. If God did not reveal Himself to us, we could never hope to know Him. Do people make mistakes in interpreting the Scriptures (special revelation)? Of course they do. Do people make mistakes in interpreting what they observe in the created order (general revelation)? Yes, of course. Man is fallible, and even his mind had been corrupted by sin. Once again, he could not even know God unless God graciously revealed Himself to him. Without such revelation taking place, these so-called ideas about God would melt into a morass of subjectivism that benefits no one nor really tells us anything. We can choose to ignore God’s word and use our eyes and think we see clearly; we can follow our desires and think that leads us in the right direction; we can analyze the practicality of our choices and think that justifies our making them. But simply read Genesis 3:6 and see where that gets us.
The three “Abrahamic faiths” are not one and the same. One (Judaism) utilizes an incomplete revelation (read the book of Hebrews and see why) and another (Islam) utilizes an additional revelation (which contradicts biblical revelation). The three are not one and the same by any stretch. Does Christianity have its problems? You bet (see my latest blog post). But that is a failure of man, not God, and it most often comes about because we reject his word and follow what we think is correct in our own eyes.
So we are back at square one. I think this would be a good place to stop since we have deviated far from the course of the original post. The point was to show that a rejection of a literal Adam affected more that just a few chapters at the beginning of the Bible. I believe that has been demonstrated. So many doctrines outside of creation are affected (including the resurrection, as mentioned more than once above). As has been stated more than once by others elsewhere, Christianity is not a cafeteria or buffet-style religion where one can wander through and pick and choose what he or she would like to believe about it. Instead, order from the menu, and substitutions are not allowed.
Tim — I’ll be glad to stop the commenting on this post. Thanks for your interaction. And if we’re using restaurant analogies about Christianity I would suggest that your restaurant is the on Saturday Night Live that offered cheeseburgers and Pepsi only — by which alone man cannot live.
I’d like a nice salad, please, grilled salmon, and a bright white wine.
Very true, man does not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God. Very true.
I like salmon, btw, particularly if it is blackened. White wine makes me gassy. TMI, I know.
The problem is that if we are ordering off the secular menu, the salad is wilted, the fish is spoiled, and the wine is flat. Sure, it might look good for food, it could be a delight to the eyes, and it might even look like it could make one wise, but it poison to the soul.
I appreciate your interaction, Dr. C., and the gentlemanly nature in which you have discussed these things.
I’m a little disappointed. billcren keeps telling us our views are all wrong, but he won’t tell me what TO believe. I want to know why it’s okay to believe in the resurrection of Christ, but not the tower of Babel. Can anybody explain this?
Please call me Bill.
I know I told Tim I’d stop commenting on this post, but, ljpd, just to answer your question:
I am in no way telling you what to believe. I wouldn’t tell anybody what to believe. You may believe in the Tower of Babel if you want, and obviously you don’t need my leave to do so.
But — the field of linguistics is deep, broad, and rich, and it has been possible to trace the complex relationships between and history of the various languages of the world. Our language (English, I mean) has its origins in Indo-European, one of more than 200 language families. The history and distribution of languages and language families does not support the origin of languages suggested by the Tower of Babel stories, just as the history and distribution of human expansion and migration from Africa to the rest of the world does not support the origin of human beings to be in what is now modern Iraq.
Faced with these facts, we must each make our own decisions. On the one hand, we have an ancient story about language origins that has all the characteristics of an etiological myth; on the other we have extensive studies based on evidence and analysis, studies that have been tested and retested and continue to refined.
To me — and most other scholars and Christians — it seems probable that the story of Babel is in fact an etiological myth and that the conclusions of modern linguistic studies present a more reliable understanding of language and language origins. You may disagree, but you have no reason for that disagreement other than a decision to disagree. Nothing wrong with that, of course. I’m just saying.
A religion that cannot accommodate increasingly detailed and tested modern insights about the natural world and its development provided by modern studies is doomed to extinction.
As my blogging friend says, these are my thoughts. Sorry if they disappoint.
Bill, thanks for the reply. Please call me Louis.
So, it has to do with “increasingly detailed and tested modern insights about the natural world.” That fits with what you said earlier about things “being studied and confirmed or falsified by methods used to study the physical world.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t really answer my question, for the following reasons:
i. You have also dismissed biblical passages that have nothing to do with science or the natural world. For example, “women’s secondary role.” By this I guess you mean passages like 1 Tim. 2:12. That is completely a matter of morals/ethics (even if one accepts the biological basis of it). It is not a matter of scientific testing. On what basis do you reject this biblical teaching?
ii. There are supernatural events that I suspect you would disagree with that likewise are not “subject to being falsified” by science. They are just like the resurrection in this regard, which you said “left no evidence” to be falsified. I’m talking here about things like the story of Jonah and the whale, or Balaam’s talking donkey. Or do you in fact believe these stories to be true?
iii. You have given a reason for rejecting a passage of the bible, but not one for accepting others. Indeed, given your concern for evidence, I would think you should dismiss the entire bible as unreliable. It’s full of myths, fables, and stories that have been repeatedly proven false. Why then believe any of it? Why give the bible a presumption of true until proven false? And on what basis do you believe those things to be true?
Sorry for all the questions, but I’m really trying to understand your position. I hope you find time to respond.
Louis
Louis — Hi. Thanks.
I don’t have time to answer right now, but I think I’m right in saying that the only interest here is not in my ideas per se, but in my ideas because I teach at Erskine. I’m assuming you accept the doctrine of inerrancy; I don’t. And I’m sure you’re quite familiar with others apostates (lol) like me.
I’m not ducking your questions; I will be happy to discuss them with you, but right now end of semester grading is screaming for attention.
And since Tim requested that this thread be snipped, here’s my email address — if you want to continue this discussion through email, just drop me a line.
Best
crenshaw@erskine.edu
“I think I’m right in saying that the only interest here is not in my ideas per se, but in my ideas because I teach at Erskine.”
No, my interest in your ideas is only because you made them an issue when you began arguing for them on a blog I read.
Thanks for the interaction. I might take you up on that offer.
Louis