Do you think that the story of Adam and Eve literally happened?

[Job 33:6]

There is just oodles of room for interpretation, the entire thing can be seen as an illusion, or a metaphor, or a threat, or a work of art, or a research base, or a mistake...the possibilities are uncountable.

So if you came over to my house and I pulled a cake out of the oven before your eyes, you believe that the cake could be an illusion?

 

[coffee4u]

"Physically real evidence contrary to a super natural Creator is utterly impossible."

Physically real evidence, that is contrary to literalist ideas absolutely does exist.

For example:
If someone suggests that there was a global flood that was responsible for the deposition of the world's strata, and you point out that throughout that strata, there are footprints from animals that have walked through, the evidence suggests that on the contrary to a global deluge, life existed in the past as it does today.

There is always another side, always another take on matters. If the other side/s see the light of day is another matter. It's the same way how the media portrays some things and ignore others. If you want to get along, want to be with that crowd getting their back slapped and promotions you don't make waves and possibly lose your job, no you do what you are told even if it's one-sided and portrays a group or a cause in one light only. If a scientist is locked into a belief-and don't say they are impartial when it comes to the theory of evolution they are not, they are invested in it. They only ever look at things from the established point of view.

Startling evidence for Noahs Flood - creation.com
A detailed statistical analysis of these data led to the conclusion, with a high degree of probability that the fossil tracks must have been made underwater. Whereas the experimental animals produce footprints under all test conditions, both up and down the 25° slopes of the laboratory ‘dunes’, all but one of the fossil trackways could only have been made by the animals in question climbing uphill. Toe imprints were generally distinct, whereas the prints of the soles were indistinct. These and other details were present in over 80% of the fossil, underwater and wet sand tracks, but less than 12% of the dry sand and damp sand tracks had any toe marks. Dry sand uphill tracks were usually just depressions, with no details.

And if someone suggests that a donkey can talk, the sea part and someone dead for 3 days can rise from the dead, many may say evidence suggest to the contrary.

 

[zoidar]

Just curious. I really don't.

What parts of the story don't you take literally? All of it, some of it?

 

[MrsFoundit]

A miracle, by its strictest definition, is something that cannot be explained or proven through any effort or understanding of man.

Some people seem to take "miracle" to mean "something that has not been explained or proven through any effort or understanding of man yet".

Definition of MIRACLE

if we had a big enough laboratory we could do it ourselves,

At the point of realising that we would need a laboratory the size of the universe it becomes clear to me, that this line of reasoning is basically "if we were God, we would be God."

Definition of FUTILE

 

[MrsFoundit]

So if you came over to my house and I pulled a cake out of the oven before your eyes, you believe that the cake could be an illusion?

I said " the entire thing can be seen as an illusion" and here is just some of the ways how,
The world is an illusion: 8 mind blowing theories

Another is here,
"But for there to be natural behavior as revealed through appearance, there has to be something that behaves and appears to begin with. In other words, there has to be nature-in-itself. The problem is that comparing behavioral predictions to empirical observations cannot reveal nature as it is in itself, for many different hypotheses regarding the latter are consistent with the same behaviors."
Why dismissing philosophy threatens the integrity of science ~ Metaphysical Speculations

I stand by my point that there is actually plenty of "room for interpretation", and that your perspective is dependent on intangible, unproven, ideas.

 

[Tone]

Just curious. I really don't.

Are any stories literal? I believe that a story can encapsulate actual events.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Just curious. I really don't.

If you don't believe the beginning of Genesis actually happened then you have no reason to believe anything else in the Bible, and it gives no reason for Jesus to have died. Richard Dawkins is hardly an expert on religion but he could see the implications: "Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn't it? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual?"

 

[misput]

It is perfectly obvious some of Genesis as well as the rest of scripture is literal and some is figurative but it all serves to strengthen our faith in God. It is also obvious none of us have it all figured out perfectly which serves to show us where our faith must be placed.
That being said, I believe Adam and Eve are literal, the six days are figurative for an age, the tree of life is figurative of Christ, the tree of knowledge is figurative of the law, the snake is figurative for the fleshly nature of man. I believe the knowledge of these and similar things throughout the scripture strengthens my faith. What you believe is between you and God.

 

[Job 33:6]

I said " the entire thing can be seen as an illusion" and here is just some of the ways how,
The world is an illusion: 8 mind blowing theories

Another is here,
"But for there to be natural behavior as revealed through appearance, there has to be something that behaves and appears to begin with. In other words, there has to be nature-in-itself. The problem is that comparing behavioral predictions to empirical observations cannot reveal nature as it is in itself, for many different hypotheses regarding the latter are consistent with the same behaviors."
Why dismissing philosophy threatens the integrity of science ~ Metaphysical Speculations

I stand by my point that there is actually plenty of "room for interpretation", and that your perspective is dependent on intangible, unproven, ideas.

From your posted link"
"3. The “brain in a jar” thought experiment: Imagine that you are just a brain in a jar that is run by a higher power. How would you know?

If this seems to sound reminiscent of the movie ‘The Matrix’, it is only because this idea was part of the very basis of the story."

I enjoyed the sci-fi hit "the matrix" just as much as the next person, but I'm not sure that "the world is an illusion" is a fair response to the claim that what we observe is truth (or at least more real than what we imagine after reading second hand accounts in scripture).

While it is possible that everything outside my window is a show that doesn't actually exist, for all practical purposes, I accept that what I see is real as an underlying assumption behind my backing of science.

If I am guilty of the crime of believing in what I see, and if what I see is really all just an illusion or a veil pulled before my eyes like a magic trick, then my assumption is a crime that I am willing to accept. And I would especially prioritize what I see (such as a cake) over what I don't see (written words about a cake) any time in my quest for understanding truth.

Beyond that, to be fair, if the world were an illusion, even my scripture would be a part of that same illusion. So of course if I couldn't accept what I see then I couldn't accept scripture either.

Until someone provides scientific observation affirming that the world is an illusion, shame on me.

 

[Job 33:6]

There is always another side, always another take on matters. If the other side/s see the light of day is another matter. It's the same way how the media portrays some things and ignore others. If you want to get along, want to be with that crowd getting their back slapped and promotions you don't make waves and possibly lose your job, no you do what you are told even if it's one-sided and portrays a group or a cause in one light only. If a scientist is locked into a belief-and don't say they are impartial when it comes to the theory of evolution they are not, they are invested in it. They only ever look at things from the established point of view.

Startling evidence for Noahs Flood - creation.com
A detailed statistical analysis of these data led to the conclusion, with a high degree of probability that the fossil tracks must have been made underwater. Whereas the experimental animals produce footprints under all test conditions, both up and down the 25° slopes of the laboratory ‘dunes’, all but one of the fossil trackways could only have been made by the animals in question climbing uphill. Toe imprints were generally distinct, whereas the prints of the soles were indistinct. These and other details were present in over 80% of the fossil, underwater and wet sand tracks, but less than 12% of the dry sand and damp sand tracks had any toe marks. Dry sand uphill tracks were usually just depressions, with no details.

And if someone suggests that a donkey can talk, the sea part and someone dead for 3 days can rise from the dead, many may say evidence suggest to the contrary.

I love this, an attempt to justify that animal tracks throughout the world's strata were made by animals walking underwater? Is that really what you're making a case for here?

So when we have tracks spanning hundreds of feet, were animals just holding their breath? Lol. Or when they were building their nests and laying eggs?

Couldn't be.

"The other side" really is just a handful of heavily religious people who frequently omit observations, such as in the article above.

 

[MrsFoundit]

If I am guilty of the crime of believing in what I see,

It is not a crime to believe what you see, based on the assumption it is there. In my in humble opinion you possess every right to base your beliefs on anything you choose to trust, including your physical senses and scientific data. So does everyone else, even people who choose a basis different to you.

Beyond that, to be fair, if the world were an illusion, even my scripture would be a part of that same illusion.

Yes, because the Bible is a collection of books, but would the God who is referred to with the words "In the beginning God" still exist ?

 

[Mathetes66]

Of course it is. If anyone calls themselves a Christian, that means they follow the Lord Jesus Christ & continues to abide in His words/teaching.

Did Jesus teach there was an actual Adam & Eve in the very beginning? Indeed He did. He created them! He was there in the beginning. So the problem is not in Genesis, the problem is with Jesus. If one does not believe what Jesus taught is true & as His disciple, teaching people to observe all that He commanded, then how can they call themselves a 'Christian?' Jesus said that identified a follower of His.

When tested by the Pharisees on divorce, Jesus said the following:

“Have you NOT read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male & female’ & said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father & mother & be united to his wife & the two will become one flesh’ ? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

The creation of the first man & woman, Adam & Eve was done by Jesus! He refers them back to Genesis & says that is exactly what happened. The whole institution of marriage is also cited, from Genesis 2, again referring to this same first created male & female & it says they were named Adam & Eve.

Our whole foundation of Christianity is based on the apostles & the prophets & what they wrote, with Christ being the chief cornerstone.

Paul plainly taught that all mankind came from one man & that one man in revelation from God was Adam. (Acts 17). He again verifies Genesis 10, the table of nations. Others have shown other places where Paul demonstrates this.

Romans 5 is another passage that a literal Adam, one man, the first Adam brought sin & death into the world & as a result all human beings have died. Death is not an allegory or an illusion! People literally die!

Christ, as the Last Adam or man died on a cross to set us free from the law of sin & death & came to give us His eternal life. I Cor 15 is another vital passage. Christ actually did literally rise out from among the dead & we too, as faithful followers of Christ will also be literally resurrected again, to live with Christ forever. All this ties in with a literal Adam.

The Apostle Paul, who by the way received his teachings as direct revelation from Jesus Christ Himself, taught that the woman, Eve, actually did literally come from the man, Adam, just as the Genesis account reveals, in I Corinthians 11.

The prophet Malachi taught we all have one father & one Creator & he also talks about the institution of marriage & being faithful to the wife of one's youth (Malachi 2).

The Biblical writer, Jude, the brother of Jesus, also mentions Adam and that Enoch was the literal 7th descendant from Adam & this agrees with the Genesis account.

The genealogy of Jesus Christ goes all the way back to Adam! Jesus had to have a literal genealogy of literal people to demonstrate & show He was a biological and legal descendant of king David & Abraham & the true prophesied Messiah.

If one doesn't believe Jesus, or the prophets, if one doesn't believe the apostles, if one doesn't believe the Bible as the inspired revelation of God, the word of truth, then why in the world would someone presume to call themselves a Christian, & try to identify as a follower of Christ & what He taught, yet don't believe what He taught is true?

 

[MrsFoundit]

Richard Dawkins is hardly an expert on religion but he could see the implications: "Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn't it? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual?"

Why does Richard Dawkins think there was a Jesus and a crucifixion ? (Don't anybody bother, I doubt anyone in this section is irrational enough to explain his reasoning to me.)

 

[Job 33:6]

It is not a crime to believe what you see, based on the assumption it is there. In my in humble opinion you possess every right to base your beliefs on anything you choose to trust, including your physical senses and scientific data. So does everyone else, even people who choose a basis different to you.



Yes, because the Bible is a collection of books, but would the God who is referred to with the words "In the beginning God" still exist ?

We do not know if Jesus would exist, if scripture and everything else we could see were an illusion. Which is why neither of us could accept the illusion idea. Well, we could, but we choose not to.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Well, we could, but we choose not to.

I can accept the possibility that all physical reality is an illusion. Who is your "we"?

 

[Job 33:6]

I can accept the possibility that all physical reality is an illusion. Who is your "we"?

We meaning me and you. If you could accept that all physical reality is an illusion, then how would you even know if Jesus existed, if He is only mentioned in scripture which is part of the illusion (as every other written book is)?

 

[MrsFoundit]

then how would you even know if Jesus existed,?

I would not know. Why would my awareness or even my existence be required for Jesus to exist?

 

[Job 33:6]

I would not know. Why would my awareness or even my existence be required for Jesus to exist?

What I am pointing out is that neither of us, actually believes that what we see is a mass illusion (even though we both accept that it is a possibility).

If we did, we probably wouldn't be Christian.

We both accept that what we see is real. When we walk out our front door, we expect a physically real earth to rest beneath our feet. We don't tremble in uncertainty of over whether or not the world we see is real or if we will fall into a black hole when we step outside.

We simply accept that reality is as we see it to be.

Would you agree?

 

[Job 33:6]

With the above said, given that we accept the assumption that what we see is real and that we reject the idea that what we see is an illusion...

This leads us to the understanding that first hand observation will inevitably be more real or truthful to us, than what we imagine in our minds after reading words written by other people (regardless of who those people are, be them prophets, be them apostles, be them scholars etc.)

So, what I am proposing is that science is...in essence, observation. Observation is what makes science what it is. The scientific method requires observation.

Which leads me back to post #38
Do you think that the story of Adam and Eve literally happened?

Which basically concludes that first hand scientific observation of God's creation, will supercede interpretations of Genesis (written words about God's creation), as evidence for what is real and what is not, because we experience it first hand (and assuming that the world isn't an illusion).

 

[MrsFoundit]

What I am pointing out is that neither of us, actually believes that what we see is a mass illusion (even though we both accept that it is a possibility).

If we did, we probably wouldn't be Christian.

If you answered the question "Would God still exist, even if all physical reality does not?" it might become possible for me to see your point. Again, I ask why you believe that my ability to know if God exists is in any way relevant to God existing?