Peter Enns on the Apostle Paul and Adam

The conversation continues at http://www.biologos.org/...

In this video conversation, Old Testament scholar Peter Enns discusses the Apostle Paul and his understanding of Adam as the progenitor of the human race.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• peter enns
• biologos
• science
• faith
• adam
• eve
• paul
• apostle
• genesis
• jesus
• common descent
• historicity

[noforbiddenquestions]

@aloh86 I've been reading a lot of things, including the Bible itself. You don't have to have advanced degrees in New Testament history and analysis (as Ehrman does) to notice something's up there.

Interesting that you say "portraits" vs. "snapshots." Are you saying that the Gospels are highly interpretive renderings of a subject that may have been imagined only in the artist's mind? Do you take anything from the Bible as reliably true, then?

[aloh86]

@noforbiddenquestions

The gospels are not snapshots of Jesus, they're more like portraits. I can see you've been reading Bart Ehrman.

[noforbiddenquestions]

Why do Christians care what Paul said, when so much of what the Pauline epistles contain contradicts the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels? And for that matter, how do you pick which Gospel if any to trust, when the message of Jesus is so different in each one?

[noforbiddenquestions]

@StephenTHague That's pretty conniving of God, don't you think? To let people continue on in their mistaken delusions without telling them the reality that he knows?

[AegeanKing]

@StephenTHague The famous medieval Jewish theologian Maimonides said that Adam was the first man not because of anatomy, but because he was the first being given a soul. Food for thought...

[StephenTHague]

Great quibbling! One humdinger I recall: "it all depends on how you define error" in response to the question, "does the Bible contain errors?" To say that Paul was not "in error" only "mistaken" (in sharing erroneous views) is self-defeating since it depends upon assumptions that Paul (today) would share your naturalistic, evolutionary beliefs. And even though God knew better, he did not let Paul or Moses in on this higher knowledge given us by evolutionary science and historical criticism

[StephenTHague]

 And the fundamentalists are accused of obfuscation!

[itsmatt1255]

@Daytimeofnight What makes you think that scientific discoveries are as important or relevant as God's Word? Yes, God gave us science to learn more about Himself and His creation. But God's Word takes precedence. The Bible specifically says that you cannot add to it (see the final chapter of Revelation). It talks about the power of God's Word and the eternality of God's Word. So your statement that scientific discoveries are as much revelations of God as the Bible is an assumption, nothing more.

[itsmatt1255]

@zappo1355 The other option that you and andy1985jones are not considering (forgive me if I'm wrong that you aren't considering this) is that modern science is in the wrong. I have yet to see convincing evidence that the earth is more than 7,000 years old. The only thing that can be used to date rocks is radioactive dating, which is based on many assumptions, which I can elaborate on but I don't have space to do so in a YouTube comment.

[andy1985jones]

@zappo1355 There is another option (than the one you mention in your first sentence) and that is this: modern science has caused Christians to ask if they have misinterpreted what Genesis 1 and 2 says. Thus maybe the the "reinterpretation" still founders on a misunderstand of what Genesis said (see John Walton's take on this).