It makes me as uncomfortable as ID makes you uncomfortable.

You're meaning depends on how uncomfortable you think ID makes me. I'm assuming you think that ID makes me not the least uncomfortable, which is probably true. So you're saying that it doesn't make you uncomfortable. Fair enough, the question is why? I really am curious as to what people think about this, I didn't throw it out there as a troll.

Without getting into the many reasons, the main would be that your statement just does not logically follow.

I do however believe that Adam and Eve were real, but if I did not it would still not pose a threat based on your statement.

Watch out - this is Jib's patented "ham-handed mirror chess/ignore questions" one-two KO combo. It's invincible!

Why not get into the many reasons? I can take it! Show me the illogic!

First off, the historicity of Jesus stands on extremely firm ground and Jesus-deniers are among the minority. So even if Jesus being associated with a metaphorical person was evidence against his existence, it would be drowned in the evidence for his existence.

Secondly, even if we were to believe that Adam and Eve were considered metaphorical people, what the represented was very real. So to associate Jesus to Adam would have been associating Jesus to what Adam represented, and that would have been known (assuming that this is what Jewish people thought) by everyone and would have been the same as associating him to a real person.

have to leave work, we can start with these and you can tell me why I am wrong.

I think you've missed my point. My point is NOT that this argument argues against the existence of the man Jesus. It is to show that if there was no Adam and Eve then there is a deliberate mistruth somewhere in the genealogy. At some point the holy word of god fibs: it describes the father of one of the characters as a fictional character. For Christians, it stands that there is therefore a deliberate lie in the NT. If true, I can't imagine it wouldn't be troubling to Christians.

If you believe in Adam and Eve, for there not to be a lie you have to accept the young earth story for there not to be a lie. For if Adam and Eve are just the first evolved humans, they must be far further back in time for the genealogy to work. Even if you accept that Jews in those days skipped people, the bible describes the begetting in succession, and therefore there would be a fib there.

Unless you want to say that genealogy is allegorical too, but I'd like to hear the arguments for that.

Fair enough, but when you said,

You can see how I misunderstood. We'll move on then.

It would in no way be a mistruth if the point was to tie Jesus to a very real concept, in other words tying Jesus to what Adam represented. And no one would be mislead as this would be common knowledge.

This is something that you have yet to show, so i will address it when you do, now it stands as a baseless assertion.

Ok, there is no issue here.

Could you please show me a clear line from Adam to Jesus in succession.

If Adam was the first human and evolution is true that would be umposable.

not true. Read the post where I explain why "first human" and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

In a way, bringing Jesus into this is a bit of a red herring. My only point in linking it to the Jesus story is to show that the fib is replicated in the NT.

Well, maybe you need to educate me here, because the way I read it both the OT (various places) and the NTMathew and Luke) describe it in succession: unless beget has a different meaning there than "to sire/father". That's why I say you have to accept young earth: or at least I guess that the first evolved human was 6,000-10,000 years ago, which is clearly wrong.

They would of had to skip a ton of generations plus there was no writing through most of human history so God would of had to hand down the info.

You keep calling it a "fib", how on earth you justify this? You continue to side step my response and continue to assert.

There is no clear line, just parts of lines. And again, it was common to only include the important people in the genealogy.

Then way are there a lot of unknowns in the genealogy?


Not that it matters anyway. If Adam was the first human then there should of been no need to show his connection to Adam scene we're all form Adam.

I'm sorry, I've been posting a lot tonight, thought I'd answered you quite directly. What have I sidestepped?

Even if you accept that the Adam story was conceptual (which I can accept) that necessitates that there is a fib somewhere in the geneology becuase it says that Adam (the fictional character) begat someone else (fitcional? we don't know when history inserts itself right?) but somewhere once figurative is replaced by historical there is an historical person who is said to have been begatten by a figurative person. Thus we have to accept there is at least one fib in there somewhere (the point where the figurative people are replaced by the literal people).

See, although no one seems to want to say how they determine what is figurative vs literal (there's a whole other thread on that) you would admit, I submit, that the geneology can't be taken as figurative. It's presented as historical, and there isn't exactly any moral lesson to be had from the figurative account. If I'm wrong in this I'd be happy to hear how.

The fact that there is no "fib", as in an intentional obfuscation of the truth. If Adam was seen as metaphorical, everyone would know this. So no one was trying represent him as anything other than what he is, an important representation of "something".

The context. The problem is that many people (both atheists and christians) like to believe that the context is english speaking 21st century Americans. I had an entire thread pointing out how fallacious it is that people try and pretend that certain passages are to be taken literally, and how if this was written today in english using the same sort of metaphorical/figurative language this would not be an issue. There are of course always to going to be dual meanings and subtleties, but that is another story.

I agree, but that does not excuse the fact that we have knowledge of ancient genealogies and their construction. Saying that Jesus was literally a descendant of David and literally a descendant of Adam, does not mean that there were literally only two generations of people before Jesus.

Nor does it mean a genealogy that is not figurative could not include a metaphorical person that represents a very real and important concept.

For the record, I have not seen any reason to believe that Adam was not a real person or to believe that the Garden of Eden story was not a somewhat (even if is was 'flowered up') accurate account.

Again, I'm not saying Adam wasn't figurative. But my point is that if he's not figurative then there is a fib in the geneology. This is necessarily true. A fictional character cannot beget an historical person.

[/quote]I agree, but that does not excuse the fact that we have knowledge of ancient genealogies and their construction. Saying that Jesus was literally a descendant of David and literally a descendant of Adam, does not mean that there were literally only two generations of people before Jesus.[/quote]

Well, then why is the text so specific? Why does the text give no hint that it left people out. Why is the word begat used, rather than something more general like "lead to" or somesuch. If something as literal as geneology can't be taken literally in the bible, how can any of it be taken literally? The context seems clear in what its trying to say: it even refers to generations doesn't it? If we're supposed to infer other non-mentioned generations, where does the context suggest that?

Sure, but again, that still necessitates a fib when we start talking about real people. Which person in the bible was begat by someone who didn't exist?

[/quote]For the record, I have not seen any reason to believe that Adam was not a real person or to believe that the Garden of Eden story was not a somewhat (even if is was 'flowered up') accurate account.[/QUOTE]

I think this has been discussed above: there are problems with either considering Adam to be the first evolved human, as well as problems if he was created instantaneously. Really, figurative is the best bet for Adam.

Matthew 1:1-17 (New American Standard Bible)

Matthew 1
The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah

1The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, (A)the son of David, (B)the son of Abraham:

2Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of [a]Judah and his brothers.

3Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, (C)Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram.

4Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon.

5Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse.

6Jesse was the father of David the king. David (D)was the father of Solomon by [b]Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah.

7Solomon (E)was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa.

8Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah.

9Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah.

10Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the (F)father of Josiah.

11Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the (G)deportation to Babylon.

12After the (H)deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel.

13Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor.

14Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud.

15Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob.

16Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, (I)who is called the Messiah.

17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the (J)deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the (K)deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

The Bible Says the Earth is Young

It would have been known by the people of that time. Again, you have to look at it the way that someone of that time would look at it.

Because if Adam was a figurative person then he still would have represented something very real. That is the point. And everyone at that time would have understood that.

This is a bit hand-wavey. Did this 'something real' walk on two legs and have kids?

hmmm, I guess it would get a little difficult to know when the concept stops and the reality begins. I was focusing so much on Adam and Jesus I did not really think about everything else that is tied into Adam. You really would have to eventually make a lot of the OT figurative.

Alright, at this point I think that I have to concede, well played.

It would help if you took a class on the subject.

Here is a course on the Hebrew Bible, for free. No reason to remain ignorant.

What? Are talking to me?

Not sure if you were being sarcastic here. But assuming you weren't, I guess I would ask: what effect do you think this inconsistency has?

It isn't a very long story. What aspects of it do you not see any reason to believe were not "somewhat accruate."

Once you accept that it is an allegory complete with embellishments and flowery language, I don't know how you go back to the story being accurate in any meaningful way.