Historical Adam, authority of scripture, and original sin

[Paidion]

Thus, if the Scriptures are truly inspired-- and, according to Scripture itself (2 Tim. 3:16), they are-- whatever is asserted as true in the Scriptures is asserted as true by God..

.

Well, let's see. Matthew wrote:

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” (Matt 27:9,10 ESV)

This sentence asserts that the quoted words come from Jeremiah. But they are nowhere found in Jeremiah. Similar words are found in Zechariah 11:12,13.
So the sentence is false. It won't do to try to wiggle out of this by saying that Matthew didn't say that Jeremiah WROTE these words; he said that he SPOKE these words. This won't do. For this is the way that Matthew wrote. When he quoted from an Old Testament scripture he always said the words which a prophet wrote were SPOKEN by the prophet. Other examples from Matthew: 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 3:3, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, and 24:15. In each case, Matthew wrote that the words were SPOKEN by the prophet, but they are found in the prophet's writing. The only exception is 2:5 in which Matthew states that it was WRITTEN by the prophet.

Another example:

Jude wrote:
It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (Jude 1:14,15)

Similar words to these quoted by Jude are found in the book of Enoch, Chapter two:

Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.

The early Christian writers believed that the book of Enoch was written by the historic Enoch, the seventh from Adam. The author CLAIMS to be the historic Enoch, referring in Chapter 105 to "my son Methusaleh" with the words, "After a time, my son Methusaleh took a wife for his son Lamech." But the book is a forgery. The author was certainly not the historic Enoch, the seventh from Adam. The author writes of that which would be unknown in the times of the historic Enoch. For example in Chapter 54:9, the author writes, "Then shall princes combine together, and conspire. The chiefs of the east, among the Parthians and Medes, shall remove kings, in whom a spirit of perturbation shall enter." The Parthians were unknown until about the 250th year before Christ. It is believed that the book of Enoch was written around that time. The book also contains fanciful "astronomy" with the sun and moon passing through gates, etc.

So the scriptural writer, Jude, was mistaken in thinking that the historic Enoch, the seventh from Adam, had prophesied the words which were taken from the book of Enoch, and believed to have been written by the historic Enoch.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Paidion]

I agree, Dizerner. An inspired person can make a mistake. I think that the essence of inspiration is that the inspired person has the supernatural ability to convey God's truth about His Son and salvation from sin, through His Son's supreme sacrifice.

[morbo3000]

So, can an inspired writer repurpose a Canaanite creation myth to convey truths about God and humankind, regardless
of the historicity of the events and characters? I say yes. I think that works fine in the Old Testament. But it causes huge problems with Paul as the article shows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Homer]

I don't think it wise to cast aside what Paul has said in the scriptures because of claims made by scientists, including Francis Collins who was referenced in the Christianity Today article. Collins advocated "junk genes" as proof of evolution in his 2006 book and has since been proven wrong:

From darwinthenandnow.com:

For Collins, junk DNA is simply analogous Darwin’s claim that rudimentary non-functional structures, like the appendix, is validating evidence for evolution. The appendix, however like DNA, is no longer considered rudimentary or non-functional.

Over the last 10 years, an international consortium of 442 scientists has studied 147 different types of cells with 24 types of experiments. The specific goal was to catalogue every letter (nucleotide) within the genome with a biological function. The project was named ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements). This massive project was launched in 2003 funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI).

By 2007, however, Rick Weiss reporting for the Washington Post on the emerging ENCODE developments noted that “for the first time that the vast majority of the 3 billion ‘letters’ of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks.” The article Weiss was referring to an paper published in the journal Nature by Erika Hayden with the stunning new discovery that, rather than junk, “between 74% to 93% of DNA” had evidence of performing biologic functions.

Just recently heard Stephen Meyer discussing this on "Socrates in the City". Meyer mentioned that computer science has shown that the "junk genes" form a sort of operating system.

It is interesting that "scientists" studying things that occurred in the ancient past, and cannot be replicated, claim to "prove" this and that while researchers in modern medicine, which can test theories in real time on living organisms, often turn out to be wrong in their conclusions. As my doctor once remarked to me in frustration, they are always changing their minds.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[morbo3000]

Beautiful words dizerner!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[morbo3000]

Question: At what point is the evidence compelling enough to require adapting our view of scripture. Is the authority of the Bible such an overarching epistemology that it is resilient against all claims made through the scientific method?

Context:
The epistemological method of the modern world is the scientific method.

Scientists are the interpreters of the method.

The conservative reaction to conclusions reached by scientists that contradict their view of the scripture has generally been to discredit the research tools (example: carbon dating) or the scientist's motivations.

But one of the tools used is publishing and peer review. Scientists don't get to just say anything; cobble together evidence to make a claim. They have to publish. And then their findings are reviewed and either accepted, or thrown out, or accepted conditionally.

I have two good examples:
1. The Jesus' wife fragment.
2. The Missoula flood
http://www.glaciallakemissoula.org/

Both involved peer review that was for or against the claim.

In the Missoula flood case, the guy whose claim was that the regiona had a massive catastrophic flood was discounted by scientists because of the Uniformitarianism

The geologic community received the idea of a catastrophic flood poorly. At this time, most geologists abided by the principles of Uniformitarianism, the idea that past geological events can be explained by forces observable to day. Since a flood of that proportion had never been seen, Bretz's idea was quickly dismissed. To make matters worse, Bretz could not identify the source of this catastrophic flood. The controversy ensued until 1942 when Joseph T. Pardee introduced new evidence suggesting a possible source for the catastrophic flood.

Creationsists are pleased with evidence that supports catastrophic events, linking it to the flood of Genesis.

However, they discount the data that places the event, at 15,000 years, outside the window of a genesis timetable.

The point here is that this methodology's results are fluid. Research is gathered. Hypothesis is offered. Further research attempts to support the hypothesis. Conclusions are published and reviewed, and either

So, at what point is the evidence compelling enough to require adapting our view of scripture. Is the authority of the Bible such an overarching epistemology that it is resilient against all claims made through the scientific method?

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[morbo3000]

My modus operandi is to assume that the Bible gets increasingly historically reliable as time progresses, because our relative distance to the documents and times decreases. We are able to understand the roman world that Christ walked in better than the Canaan world that the Israelites moved into.

I've been struck recently by a point Nadia Bolz-Weber made in a recent sermon on the virgin birth. That being a Christian means aligning myself with this holy/sacred text because it is the defining book of my people, the church. The cloud of witnesses.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nadiabolzw ... -or-truth/

In these debates about what you as an individual HAVE to believe – what you have to intellectually assent to in order to be really Christian, I wonder if we have lost what it means to just simply confess our faith as the church. We spend so much time apologizing for our faith, defending our faith, or proving our faith that we forget that this whole Christianity thing started by regular people just confessing their faith (dismissed by some as the idle tales of women), a faith that yes, seems preposterous to those who do not believe.

See, confession is a different order of discourse than proving. It allows us to place ourselves in the stream of the faithful, a stream that has flowed long since we stepped in it and will flow long after we have gone. Confession of faith is what we do in the Sanctus during the Eucharist – when we join the chorus of praise that sings through eternity – when we join with angels and arch angels and all the broken saints and redeemed sinners around the throne of God who sing Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Power and Might. Heaven and Earth are full of your Glory, Hosannah in the Highest, Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord.

In joining the church in a confession of faith – whether in the Sanctus or in the Creed – we say, this is our story. And to say something is our story is a powerful, life-shaping thing. But it is not YOUR story. It is not YOUR creed. It is the CHURCH’S story, the CHURCH’S creed and you and I are a small part of the church.