Christian Majority and Biblical Literalism

As you have stated yourself calculating this opinion acurately is far from easy and in the end rather pointless.

I do wonder how those whom deny the existence of Adam get around the genealogies listing fathers from Adam to Jesus. Assumedly they deny some part of the genealogy. I truly am curious as to what their reasons are for not only rejecting Genesis as literal but also rejecting some point on the genealogy.

I don't think the question I should be asking is "how many believe this" but "why do many believe this".

Why would the genealogies make any difference? Compare the lists from the Old Testament to those in the New Testament and you will find, if not errors, at the very least omissions. The difference between error and omission being entirely debatable. In any case, that there is any discrepancy is odd: wouldn't you imagine the scribes writing the New Testament could simply copy the lineage from the more ancient texts?

But there are other issues, too. The simple question "why should we accept the supposed existence of Adam?" is not easy to answer when the only potential shred of evidence is a 2,500-3,000 year old book. It's shoddy history. No corroboration with period sources.

Now we hit observation. By claiming that Adam literally existed, the very first man, the only human father of all human kind, you make a scientific claim. At this point, you are claiming to explain, to some extent, the origin of our species. The obvious problem: there is no evidence to support this claim. Sure, this goes back to the ID thread. So ignore it if you like. But, as you can see, there are other serious problems aside from speculative, anti-empirical scientific claims.

A fourth reason to consider: a literal reading of Genesis degrades the spiritual value. I won't make an argument for this, but I will make a suggestion. Pick up a handy Bible and reread Genesis with the assumption that nothing stated in the book is literally true. Interpret. Maybe this exercise turns out to be a waste of time, but I imagine that, at the very least, you will learn a great deal about people with whom you disagree.

I am no scholar but this is what I have learned.

Errors with modern transcriptions but unlikely with original text.

If we compare the New and Old Testament. They are the same until we get to "Shem (Noah's Son), Arphaxad, (Cainan), Shelah". Cainan is listed in Luke though not in Genesis 11:12 nor 1 Ch. 1:24 nor has he appeared in any Hebrew copy of the Old Testament as well as not being included in the Samaritan version and the Targum. He is also not mentioned in Theodore Beza's most ancient Greek text of Luke. Though he is mentioned in present copies of the Septuagint though he was not originally there. I think it is (as well as other scholars) the fault of a transcriber and that the original text was then accurate.

When we then get down to king David son of Jesse. David gave birth through Bathsheba 4 sons if my memory serves me right. Two of those sons being Nathan and Solomon. Luke traces the line from Nathan while Mathew traces from Solomon. Both end with Jesus. It is assumed that Luke is detailing Mary's lineage while Matthew is detailing Josephs. I remember hearing of another historical book that mentions Heli (Eli) being the father of Mary.

I believe that the original texts, while we do not have today, were inerrant.

When you say "we" remember we are referring to Christians that are choosing not to accept the existence, not non Chrisitians.

Why should we not accept the existence of Adam?

Where in the Bible does it ever say that Genesis is figurative?

I'm quite sure its figurativeness is created by man for reasons unknown to me.

Perhaps it is the scientific theories that scare them.

Instead of questioning the legitimacy of a new theory do they simply change that which they have believed for years?

When Moses wrote Genesis and (supposedly) crafted a figurative story why would he find the need to create a fake lineage?

Geneaologies were an obsession with people of past times where they not? We may not have other sources of genealogies though its a fair supposition to assume that Moses documentation was not the first post-flood geneaology. Did all people before Moses all choose not to keep records of their ancestors? I would assume that many of them did and could have checked the accuracy of Moses's 'facetious geneaologies' and would not have stood for downright lies.

We may not have those other sources today but if we did then we would ofcourse toss out the inaccuracy or agree with the accuracy of the geneaology that Moses puts forth. I would assume that past generations would have done the same.

Remember we are talking about Christians choosing to deny or accept this not the rest of the worlds population. The very evidence that Christians choose to refer to is primarily the Bible. So then they go on to question the Bible as a source and to how it should be interpreted.

Does it? I would say that a figurative reading of Genesis degrades the spiritual value. Not all verses in the Bible are meant to touch the heart and have songs written about them. Take for example in Joshua where all of Israels tribes are assigned their plot of land. It is meant to be historical documentation not a poem. We don't figurativly interpret the 10 commandments. Do not murder means do not murder.

You can not also choose to stop at Genesis in calling it figurative you must then call Exodus figurative as Genesis transitions directly into Exodus. Where does the figurative/story line interpretation end and why?

Why obey the 10 commandments if you do not acctually believe that they are a direct command of God given to Moses? They must then have been a creation of Moses whom is a flawed human.

I will say that this topic really truly does interest me and sadly I do not know very much about it. I do know that when you start calling certain parts of the Bible figurative your going to start running into a lot of questions.

Because they are solid moral teachings. That they are a "direct commandment of God" is figurate: they are good moral teaching, thus, they must be approved by God because God would have us do what is right, not what is wrong. All good moral teaching, in that sense, is direct from God, even if a human codified the teaching.

Not all verses in the Bible are meant to touch the heart?

Sure, Exodues does have a great deal of figurative meaning. Wandering in the desert for forty years foreshadows Jesus' forty nights in the desert, and so forth. Where does the figurative interpretation end? With the reader's spiritual journey.

Because they are solid moral teachings. That they are a "direct commandment of God" is figurate: they are good moral teaching, thus, they must be approved by God because God would have us do what is right, not what is wrong. All good moral teaching, in that sense, is direct from God, even if a human codified the teaching.

Because they are solid moral teachings...

I don't think this is an appropriate response to the question, "Why obey the 10 commandments if you do not actually believe they are a direct command of God?"

On what basis do we reach the conclusion they are good, solid moral teachings? Because they are in the Bible? Who decides? You? Me? A priest? An appeal to authority?

I'm not sure how you want me to respond to that as I am not really sure what you are asking.

I said that because I believe that certain parts of the Bible are simply historical. Genealogies being one example.

I'm not sure I understand your answer to my question. A figurative interpretation must end when a factual interpretation takes over. Where then in the Bible does the 'factual' information arrise is a question that I would ask a christian of figurative interpretation. I'm looking for a specific book or passage that they would reference for the beginning of factual historical account. They would assume the historical accuracy of Matthew I would assume but why would they not assume the historical accuracy of other books. That is what I want to know.

Are you forgetting that we are assuming from a Christian perspective that God truly does exist? How then are we to know what good moral teaching is unless God tells us?

Are you forgetting that we are assuming from a Christian perspective that God truly does exist? How then are we to know what good moral teaching is unless God tells us?

The morality of the teaching is supposed to be apparent, but it is this set of morals that is universal, and not the belief system. The religion is built around our moral base, our morals are not built around the religion (in theory). People who appear to think the opposite either are incapable of critical thought, or they have an agenda.

The problem is that there is no evidence that the genealogies in the Bible are accurate historic record. There is nothing to corroborate those genealogies. Similar genealogies contradict those in the Bible.

As a matter of history, there is no reason to assert that the genealogies in the Bible are accurate.

Why would someone assume that Matthew is historically accurate when there is nothing to corroborate the account?

Given that, there are perfectly good reasons to take your moral lessons from God. It is only the assumption that all religions invent gods that would make your comments viable.

Can you clarify this, Didymos? I'm not sure I get your meaning. Are you saying there are genealogies of Biblical people given by secular sources? If so, that is new to me. Or are you saying there are genealogies from other cultures that claim to present descent from the first man?

I think you're stretching this a bit far. You are correct that there is no secular corroboration (though the 3 other gospels can be seen as a type of corroboration for Matthew). At the same time, there is no reason to think they are not true. Most historians will simply remain neutral on the matter.

It is interesting though, that people are willing to accept as historical other events that have only a single source. Why is that? I've always thought it due to the nature of the claim. People are willing to accept Kunte Kinte's genealogy (which wasn't even written down, but depended on some old man's memory) because he was a slave. They contest Jesus' genealogy because he claimed to be the Son of God.

Now, if one were to add the cultural importance of genealogy within the Hebrew tradition (Jews today still identify themselves with one of the 12 tribes), it is reasonable to assume that Jesus' claim as a descendant of David is true. Were it not true, and given the importance of that issue to other Jews, it would have been challenged when the words were first written. How much you extrapolate beyond that depends on how much of the OT you accept as real.

You edited out my comment on assumptions. I said that the request (for the purpose of this thread) is to start from Christian assumptions. Did you hear that part? If you did, I think it makes the rest self-evident - almost a tautology.

the other three Gospels do not amount to corroboration, either, not for history ... If I write an account of some event, and twenty years later someone else rewrites the account based on my first text, the later account in no way corroborates my first account as historically accurate.

your argument that a) because genealogy is important in the Hebrew tradition b) it is reasonable to assume that Jesus' claim to be descended from David is true, is no argument at all. Nothing about the importance of genealogy in Judaism makes Jesus' claim to be descended from David more likely to be historically true.

Also, the notion that Jesus was the descendant of David, the Messiah, the King of the Jews, was rejected by the vast majority of Jews at the time. The claim was challenged at the time, and, if we are to believe that Jesus was crucified, the claim was challenged in a violent way.

And you apparently missed the point of my first response, where I was attempting to start from Christian assumptions. The Christian message does not need to have a god's voice behind its words to make it a powerful message; it is powerful because of the moral standard that it teaches. So, the thinking Christians will not arrive at their view that Christianity is moral simply because it was created by a god. They will find that Christianity is divinely inspired, because it is moral.

But that one gospel writer copied from another. I'd like to hear the evidence supporting that - especially given that (if memory serves correctly) the "later" gospels have material not included in the "earlier" gospels.

(edit): I will note that the though the type of argument I'm using here may not be convincing to you, it is common among historians. I looked up several examples I could share with you if you'd like.

Actually, what I was trying to say is that it was common practice for Jewish families to maintain genealogies. Therefore, it would be no surprise for Jesus' family to have kept a genealogy. (It's kind of funny that both John the Baptist and Paul took a swipe at how proud Jews were of knowing their family history).

Second, I was saying that many Jews claimed descent from David's tribe (Judah), and it is therefore not unreasonable for Jesus' genealogy to claim that (and for it to be historical), since we have evidence to corroborate David's historicity.

Given that, I don't see any basis for rejecting the genealogy. Especially because ...

from this I think, again, you misunderstand me. Claiming biological descent from David does not entail claiming to be the Messiah. It is necessary, but not sufficient. What the Jews rejected was the messianic claim, not his biological genealogy.