Death Before the Fall

[SkyWriting]

Does the writer of Hebrews' interpretation of Cain and Abel tell you that Adam and Eve were historical or that the story of their fall, the garden and the snake is told literally literal? The other problem is the writer of Hebrew was heavily into the allegorical significance of the Torah, a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities Heb 10:1. It is good to look at how OT texts are interpreted and understood throughout the rest of the bible, but the foundation of our understanding of a text should be the text itself and what it meant to the writer and its original audience.

That's so weird that you acknowledge the actions and events documented that
took place among groups of people, then turn around and claim that Adam was not real.
If Adam was not real, why would anyone have to follow any laws?
Because of a Rocky & Bullwinkle story?

It is good to look at how OT texts are interpreted and understood throughout the rest of the bible,

1 Corinthians 15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living
being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. ...

Jude 1:14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men ...

Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. ...

1 Chronicles 1:1 Adam, Seth, Enosh,

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ...

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Genesis 5:1 This is the written account of Adam's line. This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.

Genesis 4:25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him ...

Genesis 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. ...

Genesis 5:4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. .

Genesis 5:5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. ...

Genesis 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. ... And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife.

 

[ChetSinger]

Does the writer of Hebrews' interpretation of Cain and Abel tell you that Adam and Eve were historical or that the story of their fall, the garden and the snake is told literally literal? The other problem is the writer of Hebrew was heavily into the allegorical significance of the Torah, a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities Heb 10:1. It is good to look at how OT texts are interpreted and understood throughout the rest of the bible, but the foundation of our understanding of a text should be the text itself and what it meant to the writer and its original audience.

Chapter 11 tells me that Adam and Eve were historical. Because it goes back as far as their immediate children and references Abel's death. And because it treats those two men, and that event, no differently than later personages and events which I'm sure we agree are historical.

Whatever the writer of Hebrews is doing in other chapters, in chapter 11 he's lumping men like Abel, Cain, and Enoch in with men like David, Samuel, and the prophets to display a showplace of faith in God. If the latter are historical, and the earlier are treated no differently, then so are the earlier.

That's enough for me: Abel and Cain were actual men, and Genesis 4 describes Abel's death. And if Abel in Genesis 4 is historical, I think it's just logical to conclude that his parents in the previous chapter are also historical.

Btw, I'm not going to conclude that the writer of Hebrews was so clueless of the OT that he confused allegory and history. Hebrews is scripture, after all. If we can't come to terms with it, isn't the lack of understanding ours?

Heh, we've now traveled a looooooooooong way from the OP. But that's how these threads can sometimes turn.

 

[ChetSinger]

Good analysis, IMHO.

Thanks. But Dr. Heiser's done all the work. That 'serpent' puzzled me every time I read that passage, because a devil-possessed snake never made much sense to me. After all, why should God punish some poor animal, and all of its children, for something Satan did?

 

[Aman777]

Chet:>>So, given my approach to Genesis 3, Dr. Heiser's conclusion fits well: the nachash was a member of the divine council, a "shining one" of serpentine shape, who wanted Adam killed and figured he could maneuver God into doing it for him. But God didn't kill Adam on the spot. Instead, he took advantage of a loophole, and even revealed a plan for our redemption. He really does love us.


Dear Chet, I agree with your analysis:

• Adam and Eve were two real people.
• The garden was a real place.
• The nachash was an actual being of some type.
• Whatever it was, Eve really did converse with it. Without showing any surprise.
• Whatever it was, in Revelation it's called Satan.

EXcept when it comes to the Day Adam died. IF one concludes that a Day (Hebrew-Yowm) was 24 hours, then Satan told the Truth and the LORD lied. Yowm can mean 24 hours, a lifetime, or eternity.

Adam did die on the 6th Day, just as ALL men live and die on the present 6th Day. The 6th Day began when the LORD made the beasts of the field and fowl and Adam named them. The 6th Day will not end until God has brought His Creation to perfection and ALL the host of heaven, including Christians, is present in Heaven. Genesis 2:1.

Therefore the LORD told Adam the Truth and he did die on the 6th Day. Satan is a Liar and the father of lies.

In Love,
Aman

 

[ChetSinger]

Chet:>>So, given my approach to Genesis 3, Dr. Heiser's conclusion fits well: the nachash was a member of the divine council, a "shining one" of serpentine shape, who wanted Adam killed and figured he could maneuver God into doing it for him. But God didn't kill Adam on the spot. Instead, he took advantage of a loophole, and even revealed a plan for our redemption. He really does love us.


Dear Chet, I agree with your analysis:

• Adam and Eve were two real people.
• The garden was a real place.
• The nachash was an actual being of some type.
• Whatever it was, Eve really did converse with it. Without showing any surprise.
• Whatever it was, in Revelation it's called Satan.

EXcept when it comes to the Day Adam died. IF one concludes that a Day (Hebrew-Yowm) was 24 hours, then Satan told the Truth and the LORD lied. Yowm can mean 24 hours, a lifetime, or eternity.

Adam did die on the 6th Day, just as ALL men live and die on the present 6th Day. The 6th Day began when the LORD made the beasts of the field and fowl and Adam named them. The 6th Day will not end until God has brought His Creation to perfection and ALL the host of heaven, including Christians, is present in Heaven. Genesis 2:1.

Therefore the LORD told Adam the Truth and he did die on the 6th Day. Satan is a Liar and the father of lies.

In Love,
Aman

Hello. I think God can be seen as speaking the truth to Adam without having to extend the sixth day to encompass Adam's death.

The reason I think that is because before we are born again God considers us dead, and after we're born again he considers us alive. In his eyes we "pass from death to life":

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. - John 5:24

This means to me that in God's eyes Adam was considered dead the moment he disobeyed, even though his body remained alive for a while longer. So God told the truth and Adam did die that day, but in a subtle way perhaps not anticipated by Satan.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Thanks. But Dr. Heiser's done all the work. That 'serpent' puzzled me every time I read that passage, because a devil-possessed snake never made much sense to me. After all, why should God punish some poor animal, and all of its children, for something Satan did?

the serpent in the hebrew seems to be the same word as snake. i think that this account of the fall goes back to somewhere else, maybe sumeria.
i once saw a cylinder seal showing the expulsion of adam and eve from the garden.
i think it is a construct, to teach people that mankind is fallen, from a once unfallen state. i don't take it literal any more, but i think it is still an important message about the fall, that restoration comes through the grace of christ.

 

[Assyrian]

Chapter 11 tells me that Adam and Eve were historical. Because it goes back as far as their immediate children and references Abel's death. And because it treats those two men, and that event, no differently than later personages and events which I'm sure we agree are historical.

Whatever the writer of Hebrews is doing in other chapters, in chapter 11 he's lumping men like Abel, Cain, and Enoch in with men like David, Samuel, and the prophets to display a showplace of faith in God. If the latter are historical, and the earlier are treated no differently, then so are the earlier.

That's enough for me: Abel and Cain were actual men, and Genesis 4 describes Abel's death. And if Abel in Genesis 4 is historical, I think it's just logical to conclude that his parents in the previous chapter are also historical.

Btw, I'm not going to conclude that the writer of Hebrews was so clueless of the OT that he confused allegory and history. Hebrews is scripture, after all. If we can't come to terms with it, isn't the lack of understanding ours?

You are assuming the modern preoccupation with the importance of literalism would even have been an issue to the writer. You are assuming he could tell literal from metaphor in stories that date back thousands of years before, I don't know if he would even care, that wasn't the purpose of his message. Our lack of understanding can be an issue too, you are assuming the writer was giving a history lesson here, but his interpretation of these texts is first century Jewish typology, the examples in scripture being used as moral lessons for today.

Even if you conclude that the writer thought Cain and Abel were historical people, that still doesn't tell you the genre of Genesis 4. You assume it is the same as a modern history and you can read back from the existence of a Cain and Abel, to the story of their birth being literal and therefore the story of Adam Eve and the snake being literal too. The writer doesn't tell you that, even if you assume he is treating Cain's murder of Abel as historical.

Heh, we've now traveled a looooooooooong way from the OP. But that's how these threads can sometimes turn.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Chapter 11 tells me that Adam and Eve were historical. Because it goes back as far as their immediate children and references Abel's death. And because it treats those two men, and that event, no differently than later personages and events which I'm sure we agree are historical.

Whatever the writer of Hebrews is doing in other chapters, in chapter 11 he's lumping men like Abel, Cain, and Enoch in with men like David, Samuel, and the prophets to display a showplace of faith in God. If the latter are historical, and the earlier are treated no differently, then so are the earlier.

Last year, I was hanging out with my sister and we had a really good conversation on the ways that man developed...specifically on the many differing interpretations of creation and how secular evolution has never made any sense about the origins of man. At one point, however, it was brought up by her that it could be possible Adam/Eve were not the only creatures on the planet at one point --and it really had me pondering how possible this may be. As said best elsewhere:

Historical Views

Another view sees humanlike creatures evolving as the scientific evidence indicates. But at a certain point in history, it is possible that God bestowed special spiritual gifts on those who had developed the necessary characteristics. This historical event would endow the recipients with the image of God. We can say that Homo divinus was therefore created from Homo sapiens. With these spiritual gifts came the ability to know and experience evil—an opportunity that was grasped with tragic consequences.


This view can fit whether the humans in question constituted a group or a specific male-female pair. In the case of a group, we can imagine that God interacted with all members of the group and essentially initiated the relationship that exists today. If the initiative was with a single human couple, then that relationship could spread to and through their offspring as that subset of the existing population came to dominate.... It is argued that bearing God’s image is not a matter of our physical appearance but a matter of our capacity to love both God and others, to have dominion over the earth, and to have moral consciousness. We are to image God (see our question on the "Image of God"). In this way we might distinguish between Homo sapiens and the image-bearing creatures that we might call Homo divinus..


​

For a better description, one can go here to the following:

• Denis Alexander, “How Does a BioLogos Model Need to Address the Theological Issues Associated with an Adam Who Was Not the Sole Genetic Progenitor of Humankind?” (Dec 2011)

Some are of the mindset that man evolved, to the point where the Lord bestowed upon him the image of God---thus making it possible for him to share links with others in the Primate family and yet be distinct when his intelligence underwent RADICAL changes. And on the issue of man being related to apes, there'd be nothing wrong with this (In my opinion). Secifically, Under the Scientific classification of Anthropoids:

Sub-Order: Anthropoidea,
Infra-Order: Catarrhine,
Super-family: Homonoidea,
Subfamily: Homininae,
Tribe: Hominini,
Species: Human.
​

The other "tribe" under Homininae is: Panini, Species: Chimpanzees. Humans are different for other primates in that we don't have an insulating layer of hair - allowing us to control body temperature through sweating. AND Our females go through a menopause sometime quite early in life, while other primates don't.And this wouldn't be an issue for "Creationists" in any way. Dr. Porsche built the original "Bebe" Renault, and the Economy models of the early Mercedes rear engine vehicles - AND the Volkswagens (in 1939). When one looks at the "guts" of the three (and of others he did) one can see a distinctive commonality of design, and similar features among all three - making it clear that the same "thought process" produced all three vehicles. BUT Nobody would try to prove that a Volkswagen was a "Bebe Renault" - but could easily demonstrate that the same "creator" was involved in both of 'em.

Some Christians think belief in evolution undermines the uniqueness of humankind and the reality of evil and the fall....but I disagree. For the Genesis account portrays Adam and Eve as Neolithic farmers. It is perfectly feasible that God bestowed His image on representative Homo sapiens already living in the Near East to generate what John Stott has called Homo divinus, those who first enjoyed personal fellowship with God but who then fell most terribly from their close walk with God (Genesis 3.8). All those who disobey God and trust in their own wisdom in place of God’s law reiterate the historical fall in their own being (Ezekiel 28.11-19). I don't see anything wrong with advocating that God may've made two species that have similarities and may've indeed come from the same stock while choosing to impart one aspect of Himself into one of the groups to make them far superior/advanced than all others in creation.

There was an article from BIO Logos I came across..and I thought it was intriguing when it came to discussing what's seen in Genesis and renconcilling that with Anthroplogy. For more:

• Adam and Eve: Literal or Literary? | The BioLogos Forum
• What Does “Image of God” Mean? Part 2 | The BioLogos"​
• Models for Relating Adam and Eve with Contemporary Anthropology | The Bio"" ()​

What they offered seemed insightful and, IMHO, it does bring up an entirely different realm of conversation when considering Genesis and how God described the role of Man (as well as the Devil) and the story of creation all the way up to Genesis 6/the Flood.​

Although I think the story of Adam/Eve is literal, I think the interpretation of it often gets missed. Where scripture says "God made man from the Dust of the Ground", I've always been curious as to why many say its somehow impossible for the Lord to have made other species similar to man (i.e. apes, primates, etc) and then with man, breath his spirit into man....with the Gift of God's Spirit imparted being what set man apart.​

The text doesn't say that only having 4 fingers/thumbs is what makes man in the "Image of God"...as other creatures share similar genetic make-up on some parts & have the same body parts. Yet that doesn't mean that we're the same fully. If apes /other species and humans were 100% the same in all things, it'd definately place an entirely different spin on the film "Rise of the Planet of the Apes."​

​

​

Seeing the Film puts an enitrely DIFFERENT spin on what it means to be in a Zoo---and makes one wonder what would happen if indeed was the case that something was naturally able to develop that'd be against man. For animals have learned to use tools, as well as to communicate on high levels of intelligence/network...even using tools to do things. Though never on the level as man, there's no saying that it could not happen where intelligence/development grew enough where a threat to man's survival occurred. Of course, if that happened like in "Planet of the Apes, they I'd say Apes would be seen as another creation of the "Beasts of the Field" (Genesis 1:24-25)...and having to fight against other species evolving would be an extension of the mandate from God to "Have Dominion" (Genesis 1:26-31). ..with both connected and what's seen in anthropology with "common links"/similar actions kept in place...

Concerning the theory of men being related to "beasts", there's actually another theory that says one of the beasts of the field would be the Nephilim from Genesis 6:3-5/ Numbers 13:32-33 ......and that the Nephilim were a species of primate or humanoid creatures not made in the "Image of God." It may sound wild to others that other creatures could be made with human like features - but in light of the fact that even angelic beings/divine creatures in the heavenlies share similarities with humans (i.e. hands, feet, arms, legs, eyes, etc.) and yet have been shown to have distinct traits in addition to that, I'd not see why there needs to be an issue.​

For more, one can go here to the following:​

• Why Mylipin; / Myliypin; (Nephilim) - Michael S. Heiser
• Neanderthals | Reasons To Believe
• Neanderthal Project
• Neanderthal Nephilim?
• GIANTS OF THE BIBLE
• Who Were the Nephilim?
• Cavemen Are People Too!
• Neanderthal = Nephilim?
• Nephilim - Michael S. Heiser
• Hugh Ross, ICR, and Facts of Science
• Reasons To Believe - Were Hominids Human?
• Neanderthal and Nephilim - Are They the Same?
• Neanderthal/human interbreeding - The Panda's Thumb
• 2] Nephilim Skeletons Found, by Fred Harding, Tekline Publishing ...
• Theory: Nephilim were Neanderthal man « Xenophilia (True Strange ...
• Naked Archeologist Finds the Giants (Gen 6:4) « Josiah Concept ...
• Neanderthals in Genesis? Read for the answer. | The Old Testament ...

Other creatures being made outside of the Image of God as man was wouldn't mean that they don't have value or worth in the eyes of the Lord, as discussed more in-depth in #91 AND #92. For some articles discussing how men/apes are similar and yet distinct:

• Human Y Chromosome: 'horrendously different' from Nearest Living "Relative" ...

__________________

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Chapter 11 tells me that Adam and Eve were historical. Because it goes back as far as their immediate children and references Abel's death. And because it treats those two men, and that event, no differently than later personages and events which I'm sure we agree are historical.

Whatever the writer of Hebrews is doing in other chapters, in chapter 11 he's lumping men like Abel, Cain, and Enoch in with men like David, Samuel, and the prophets to display a showplace of faith in God. If the latter are historical, and the earlier are treated no differently, then so are the earlier..

Although I agree with you, I think that many find issues with the text due to not understanding how there was not an "either or" mindset in the early Jewish culture...as if it had to be all literal or all allegory or figurative.

Concerning what I've seen in patristic studies, St. Augustine thought that others were to not take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history...and as one believing in science, he remarked that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up. Later on, Galileo followed the same train of thought as Augustine when it came to his used defense of heliocentrism, and claiming it was not contrary to those Scripture.

The church at large felt that the Psalms always be taken literally----hermenutics makes a difference. People often said "take the word of God as it is" when it came to saying that only GEOCENTRISM was the valid view...and when Galieo came along later with support for heliocentrism/viewing scripture as did Augustine in that not all passages in were to be taken literally if it were a book of poetry or songs---especially the ones such as Psalm 93:1 and I Chronicles 16:30 on the Earth not moving. Galileo continued to press his case...and consequently, the church called him a "heretic" /put him on house arrest for ages. It wasn't until much later that the church recognized Galileo's claims had merit---and that perhaps their views of the scripture needed to be adjusted.


As it concerns the BIBLICAL account, IMHO, there's no real reason to assume that it's an EITHER-Or scenario where it must be either literal or figurative....and moreover, its not as if what's in scripture does not go alongside what's discussed in the world of science. For I think its sad to see how many in Christian camps have done damage when it comes to working with atheists in the world of science.....and avoiding evidence in anthropology that may go counter to what one interpretation of the scriptures say. However, its even sadder to witness how many Atheists assume that all Christians throughout history have been the same as those Christians doing damage....for that's not historically accurate. I'm again reminded of one of the greatest examples of religion driving science/not being its enemy - for St.Augustine of Hippo. St. Augustine (354-430) was the most influential theologian of the Middle Ages, gave thought for others to base their research on when it came to Christianity/science.


In his view of Genesis, he believed that God created all things simultaneously....where some things were made in fully developed form as we see them today, and other things were made in a potential form, so that in time they might become the way we see them now. He was also explicit that God did not create the world over the course of six temporal days. ..for as he mentioned in his book "The Literal Meaning of Genesis"/St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis: Books 7-12 , "The sacred writer was able to separate in the time of his narrative what God did not separate in time in His creative act" (p. 36).

Augustine's thoughts caused him to take Creation Account as both allegorical and literal...for an allegorical interpretation does not necessarily preclude a literal interpretation, as interpreters such as Origen of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo maintained that the Bible is true on multiple levels at the same time.

Essentially, when God made certain creations, it could also mean that some creations were instantaneous/fully developed while others were created instantly..though in the form of baseline material/"potential" growing with time. For example, the Word makes clear that all creatures were formed out of the dust of the Earth in Genesis 2:7/..Genesis 1:24-26. Yet only man was made with God's SPIRIT inside of Him and in His Image. When God formed man, I think it's reasonable to say that "formed" implies a process, and we need not see God forming man as one would quickly put together a gingerbread man...no more than it was the case when the Word says "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field.

For more information, one can consider going online and looking up an article under the name of "Augustine on Scripture and Natural Science" ( )

One can also go online to "Google Books" and read a signficant chunk of what Augustine said on the issue in p.g 42 of "The Literal Meaning of Geneis"...as there Augustine noted that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, with him remarking that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up...concerning the realm of science. As said in his words:

CHAPTER 19
​

On interpreting the mind of the sacred writer. Christians should not talk nonsense to unbelievers.

38. Let us suppose that in explaining the words, “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and light was made,” one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of “spiritual light”65 in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion pro-posed by man in his ignorance. On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true.

And if the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other, which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true and more worth knowing.

​

There are many Jewish believers who've done much in bridging the worlds of science and Biblie together. Gerald Schroeder is one of the best ones I think you could investigate---concerning theistic evolution, as Brother Gerald Schroeder is a scientist/Orthodox Jewish theologian..and its amazing whenever it comes to presenting the perspective of evolutuon from the perspective from Jewish Thought.

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>Adam did die on the 6th Day, just as ALL men live and die on the present 6th Day. The 6th Day began when the LORD made the beasts of the field and fowl and Adam named them. The 6th Day will not end until God has brought His Creation to perfection and ALL the host of heaven, including Christians, is present in Heaven. Genesis 2:1.

Therefore the LORD told Adam the Truth and he did die on the 6th Day. Satan is a Liar and the father of lies.

Chet:>>Hello. I think God can be seen as speaking the truth to Adam without having to extend the sixth day to encompass Adam's death.

The reason I think that is because before we are born again God considers us dead, and after we're born again he considers us alive. In his eyes we "pass from death to life":

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. - John 5:24

This means to me that in God's eyes Adam was considered dead the moment he disobeyed, even though his body remained alive for a while longer. So God told the truth and Adam did die that day, but in a subtle way perhaps not anticipated by Satan.

Dear Chet, I agree that one is dead before he is born Spiritually but that doesn't explain the continuation of the 6th Day or Age. Genesis 1:28 states that God gives mankind dominion or rule over every living thing that moves on the earth, but that has NOT happened yet. Genesis 1:29-30 shows that every living creature including mankind becomes a vegetarian, "and it was so", but that has NOT happened yet. According to Isaiah ll:7, this happens when Jesus returns to our Planet.

That's because God is STILL creating mankind in His Image or in Christ, TODAY. Everything from verse 28 to the end of Genesis 1 is Prophecy of future events.

God ends the first chapter with the statement that "it was very good". God, who sees the end from the beginning would never make such a statement thousands of years ago, with all the suffering, disease, and death of mankind's history still ahead of Him. The only explanation is that the 6 Day continues.

Genesis 2:1 tells us that the heavens and were finished and ALL the host of them. When God finishes a work, it is brought to perfection, and that has NOT happened yet. Neither is ALL of the host of heaven in heaven.

Genesis 2:2-3 repeats that God rests from ALL of His work on the 7th Day. Jesus tells us that God is working up to the present time:

Jhn 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

The idea that God has already rested from ALL of His work, in the beginning, doesn't fit with the rest of Scripture. The Holy Spirit and the Church continue to work TODAY, so God has NOT yet rested from ALL of His work, yet.

This is WHY the following is said about the host of heaven:

Hbr 4:9There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

The end of the present 6th Day is future.

In Love,
Aman

 

[ChetSinger]

You are assuming the modern preoccupation with the importance of literalism would even have been an issue to the writer. You are assuming he could tell literal from metaphor in stories that date back thousands of years before, I don't know if he would even care, that wasn't the purpose of his message. Our lack of understanding can be an issue too, you are assuming the writer was giving a history lesson here, but his interpretation of these texts is first century Jewish typology, the examples in scripture being used as moral lessons for today.

Even if you conclude that the writer thought Cain and Abel were historical people, that still doesn't tell you the genre of Genesis 4. You assume it is the same as a modern history and you can read back from the existence of a Cain and Abel, to the story of their birth being literal and therefore the story of Adam Eve and the snake being literal too. The writer doesn't tell you that, even if you assume he is treating Cain's murder of Abel as historical.

Yes, I am assuming that the writer of Hebrews could tell history from allegory. But since Hebrews is scripture, I'm content to trust his judgment.

I just don't see him (the writer) treating any of the names any differently, even down to the last verse in the chapter:

And these all were commended for their faith, yet they did not receive what was promised. For God had provided something better for us, so that they would be made perfect together with us.

"These all"? Here again, does this make sense if some of the names weren't even real people?

And if Abel and Cain are literal, why not their parents? Heck, we're even told how old Adam was when Seth was born, and how long he lived afterward. Those facts add no theological significance to the account, so why make them up?

In sum, I see no reason from NT scripture to consider that any of the names in this chapter represented anything but actual people. There's just no impetus from scripture to even begin down that path.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and no offense is intended to anyone so I hope none is taken. But I think some of the resistance to the historicity of the earliest figures in the Bible has little to do with the Bible itself. Instead, I think it's because natural history has convinced churchgoers that these people cannot be historical.

So some of us find ourselves in a bind. We have faith in Christ, but our faith in the conclusions of natural history is greater than our faith in the written words in Genesis. One solution to that dilemma is to treat the parts of Genesis that are unsupported by natural history as something other than mere history.

There was a time in my Christian walk when I felt like that. It wasn't until the early 90's that I put much thought into origins. I still treat Genesis 1 as something that's beyond my understanding. But I'm struck by how matter-of-factly the OT characters are portrayed in the NT, regardless of whether there's any modern-day controversy over their historicity.

I have to choose what I believe. And I choose to believe they were historical because I think the NT writers believed they were historical. And my faith is based on the words of the NT. So that's my logical progression of thought, and that's where I end up.

In defense of historicity, I'd like to mention a few things that were often thought of as fables, yet are now being reevaluated.

• There was a time when people "knew" David was a myth. Now we've found archaeological evidence of him.
• There was a time when people "knew" the Pentateuch couldn't be as old as it claimed, because they "knew" Hebrew wasn't then a written language. Then we discovered Ugarit.
• There was a time when people "knew" the exodus never occurred. Now the Egyptian time line is being restudied, and the exodus is fitting in better.

 

[crawfish]

To provide for "no death." Then that was taken away.

That implies that death was possible in the pre-fall Eden. Which means, God built death into the very fabric of creation.

Death is separation from God, which is what man choose. No one likes an ugly divorce.

Separation from God was achieved without physical death. Meaning, the term "death" in Genesis 2 would be speaking of spiritual, not physical, death. This makes the idea that there was no physical death before Adam's sin problematic - a deathless world is no longer required by the text.

Adam came from the dust, rather than being a spirit. So Adam and the ground were both in trouble.

Any hard questions?

They're certainly not difficult if you're willing to sacrifice core YEC beliefs.

 

[ChetSinger]

Concerning what I've seen in patristic studies, St. Augustine thought that others were to not take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history...and as one believing in science, he remarked that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up. Later on, Galileo followed the same train of thought as Augustine when it came to his used defense of heliocentrism, and claiming it was not contrary to those Scripture.

I can understand how Augustine and others could believe that Genesis 1 represented something other than six literal days. I myself see a pattern where the days are grouped together into two sets of three days each, and I'm not sure it's intended to be literal.

And even modern YEC physicists such as Humphreys and Hartnett mess around with time, having different temporal reference frames at various places and times during the creation.

But by Genesis 3 the creation is finished. And it's at this point I don't see an easy reconciliation between a 6,000-year human genealogy and the conclusions of natural history. The most controversial genealogies, in Genesis 5 and 11, seem designed to prevent us from extending them via the usual method of inferring missing generations.

I'm no expert on Augustine, but my impression is that while he loaded the story of the Fall with all kinds of spiritual meaning, he still wrote that a literal Adam and Eve were involved. But that's just my impression; I've studied little of his work.

 

[Calminian]

The kosher laws specify which insects can be eaten, meaning other insects aren't clean. I agree Hebrew nomenclature and categories are different, but I find it bizarre when people think the ancient Hebrew wouldn't have considered insects alive. The bible does say of men and beasts their life is in the blood, but is that descriptive or an exclusive definition? Just because larger creatures with circulatory systems are said to have their nephesh, their breath or life in the blood, does it mean creatures without blood don't have any life, or can they have their breath elsewhere? Why not say of insects who breath through spiracles that their life (breath or nephesh) is in their spiracles? Alternatively if Hebrew nomenclature is different, does insect and spider circulatory fluid hemolymph comes under the heading of blood? What about trees, they don't have blood, but we know they do respire. Usually, the bible uses the more descriptive 'wither' to describe plants dying, but that doesn't mean they don't die. After all Jesus thought it appropriate to use death to talk about plants when he talked of a seed falling into the ground and dying.

I don't write scripture I just read and report it. And eating insects didn't violate the blood eating law given in Genesis 9. Kosher may be a different thing and based on different reasons.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I can understand how Augustine and others could believe that Genesis 1 represented something other than six literal days. I myself see a pattern where the days are grouped together into two sets of three days each, and I'm not sure it's intended to be literal.

And even modern YEC physicists such as Humphreys and Hartnett mess around with time, having different temporal reference frames at various places and times during the creation.

But by Genesis 3 the creation is finished. And it's at this point I don't see an easy reconciliation between a 6,000-year human genealogy and the conclusions of natural history. The most controversial genealogies, in Genesis 5 and 11, seem designed to prevent us from extending them via the usual method of inferring missing generations.

I'm no expert on Augustine, but my impression is that while he loaded the story of the Fall with all kinds of spiritual meaning, he still wrote that a literal Adam and Eve were involved. But that's just my impression; I've studied little of his work.

I think one has to believe in a literal Adam/Eve in order to truly make sense of differing issues throughout the Word - but to me, perhaps it was the case that there were indeed many generations taken to create the world (making it very old) before the Lord made man - and from there, the timeframe was 6,000yrs and upward....

 

[Assyrian]

I don't write scripture I just read and report it.

Then you need to distinguish between what scripture says and creationist teachings like claiming insects aren't alive, which isn't found found anywhere in scripture.

And eating insects didn't violate the blood eating law given in Genesis 9. Kosher may be a different thing and based on different reasons.

Without a specific reference to insects in Genesis 9 you can't say what was included or not. Just had a look at the kosher laws in Leviticus. The passage is introduced with:
Lev 11:2 Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things (chaiyah) that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth... It goes on to discuss insects and locusts.
Lev 11:20 "All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you.
21 Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground.
22 Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind.
23 But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you.

 

[Assyrian]

That's so weird that you acknowledge the actions and events documented that
took place among groups of people, then turn around and claim that Adam was not real.
If Adam was not real, why would anyone have to follow any laws?
Because of a Rocky & Bullwinkle story?

What laws are you talking about, the law of Moses, the law of the Spirit of life, the law of the land, the laws of physics? And what has the existence or otherwise of Adam got to do with our following these laws?

1 Corinthians 15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living
being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. ...

Jude 1:14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men ...

Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. ...

1 Chronicles 1:1 Adam, Seth, Enosh,

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ...

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Instead of just thinking that because these writers talk about Adam they must have though he was real, you need to ask yourself how the writers are actually interpreting the passage.

Paul saw Adam as a figurative picture of Christ. Romans 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come. Now Paul may also have considered Adam as a historical person too, and allegorised him the way he allegorised Hagar and Sarah. What it does mean is that you have to be especially careful where Paul compares Adam and Christ. His comparison may be a figurative one, like he tells you in Romans 5. 1Cor 15:22 makes much more sense if Paul is talking figuratively because Paul is talking about something that happens the humans now as part of the human race. In Adam all die 1Cor 15:22, this is present tense, we are in Adam (Hebrew for mankind) now and die in Adam when we sin. The tense is wrong to talk about an event in the past back when we were all died 'in Adam loins'.

If you look at 1Corinthians 15:45 you find the same situation. Read the next two verses.
1Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.

Jesus isn't just the last Adam, Paul calls him the 'second man'. That isn't literal history, if you are taking Genesis literally the second man (Greek: anthropos, a human being) was Eve, the second male human was Cain. The way Paul is talking here is describing the entire human race in two apocalyptic figures Adam and Christ, they are the two humanities, the old man of our fleshly sinful nature and the new man we are made in Christ.

In 1Timothy Paul uses Adam and Eve in another metaphor he used. Adam and Eve are a picture of marriage.
1Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
See the way Paul went from the past tense describing Adam and Eve, then taking it into the future tense 'she will be saved' and into the plural 'if they continue' to describe how husband and wife should continue to live. Paul is speaking highly allegorically here.

Jude is quoting from the Book of Enoch and if you want to understand his point about Enoch being seventh from Adam, you have to look in the Book of Enoch. His point wasn't literal history but second Temple Jewish numerology and the symbolic significance of the number seven.

Genesis 5:1 This is the written account of Adam's line. This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.

Genesis 4:25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him ...

Genesis 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. ...

Genesis 5:4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. .

Genesis 5:5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. ...

Genesis 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. ... And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife.

The whole question is how we should interpret Genesis. It is interesting though how Adam is seen in Genesis itself as God's name for people rather than just an individual. Gen 5:2 male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. In post 59 in the thread Adam is an explicitly metaphorical reference, I pointed out how the writer uses the language of the creation of Adam to describe God wiping out Adam whom he created in the flood, even though a literal Adam would have been long dead.

 

[ChetSinger]

I think one has to believe in a literal Adam/Eve in order to truly make sense of differing issues throughout the Word - but to me, perhaps it was the case that there were indeed many generations taken to create the world (making it very old) before the Lord made man - and from there, the timeframe was 6,000yrs and upward....

I can see that. I lean toward YEC, but I can see that. I've done some reading on reasons.org and I respect Hugh Ross' efforts.

I think perhaps one of the cruxes is how much trust each of us has in the interpretation of radiometric dating. Perhaps that's a subject for a separate thread, but I think radiometric dating and distant starlight are the two biggest stumbling blocks to a wide acceptance of YEC within the church.

 

[Greg1234]

What laws are you talking about, the law of Moses, the law of the Spirit of life, the law of the land, the laws of physics? And what has the existence or otherwise of Adam got to do with our following these laws?

Instead of just thinking that because these writers talk about Adam they must have though he was real, you need to ask yourself how the writers are actually interpreting the passage.

Paul saw Adam as a figurative picture of Christ. Romans 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come. Now Paul may also have considered Adam as a historical person too, and allegorised him the way he allegorised Hagar and Sarah. What it does mean is that you have to be especially careful where Paul compares Adam and Christ. His comparison may be a figurative one, like he tells you in Romans 5. 1Cor 15:22 makes much more sense if Paul is talking figuratively because Paul is talking about something that happens the humans now as part of the human race. In Adam all die 1Cor 15:22, this is present tense, we are in Adam (Hebrew for mankind) now and die in Adam when we sin. The tense is wrong to talk about an event in the past back when we were all died 'in Adam loins'.

If you look at 1Corinthians 15:45 you find the same situation. Read the next two verses.
1Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.

Jesus isn't just the last Adam, Paul calls him the 'second man'. That isn't literal history, if you are taking Genesis literally the second man (Greek: anthropos, a human being) was Eve, the second male human was Cain. The way Paul is talking here is describing the entire human race in two apocalyptic figures Adam and Christ, they are the two humanities, the old man of our fleshly sinful nature and the new man we are made in Christ.

In 1Timothy Paul uses Adam and Eve in another metaphor he used. Adam and Eve are a picture of marriage.
1Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
See the way Paul went from the past tense describing Adam and Eve, then taking it into the future tense 'she will be saved' and into the plural 'if they continue' to describe how husband and wife should continue to live. Paul is speaking highly allegorically here.

Jude is quoting from the Book of Enoch and if you want to understand his point about Enoch being seventh from Adam, you have to look in the Book of Enoch. His point wasn't literal history but second Temple Jewish numerology and the symbolic significance of the number seven.

The whole question is how we should interpret Genesis. It is interesting though how Adam is seen in Genesis itself as God's name for people rather than just an individual. Gen 5:2 male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. In post 59 in the thread Adam is an explicitly metaphorical reference, I pointed out how the writer uses the language of the creation of Adam to describe God wiping out Adam whom he created in the flood, even though a literal Adam would have been long dead.

Your post is based on reading the physical body as man. Scriptures don't depict that.

 

[Calminian]

Then you need to distinguish between what scripture says and creationist teachings like claiming insects aren't alive, which isn't found found anywhere in scripture.

Without a specific reference to insects in Genesis 9 you can't say what was included or not. Just had a look at the kosher laws in Leviticus. The passage is introduced with:
Lev 11:2 Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things (chaiyah) that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth... It goes on to discuss insects and locusts.
Lev 11:20 "All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you.
21 Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground.
22 Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind.
23 But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you.

Looking at Leviticus 11:2, and don't see the word neshesh in the hebrew. I'm not saying it's not there, but I don't see in with my tools.

“Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones (chaiyah) you may eat:

The word chayyah is just a basic term for animal or creature. Animals there is the word bhemah often translated beasts or cattle. It's also a somewhat generic term. The word we'd be looking for is nefesh.

KM Hebrew Dictionary: breath; by extension: life, life force, soul, an immaterial part of a person, the seat of emotion and desire; a creature or person as a whole: self, body, even corpse.​

This is what's used to describe the various creatures in Gen. 1 and is used of man—nefesh chaiyah. I do see the word live there in the english NIV but that's a bit of an ad-lib apparently. The text is merely talking about land creatures, thus creatures that live on the land. But this is no way is saying these are nefesh creatures per se, and certainly isn't speaking of the locust as nefesh. It's merely saying they are edible. That something is edible doesn't necessarily mean they are nefesh creatures. Plants are a perfect example.

Now I said all that assuming I didn't miss something. I'll stand corrected if I did.