I agreed with everything you said until:
“[Jesus’ use] of the passage [Matthew 19:4-6] to convey that
message [against divorce] does not require a literal couple [Adam and Eve] … to
assume that it does require a literal couple is something we impose on the
text.”
Do we really impose a “literal couple” on the text or are
they truly intended as historical? Here’s why a literal Adam and Eve are
imperative:
- The Matthew 19 quotation literally and historically states that “the Creator 'MADE them male and female,'” an historic truth echoed elsewhere in the Bible. It also says that He historically “JOINED [them] together.” Had He not done so – if this is only a fable – Jesus’ conclusion would not logically follow: “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." If God hadn’t historically and physically joined them together, the rationale for our physically separating them through divorce falls apart.
- Besides this, there are many other reasons to regard them as historical. If they aren’t, then their children aren’t and then even their children aren’t, and Abraham and the other Patriarchs aren’t historical either.
- Other passages in the Old Testament also regard Adam as historical, like 1 Chron. 1:1.
- Further, their historicity is assured by Paul (Romans 5, 15 along with the historicity of the Fall), Jude 14, Jesus’ historical genealogies, and other NT passages.
When evolution becomes a reality, then all Biblical
assertions – like the historicity of Adam and Eve - must be called into
question. This casts uncertainty upon the totality of Scripture and undermines
faith and assurance. The willingness of “Christian evolutionists” to adopt this
uncertainty regarding Scripture not only means the demise of the church. It
also tragically reflects the condition of one’s own heart and the true object
of one’s “first love.”
Daniel, we actually agree, for the most part.
ReplyDeleteOur problem comes down to your presupposition that the bible (or, more accurately, your interpretation of the bible) must be correct, even in the face of empirical evidence which contradicts and undermines the accuracy of that collection of texts.
If God existed, surely we ought to prefer the less open to interpretation and less ambiguous "book of nature" in preference to the contradictory, ambiguous "book of scripture" which was written, edited, redacted and changed by humans?
Especially when study of the book of nature entails an approach to epistemology which doesn't seem to be riddled with subjectivism and a lack of any means to validate claims?
You write,
ReplyDelete• If God existed, surely we ought to prefer the less open to interpretation and less ambiguous "book of nature" in preference to the contradictory, ambiguous "book of scripture" which was written, edited, redacted and changed by humans?
You are certainly right that we do derive much from God’s “book of Nature.” However, we prefer Scripture because it comes with interpretation, and it’s from God’s perspective.
If you study further, I think that you will find that these theories about the Bible being “edited, redacted and changed” have largely been overthrown. They are interesting and imaginative theories, but they lack any hard evidence whatsoever. They don’t even accord with the facts of the Scriptures themselves.
Mann: However, we prefer Scripture because it comes with interpretation,
ReplyDeleteInterpretation is a bad thing Daniel, since it has led to the diversity of Christian belief (some 30,000+ sects and counting).
Mann: and it’s from God’s perspective.
That's an assumption which is not only unsupported external to the texts, but is unsupported within them as well.
Mann: If you study further, I think that you will find that these theories about the Bible being “edited, redacted and changed” have largely been overthrown.
I think if you look beyond your "innerancy echo chamber" you'll see that your mistaken.
Things like the long and short ending of Mark, the Johanine Comma were inserted later. Manuscript evidence shows modifications, redactions, insertions and harmonisations.
Mann: They are interesting and imaginative theories, but they lack any hard evidence whatsoever.
Only if you actually exclude and ignore any evidence which demonstrates that these things went on can you come to that conclusion Daniel.
Mann: They don’t even accord with the facts of the Scriptures themselves.
That sentence makes no sense Daniel - why would changes being made to documents need to accord to some "facts" in the documents?
And by the way, any facts are that those things are recorded in those texts, and not that those things actually happened - that is an interpretation of the texts, and one which is often unsupported and unsupportable.
Thinking that you were writing against the Old Testament, my comments were directed toward the Manuscript Hypothesis that wrongly asserts that the OT is the result of editorial cutting and pasting over a period of several hundred years. About this, I claimed that it was supported by no hard evidence whatsoever.
DeleteNow it seems that you are aiming your Havok against the NT and point to the additions of Mark 16 and John 8. Indeed, we have to approach these additions tentatively, as everyone already knows.
However, seen in context, the NT is the most well-supported ancient text. We have approx. 5700+ ancient Greek manuscripts, and these go back almost to the original writings. In addition to this we also have 25,000 ancient Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Aramaic MSS. From these, we have a very good idea of the range of textual variants and are therefore confident that there will not be any additional major surprises. The evidence is virtually all there!
Despite the array of textual variants – most extremely minor – many scholars continue to assert that our NT is a fully trustworthy reflection of the originals. Agnostic Bart D. Ehrman, “Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code,” is perhaps the main NT critic today. However, he writes:
• “The oldest and best sources we have for knowing about the life of Jesus…are the four Gospels of the NT…This is not simply the view of Christian historians who have a high opinion of the NT and in its historical worth; it is the view of all serious historians of antiquity…it is the conclusion that has been reached by every one of the hundreds (thousands, even) of scholars.” (p. 102)
NT scholar Daniel Wallace asserts:
• “On the contrary, it [scholarship] has built it [my faith]. I’ve asked questions all my life, I’ve dug into the text, I’ve studied this thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed…very well placed.”
Bruce Metzger, the late Princeton Univ. textual scholar – the one to whom Ehrman gives credit - wrote:
• “The modern NT is 99.5% free from textual discrepancies, with no major Christian doctrines in doubt.”
In short, you are making a mountain out of a petty, subjective molehill.