These are but a few of the discoveries that indicate the idea of an historical original human pair Adam and Eve has become infinitesimally unlikely.

I believe that some things of God are just supernaturally known and cannot be understood through scientific evidence or logic. I could not be more confident in my beliefs. My faith never wavers. I feel bad for those whose does.
I guess The Holy Spirit just deals with all of us individuals differently, but that’s how He has taught me.
I am grateful for God’s supernatural revelation, but not proud.

@nick: please point me to a scholar or evidence from the book of watchers that i am wrong. it’s not a subjective reading. who have you read on 1 enoch?
also, i did not reference the seventh from adam in my comment, so i don’t know what you’re getting at there.
as a side note, the amount of vitriol in your comment is not needed. calling another person pathetic? come on nick, you’re better than that.

Camden and David, thanks for the clarifications.

David, I’m curious about where you got the claims you make in your post. You may want to re-evaluate your source, because it’s providing you with information that is quite disassociated from reality. The theory of polygenesis preceded Darwin, and he responded to it in _The Descent of Man_, thusly:

“The question whether mankind consists of one or several species has of late years been much agitated by anthropologists, who are divided into two schools of monogenists and polygenists. Those who do not admit the principle of evolution, must look at species either as separate creations or as in some manner distinct entities; and they must decide what forms to rank as species by the analogy of other organic beings which are commonly thus received. But it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some definition of the term “species” is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an element which cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of creation. We might as well attempt without any definition to decide whether a certain number of houses should be called a village, or town, or city. We have a practical illustration of the difficulty in the never-ending doubts whether many closely-allied mammals, birds, insects, and plants, which represent each other in North America and Europe, should be ranked species or geographical races; and so it is with the productions of many islands situated at some little distance from the nearest continent.

Those naturalists, on the other hand, who admit the principle of evolution, and this is now admitted by the greater number of rising men, will feel no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a single primitive stock; whether or not they think fit to designate them as distinct species, for the sake of expressing their amount of difference.”

This quote is from a long argument favoring the position that races should NOT be designated as distinct species. You can read that argument by searching Google Books for a phrase from the passage above. The argument includes the following paragraph:

“But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other organic being, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke.17 This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive character between them.”

So it appears that your claim that polygenesis was “popularized by Darwinian Evolution” is more or less exactly wrong. Many people before Darwin made the argument that there were multiple human species, and Darwin made the argument that there was only one.

I’m always surprised when people try to connect anti-Semitism to Darwin. Haven’t you heard of Martin Luther book _On the Jews and Their Lies_? Anti-Semitism is much older than the theory of evolution; the fact that some people tried to use the theory to defend their own bigotry has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the theory itself.

The concepts behind eugenics are also much older than the theory of evolution. People have probably always known that you can encourage or discourage traits in domestic animals by selectively breeding them; eugenics is just applying that concept to humans. The theory of evolution doesn’t come into it at all: obviously, if people are doing the selecting, it’s not _natural_ selection, it’s _artificial_ selection. I don’t see what Darwin has to do with it.

Steve

Steve,

What Nick is talking about is the concept of polygenesis. This was the idea, popularized by Darwinian Evolution, that the various races developed distinctly in different geographical locations, e.g. Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, etc. [I forget the other races according to Darwinian thought]. This was the idea that they have no biological relationship. In fact the concept of races meant that there were more developed races and less developed races. This was used to justify the subjugation of the inferior races by the superior race.

Richard Evans in volume one of his three volume set on the history of the Third Reich speaks to the issues of how popular Darwinism influenced Anti-Semitism in the Second Reich (1870-1918). I would recommend that you read Wellhausen’s Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. In it he goes on for pages with Anti-Semitic screeds drawn from Social Darwinian thought. In fact prior to the concept of polygenesis there is no such thing as Racism. There is Ethno-centrism or other forms of bias, but racism presupposes poly-genesis of the human race. That is the point that Nick was making. While evolutionary scientists have sought to eschew social Darwinism and eugenics since 1945, they are the children of Darwinian thought.

Grace and Peace,.
David

“Economy” comes from the greek works oikos (house) and nomos (law). Nick is using it in the sense “of or relating to a household or its management” (Webster’s Dictionary). It’s a distinction that arises from roles and responsibilities, not ontic categories. In other words, the distinctions are not of being, but of roles and relations.

For instance, the Father, Son and Spirit are each equally and fully God. However, for the sake of the church’s redemption they have taken on different roles. In an economic sense, the Son submits to the Father and the Spirit to both the Father and the Son.

Adam was God’s viceregent (or vicegerent depending on your nationality). You’re correct that the command was given to Adam, but it was a law that was effective for all people. Again, we can appeal to Romans for an illustration. Romans 13 tells us that we are to obey those who hold authority over us. Disobeying an authority, provided they are not commanding us to disobey God, is akin to disobeying God himself. The Reformed have understood the 5th command (Honor your father and mother…) with this broader context.

If that is the case, then Eve did disobey God directly. However, she was not condemned until Adam sinned because Adam was the federal head. You’ll note in Genesis 2 that God did not come to the garden (I read that as coming in judgment) until Adam had eaten of the tree.

In terms of limited atonement, you have noticed an issue other have brought up. The short answer would be that the federal headship of Adam and Christ is effective for all those who are under their headship. For Adam, it is all those who descend from him by ordinary generation (so Christ is excluded). For Christ, it is all those who are united to him by faith. I don’t have the space for an extended exegetical treatment here, but I will forward you to John Murray’s The Imputation of Adam’s Sin for further study if you are interested.

Nick, you’re using “economic” with some private meaning I don’t share. I think “economic” means money. What are you talking about?

Men and women are ontologically equal. They are both Imago Dei. Even the Hebrew words for man and woman are related to show this equality. But men and women have different economic roles. In the realm of race, there is one race. Ontonlogically all men are equal. To say that there are races, is to make a distinction that is an denial of ontological equality. There is no economic distinction with regard to people groups. You can try and try, but you cannot do away the inevitable reality of Darwin’s system being inherently racist.

Nick, what does that mean?

I would argue that racism and sexism must include prescriptive or normative statements that rest on differences between groups; descriptive statements about differences are not racist/sexist/whatever, they’re just claims about the way the world _is_, not the way the world _ought to be_. Descriptive statements may be true or false, but the do not have any intrinsic moral import. Racist normative statemetns may use descriptive statements as a jumping off point, but that is an illegitimate move.

What definition are you working from?

You are blurring ontological and economic categories.

By that standard, if you believe iin more than one sex, you are sexist. Are you serious?

It’s possible. Is it probable?

Also note that the paragraph title on the page I mentioned was “On the races of man.” That, my friend, is racism. If you believe in more than one race, you are racist.

Thank you for the brotherly admonishment.

Nick

You’re goofing, right? Why would I appeal to Scripture since that is not even my point. I’m afraid in your zeal to defend historic Adam, you’ve missed what I addressed in the first place. My comments had nothing to do with the truth of Darwinism, or exegetical issues of Genesis 1 or Romans 5. My ONLY POINT was that you (specifically) engaged in a reckless, fear-mongering caricature of Darwin by associating him with things he patently did not believe. You don’t really think that it is okay to be inaccurate and inattentive to facts in dealing with others you disagree with? It doesn’t advance your case. It makes true and good things you say more suspect, since truth is not valued but just simply winning the point. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not simply make a pietistic feint.

And your reference doesn’t to p. 167 doesn’t prove what you intend. Where is the racism? He uses the word “Aryan” but that word didn’t mean the same thing 150 years ago in England that it does here (i.e. it means Indo-European – which is what he was talking about in the context of the pages you noted). Did you read any of the other book I linked?

I’m not setting myself (or my pride, or name) as an authority. You? Frankly, you couldn’t conclude that from anything I have written either. Are you just not comfortable having people disagree with you? All I did was show you were you made a mistake on ONE aspect of the podcast (and was laudatory of most of the rest). Your response was to change the topic, and (try) to do a little Van Tilian Kung Fu. You don’t have to know everything or be right about everything for people to respect you, Nick.

Honestly, your next to last post bordered on bombastic (and again) was wrong.. The “exclusive” reason men deny the historic Adam is Darwinism? Even you know that is not true (e.g. Baron D’ Holbach died before Darwin was born and denied Adam – and much else). I think what is governing this whole conversation is that you are anxious to defend a view (historic Adam) and letting that obscure the way you are doing it.

Warmly,
PGR

“So, even if he was anti-Slavery, that does not get him off the charge of being a racist.”

The ancient Jews had laws that shunned others such as not allowing eating with non-Jews. Is that racist?
Like Darwin, Ancient Jews are in a social context where racists ideas were common to their cultures.

Should I take the answer to my question of 2:30P, April 1st…
“What does it mean if you have faith in God but not in the historicity of Adam?”

A:”Take away an historical Adam and the result must necessarily be a racist anthropology.”

I think my question is about faith and not about anthropology or evolution. Who knew the historicity of Adam would land us in a discussion of evolution, natural selection, racism, slavery, and Darwin.

Jim, I’m perfectly willing to agree that Darwin was racist. In fact, I pointed it out myself in my very first post. I don’t think you and Nick need to make the point any further.

What I’m not willing to agree with is your claim that the theory of evolution by natural selection is inherently racist. How have you come to that conclusion?

Steve

What does it mean if you have faith in God but not in the historicity of Adam?

No Art. Your reading of the book of Enoch is subjective at best. You can’t say, “the author(s) of the book of the watchers (1 enoch 1-36) do not reflect any concern for conveying the history of enoch as perserved in the past, nor a concern for torah in general,” immediately after telling me that my understanding of Jude’s use of Enoch is unsubstantiated. You gave absolutely no evidence for your understanding of the reference to the “seventh from Adam” in your comment. That is really quite ironic. You charge me with something that you exhibit in your charge. Wow. This really is pathetic, that all the men criticizing us are doing the same things they are criticizing. At the end of the day, we have a different methodology. It is wrong for you to say I am simply eisegeting the text. That actually doesn’t mean anything. You can say that to anyone who comes to a different conclusion on a text than the one you hold. Surely one of us is eisegeting, but the real issue is that we have a radically different hermeneutical approach to the text. Mine is intertextual with regard to the canon. Your’s, Enn’s and Longman’s is intertextual with regard to pagan literature and the Bible.

Ranger,

I had Dan Timmer as a professor for my Th.M studies, so I am well aware of the arguments that evangelical ANE scholars present in this regard. I am not sure how to respond to your charges of pride, and of ignorance of the Pentateuch. All I can say is that I do have pride in my heart and pray that the Lord removes it on a daily basis. But, at the end of the day, your charges are built on the fact that you diagree with my conclusions that a denial of the historicity of Adam based on chalking Genesis up to mythography is dangerous. You can disagree with someone without charging them with being proud.

What appeal to authority have you made, except to Darwin, in any of your criticisms. In fact, none of the men who have criticized us have even quoted one verse of Scripture, except for Steve Ruble. Though his arguments were exegetically weak, at least he attempted to criticize some of our statements biblically. Seems to me that you are your own authority on this matter. The issue of evolution and Darwinism has everything to do with the discussion of a historical Adam, since that is why men deny the historicity of Adam. In fact, it is the exclusive reason why men deny the historicity of Adam. If you read the Bible at face value, you would never ever come to deny an historic Adam–at least not on the sole authority of God’s word. That is the point.

I don’t need to re-listen to the discussion. The podcast was actually NOT about good science vs. bad science, but about the historicity of Adam and the various theological problems of of not affirming it (e.g. different BT approaches in the interpreting and understanding Adam). That part was interesting, informed, and helpful. But it drifted into a tendentious screed about Darwin and Darwinism that was incongruous with most of the rest of the podcast – mainly because it was not well reasoned or informed. I responded to Camden’s inquiry about Discovery Institute and WTS co-hosting an event with them as a post-script, mainly because it was an appeal to authority on his part.

Grace,
PGR

That hardly says anything. Given that limited statement I can gladly sign on too. All it says is that there is no inherent contradiction between science and faith. I agree. But this issue is not one of science v faith. If you listened to our podcast in that way you need to go back and listen again. The issue is between good v bad science; and good v. bad biblical theology. To deny a historical Adam is bad biblical theology.

Blessings,

@jim: i don’t think this statement is accurate. there is no doubt in my mind that a couple of my friends and i could sit around a microphone for an hour and find many things that are unclear about “orthodox” theology, especially when it comes to the doctrine of scripture.
furthermore, “you misunderstood” is not some sort of rally cry. it’s the truth. you can either take it as such and attempt to rightly understand the issues at hand, or you can continue to think that you already do understand them even when people are telling you that you don’t. that decision is yours. i would hope that you would take it seriously and really want to understand these issues, because they aren’t going away until they are dealt with. by misunderstanding them, you have yet to deal with them.

“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.”

So, here is the point, and I write as someone who has done campus ministry and church planting (still doing the latter), when you talk about beliefs and world-views that you are critiquing you should be sure that a person who holds those views would recognize himself in what you say, and not simply hear a caricature or inaccurate presentation of what they believe. I hate it when folks here in Portland do that with Christianity.

Blessings,
PGR

p.s. I don’t think much of the Discovery Institute. I do know that the chair of the AP department at WTS participated in the first BioLogos workshop, and signed their first statement.
http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Workshop_statement.pdf

Nick, come on. Why did you post that quote from Darwin? Do you think that quote mining is a legitimate form of argument?

If you derived this quote from the primat source, shame on you for tryin to deceive thsoe reading this discussion. If you’re quoting this from a secondary source and merely echoing their argumnet, I’d strongly recommend no longer trusting that source, as it is clearly duplicitous.

For those unfamiliar with Darwin, the paragraph following Nick’s quote explains that attempting to breed humans would destroy the most noble part of our nature, and would constitute an “overwhelming present evil”. I can’t link to anything here because I’m typing on my phone, but if you want to read the context of that quote search Google Books for a few word from it, in quotes.

I’m not familiar with the Kairos Journal, but I’m not too concerned; if they are raising the issue of the “favored races” verbage they clearly aren’t interested in good faith discussion. The Origin hardly mentions humans or human ethnic groups, and in Darwin’s day “races” meant the same thing as “varieties”. Of course, Darwin was racist just like almost everyone else of his time, but that has nothing to do with the argument presented in OoS.

Finally, the theory of evolution is not inherently racist. Under the theory, every living thing is decended from a common ancestor, and everything that is not extinct is tautologically equally successful: they have all survived, therefore they are all members of the “fittest”, if you need a simplified explanation. Anyone who extracts a eugenic or racist ideology from the theory is doing it for their own reasons, just as people can do with any theory (ever hear of Christian Identity?).

So please, stick to good arguments, if you have them.

Thanks,
Steve

In recognition of the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, the Kairos Journal recently reminded its readers of the subtitle to the evolutionist’s magnum opus, The Origin of the Species. What is the book’s subtitle? The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

This obviously opens the door for something that contemporary Darwinists try to deny, namely, that evolution as a worldview is an inherently racist theory that opens the moral door for eugenics, euthanasia, and other crimes against humanity.

Here is what Darwin writes in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

For those who think that this episode was not an educated or persuasive attempt to defend creationism biblically, I would invite you to record your own show and send it to us. I will gladly post your show on Feeding on Christ, whatever your view may be.

To satisfy my own curiosity, could you tell me what you think of the Discovery Institute? Nick didn’t say much of anything different from John G. West. He recently spoke at a conference co-sponsored by the Discovery Institute and Westminster Theological Seminary.

I’m pretty sure that the historical record shows that slavery predates Darwin.

Your theological discussion on this topic was interesting, though a bit tendentious. A good discussion of the interaction between General and Special Revelation would be a helpful supplement to this, e.g. why aren’t we still geo-centrists as a lead in question), but your breathless comments on Darwin and Darwinism are brutally ignorant and embarrassing. Darwin was no more racist for a man of his time than anyone else, and surely much less so than men like Dabney, Thornwell, et al.

It is public record that Darwin in fact did not endorse slavery, (see link below – there is a whole book about it). And to make the specious connections between Darwin and Nazism, etc. is overly simplistic and hurts your credibility, and basically soiled an otherwise engaging podcast. Surely, you have something more reasonable to say than “people took the idea of natural selection and applied it in horrible ways, therefore it is discredited.” Where does that leave covenant theology (which was used to substantiate chattel slavery in America)? You could have also pointed out how natural selection has been useful as an organizing principle for scientists in work of immunology, conservation, etc. Bad and selective reasoning, friends.

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Sacred-Cause-Slavery-Evolution/dp/0547055269

Best,
PGR

The distinction can’t be that dated, Enns makes it in his book (pp. 43 and 108). As for the rest of what you say, I am not sure how it applies to the question. Was Adam a historical figure or no? An entire theological system either stands or falls on the basis of the answer to that question.

It seems clear to me that Longman – at best – calls into question a historical Adam. Did I mishear him?

It also seems that Enns and co. have way to quickly jumped off the orthodox bandwagon because of ANE parallels to the Genesis accounts. Granted, in his book he does speak about differences. However, for him the similarities provide a “problem.” I’m not sure I see the problem. To be honest, I’m not sure I see any real similarities. I am not persuaded that Genesis and the ANE parallels “breath the same air.” I also know that Enns’ way of seeing things here is not new but quite old. And that there are alternatives to his perspective. Here I am thinking of Kline’s “Structure of Biblical Authority” and John Walton’s new volume “Ancient Near Eastern Thought.” Both of these volumes do an excellent job of giving a theological framework for dealing with parallels which preserve both inerrancy and a historical Adam.

Blessings,

Thanks for your kind words and also your suggestion.

If you find the time, would be willing to share with us either what it was that did win you over to the historical Adam side and/or what you think would be helpful for winning someone over to that side today? Thanks!

Blessings,

Steve,

After thinking about it for a day or two I decided to pull the comment down. I didn’t find that it contributed to our cause. Frankly, it was rashly written and probably should not have been posted in the first place. Since I decided to take it down, I’ve pulled your response to it as well. It wouldn’t do other readers much use to read a reply to something that doesn’t exist anymore. Perhaps Nick can respond to you directly.

Any idea where it might have gone, and/or whether my response will ever be posted?

Thanks,
Steve

Thanks for your great ministry in these podcasts; I love them.

I myself passionately believe in an historical Adam, but I didn’t always. And I must say, your pod cast would certainly not have won me over to the historical Adam position because it didn’t really deal with the issues surrounding Gen. 1-11 in their complexity. (I don’t want to go into all the details why in such a forum as this, I don’t have the time).

Can I suggest that particularly on an issue such as this one, you refrain from discussing it amongst yourselves but do so with an expert in the field?

Keep up the great work.

Every blessing in Christ,

Marty.

I feel I must add…that I enjoy the podcast. I found you beginning with the 2/26 podcast and will probably start working backwards from there.

If the “take home” is the “law of faith” dictates we accept the historicity of Adam because its written in the OT then it can be a much shorter podcast… “We have faith that the historicity of Adam is firmly established by the OT and therefore is not contestable.”

Also, the point that historical events show up in the Bible therefore establish its historicity. I’ve read many a novel that are based on actual historical events…that doesn’t mean the characters are real or their thoughts and actions actually took place. This was another weak premise on which to base historicity.

Is this really the best case we have for the historicity of Adam?

I personally don’t know how to respond to this podcast. I’m a huge fan of the show, and have commented here in the past. Regardless of the content of the podcast, I was disappointed in the perceived attitude (I could be wrong) among some of the presenters and would call any fellow elder to repentance if we served together. I believe that the presenters came across as prideful at times, especially the latter half, and should be held accountable for such.

As to the content, I do not feel that the podcast was honest to what Hebraists, ANE historians, and even what the majority of evangelical Old Testament profs are saying in regards to the historicity of the OT passages. As Art has pointed out above the issues have little to do with unbelieving versus believing presuppositions. As a believer in the full inerrancy of Scripture, I must deal with the fact that this fully inerrant Scripture seems to have a more ancient Hebrew linguistic pattern in Judges 5. There’s plenty more and any believing OT prof can direct you in this regard. It’s not a matter of inerrantists and those with a low view of Scripture or believing versus unbelieving hermeneutics, but simply a matter of whether or not we take the text (as it is) seriously both in what it says and in how it is shaped.

Can biblical inerrancy hold that the Pentateuch has Mosaic origins, while also hold that it has undergone revision and updating to further display God’s progressive revelation throughout history? I believe it can and must, because studying the text from a believing perspective, and trying to be as honest as possible to God’s revelation and God Himself mandates that we realize that the Pentateuch is not monolithic and that much more than the death story came post-Moses, and much of what may be Mosaic in origin has been shaped to fit later issues in God’s redemptive history.

It would be beneficial if you interviewed a believing Old Testament specialist on these issues in the future since they would surely know how better to address the topics in discussion. It would benefit the listeners to hear Waltke, Daniel Timmer or another godly man who is intimately familiar with the Pentateuch in particular.

I was beginning to write a reply to Nick, but Art beat me to it quite ably.

Nick, I don’t deny that options #1-2 could have happened. But it does seem like we’re imposing our views on the text at that point. Why not learn from what the authors of the NT seem to be doing with the sources they have? I know you would agree with that statement in principle, but we disagree on what the NT writers seem to be doing with the OT and 2TJ texts they have.

I think that’s where historical study has to come into play, to calibrate our expectations of the functions of these texts. I don’t know that we can make a hard distinction, for instance, between using an Ugaritic text to help us understand a Hebrew word in a psalm, using that Ugaritic text to understand a syntactical construction in that Hebrew poem, and using an Ugaritian conception of a deity to inform our understanding of the psalmist’s view of YHWH. To deny the necessity of historical study is actually to undermine the historicity of our faith.

overall, i didn’t feel as if those involved with the panel actually dealt with the real issues. furthermore, their representation of the “other side” was skewed at best.

for instance, jim cassidy made the point that many people make a distinction between genesis 1-11 and the rest of the book. that may be true in certain camps, but those viewpoints are extremely dated. divisions in the hebrew bible in general, and genesis in particular, are not made between gen 11 and the rest of the book, but on the language used in different portions of the hebrew bible. by ‘language’ i do not mean ‘genre,’ but the actual form of hebrew that is being used. an example would be the hebrew of the poem in judges 5. nearly all familiar with northwest semitic philology would date this hebrew as the earliest form of the language in the hebrew bible. they separate this poem as being early not because of some scientific theory or because of convictions of inerrancy or errancy, but because philologically, it makes the most sense. this could also be said of different strands of torah that have been woven together in its current form. it’s based on philology, historical evidence, and cognate literature. to say otherwise is to ignore the evidence as it is hidden behind the proverbial van tillian light saber.

another example is jeff waddington’s statement that some of those on the “other side” of the issue view history as an invention of the enlightenment. such a statement reveals either a misreading of the opposition or an unfamiliarity with the actual arguments. it is not that ‘history’ was invented in the enlightenment, it is more the case that many people’s idea of what history writing should look like is grounded in enlightenment ideals and then read back onto the hebrew bible. that is not to say that there isn’t real history behind the text of the hebrew bible, but it is saying that the historiography of the hebrew bible looks different than what many of us would think of when we think of historical writings. all history writing is shaped and perspectival. the hebrew bible is no different.

all that to say i didn’t find this podcast helpful in engaging the real issues. it was, instead, full of strawmen and polemics aimed at a viewpoint that does not actually exist. to be productive, it would be helpful to take a real look at the issues and the evidence instead of dealing with misconceptions or inventions of what the “other side” believes.

the reason that you’re argument doesn’t hold up, nick, is because it does not represent the evidence we have of 1 enoch. the author(s) of the book of the watchers (1 enoch 1-36) do not reflect any concern for conveying the history of enoch as perserved in the past, nor a concern for torah in general (there are actually theories of an ‘enochic judaism’ that was meant to replace the ‘mosaic torah’).

you are free to have your own viewpoint on the issue. but, at the end of the day, your viewpoint here is based solely on unsubstantiated and unverifiable beliefs, not evidence. it’s eisegesis.

The particular case you take issue with is compelling to those who hold to an analogia fidei in conjunction with a reformed doctrine of Scripture. Those people were the intended audience. Perhaps we should have spelled this out more.

I would have preferred a statement like, “We accept the historicity as a matter of faith.”

Please try to take this in the sprit it’s meant in. I consider you guys my brothers in Christ and It very painful to be spoken to as if I am an infidel.

Peace
Steve in Toronto