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

[-57]

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.



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.

When was humanity deceived? How was humanity deceived? Why was humanity deceived? The contradiction is that the bible says through one man sin and death came about ...via an act of disobedience.

Just for the record Adam wasn't deceived.

 

[-57]

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

What I've shown you is that many believe in the two genealogy answer.
There is another which has something like a brother marring into the genealogy but I'm not all that well versed on it.

The problem with your view is that it creates contradiction.

 

[hedrick]

What I've shown you is that many believe in the two genealogy answer.
There is another which has something like a brother marring into the genealogy but I'm not all that well versed on it.

The problem with your view is that it creates contradiction.

In fact there are three common explanations: Matthew was Mary's genealogy, Luke's was, or one of them is some kind of legal lineage. But there's no way to decide between the excuses, because there's no evidence in the text.

You're right. There's a contradiction. In fact, neither Matthew nor Luke knew his actual lineage, but they both knew he was descended from David, so they gave their best interpretation.

 

[MrsFoundit]

When was humanity deceived? How was humanity deceived? Why was humanity deceived?

There does not seem to be anyone who rejects a literal Adam and Eve who can answer this. I am a bit surprised, I would have expected at least the ability to explain what truth it represents in principle, as symbolic and poetic expression can easily do that.

Can any non-literalists answer these questions? Were we even deceived?

 

[coffee4u]

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.

"the observations of the locomotive behaviour of the living salamanders indicated that all spent the majority of their locomotion time walking on the bottom, underwater, rather than swimming."

Apart from salamanders, there are plenty of land animals that walk through water as well as amphibians, to animals like the platypus.

Given that evolutionists believe all life came from the ocean and developed legs I find it hard to believe you would discount animals that could walk underwater given that you all believe there to be hundreds of in-between steps between the different animal forms.

Observation is what makes science what it is. The scientific method requires observation.

Exactly, and no one has observed one animal slowly changing into another and no one observed animals making those tracts. Salamander location though can be observed.

 

[Niels]

When was humanity deceived?

Long ago.

How was humanity deceived?

Through an appeal to pride.

Why was humanity deceived?

Because another one of God's earlier creations developed an attitude and started causing trouble.

The contradiction is that the bible says through one man sin and death came about ...via an act of disobedience.

That doesn't require the creation story to be a literal account.

Just for the record Adam wasn't deceived.

Placing the blame on Eve causes more theological problems, in my opinion, than the notion of a metaphorical Genesis.

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.

"Adam" may be one or many people, but it's guilt just the same.

The animals aren't fallen, and it seems unlikely to me that proto-human hominids were. For the fall to implicate us, it seems to me that it would have involved modern humans.

As far as my theology is concerned, it isn't a big deal. I don't have a problem squaring creation and evolution. We were made from dust by a master potter, however he did it.

 

[hedrick]

There does not seem to be anyone who rejects a literal Adam and Eve who can answer this. I am a bit surprised, I would have expected at least the ability to explain what truth it represents in principle, as symbolic and poetic expression can easily do that.

Can any non-literalists answer these questions? Were we even deceived?

I'm probably more radical than most, but I'll give what I think is the more common understanding. We're in a fallen condition, although not from a single act. Since there was no single Fall, it's not due to one person being deceived, but certainly the basic condition of being alienated from God includes not having a clear understanding of God and his will, i.e. being deceived. If we truly understood God, we would appreciate him, and not be in the condition we're in.

 

[coffee4u]

"Adam" may be one or many people

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Genesis 5:5
Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

The animals aren't fallen

Romans:8-20
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope

Romans 8:22
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Yes, I do. It seems to me as though it is meant to be taken at face value, as something that really happened. And the New Testament references Genesis often, as though talking about things which truly happened.

This. What does the rest of the Bible say about Genesis? Invariably it speaks of Adam as a historical person. Non-literal interpretations of Scripture are perfectly valid - if they can be justified by the context...

 

[Job 33:6]

"the observations of the locomotive behaviour of the living salamanders indicated that all spent the majority of their locomotion time walking on the bottom, underwater, rather than swimming."

Apart from salamanders, there are plenty of land animals that walk through water as well as amphibians, to animals like the platypus.

Given that evolutionists believe all life came from the ocean and developed legs I find it hard to believe you would discount animals that could walk underwater given that you all believe there to be hundreds of in-between steps between the different animal forms.



Exactly, and no one has observed one animal slowly changing into another and no one observed animals making those tracts. Salamander location though can be observed.

Of course some animals walk in water. But you should understand that there are foot prints of land animals worldwide through every geologic period dating back to at least the ordovician.

Which is to say that animals were continuously walking around the entire world throughout the deposition of all the world's post cambrian strata.

So the question is not whether some animals can walk in shallow water such as in a pond or stream. But rather the question is if there was a global flood in which waters covered the planet and deposited tens of thousands of feet of sediment worldwide.

How would animals walk in such an environment? Would they not be buried by sediment that was deposited above their tracks? If so, how could they walk if being buried? Would they not drown underwater? Or was the water really shallow? And if it was shallow, and we have things like nests with eggs, were animals going into labor and laying eggs in the middle of a shallow water flood?

These are questions that young earthers will never be able to clarify.

 

[coffee4u]

Of course some animals walk in water. But you should understand that there are foot prints of land animals worldwide through every geologic period dating back to at least the ordovician.

Which is to say that animals were continuously walking around the entire world throughout the deposition of all the world's post cambrian strata.

So the question is not whether some animals can walk in shallow water such as in a pond or stream. But rather the question is if there was a global flood in which waters covered the planet and deposited tens of thousands of feet of sediment worldwide.

How would animals walk in such an environment? Would they not be buried by sediment that was deposited above their tracks? If so, how could they walk if being buried? Would they not drown underwater? Or was the water really shallow? And if it was shallow, and we have things like nests with eggs, were animals going into labor and laying eggs in the middle of a shallow water flood?

These are questions that young earthers will never be able to clarify.

What normally happens to tracks? They disappear. Wind, rain, grass growing etc. The fact that they were preserved indicates that they were buried and didn't have time to erode away.
Floods only start as rain, it takes some time for areas to flood and some will flood sooner or later depending on the elevation. In our area in the flood a few years ago we had the rescue helicopter and evacuation centre not far from us because we have always remained free of floodwater even when the other side of town are using boats. We are not up a noticeable hill either but a very gradual slope from one side of town to the other. Most people visiting would describe our town as 'flat as a pancake'. I am quite sure the ground birds would have kept nesting and laying eggs over on our side while it was waist deep over on the other side.
The floodwater in the global flood came both from rain but also as tsunamis. Not to say every area had both.
Did you ever see the films on the Japanese tsunami? It wasn't suddenly all over them, in fact at first it looked like nothing. If you were there and not understanding what was happening you would continue to walk down the street taking no notice (many did) It was very surreal. As you watch the film you can literally see it deepening, very gradually at first and then faster until cars are swept away. The smart people started running while the water was shallow.

Unfortunately going into labour is not a choice, I can assure you of that. Fright and sudden activity such as running can bring it on.

 

[Job 33:6]

"What normally happens to tracks? They disappear. Wind, rain, grass growing etc. The fact that they were preserved indicates that they were buried and didn't have time to erode away."

On the contrary, some remain. We even have foot tracks in Stone age caves left by ancient people. Were these people underwater too?

We have complex burrows that obviously took days, if not months or even years for animals to create as well.

Ancient sloths dug Brazil’s giant tunnels

Were these prehistoric animals burrowing while underwater?

And if everything was rapidly being buried, how could the animals walk at all? They'd be buried instantaneously. Remember, animal tracks are found in every period of the geologic column, meaning they're in shallow depths, deeper depths and everywhere in between in the geologic record.

And there are entire areas of nests where some 50 plus nests with eggs were discovered in the cenozoic. Right in the middle of the geologic succession.

What world is it where animals sense a massive tsunami and they all run and make nests and lay eggs just before it hits...where there is a flood so epic that it couldn't even wash the twigs away from the nests, yet somehow so epic that it lifted created mountains?

 

[coffee4u]

What world is it where animals sense a massive tsunami and they all run and make nests and lay eggs just before it hits...an flood so epic that it couldn't even wash the twigs away from the nests, yet somehow so epic that it lifted created mountains?

Obviously you didn't read a word that I said. Somethings get buried quickly some gradually depending on what is happening and what elevation you are on.

 

[misput]

Where did we get out fleshly nature from?

The same place Adam got his.

 

[Job 33:6]

Obviously you didn't read a word that I said. Somethings get buried quickly some gradually depending on what is happening and what elevation you are on.

You're still not answering the question though.

If you have an area in which tracks are observed throughout the geologic column, then how would animals walk in an area being rapidly buried by thousands of feet of sediment?

For example, on the east coast of the US, we have devonian strata with burrows and tracks, carboniferous strata with burrows and tracks, cretaceous strata with burrows and tracks, we have cenozoic tracks...

All of these, of the same geographic area, at varying depths.

So was the east coast deposition fast or slow? Fast enough to instantly bury life and deposit thousands of feet of sediment, yet slow enough that we find feeding traces and nests and burrows...all as if life hadn't even noticed?

This is the same flood that allegedly lifted mountains and metamorphosed strata. Yet somehow life survived 500 degree temperatures and super high pressures and just went around eating and laying eggs like everything was fine?

7.4 Regional Metamorphism – Physical Geology

 

[misput]

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

No, the op asked about the story of Adam and Eve which includes the whole story.

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

You must work that out for yourself. I have already given my opinion.

 

[Job 33:6]

And remember further @coffee4u that in this same region we have mountains in which these tracks are found. With metamorphosed rock that forms under temperatures of some 400+degrees Celsius.

The Adirondack mountains host granulite, which forms in temperatures over 600-800+ degrees C.

This is beyond the level of "well maybe the animals were stressed and decided to lay eggs". This is more along the lines of "the animals were instantaneously incinerated".

Not only must these animals have been roaming and feeding and burrowing amidst these flood waters of an unknown depth and force, but they would have been melted alive too.

The western US has greenschist mesozoic strata, which forms at temperatures over 200-400 degrees Celsius. As if the land was super heated, yet fossil tracks are continually found at further shallowing depths.

 

[-57]

In fact there are three common explanations: Matthew was Mary's genealogy, Luke's was, or one of them is some kind of legal lineage. But there's no way to decide between the excuses, because there's no evidence in the text.

You're right. There's a contradiction. In fact, neither Matthew nor Luke knew his actual lineage, but they both knew he was descended from David, so they gave their best interpretation.

From what I have heard the scholars say....the Jews kept very precise linages.
As for now I'll stick with the Joseph and Mary linages and ask where the fact turns to fiction.

The verses are yet one of many that point to literal Adam.

 

[-57]

There does not seem to be anyone who rejects a literal Adam and Eve who can answer this. I am a bit surprised, I would have expected at least the ability to explain what truth it represents in principle, as symbolic and poetic expression can easily do that.

Can any non-literalists answer these questions? Were we even deceived?

Genesis explains what happened. Those who reject a literal Adam and Eve will require extra biblical material to make their case.
For instance they must fabricate something like the early porto-man primates received a sin mutation.

 

[-57]

Long ago.





Placing the blame on Eve causes more theological problems, in my opinion, than the notion of a metaphorical Genesis.

What theological problems?