Problems with the "Literal" Adam

Hello everyone, this is my first post here so I apologize if this is in the wrong section or if my post goes against the standard protocol here.
Yesterday, during one of my live broadcast on our church app. I spoke about an article that challenged the historic Christian understanding that Adam was a real and literal person. The article claimed Adam was merely a symbol. Let me quote from the article: "I suggested that the Adam story could be viewed symbolically as a story of Israel’s beginnings, not as the story of humanity from ground zero.”. I understand this kind of attack has been around forever, but this article was put out by a ministry that claims to hold to the historic Christian faith and the inspiration of the Bible. I obviously reject their teaching but thought people should be aware of it, that is why I addressed it on my Broadcast. I posted the entire article on our church app. I will not post it here since I don’t want to violate any rule. However, I will provide a link so people can read their attempt to prove their teaching. https://biologos.org/articles/pauls-adam/

Trevor

You should get involved with the Youtube channel of Kent Hovind and you will get some amazing facts about scientific data. And the creation of the earth

Welcome to Sermonindex Trevor!

You're right, these attacks against the plain teaching of scripture have been around for many years. If an article says something like "Well, the Bible seems to teach this, but modern science contradicts this teaching" you can safely put said article in the trash can where it belongs. No man needs a "guru" to teach them what the Bible says. The average person, if he has the Holy Spirit, can pick up the Bible, read it, and understand it. No man, if he had never heard evolution theory, would read Genesis and think Adam was not a literal person, and that the universe is billions of years old. It simply doesn't teach that.

Evolution theory actually has its roots in pagan religions such as Hinduism. If you like, here is a link to an excellent video by Dr. Paul James-Griffiths explaining this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqFChgeSJGA

There are many Dangers of Biologos
https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/the-danger-of-biologos/

Is It Necessary to Believe in a Literal Adam and a Literal Fall?
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/08/09/is-it-necessary-to-believe-in-a-literal-adam-and-a-literal-fall/

There are so many problems believing in a evolutionary beginning as there is no gospel as there is no fall. If there is no literal Adam. There is no reason for being saved from our sin.

Once you destroy there are so many things that are destroyed such as marriage, original sin and the gospel itself.

Psalm 11:3 King James Version (KJV)

3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

I read the Paul Enns article in my estimation you did right to call it error. This same tactic has been used for many millenia, namely " hath God said" questions. Sounding very professorial he invites you to swim in a sewer treatment plant all the while claiming how pure it all is.

His liberal theological stance killed the institutional churches years ago, now in the form of re-thinking Paul's Adam its starts again with college students awed by academic approvals listening to the idiocy of unbelief. Its all very well packaged and marketed as " real knowledge"

The article was a series of rationalizations directed at swaying the Christian from trusting God to teach him. This puppet insinuates you need men like him to guide you into all truth. Paul the apostle was a stupid man he was ancient, old thinking and not savvy to the scientific discoveries of our day. With this little assertion he is saying Paul can't be your bible guide men like himself have arisen to fill your need. I cannot stomach these professors of falsehood, I would discourage every one from listening to liberal theological sewage.

I'll make it very clear biologos considers the current scientific research as equal to mount Everest, But the scriptures cannot be trusted by the simple reading of them. It is this devilish premise that undergirds all their claims.

I believe in is literal Adam but one still has to recognize the problems raised in the article- the archaeological ones- because they are indeed problems if the earth is believed to be only 6000 years old.

For example, where does Gobekli Tepe fit into the biblical timeline? It is far more ancient than 6000 years yet it had to have been built after the flood or it would have been destroyed.

I have heard the arguments on both the sides. I am personally undecided. But I have observed that those who believe in literal interpretation of the Bible are dangerous because they mostly call others heretic just because they disagree with them. I do not believe Bible is saying that earth was 6000 years old. It is just interpretation of men.

Instead of focusing on things that are unclear, why don't we focus on clear things like 'Sin will not be master over you' and 'Anyone who claims to abide in Christ must walk like him'. These things are so plain yet not ture in most of the serious believers. But very few seem to care about this!

Couldn’t agree more Sree. Amen.

Fine I'll be the worst offender, because their main premise is no one understands the bible without modern science. Thae ancients were stupid men incapable of knowing God's meaning in his word. That premise which they cleverly hide is why we suffer their attacks on scriptures.

Who says we have older civilizations? The guys who say the bible cannot be understood without their help. This is just repackaged popery in humanist terms.

There is more to contend with than your own sin conscienceness

"The placing of a catastrophic global flood in the year 2304 BC means that all civilizations discovered by archaeology must fit into the last 4,285 years."

From creation.com

Todd: So what is wrong with that? We really don't have any cultures older than that. Yes I know about all the supposed cultures claimed to be older, but by what standard? Surely if the scriptures have a literal Adam, we cant have more than around 6k years to have any.

But if Adam (as Peter Enns says) is just an Israelite symbol, well, I suppose we can just jettison the bible altogether.

With an all powerful God there are no half-right bibles, or half-right chronologies or half-right accounts. Of course with men, they have multitudes of them.

One of the reasons you get fired upon as a Darwinist is because the T.O.Evolution requires these ages to introduce man and animals into the mix. The scriptures do not.

Liberal theology has never stopped attacking literal meanings on any key doctrines.

Adam is myth or poetry
The Noah's flood is myth or a local flood
Parting the Red Sea was just low water that day.
The red Nile was just a mud slide
The Miracles of the prophets are mostly fabrications
The prophecies of Daniel are written 'after the fact'
The virgin birth never occurred
The resurrection never occurred
The miracles of Jesus are mostly fabrications
The sin nature of man is founded upon the misconception of Paul concerning Adam.
The Deity of Jesus Christ is a fabrication
Hell is a pagan myth
Heaven is a hopeful crutch in religion
The scriptures cannot be understood as divinely inspired.
The ancient Church manufactured the Trinity from near-by paganism
Satan is a myth or at best a personification of evil men.
Angels are a myth or at best a personification of good men.

The liberal theologian works exhaustively to supply the skeptic, atheist, agnostic and apostate every tool they need to attack the Church. You will find the Atheists in their books love to quote the Liberal Theologian because even they recognize a theology that inert and superficial comes from the mind of men...a religious concoction.

Letting a liberal theologian teach the Church is to eventually rip away any super-naturalness. The Church is reduced to...as Paris Reidhead says "poetry and nice words and axioms".

I for one refuse Peter Enns and any other liberal theologian. While they may add an ounce of truth to the scales, they have already mined away tons of truth and piled it up as waste.

Paris Reidhead "Ten shekels and a shirt" if anyone has listened to this sermon and actually believes anything the man says cannot without serious conflict and contradiction accept the teachings of liberal theology.

"But I have observed that those who believe in literal interpretation of the Bible are dangerous because they mostly call others heretic just because they disagree with them.”

So, by your definition I am DANGEROUS?

You are using a very broad brush there brother.

A simple study of the ages of those in Jesus’s geneology will add up to roughly 6000 years till now. A honest look at these scriptures will show that they require a literal reading.
The problem I have with those of a differing opinion, is that the Bible IS very clear on this. Be careful of the influence of a narcissistic, worldly approach to reading scripture.
"Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

I do value your contributions and insights on the forum.

Blessings

The problem is not only population growth but also population spread- there are places all over the globe with massive complex structures that required certain levels of culture and skill and manpower. It’s not as if pyramids were only being built near Mesopotamia.

So, by your definition I am DANGEROUS?

You are using a very broad brush there brother.

I apologize if I appear to have used a broad brush. That is not my intention. The literal interpretation people I have met have always called others heretic for not believing in what they believe.

The problem I have with those of a differing opinion, is that the Bible IS very clear on this. Be careful of the influence of a narcissistic, worldly approach to reading scripture.

Unless Bible clearly says that the earth was formed 6000 years before, we have NO reason to believe in such a view. Also those who are undecided are not influenced by Science. I love Science and I am decently intellectual. But it is not of the fear of science or its influence that makes me take a neutral stand. I just do not believe Bible was intended to give a clear picture of Scientific way of formation of earth. Bible is a spiritual book, it answers a realm that science cannot reach, for example nature of God, how God wants us to obey him, his standard, his love for mankind etc. Science answers a realm that Bible is not intended to reach like layers of earth, chemical composition etc.

You are against someone painting everyone with same brush but you do the same when you say Science influences the idea of those who disagree with your view! Which as I explained is not true.

A simple study of the ages of those in Jesus’s geneology will add up to roughly 6000 years till now. A honest look at these scriptures will show that they require a literal reading.

If everything in the Bible is to be taken literal then Sun going down and coming up as well should be taken serious. But there we use the knowledge of science! Bible is not direct word of God, it is an inspired word of God (2 Tim 3:16). When God inspired men, he can only inspire him within the boundary of knowledge of men. For example when Jesus used his parable, he did not quote cellphones are laptops in his parable. He only used objects like farming which were known to the people. Same way God inspired only the way people of that time could understand.

Now I certainly do not believe everything in the Bible should be taken literal. I also do not use my wisdom to decide what should be literal and what is not. That is why I am undecided.

On the age of the earth, it was not created on Day one. There is a gap between heaven and earth being created and day 1 creation. We cannot be certain on what happened in this gap.

So, by your definition I am DANGEROUS?

You are using a very broad brush there brother.

I apologize if I appear to have used a broad brush. That is not my intention. The literal interpretation people I have met have always called others heretic for not believing in what they believe.

The problem I have with those of a differing opinion, is that the Bible IS very clear on this. Be careful of the influence of a narcissistic, worldly approach to reading scripture.

Unless Bible clearly says that the earth was formed 6000 years before, we have NO reason to believe in such a view. Also those who are undecided are not influenced by Science. I love Science and I am decently intellectual. But it is not of the fear of science or its influence that makes me take a neutral stand. I just do not believe Bible was intended to give a clear picture of Scientific way of formation of earth. Bible is a spiritual book, it answers a realm that science cannot reach, for example nature of God, how God wants us to obey him, his standard, his love for mankind etc. Science answers a realm that Bible is not intended to reach like layers of earth, chemical composition etc.

You are against someone painting everyone with same brush but you do the same when you say Science influences the idea of those who disagree with your view! Which as I explained is not true.

A simple study of the ages of those in Jesus’s geneology will add up to roughly 6000 years till now. A honest look at these scriptures will show that they require a literal reading.

If everything in the Bible is to be taken literal then Sun going down and coming up as well should be taken serious. But there we use the knowledge of science! Bible is not direct word of God, it is an inspired word of God (2 Tim 3:16). When God inspired men, he can only inspire him within the boundary of knowledge of men. For example when Jesus used his parable, he did not quote cellphones are laptops in his parable. He only used objects like farming which were known to the people. Same way God inspired only the way people of that time could understand.

Now I certainly do not believe everything in the Bible should be taken literal. I also do not use my wisdom to decide what should be literal and what is not. That is why I am undecided.

On the age of the earth, it was not created on Day one. There is a gap between heaven and earth being created and day 1 creation. We cannot be certain on what happened in this gap.

Hi Todd

You might find this video interesting -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE

Blessings