Fruit bearing plants before dinosaurs?

[Jac3510]

And just to reiterate your point i hope the fallibility of the men who wrote the bible has not gone unnoticed by you. If God ha d had handwritten the present canon and dropped it from heaven that would have been a problem to deny, and sadly enough that is not the case.

You're just begging the question here, and to borrow a play from you book below, you clearly don't understand the doctrine of inspiration (and, it appears, canonicity).

By rejecting all that I have and you are to some extent aware of it, God's nature is only become more invigorating for me. I seriously don't see the loss you refer to, i don't see how that is spiritually even valid let alone be relevant.

Because now you have no authority other than yourself. You believe the parts you like and reject the parts you don't. You can say that isn't the case, but that's the inescapable conclusion of your position. Someone can deny the resurrection by appealing to the fallibility of the human authors and claim that God was simply accommodating precritical beliefs about reality and the human authors were just too ignorant to know the difference. Goose and gander and all that.

Of course, you'll reject that, but that's because you like the resurrection, and that's the difference in me and you--that's also the loss that you refuse to acknowledge. My authority is Scripture. Yours is yourself.

If science and evolution had been mere guess word as you would have me believe then I would have no problem, but that is far from the truth, my personal opinion of little value is that i think you misunderstand evolution or perhaps don't like it with the biblical view, in any case evolution mechanisms are observable, predicted and are evident, if one is bent on denying it than of course no amount of evidence is enough. And we would only agree to disagree.

I don't think evolution is a "mere guess," but here you're just appealing to the typical tactics of evolutionists in general. If I reject it, I must just not understand it! Whether you know it or not, that's just a veiled ad hominem.

Ironically at this junction i found your asking for evidence the same way an atheist would ask for God. If you dont accept something there is no evidence which will convince you. This however is only my observation i don't say this to undermine your point, we disagree on that for sure. Even without the immediate words above.

I haven't asked for evidence for evolution, so you're just projecting here. I wouldn't bother asking for evidence for something God Himself has said is not the case. I regard Him as far more trustworthy on these matters than I do fallible humans. You accuse me of being like atheists--the sad truth is that you're far more like the Pharisees and all the rest of unbelieving Israel throughout biblical history, for it didn't matter how clearly God stated His case and demonstrated His trustworthiness--they always rejected His words. They wrote off His messengers. They rejected His testimony because there always seemed a "better" way, a "truer" way, a way that was, of course, always trumpeted by the wise men of their own ages.

Rom 3:4, neo. Rom 3:4.

edit:

By the way, I hope there's no hard feelings, neo. I don't doubt your love for Christ in any shape, form, or fashion, nor do I doubt your salvation or anything even remotely related. Obviously we disagree here, but I suspect that we have broad agreement across the board on major theological issues. I just happen to think that agreement is far more by coincidence than necessity. It's pretty easy to predict where I'll end up on any given issue, since I believe the Bible should always be read according to a literal-historical-grammatical hermeneutic (that is, it should be taken according to its plain, that is, normal, meaning), and that it's message must be consequently embraced. You've rejected that, so there's no necessity in how you will take any given position. You may be fine, for instance, with the Ten Plagues, but there are quite a few people who would argue that it never happened--indeed, that the Exodus never happened (which would have ramifications on how we understand things like Passover and thus even the Cross itself, to take but one example).

So our disagreement here is exactly the kind that modern YECs tend to make a big deal out of when they say that YEC is foundational to Christianity. Start chipping away here, and you just have no objective basis on which to affirm the rest. Let me reiterate for emphasis: I am not claiming that you do not affirm "the rest" of Christianity, that is, the core doctrines of our faith. I am simply and only saying that you have no objective basis on which to ground that affirmation, and therefore, must like a great many postmodern relativists may agree with me on any given ethical issue (abortion, to take an example), our agreement on such an important issue is coincidental, not necessarily derived from our understanding of reality itself.

I hope that little PS explains the motivation behind my comments above as well as dispels any negativity that tends to get read into these types of disagreements!

[hughfarey]

There's a theme building up here which needs a little balance. It seems that while neo-x and myself are arbitrarily deciding (with no authority other than ourselves) which bits of the bible to take literally and which not, Philip and jac3510 have some kind of superior authority to decide which bits are meant to be understood as science and which are not. I am not allowed to "view Genesis through [my] modern, 21st century, scientific world mindset," but they can announce that the bible stories "do not describe things in neat order or scientifically as we would."

Assuming that neither of us agree that our interpretations hang entirely on personal whim, what is our authority? Mine, as I have said before, is the two thousand years or so of evolving biblical exegesis and interpretation, starting with the selection of what writings should be considered divinely inspired and which shouldn't by the bishops at the Synod of Hippo, and continuing in the light of scientific discovery and philosophical development to the theology of today, as propounded by people such as Ludwig Ott, Karl Rahner and even Joseph Ratzinger. To claim that my views are derived solely from my own authority is demonstrably untrue.

And what is your authority? My guess would be that in common with most creationists, you would say that the bible itself is its own authority, and you need not appeal to any other person. If I ask how you know that the bible is its own authority, you will reply, "because it says it is." This is a priori illogical, and also untrue. Nobody believes a book to be true solely on its own authority. Frankenstein, Robinson Crusoe and Gulliver's Travels all begin with chapters written to demonstrate their literal truth, but nobody takes them as anything other than literary fiction. Is it then, because the truth of the bible is attested not by Mary Shelley or Daniel Defoe, but by God himself? That would surely be incontestable. But where does God attest that his book is true? In the book! The same logical fallacy. Other books are similarly self-referential, such as the Koran and the Book of Mormon. No, that line won't work. Let's try other lines. Biblical truth is testable? Biblical truth is confirmed by external evidence? Biblical truth is derived from its internal consistency? Biblical truth is confirmed by the number of people who have died for it? These are all valid in their way, but not one of them makes any sense at all unless the bible is assumed to be a collection of books of different kinds, from history to poetry. Nobody died defending the concept of a talking snake.

I hope I'm dreadfully wrong, and that you can explain by what authority you think your interpretation of the bible is better than mine in more sensible terms. Why not have a go? But even if you choose not to, don't reply yet again that my interpretation is merely my own personal view. I've got St Augustine of Hippo and St Thomas Aquinas on my side as well.

[Jac3510]

I don't decide "which bits are meant to be understood as science and which are not." No one has the right to do any of that. As I said before, we are to take every word of Scripture according to its normal meaning. That doesn't mean that we don't account for things like figures of speech. To use an English example, the normal meaning of "it's raining cats and dogs" is not that there are animals falling from the sky, but that it is raining very hard.

Our job is to say what the Bible says--no more and no less. If you ask why I should believe the Bible, my claim is not that it claims its own authority. That, as you note, would be circular reasoning. I have several bases in which I ground my belief in the authority of Scripture. One such ground (and it is only one) is that Jesus Himself believed in the authority of Scripture, and since I regard Jesus as authoritative, then that which He considers authoritative and I am therefore bound to affirm as well. Someone may (foolishly) object that I get my views on Jesus from the Bible, but in doing so, they fail to distinguish between the historical value of certain documents and the canonical value of those same documents that Christians have gathered together in a library they call "the Bible." That is to say, I know from strict history that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and on His authority (which, to emphasize, is proven by history), I accept the authority of Scripture. There is, then, no circular reasoning.

The Catholic argument that we need a church or a magesterium to tell us what should or should not be believed, however, is fallacious, insofar as it is self-defeating. Suppose you and I disagree on the interpretation of any given passage. You say I should adopt the position of the Church, since the Church has authority to interpret; in fact, that authority is invested in her precisely because there are disagreements on how the Bible is to be interpreted. But just here you have a serious problem, for how am I to know what the Church teaches the passage in question says? I can read her formal declarations. I can ask a priest or other such figure. But all such methods have this in common: I hear words from the Church, interpret her words, and adhere to that interpretation. Now, if I cannot here the words of Scripture and interpret them correctly, then how can I hear the words of the Church and interpret them correctly? And if I can hear the words of the Church and interpret them correctly, then why can I not hear the words of Scripture and interpret them correctly?

The simple truth is that if my interpretation of Scripture is invalid, then it is for you (or the Church, or whomever) to show me where my reasoning is fautly. And likewise, if I believe the Church's interpretation of a passage is invalid, then it is for me to show her where her reasoning is faulty. But to claim that no person has the authority to hear and interpret Scripture for themselves is simply self-defeating, because the claim itself must be interpreted independently of any such authority.

Given all this, the balance you seek is the one I have already suggested. We are to read the Bible and understand it according to its own language, culture, context, etc. That is, we are to strive to understand what the biblical writers meant when they wrote the words they were inspired to write. We, as Christians, are then to affirm those words. If that affirmation puts us at odds with the affirmations of fallible men in other arenas, then too bad for those fallible men. We must decide who we will trust. I will trust the words of Scripture. Those who choose to trust the ideas of men over the ideas of God commit the same sin that God's people have traditionally committed: not believing His Word in the face of what they see to be a "better" wisdom. Unbelief is, has always been, and will always be the fountainhead of all sin, and that principle applies here as well as anywhere else.

[Philip]

Before getting any further with the theological/allegorical/truth of Scripture debate, I think it might be fruitful for those believing that Adam & Eve and the Genesis Creation accounts are merely allegorical - or even just made up/not inspired by God - to realize that what they THINK they are arguing against in Genesis may well not be what they think the text is saying or supporting.

Read these:

Can the text in Genesis allow for very long periods of time (millions/billions of years)? Here's a look at the original Hebrew wording for "day" and other insights: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

Also note the "related pages" at the bottom of each linked page.

[hughfarey]

Thanks for your explanation, jac3510, which is clear and honest and seems to say the opposite of what you intend!
At least we've got rid of the bible is true because the bible says it's true argument.

However, your explanation that you "know from strict history that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and on His authority (which, to emphasize, is proven by history), I accept the authority of Scripture," is very much a personal conclusion. Nothing wrong with that, and I agree that "to claim that no person has the authority to hear and interpret Scripture for themselves is simply self-defeating, because the claim itself must be interpreted independently of any such authority." However I have interpreted your claim independently, and I disagree with it. And my views are similar to most of current Christian theology. Your authority for your views, whether they are right or wrong, is your own personal opinon. You say "We are to strive to understand what the biblical writers meant when they wrote the words they were inspired to write." So if whoever first formulated the story of Adam and Eve, or the story of Noah, or the story of Jonah, believed their words to be literally true, then so must we. Frankly I don't see that your explanation of the truth of the bible derived from "strict history" implies any such thing. Truth, yes, but literal, scientifically contradictory truth, no.

As for me, I don't argue that I "need a church or a magesterium to tell us what should or should not be believed," any more than my belief in the theory of gravity "needs" the work of Newton or Einstein. However, with reference to their work (and the general corpus of accepted physics) I can at least claim that my views are not "my own personal opinion." This is exactly the case with my views on the truth of the bible. You, as far as you have explained, can't.

And thank you, Philip, for your reference to Rich Deem's hilarious selection of specific kinds of organisms (and omission of nearly all them) in a desperate attempt to show that biblical description of the creation of fruit trees before any mention of animals doesn't conflict with evolution. It's fun, and quite ingenious, but surely, transparently, absurd.

[Jac3510]

Just because you disagree with my conclusions doesn't make them personal opinion, hugh. It could just mean that you are wrong, that you have misread the evidence. More broadly, that some fail to come to reasonable conclusions does not impugn reason, but rather the reasoner. And on this issue, I am very much correct, and if you would like to press the matter, I argue that you are making the same case and thus to claim I'm wrong here is to undermine your own faith.

[hughfarey]

"Just because you disagree with my conclusions doesn't make them personal opinion, Hugh."
No of course, not, and that's not what I said.

"To claim that no person has the authority to hear and interpret Scripture for themselves is simply self-defeating." That's what you said. This is a claim that people can have the authority to interpret scripture for themselves. In other words you are agreeing that individual interpretations can have their own authority. Your interpretation can be its own authority. And my interpretation can be an equal authority. So how to decide?

"... because the claim itself must be interpreted independently of any such authority." You have investigated my personal claim, and reject it. I have investigated your personal claim, and I reject that. So how do decide?

In this case, our personal views become irrelevant. Who else agrees with them, and what is their authority? I claim St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. You claim....? Nobody. You don't need any authority than yourself. You claim people have the authority to hear and interpret Scripture for themselves. But this is where we came in. Your personal opinion, backed up by nobody else, versus my personal opinion, backed up by Ludwig Ott and Joseph Ratzinger.

Well, for all we know, you might be right and I might be wrong. But if you are right it is your own personal opinion which is right, and if I am wrong it is two thousand years of Christian exegesis which is wrong.

[Philip]

Hugh, the point of my posts of Rich's views and a look at how Scripture can line up with the available scientific evidences is NOT so much to say that Rich's opinions as to what happened scientifically are dead on, but more so that the original Hebrew most definitely lines up with and can be interpreted within the known evidences and in support of an ancient universe and earth.

You still have no proof that God worked via the connections/process that you believe in (if so, innumerable scientists wouldn't still be in great disagreement about its key details. And I would submit that my view about Progressive Creation and God using templates of body design and locomotion types across multiple species, multiple periods of creation and extinction (and I compared them to the vast number of cars, buggies, wheeled vehicles - over centuries) also supports the evidences, and just as with vehicle types, does not mean that just because they have great similarities that any one vehicle came from the line of another.

Read this: http://www.reasons.org/articles/does-ol ... enesis-1-2

But what is odd is you doubt many parts of Scripture are God given but you embrace it as to the necessity for salvation. And a Resurrected Lord is an awesome miracle, creating the universe is a sea of miracles - but you don't believe them to be as described. You don't believe Jesus believed that Adam was real, or believe HIm when He endorses "The Law" (the Books of Moses) as being God given, that He came to fulfill the Law, to die for the prophecies of the Old Testament. Then why do you believe that you need to be saved, as the very same people claiming the Bible to be God breathed, also are exactly the very ones whom endorse the Old Testament as being truth from God and also are how you (apparently) know that you need a Savior?

And then, bizarrely, you dismiss the truth of Scripture while also embracing the Catholic Church's opinion that also views that very same Scripture as being God-given and true (and sure, there are differences of opinion, even amongst Catholics, as to the interpretation of some of that). But make no mistake, the Catholic Church teaches the Bible is the truth given from God Himself, and you've now appealed to that. Now one can argue about the science and the "how" in which God created, but you would seem to have gone far beyond that. So you utilize the Catholic Church's teachings to buttress your views and yet you simultaneously reject most of what it teaches?

Questions:
Do you believe Jesus was God?
Why do you believe you need to be saved?
How do you know you are saved?
Do you believe the descriptions of His miracles in the Bible are true? In just the New Testament? Neither testament?
How can Jesus be the "Son of Man" if His lineage does not include the first man? How can He be the "Second Adam," and linked to him, if there truly was no first?

[Jac3510]

"Just because you disagree with my conclusions doesn't make them personal opinion, Hugh."
No of course, not, and that's not what I said.

Your actual words were, "'I accept the authority of Scripture,'" is very much a personal conclusion." Personal conclusion, personal opinion . . . same difference in my mind. (As an aside, you would do well to read Zinsser's On Writing Well , pages 12-13, available for free here for a brief discussion of both the stylistic and intellectual absurdities behind the word "personal").

"To claim that no person has the authority to hear and interpret Scripture for themselves is simply self-defeating." That's what you said. This is a claim that people can have the authority to interpret scripture for themselves. In other words you are agreeing that individual interpretations can have their own authority. Your interpretation can be its own authority. And my interpretation can be an equal authority. So how to decide?

We may be using "authority" differently here. I'm saying that everyone, including you, reads Scripture for themselves and determines for themselves what it means. That does mean that their interpretation is necessarily correct. Further analysis and discussion with those who have interpreted the same passage differently may reveal where their reasoning has failed. In fact, I submit it's the same way with all communication. In this very conversation, we are exchanging words and ideas. You don't appeal to any body outside of yourself to decide what I am saying. In fact, you cannot do so with creating an infinite regression. And so it is with Scripture.

"... because the claim itself must be interpreted independently of any such authority." You have investigated my personal claim, and reject it. I have investigated your personal claim, and I reject that. So how do decide?

We look at the evidence and decide who is being more reasonable, whose interpretation better fits the evidence.

In this case, our personal views become irrelevant. Who else agrees with them, and what is their authority? I claim St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. You claim....? Nobody. You don't need any authority than yourself. You claim people have the authority to hear and interpret Scripture for themselves. But this is where we came in. Your personal opinion, backed up by nobody else, versus my personal opinion, backed up by Ludwig Ott and Joseph Ratzinger.

First, I note the redundant usage of "personal" again. There is no such thing as a non-personal or impersonal view. Your views ARE your "personal" views. What you have done (theoretically) is read Aquinas and Augustine, determine their meaning (for yourself!), and take that meaning (for yourself!), and apply it to Scripture (for yourself!) and insist that is the "real" meaning of Scripture (for yourself!). So the real difference between me and you is not some contrived notion of "personal authority," but rather the validity of a particular body you regard as authoritative: namely, the tradition of your church. I would absolutely agree that if your church's tradition is authoritative, then that tradition must be taken into account when determining the meaning of any given text. But as I do not regard your church's tradition as authoritative, I reject that as a context and appeal to the remaining (and proper) contexts for coming to a proper conclusion regarding meaning--literary, historical, social, semantic, etc.

In fact, to press the case even further, all you have done is commit an ad populum fallacy. So you have your "personal opinion" (whatever that is), which agrees with the "personal opinion" of Ratzinger and Ott. And you'll say that their "personal opinion" is backed up by Aquinas and Augustine. And theirs by . . . and so on and so on. So you conclude that your opinion is "right" because you have a large number of people who hold the same opinion as you. In other words, ad populum.

Well, for all we know, you might be right and I might be wrong. But if you are right it is your own personal opinion which is right, and if I am wrong it is two thousand years of Christian exegesis which is wrong.

Oh, don't be so dramatic. It takes away from your credibility. There are a great many issues I agree with two thousand years of Christian exegesis on. And there are a great many issues I disagree with. Don't pretend that the Christian exegetical tradition is anything like monolithic. For instance, you reject premillennialism (which you'd write off under the name Chiliasm), even though a significant, if not majority, of the earliest church held to it. You'll insist on papal primacy, particularly as centered in the bishop of Rome, when Cyprian (to take one example) rejected that (although he is, dishonestly, often appealed by papists in defense of their doctrine). The fact of the matter is that you appeal to the tradition that you like and reject the rest.

You would do far better to just let the text speak for itself. As I said to neo, Rom. 3:4 should be your guide. But you don't follow that either. You follow the traditions of men as have countless generations of unbelievers before you. But, that's the difference in me and you, as it is with me and neo. For me, the text is the authority. For you, the text merely illustrates your authority, which, of course, is your tradition.

[Jac3510]

But what is odd is you doubt many parts of Scripture are God given but you embrace it as to the necessity for salvation. And a Resurrected Lord is an awesome miracle, creating the universe is a sea of miracles - but you don't believe them to be as described. You don't believe Jesus believed that Adam was real, or believe HIm when He endorses "The Law" (the Books of Moses) as being God given, that He came to fulfill the Law, to die for the prophecies of the Old Testament. Then why do you believe that you need to be saved, as the very same people claiming the Bible to be God breathed, also are exactly the very ones whom endorse the Old Testament as being truth from God and also are how you (apparently) know that you need a Savior?

Quite right, philip. This is exactly the point I was making to neo. There's no logical consistency here. There's no objective basis to accept one part but reject another. It just becomes a matter of likes and dislikes--we become divine authority, not Scripture.

[Philip]

And when I say Hugh has no proof of macro evolutionary scenarios, I acknowledge that he has evidences - and we're mostly looking at the very same ones - but what he has no proof of is that the mechanisms he asserts were responsible, or that the connections between various animals and between animals and humans, have been proven. They most certainly have not, which is why there remains tremendous debate over all of the supposed mechanisms and linkages amongst secular/mainstream scientists. And I would submit that the Cambrian explosion cannot in any way be explained by the various evolutionary mechanisms currently in vogue - as we have 3 billion years of only simple forms and then, in a ridiculously narrow window, we have an immense complexity and mature predator/prey relationships, etc - there simply is not nearly enough time for all of this. And where are all of these transition fossils backing such? One must strain to qualify a few supposed and frequently disputed such forms. And THEN, something is switched off - again contradicting the supposed forces of evolution. And how all of this could even theoretically happen has produced only endless speculation and no consensus of proof. And anyone honest will admit that there is a VAST gulf between evidences and proof of the connecting and necessary mechanisms of such proof. Simply stating macro evolution is a certainty and yet the proof is only a matter of time or discovery, or that it is necessarily impossible to produce, is NOT proof!

IF macro evolution occurred, it was miraculous and guided by God - as what other word is there for such an extraordinary series of unfathomable complexity and interactive order. So if one agrees that God is the cause of something, that can only be described as being miraculous and possible because God made it possible, then does it make any sense to deny other miraculous things in Scripture - especially much SMALLER miracles (in comparison)? And I'm not even asserting that God COULDN'T have/didn't have the ability to create through evolution, but only that the available evidences, from both science and Scripture, strongly suggest not.

[neo-x]

Jac, there are no hard feelings. I hold your opinion on matters such as these in high esteem and often learn from what you write, it is a rare exception that we are disagreeing to the fullest on a single issue.

You would do far better to just let the text speak for itself. As I said to neo, Rom. 3:4 should be your guide. But you don't follow that either. You follow the traditions of men as have countless generations of unbelievers before you. But, that's the difference in me and you, as it is with me and neo. For me, the text is the authority. For you, the text merely illustrates your authority, which, of course, is your tradition.

I am sorry to see that you take such a dim view of scientific facts, and this is not again an ad hominem, Scientifically evolution is undeniable as well as all internal mechanism are observable and predicted. I wish there was a middle ground in this but there isn't. I don't think there is anything to gain by further arguing here. I would have gone with the word interpretation but to be honest I don't think there is much of a margin for Progressive creationism nor Day age. The text itself leans towards YEC and that is why the later authors kept repeating the same thing. I can not say the text is correct because evidence shows it isn't. At this junction, I side with science, you side with the text. So be it. You can say your authority is strictly scriptural, I would not contest it, I think you are right in claiming so, albeit you are wrong factually.

Just one thing, I think you misrepresented me, I never said I accept and reject passages to my liking. I only said where there is evidence to the contrary I must side with the evidence. While this may result in accepting or rejecting parts of Bible, it does not in anyway mean I choose passages to my like and dislike. That implies preestablished bias, and there isn't any. If anything I am trying to be as much honest as I can.

Hugh, I throughly enjoyed your posts and will be looking forward to read more if you continue this thread, for me this debate is ended, unless there is hope for some valuable exchange further down the road.

[hughfarey]

Yes, we may have gone about as far as we can go.

I'm sorry I got so hung up about the word "personal." I was merely bouncing it back, as it were. "Believe me," said Philip, "you'll conveniently only accept portions as true that sync up with your only personal opinions and carnal desires." "YOU are determining what is Scripture and what is not," he said a little later, and then jac3510 said to neo-x,"Now you have no authority other than yourself." Those quotes, and the comments surrounding them, made me feel that redressing the balance was worth a try. The response I elicited suggests it was. Not only was I criticised for using the word 'personal' (and given some rather childish advice on how to write), but now I learn that "there is no such thing as a non-personal or impersonal view. Your views ARE your "personal" views." Well, OK, but by the same logic, aren't yours?

We seem to have reached the stage where because I do not believe the bible is literally true when it claims that fruit trees appeared before fish, that means I "doubt many parts of Scripture are God given," when I specifically denied that some posts ago. I'm told I don't "believe [Jesus] when He endorses "The Law" (the Books of Moses) as being God given," which is untrue, and I "dismiss the truth of Scripture" which is also untrue, and I "reject most of what it teaches," which is verging on the hysterical. I'm told I "appeal to the tradition that like and reject the rest," which cannot possibly be inferred from anything I have said here, and that for me "the text merely illustrates your authority, which, of course, is your tradition," which is the reverse of the truth.

However I do agree with this: "We look at the evidence and decide who is being more reasonable, whose interpretation better fits the evidence," which is as good a place as any to rest. If Baltazorg is still following his OP, he would do well to follow your advice.

[RickD]

Hugh, I looked at your profile, and it says you're a Christian and you don't believe in creation. Could you explain? And also, before I jump into the conversation and give my opinion on what it looks like I'm reading, could you please answer Philip's questions he asked here:

Questions:
Do you believe Jesus was God?
Why do you believe you need to be saved?
How do you know you are saved?
Do you believe the descriptions of His miracles in the Bible are true? In just the New Testament? Neither testament?
How can Jesus be the "Son of Man" if His lineage does not include the first man? How can He be the "Second Adam," and linked to him, if there truly was no first?

Hugh,
Your answers to my question above, and philip's questions can help me better understand your pov, so there'll be a lot less assumptions on my end.

Thanks

[hughfarey]

Golly. Right, well let's see...

1) Do you believe Jesus was God?
ANSWER: Yes.

2) Why do you believe you need to be saved?
ANSWER: Sadly, my theology is nothing like as good as my science. The most honest answer I can give is that I don't know.

3) How do you know you are saved?
ANSWER: Again, the most honest answer I can give is that I don't know.

4) Do you believe the descriptions of His miracles in the Bible are true? In just the New Testament? Neither testament?
ANSWER: If you mean literally true, then no. I don't believe 2 fish fed 5000 people, for example. I think Jesus was associated with a number of occurrences that convinced the witnesses for a while that he was literally 'supernatural.' The conviction didn't last, and by the time he was crucified the vast majority of his followers had changed their minds. Since that time, it has been the accounts of those miracles, rather than the events themselves, that have drawn people to follow Christ, which makes me think that the accounts are more 'true' than the historical events they portray.

5) How can Jesus be the "Son of Man" if His lineage does not include the first man? How can He be the "Second Adam," and linked to him, if there truly was no first?
ANSWER: Jesus's lineage, no more nor less than mine or yours, derives from the first humans, the first fish, and the first blobs of archaea that were the first living things. Speciation is a gradual process, but if one was compelled to make a clear distinction, one would find for every one of us that there was an ancestor who was human, whose father was not. You may choose to call that person Adam, if you wish.

I hope that helps.