Hawkingfan

I agree with Mike. Shall I post my examples of theological inconsistencies and ambiguities? Or are you going to waste my time and ignore them again?

And answer me this, please: Was there really a single man of flesh and blood named "Adam" who really existed and lived and breathed and spoke to god and heard his voice out loud and was truly the father of all humans and truly the very first person on this earth? Or is he just a theological representative of the human race? Was he both?

CJD

Hawkingfan, let me offer one major nit.

* Do not ever list 50+ supposed contradictions and expect anybody with a life to entertain you. May I suggest proffering three of your best reasoned arguments regarding supposed inconsistencies, so that the many ridiculous examples (usually stemming from just plain unlearned exegesis) may be left out? To pose the question back at you: Whose time would have been wasted going through such a ludicrously long list?

As to the question at hand: how can you deny my point? You merely state that you agree with decock. You've wowed me there, let met tell you. Good one. Are you really saying that you do not bring any baggage to the table?

Finally, your question about Adam: the text seems to pull me (given its literary qualities) in the direction of ambiguity. That is to say, I really do not know. Maybe a real flesh and blood person was there, not necessarily named "Adam", yet truly a representative of mankind? Again, I cannot allow such precision in the narrative, because the narrative itself does not read that way. But I must reiterate a very important point: this is no way affects the message of repentance/restoration throughout the Scriptures. I refuse to give it up because of a few points of tension, etc. That's the kind of faith that is no faith at all.

Regards,

Hawkingfan

I've done it before and had people answer all of them. They had lives. They just weren't as arrogant as you.
Let's just start with one (selected at random):
Is wisdom good or bad?
PR 3:13, 4:7, 19:8, JA 1:5 Happy is the man who finds wisdom. Get wisdom.
LK 2:40, 52 Jesus was filled with wisdom and found favor with God.
1CO 1:19-25, 3:18-20 Wisdom is foolishness.
Can you explain why Adam is listed in the family trees of the New Testament along with other people who (supposedly) really lived as if he really was a living, breathing ancestor?
If a real person named Adam was there from whom we are all descended then that leads to a whole series of problems with genetics. Yet, the NT suggests he really did exist, making for a scientific absurdity. The same can be said of Noah (he is not just "theological" as he is listed in family trees in the NT and spoken of as a real human being who actually lived, yet he is credited with repopulating the earth).
That is where we agree to disagree. At least you admit that you deliberately overlook "tensions" in order to keep your view that the bible is "theologically" accurate.

mike_decock

Thousands of Christian denominations, interpretations and moral standards are good evidence of the ambiguity of the text. Looking at other factors like divorce rates and criminal behavior by religious groups indicate that Christianity is either ineffective and possibly even counter-productive in inspiring good moral conduct.

Says Me! .

-Mike..

CJD

Hawkingfan, I would like to think that if you knew me personally I would not seem so arrogant. What you might see as arrogance I think is simply intolerance of those who speak dogmatically about things of which they know little. I am not a fuzzy postmodernist. People are wrong. And stupid. And I can be both. At least I can admit that.

1. Wisdom is grand. But what do you mean by wisdom? Let's look at the texts in question (Prov. 3:13, 4:7, 19:8, Jas. 1:5)

Proverbs: happy is he who finds wisdom (3:13); Wisdom is pre-eminent (4:7); he who gets wisdom loves life (19:8).

* None of these, unfortunately, describe what wisdom is. We have to at least understand what wisdom is according to the Scriptures before we can go any further. Are there any portions of the Wisdom Literature that would clue us in on such a thing? Sure. But understand that it's not as simple as "Wisdom is . . ."

Generally, speaking hokma means "masterful understanding," "skill," "expertise." As seen in the texts above, widsom is that thing which enables the person who has it to cope with life, and to achieve what would otherwise be impossible (e.g., Prov. 30:24–28). Furthermore, wisdom cannot be possessed without instruction (musar) to correct a moral fault (cf. 15:33; 22:15). Even further, the two (wisdom and instruction) do not come unless the hearer understands (lehabin) the sage's words (cf. 1:2, 6; 7:7; 14:15). Behind all of this is the major prerequisite: the fear of the LORD. It is the key to gaining wisdom in the book of Proverbs (cf. 1:7; 9:10). It also involves both objective and subjective elements. The former entails rational content that can be taught and memorized, while the latter entails a non-rational (i.e., emotive) response of fear, love and trust to the aforementioned objective revelation.

In sum, Hawkingfan, wisdom is the fear of the LORD. How does this relate to Luke 2:40, 52, where Jesus was filled with wisdom and found favor with God? The "wisdom" in view here does entail the wisdom described in the Proverbs, since it includes the whole of life-development: intellectual, social, and spiritual increase.

Finally, the supposed contradiction of 1 Corinthinas 1:19-25 and 3:18-20:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise . . ." What kind of wisdom is this? "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" Doesn't sound like the same wisdom, does it? "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe." Clearly, two kinds of wisdom are being pitted against each other here. The wisdom of God, and the wisdom of the world (which, by the way, is "folly" to the world). Need I go on? At one point, the "Greeks seek wisdom." And at another, "to those who are called, . . . Christ is the power and wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." More, you say? "Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise" (3:18). Once again, we see that the first wisdom is the wisdom of the world, or "this age," which must be replaced, Saint Paul asserts, with the wisdom of God (as described in the Proverbs), which, as we have seen earlier, is folly to the world. So, then, become a fool (to the world) and gain the wisdom of God. After all, "the wisdom of this world is folly with God" (3:19).

Surely we have put this one to rest, Hawkingfan. Clearly, the two "wisdoms" are unalike in every way. Next?

CJD

Hawkingfan: "Can you explain why Adam is listed in the family trees of the New Testament along with other people who (supposedly) really lived as if he really was a living, breathing ancestor?"

* I believe this question is answered by this (written by me earlier): "Maybe a real flesh-and-blood person was there, not necessarily named "Adam", yet truly a representative of mankind? Again, I cannot allow such precision in the narrative, because the narrative itself does not read that way."

Hawkingfan: "If a real person named Adam was there from whom we are all descended then that leads to a whole series of problems with genetics."

* Agreed. That is why maybe, just maybe, 1) the "Adam" in Genesis is only the forefather of the middle eastern peoples or 2) the account, which says nothing about time frames, took place agazillion years ago (which may nonetheless still pose problems re: genetics ).

Hawkingfan: "Yet, the NT suggests he really did exist, making for a scientific absurdity."

* Not, of course, if #1 above is correct. Your bit abbout Noah is fairly irrelevant simply because the whole event was local. But need we go there? You don't buy my hermeneutic anyway, even though it's arguably closer to the original intent of the Tanak than some wooden straw-man championed by many atheists around here (because, no doubt, it is championed by many modern-day fundamentalists).

emotional

CJD, I'm awfully sorry for cutting off an interesting debate, but I really, really do have to go. I'm leaving the boards.

Hawkingfan

CJD, Your answer proves my point about the ambiguity of the bible. Your whole argument resides on the fact that the old testament (and James) was *not * clear in defining what "kind" of wisdom it was talking about, therefore leaving open your interpretation that it is not the same definition as what Paul was speaking about. To me, the OT (and James) is indeed speaking about the wisdom "of man". (And that leads to another problem of your interpretation--James says to pray to God for wisdom--of God(?) according to you--which is supposed to be the fear of the Lord (or love of the Lord). That seems like a rather superfluous prayer, praying for something you already have).

If the OT was not speaking of the wisdom of man but the wisdom of god, then the writer could have, and should have said wisdom "of God". It wouldn't have been that difficult to add those 2 words or to use a context that made it clear which "wisdom" it was speaking of. Like I said, to me, it is clearly the wisdom of man they were speaking of. Therefore, the inconsistency is still there.

I'll let you have the last word.

Hawkingfan

Your answer is full of ambiguity. You state, "I cannot allow such precision...because the narrative itself does not read that way", yet say, "Says you!" when someone points out that the bible is ambiguous. And can't you see the problem of theology? You can't say Adam only exists as a theology and then say he is a living, breathing human being via a family tree. So what's the point of mentioning Adam as if he is only a representative of mankind? Theologically it says, "We are descended from mankind. And he fucked up and became self-aware." Big deal.
We can rule out number 2 easily because we can use the family tree to determine how long ago the creation story took place. Number 1 has a lot of problems with it. It's an unproved assertion, it might mean Adam is not the father of all mankind, was not the first man on the earth (scientific evidence shows that early man came from Africa, anyway), and it would not be fair to punish those not descended from Adam for the Original Sin he commited (even though it's unfair to punish his descendants anyway).

Noah is not irrelevant. The whole event could not have been local if all of humanity was destroyed. But you're right, Noah usually needs a thread of his own (I guess that's what you're suggesting).

Magus55

The Bible does not imply a flat Earth. You haven't presented any evidence that it has whatsoever. You think reference to circle automatically means flat? Um yeah whatever. One reason dure probably wasn't used is because it is ambiguous. We call a football a ball, yet its clearly not a sphere. And second of all, the Earth isn't actually a perfect sphere - its slightly elliptical from gravity pulling it. Dure could be confusing depending on who reads it - a circle is a circle is a circle - its round no matter what.

Your argument for a flat Earth is poor at best. You seem to think you are the first ones analyzing the Bible to the finest detail. Millions of people have studied the Bible, language, rhetoric, ancient grammar, theology etc. etc for centuries. Its not like this hasn't been brought up before, and the argument still doesn't hold much weight even after all the studying.