Pretty Much

Tremper Longman, III pretty much sums up my entire view on the historicity of Adam (see this post and the following comments).

(HT: Justin Taylor)

B”H

About these ads

22 thoughts on “Pretty Much

  1. My personal opinion is that Adam in Genesis is a representative of humanity, and serves in the Garden of Eden as the first chief priest for God, with Eden being God’s sanctuary. I first ran into this allegorical reading from Scott Hahn’s “A Father Who Keeps His Promises.” A very interesting book.

  2. Nor I, with Esteban and Brian. I would be willing to read more on the matter from this perspective, especially given my attraction to the Eden-as-temple interpretation.

  3. Rod: I’m with you on the first part (= Adam representing humanity). Past that I’m not sure because I’ve not read the narrative that way nor have I heard it explained that way. I’ll give it some thought.

    Esteban: Alright, then just agree with me and call it a day! ;-)

    Brian: So join him in his inevitable agreement with me. ;-)

    Jason: When did you become attracted to that? After reading Walton’s book or before?

  4. What’s funny is reading the comments on that post that you linked to. I swear I feel like I’m entering an alternate world when I listen in on the conversations that conservatives have. Their concerns seems so far from mine.

    Bryan L

  5. Nick: Though I had my doubts about a literal 6-day creation for some time now, it was an article by G. K. Beale I read a few years ago that piqued my interest. Walton’s work helped to push me in that direction. Beale’s article is “Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48 (2005), pp. 5-31. I haven’t read his book on this subject, but it seems to be an expanded treatment of it.

  6. Allocation of Adam and Eve to mythological allegory causes considerable problems down the genealogical lines and with the concept of original sin. Just who else might be considered mythological?

  7. Jason: For a long time I was a gap theory proponent but I’ve been open to the day/age theory for a while now. I always liked the gap theory because it allows for an old Earth (which I believe in) but does away with the need of evolution (which I’m not convinced of) as an explanation for the age of the earth. The day/age theory does this as well but it doesn’t have all the theological bells and whistles that the gap theory does. In any event, let me know where you end up in your studies on this subject. I’ll probably never be interested enough in it to devote any great deal of time to it.

    Nancy: I don’t think it causes many (if any) problems at all. Check out the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. They’re both there for theological reasons and make theological points. Their value isn’t contingent upon the historicity of the people mentioned or the historical accuracy of their authors.

  8. Nick: I plan to purchase Beale’s book and read it some time in the near future. I am not interested enough in the issue for intense study and reflection, but it has captured my attention. I share your sentiments concerning the earth’s age. For a while (as a new believer) I couldn’t reconcile what is virtual consensus in the scientific community with literal 6-day creationism. Now I think the view espoused in Walton’s book (and others) alleviates this tension. I, too, find evolution largely untenable, but not interesting enough to delve into Dawkins’ books or other proponents.

  9. Nick: I was interested in it more when I was trying to sort through my issues with creation. But, alas, I forsook the enterprise and left it up to others to worry about! I feel more comfortable in biblical studies and decided some years ago to pour my energies into that. I do, however, read a few ID blogs that are quite interesting.

  10. Just for clarification–I am rather firmly convinced that God created the entire universe ex nihilo. Just wanted to state that for the record! :-)

  11. Me, too. I have a handful of books on evolution, science & religion, philosophy, etc. that once grabbed my attention. Now, looking at them on my shelf, often think “I could’ve bought a good commentary for what I paid for that one!”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s