What affect is there on The Fall and The Atonement, if Adam was not the first human?

[RedFan]

Are you really wondering?
Or do you know and are asking a rhetorical question?
Spit it out!!

Actually, I question whether Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch anyway, so the question is a bit rhetorical -- but of course, Moses need not have been able to write Hebrew in order to be deemed the author; he could have dictated to scribes. And those scribes would likely have been using a Samaritan script form and an alphabet of consonants derived from the Phoenician. The "Hebrew" that would have been written (on papyrus?) in the fifteenth century BCE when Moses lived was certainly not the same as we would recognize today. We'll probably never know. Nothing that early, at least discovered to date, has survived.

 

[St. SteVen]

The Genesis account is found in other ancient writings - although not as specific and definitely with more mythology (todays meaning).

As to your question about Moses....
It's an interesting question because this would have to be answered and I'm not knowledgeable enough:

Did Moses write down stories that were being passed down from generation to generation...
or
Did he write the Genesis account from scratch?
IOW, Is HE the person that was inspired by God?

I know for a fact that Genesis was written by more than one person...so it took more than just one person, Moses.
I'm sorry I can't remember the terms for these persons right now but I could look it up...
One of them is the Priestly writer, for instance.

I'd say that different persons were inspired and/or illuminated (slightly different).

What do YOU believe to be true?

We understand that the canon of scripture is a collection of book approved as a set.
In fact their were/are more than one canon of scripture. The Catholic Bible is a good example. (includes the Apocryphal books)

I think the book of Genesis is also a collection of books. Quoting/distilling many ancient texts into a "history" of Israel.
As you noted, these stories appear in the texts of other religions. Which we call myths, while we call the Bible "truth".

I really appreciate the writing of Peter Enns. Currently reading Curve-ball. But in his book, The Bible Tells Me So... He speaks about
the OT as myth. A good example is comparing the OT books of I and II Kings with I and II Chronicles. Which give conflicting stories
of that historical period. (I wanted to do a topic on that, but haven't got to it yet)



[

 

[St. SteVen]

Or maybe those promises were for his immediate audience: Pete, Jimmy, John, Andy, Tommy, Nate, Phil, Matt, and Not so fast, Lambano.

LOL
The context seems to indicate that they were for all believers going forward.

Part of the problem in the west may be unbelief. Miracles happen regularly in third world countries.
Even Jesus couldn't perform many miracles in his own home town due to unbelief.

Mark 6:4-6 NIV
Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”
5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.
6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

And those scribes would likely have been using a Samaritan script form and an alphabet of consonants derived from the Phoenician.

Post #61
Did you mean Sumerian? (not Samaritan) ???

[

 

[RedFan]

Post #61
Did you mean Sumerian? (not Samaritan) ???

[

Yup.

 

[RedFan]

Part of the problem in the west may be unbelief. Miracles happen regularly in third world countries.
Even Jesus couldn't perform many miracles in his own home town due to unbelief.

An important topic! Why does the faith of the locals matter to the performance of miracles?

 

[Lambano]

Part of the problem in the west may be unbelief. Miracles happen regularly in third world countries.
Even Jesus couldn't perform many miracles in his own home town due to unbelief.

Which might explain why we don't get the results we expect when we declare something in Jesus' name.
Of the hundreds of times I have done this, I have seen very meager results.

So, you're saying it was really your fault that you didn't get what you asked for in Jesus's name?

(That was really mean of me to say that, and I really ought to repent.)

(I was a member of an intercessory prayer group at our church. I had the same meager results. But the member of our church who was dying of CoVid that I didn't pray for, he got healed. Hmm. Maybe I see a pattern here...)

 

[GodsGrace]

Actually, I question whether Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch anyway, so the question is a bit rhetorical -- but of course, Moses need not have been able to write Hebrew in order to be deemed the author; he could have dictated to scribes. And those scribes would likely have been using a Samaritan script form and an alphabet of consonants derived from the Phoenician. The "Hebrew" that would have been written (on papyrus?) in the fifteenth century BCE when Moses lived was certainly not the same as we would recognize today. We'll probably never know. Nothing that early, at least discovered to date, has survived.

Hope you saw my post no. 58 to you.
It addressed the above.
And yes, of course, what you post above is also most probable. (and true).

 

[GodsGrace]

LOL
The context seems to indicate that they were for all believers going forward.

Part of the problem in the west may be unbelief. Miracles happen regularly in third world countries.
Even Jesus couldn't perform many miracles in his own home town due to unbelief.

Mark 6:4-6 NIV
Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”
5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.
6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.

[

It's interesting that from the very beginning the Apostles were unable to perform miracles the way that Jesus did.
I don't believe there are supposed to be many miracles.....
A miracle means that something against nature happened.
God set up this world to operate in a certain way and I've always doubted that He'd be getting involved constantly to change the natural order that God has established.

 

[GodsGrace]

We have to draw the line somewhere between mythos/allegory/parable and factual reality (for me, the resurrection is top of the list). But I don't think that line can be drawn intelligently at the promise or expectation or prediction stage. If Jesus was being allegorical in promising that what is asked for in his name will be granted, yet we see that it isn't always "true," how would we describe the "truth" that is to be extracted from his promise?

The test for whether something in Scripture is even a candidate for mythos as opposed to factual understanding is whether we can conceive of a message carried by the mythos.

Also for @Lambano

John 16:23
Two asks
1 means to question: Do not question Me.
The next one means to request.

As has already been expressed here,,,,there is little to say about prayer being answered.
If we go by The Lord's Prayer, it would seem that requests for what WE want is not top on the list....
but only what we need spiritually.

Just a thought.

 

[GodsGrace]

We understand that the canon of scripture is a collection of book approved as a set.
In fact their were/are more than one canon of scripture. The Catholic Bible is a good example. (includes the Apocryphal books)

I think the book of Genesis is also a collection of books. Quoting/distilling many ancient texts into a "history" of Israel.
As you noted, these stories appear in the texts of other religions. Which we call myths, while we call the Bible "truth".

I really appreciate the writing of Peter Enns. Currently reading Curve-ball. But in his book, The Bible Tells Me So... He speaks about
the OT as myth. A good example is comparing the OT books of I and II Kings with I and II Chronicles. Which give conflicting stories
of that historical period. (I wanted to do a topic on that, but haven't got to it yet)

View attachment 49743

[

I like conflicting stories.
It's a good thing that there are some small differences in the NT.
It means it's not a conspiracy...each person told his own story and how he remembers it.
It would make a good OP.
As to Chronicles and Kings...
One wrote before the exile and one after.
Different points of view...
Different reasons for writing.

 

[Wick Stick]

Since Jesus died to pay the death penalty for original sin, what happens if you remove the original sinner?

Or to state this another way... How does our view of origins affect our doctrine?

Trying to sort this out in my own mind. Stuck somewhere between science and religion.

Send help! - LOL

This scripture shows that the fate of all humankind rested on the actions of the two Adams.

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Removing Adam as a literal ancestor or all humanity... it calls into question the premise of the question (bolded).

The idea that Jesus died to pay a penalty... that isn't the only theory of atonement. And it certainly isn't the oldest theory of atonement that the church held.

In the writings of the early church (including the NT), their emphasis is much more on Jesus' RESURRECTION than His DEATH. That is, the church is not saved because Jesus died, but rather because He defeated death.

 

[St. SteVen]

An important topic! Why does the faith of the locals matter to the performance of miracles?

Indeed.
It works the other way too. (the faith of outsiders)

Concerning the Faith of the Centurion, Jesus said: ​

Matthew 8:10 NIV
When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him,
“Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

Concerning the Faith of a Canaanite Woman: ​

Matthew 15:28 NIV
Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.”
And her daughter was healed at that moment.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Removing Adam as a literal ancestor or all humanity... it calls into question the premise of the question (bolded).

The idea that Jesus died to pay a penalty... that isn't the only theory of atonement. And it certainly isn't the oldest theory of atonement that the church held.

In the writings of the early church (including the NT), their emphasis is much more on Jesus' RESURRECTION than His DEATH. That is, the church is not saved because Jesus died, but rather because He defeated death.

Good points.

It's hard to name anything which the original is still the best. That there is no room for improvement.
Many current doctrines developed later. These things take time.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

I am one who views the Genesis creation story as allegorical yet still profoundly true. It's what Karen Armstrong, in her book The Case for God, would call mythos rather than logos:

"Logos (“reason”) was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled people to function effectively in the world. It had, therefore, to correspond accurately to external reality. People have always needed logos to make an efficient weapon, organize their societies, or plan an expedition. Logos was forward-looking, continually on the lookout for new ways of controlling the environment, improving old insights, or inventing something fresh. Logos was essential to the survival of our species. But it had its limitations: it could not assuage human grief or find ultimate meaning in life’s struggles. For that people turned to mythos or “myth.”

"Today we live in a society of scientific logos, and myth has fallen into disrepute. In popular parlance, a “myth” is something that is not true. But in the past, myth was not self-indulgent fantasy; rather, like logos, it helped people to live effectively in our confusing world, though in a different way. Myths may have told stories about the gods, but they were really focused on the more elusive, puzzling, and tragic aspects of the human predicament that lay outside the remit of logos. Myth has been called a primitive form of psychology. When a myth described heroes threading their way through labyrinths, descending into the underworld, or fighting monsters, these were not understood as primarily factual stories. They were designed to help people negotiate the obscure regions of the psyche, which are difficult to access but which profoundly influence our thought and behavior. People had to enter the warren of their own minds and fight their personal demons. When Freud and Jung began to chart their scientific search for the soul, they instinctively turned to these ancient myths. A myth was never intended as an accurate account of a historical event; it was something that had in some sense happened once but that also happens all the time.

"But a myth would not be effective if people simply “believed” in it. It was essentially a program of action. It could put you in the correct spiritual or psychological posture, but it was up to you to take the next step and make the “truth” of the myth a reality in your own life. The only way to assess the value and truth of any myth was to act upon it. The myth of the hero, for example, which takes the same form in nearly all cultural traditions, taught people how to unlock their own heroic potential. Later the stories of historical figures such as the Buddha, Jesus, or Muhammad were made to conform to this paradigm so that their followers could imitate them in the same way. Put into practice, a myth could tell us something profoundly true about our humanity."

This raises questions for me about the Gospel accounts. Were they mythology as well?

Consider this:
- Questionable authorship.
- Remarkable sameness of synoptic accounts. (copied) ???
- Written decades after the events.
- Based on an oral tradition. (like Genesis)

Seems to be a case for the idea.

[

 

[Lambano]

1 means to question: Do not question Me.
The next one means to request.

This is a good catch. NASB20 may have caught the sense better than KJV here:

“And on that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you.

As has already been expressed here,,,,there is little to say about prayer being answered.
If we go by The Lord's Prayer, it would seem that requests for what WE want is not top on the list....
but only what we need spiritually.

"Give us this day our daily bread" as a category includes asking for our physical needs. That includes not just food, but, say, a cure for cancer. Ask. Seek. Knock.

Unless you want to make the argument that "Daily Bread" is only a metaphor referring to spiritual nourishment and spiritual needs. Could be.

 

[Wick Stick]

Good points.

It's hard to name anything which the original is still the best. That there is no room for improvement.
Many current doctrines developed later. These things take time.

[

Where it comes to doctrine, I am generally of the opinion that older is better, and original is best.

Too long talking to folks on forums who are part of the Restoration Movement, probably.

 

[St. SteVen]

Where it comes to doctrine, I am generally of the opinion that older is better, and original is best.

Too long talking to folks on forums who are part of the Restoration Movement, probably.

It seems as if the Church (capital C) had many councils over many years to sort these things out.
I suppose the questions is whether they were getting closer to understanding, or farther away. ???

[

 

[Wick Stick]

It seems as if the Church (capital C) had many councils over many years to sort these things out.
I suppose the questions is whether they were getting closer to understanding, or farther away. ???

Adding layers of complexity to explain away their own misunderstandings, IMO

 

[St. SteVen]

Adding layers of complexity to explain away their own misunderstandings, IMO

Credit where credit is due.
- They gave us the creeds.
- They gave us the canon of scripture.

And a whole lot of other things on the other side of that coin. (that I won't mention here)

[