Comments on the Four Views of the Historical Adam Reviews

| January 18, 2014

As promised, I want to post a few thoughts on Nijay Gupta’s posted reviews of the four views book on the Historical Adam. These comments presume you have read the reviews (here and here). On Lamoureaux’s view (“Evolutionary creation and no historical Adam”): 1. I think Nijay is correct about the fact that biblical scholars […]

Links to Some Good Reviews of “Four Views on the Historical Adam”

| January 11, 2014

I’ve blogged before about the new Zondervan book, Four Views on the Historical Adam (ed. Matthew Barrett and Ardel Caneday). New Testament scholar Nijay Gupta has posted reviews of the first three of these views. They’re fair and thoughtful. The four views are as follows, with links to Nijay’s reviews included: (1) Lamoureux: Evolutionary Creation […]

Can Unbelievers Ever Please God? Part 2

| October 5, 2012

While I wonít repeat what I said in Part 1, the comments to that post have left me thinking that some readers still donít understand what Iím saying and not saying Ė and so are missing the point of the question. So, by way of review Ö What Iím Not Saying and Not Asking Iím […]

Can Unbelievers Please God? Part 1

| September 26, 2012

Most readers are familiar with the idea of “total depravity” as taught by many Christian theologians over the centuries — the idea that (in overly broad strokes) humans are unable to turn themselves to God and are inherently sinful. Those who have read with some depth in theology know that theologians disagree as to how […]

Is ‘adam “Adam”?

| June 20, 2012

I’ve been thinking (still) about the historical Adam issue. It surprises me that I haven’t seen anyone (yet — perhaps one of you knows an exception) address the grammatical-syntactical issue as it relates to “Adam” in Genesis 1-5. I speak specifically of the fact that Hebrew grammar does not tolerate a definite article with a […]