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

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Just curious. I really don't.

Yes.

Enoch The Seventh From Adam, prophesied about them .......
• Jude 1:14


And


The Ancestors of Jesus Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph,son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai,son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda,son of Joanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er, son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim,son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Sala, son of Nahshon,son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor,son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah, son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech,son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan, son of Enos, son of Seth, Son Of Adam, son of God.
• Luke 3:23-38


.

 

[Job 33:6]

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?

I don't understand the purpose of your question. I would say yes, God could hypothetically exist even if physical reality did not.

What I was pointing out is that, if we hypothetically lived in an illusion and if physical reality were not actually real, then we wouldn't know if Jesus even existed, as our knowledge of Jesus comes from scripture, which would otherwise also be part of the illusion of physical reality, just as any other book would be.

This is relevant, because what I am saying is that neither of us actually believes that we live in an illusion, else neither of us would even be Christian.

Rather, both of us accept that what we see is indeed real. When we look outside and see the earth beneath our feet, we believe that it is real and we do not fear falling into portals whenever we walk outside. We trust and believe in what we see.

Which takes me back to post #60
Do you think that the story of Adam and Eve literally happened?

 

[MrsFoundit]

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.)

No, but then you do not appear to regard people as possessing any capacity to observe God directly.

Your mind is your spirit, same as "psyche" Psyche - Wikipedia . Your imagination is your ability to form an "image" in your mind, that is observe, using your spirit. It is certainly is not inevitable that what is ascertained by spiritual means and discovered by personal experience is less real than that derived by any other process.

 

[MrsFoundit]

I don't understand the purpose of your question. I would say yes, God could hypothetically exist even if physical reality did not.

The purpose was to explain how literally real God is, although not physical. Our own existence and entire physical universe can cease to even be and still God would be, and unchanged. To me, that is a nature more "solid" (inverted commas to indicate metaphor) than rock. Older than rock, and more solid (metaphorically) is not less real to me, if anything it is more.

Some posters in this thread may have different mental ways of extrapolating from the word "literally". For some "real" or "literal" means "based on modern scientific methods". For others, "literal" means "historically true", as opposed to fiction.

 

[-57]

Yes.

Enoch The Seventh From Adam, prophesied about them .......
• Jude 1:14


And


The Ancestors of Jesus Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph,son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai,son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda,son of Joanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er, son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim,son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Sala, son of Nahshon,son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor,son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah, son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech,son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan, son of Enos, son of Seth, Son Of Adam, son of God.
• Luke 3:23-38


.

How true. There are many verses in the bible that clearly point out a literal Adam.

Post 7 is another....as well as post 10.

One has to wonder...How do the non-literal Genesis people explain our sin nature? How did we get it? When did we get it? Why did we get it? Where did we get it?

 

[-57]

Yes.

Enoch The Seventh From Adam, prophesied about them .......
• Jude 1:14



.

Concerning the list...
The Ancestors of Jesus Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph,son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai,son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda,son of Joanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er, son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim,son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Sala, son of Nahshon,son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor,son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah, son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech,son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan, son of Enos, son of Seth, Son Of Adam, son of God.
• Luke 3:23-38

Where do the non-literal Adam crowd say the list turned from fact to fiction?

 

[misput]

One has to wonder...How do the non-literal Genesis people explain our sin nature? How did we get it? When did we get it? Why did we get it? Where did we get it?

Simple, we get it from our free will and fleshly nature that we are born with but it is not held against us until we become aware of it.We got it because that is the only way a flesh an blood person can be unless they are God and we obviously get it from God, that is why He loves us and freely offers us salvation. If we had the ability to never sin as He had in Christ I think we would not have this offer.

 

[misput]

Concerning the list...
The Ancestors of Jesus Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph,son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai,son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda,son of Joanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er, son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim,son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Sala, son of Nahshon,son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor,son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah, son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech,son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan, son of Enos, son of Seth, Son Of Adam, son of God.
• Luke 3:23-38

Where do the non-literal Adam crowd say the list turned from fact to fiction?

You seem to be lumping all Christians into two crowds, that is not the way it works and I do not remember anyone using the word fiction. Are you going straw man on us?

 

[Job 33:6]

No, but then you do not appear to regard people as possessing any capacity to observe God directly.

Your mind is your spirit, same as "psyche" Psyche - Wikipedia . Your imagination is your ability to form an "image" in your mind, that is observe, using your spirit. It is certainly is not inevitable that what is ascertained by spiritual means and discovered by personal experience is less real than that derived by any other process.

My reply would probably be the same for both of your responses.

The topic is specifically about the existence of Adam and Eve. And if they existed literally or not.

And in regards to this subject, I don't think "spiritual experiences" provide enough of a detailed observation to overturn observations of science as to who or what Adam and Eve truly were.

Indeed, our understanding of Adam and Eve is, in fact, confined to what we read in scripture, which is a second (or even third) hand account, a bit less than clear than direct observations through science which indicate that mankind did not originate from two individuals, one made of some form of clay or dust while the other made from a rib bone.

The above scientific conclusions, hinging upon the belief that the world isn't an illusion.

If the topic were simply about whether or not God exists, and was not about literal interpretations of Genesis which contradict physical observation, I would otherwise agree with you.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Because no talking snakes and magic fruits have ever been observed by science as far as I'm aware.

Science has also not found talking donkeys, burning bushes that aren't consumed, metal that floats, food that falls out of the sky, People being physically transported to another location, Satan, or God for that matter...

Just maybe human observation is limited to certain physical laws and the creator can break the laws He put in place at any time?

 

[hedrick]

Concerning the list...
The Ancestors of Jesus Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph,son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai,son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda,son of Joanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er, son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim,son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Sala, son of Nahshon,son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor,son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah, son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech,son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan, son of Enos, son of Seth, Son Of Adam, son of God.
• Luke 3:23-38

Where do the non-literal Adam crowd say the list turned from fact to fiction?

There's no way Jesus' family had records of the family tree back to Adam. The authors, at best (remember that there are different genealogies in Matthew and Luke, both explicitly genealogies of Joseph), has started with knowledge of parents, grandparents, etc, and completed it with Jewish traditions.

 

[-57]

Simple, we get it from our free will and fleshly nature that we are born with but it is not held against us until we become aware of it.We got it because that is the only way a flesh an blood person can be unless they are God and we obviously get it from God, that is why He loves us and freely offers us salvation. If we had the ability to never sin as He had in Christ I think we would not have this offer.

Where did we get out fleshly nature from?

 

[-57]

You seem to be lumping all Christians into two crowds, that is not the way it works and I do not remember anyone using the word fiction. Are you going straw man on us?

I'm not lumping anyone.
The OP was about a literal Adam and Eve.

For those of the opinion Adam wasn't literal....then where in the list did those mentioned become not literal?

 

[-57]

ndeed, our understanding of Adam and Eve is, in fact, confined to what we read in scripture, which is a second (or even third) hand account, a bit less than clear than direct observations through science which indicate that mankind did not originate from two individuals, one made of some form of clay or dust while the other made from a rib bone.

That statement contradicts what scripture teaches in both the old and new testaments.

 

[-57]

There's no way Jesus' family had records of the family tree back to Adam. The authors, at best (remember that there are different genealogies in Matthew and Luke, both explicitly genealogies of Joseph), has started with knowledge of parents, grandparents, etc, and completed it with Jewish traditions.

One of the genealogies is of Josephs while the other belongs to Mary.

 

[hedrick]

One of the genealogies is of Josephs while the other belongs to Mary.

huh?

"He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli, 24 son of Matthat, son of Levi,"

"Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."


The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. (1989). (Mt 1:15–16). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

 

[Niels]

I don't know for sure, but the creation story is structured like poetry. This is suggestive of metaphor, as when similar form is sometimes used elsewhere in the Bible. Unlike the life of Jesus, which is written as historical accounts, the creation story appears to be highly symbolic.

One poster did bring up a useful point. Without Adam and Eve we don't have a fall. That has fairly broad implications for theology.

There can be a fall without a literal Adam and Eve, when understood as metaphor. The point is that humanity was deceived and fell from God's grace, regardless of whether it involved only two people and a talking snake.

 

[hedrick]

There can be a fall without a literal Adam and Eve, when understood as metaphor. The point is that humanity was deceived and fell from God's grace, regardless of whether it involved only two people and a talking snake.

we can be fallen, but if there wasn’t an actual Adam, ideas like imputing his guilt don’t work. Of course Paul doesn’t actually say that. It also messes up his parallels between Adam and Christ, though they are really metaphors, so that’s not necessarily a big deal. But the big problem is that in the evolutionary understanding there was never a time when we were perfect. Agiain, that’s not necessarily a big deal, but for some theology it is.

 

[-57]

huh?

"He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli, 24 son of Matthat, son of Levi,"

"Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."

The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. (1989). (Mt 1:15–16). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Joseph was Jacobs son by birth. Eli was Josephs father in law. When you read the rest of the genealogy that becomes apparent.

The reason for the dual linage was to show that thru either linage Jesus was the heir to the throne of David.

Joe and his Dad.

Ref verses.

Matt 1:16 and to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary,

Luke 3:23... being supposedly the son of Joseph the son of Eli.

The bible seems clear that The Matthew verse tells us that Jacob as the father of Joseph. The term born in the verse seems to indicate that this is the case. Jacob was Josephs biological father.

Some have argued that Luke 3:23 may appear to be in contradiction or error saying that Joseph was the son of Eli. Further research clearly indicates that Joseph was the son-in-law of Eli and that the term and meaning of the word in the ancient Greek language and legal understanding of the title son in this case meant son in law.


Some reasons why.

1)The Son-in-law belief is held by several early Christian writers.

a, Origen

b, Irenaeus

c, Tertullian,

d, Athanasius

e, Justin Martyr


2) It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition. The Talmudic writers wrote of Mary as the daughter of Eli.

3) This verse shows us in what way Christ was the Son of David. If Mary was the daughter of Eli, then Jesus was strictly a descendent of David, not only legally, through his reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, through his mother.

4) This point affords a simple explanation of the whole matter. Mary, since she had no brothers, was an heiress; therefor her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her fathers family , as his son. This would make Joseph the actual son of Jacob, and the legal son of Eli.

The book of Matthew sets forth Jesus' right to the theocratic crown, where Luke sets forth his natural pedigree. The latter employees Joseph's name, instead of Mary’s, in accordance with the Israelite law that genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers.

Ref lost.

 

[hedrick]

If you’re committed to inerrancy you can always come up with excuses for anything. But that’s hardly a literal read of Scripture.