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

[LoG]

What I am suggesting is that there are no limitations on what people are willing to believe, even without evidence or worse, in contradiction of evidence. And literalist Christians unfortunately find themselves in the latter group surprisingly often.

When I say "feel" what I mean is belief without evidence to surprising extremes (more than simply belief in God, but belief in somewhat extreme ideas).

From my perspective I do not see much difference between the literalist who ascribes the hidden things of God to miraculous events and the one who concludes that it is all meant to be allegorical. It makes the Bible either a book of miracles or a book of fables rather then a literal history of how God brought about the world as we see it today, using the physical laws of this creation.

 

[Job 33:6]

From my perspective I do not see much difference between the literalist who ascribes the hidden things of God to miraculous events and the one who concludes that it is all meant to be allegorical. It makes the Bible either a book of miracles or a book of fables rather then a literal history of how God brought about the world as we see it today, using the physical laws of this creation.

Well there isn't really a third option.

Either it's literally true or its allegorically true.

If you feel that there is, feel free to explain.

 

[coffee4u]

using the physical laws of this creation.

If this is code for evolution, there is a huge gulf between the two views.

 

[dad]

Just curious. I really don't.

Yes.

 

[dad]

Hi kees,

Well, to be completely accurate, the Scriptures don't say that it was a snake that Eve spoke with. The snake idea is really something that has come out of a misunderstanding of the Hebrew word and also from the pictorials of the scene that always show some snake slithering around a tree.

In the Revelation God reveals to us who the 'serpent' was. It was Satan.

This from hebrewversity.com: Interestingly, in Biblical Hebrew there is a fascinating strong etymological connection between the ‘Nachash’ and supernatural forces. The Biblical Hebrew word for ‘sorcery’ or ‘witchcraft’ is… that’s right…the SAME as the word for ‘SERPENT’ – meaning ‘Nachash’! {נחש}

So, it is very possible that what God intended for us to understand as regards this 'talking serpent' is really a powerful, supernatural being. Thus...Satan.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

It was Satan, however, it seems a creature was involved in whom Satan resided for the talk with Eve. Unless you think that Satan lost his legs/wings? The devil had already fallen by that time.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Faith is the evidence of things not seen. The evidence that you are suggesting we put our faith in is of things that are seen.

This.

 

[Job 33:6]

On that comment @miamited

"Faith is the evidence of things not seen. The evidence that you are suggesting we put our faith in is of things that are seen."

If it is seen, then it doesn't really require faith, rather it is simply a matter of seeing observed reality and acknowledging its existence.

Or perhaps we could say that it takes no more faith to believe in what is seen than there is faith that I am looking at my computer screen right now. In which case, I wouldn't consider it faith at all to believe that my computer exists, rather I would simply refer to my experience as a form of knowledge.

 

[FaithT]

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

I think the snake itself didn’t speak on its own but was possessed by Satan and Satan made it speak.

 

[hedrick]

I think the snake itself didn’t speak on its own but was possessed by Satan and Satan made it speak.

But it was given a punishment as a snake. It looks like the implication of the punishment is that snakes originally walked. I don’t see why God would curse snakes if it was simply an animal possessed by Satan.

 

[hedrick]

I do believe that they were literal people because of 5 reasons.

I agree with this, but only in part. The story should be understood as literal rather than some kind of symbol. That's pretty obvious. But that doesn't mean it was understood as historical. I'll use as an analogy the novels about Harry Potter. I have been known to use characters from it as examples in middle school Sunday School because they're characters that everyone knows about. The stories are literal, in the sense that they are about actual people. The characters aren't just symbols or metaphors. But they're also not historical figures. In earlier days people would have used characters from Shakespeare the same way.

I don't think we can tell just how people understood Adam and Eve. It may not even have been the sane for everyone. Certainly among Romans there were people who understood that the myths weren't historical, but it's likely that others thought they were. I would agree that 1 Tim 2 makes no sense unless the author thought Eve was historical. In contrast, Job 31:33 is poetic, and might actually mean "as men do." But I don't agree that the Gospel makes no sense without it. Sin exists, no matter how it got here.

 

[Livingstones2020]

I agree with this, but only in part. The story should be understood as literal rather than some kind of symbol. That's pretty obvious. But that doesn't mean it was understood as historical. I'll use as an analogy the novels about Harry Potter. I have been known to use characters from it as examples in middle school Sunday School because they're characters that everyone knows about. The stories are literal, in the sense that they are about actual people. The characters aren't just symbols or metaphors. But they're also not historical figures. In earlier days people would have used characters from Shakespeare the same way.

I don't think we can tell just how people understood Adam and Eve. It may not even have been the sane for everyone. Certainly among Romans there were people who understood that the myths weren't historical, but it's likely that others thought they were. I would agree that 1 Tim 2 makes no sense unless the author thought Eve was historical. In contrast, Job 31:33 is poetic, and might actually mean "as men do." But I don't agree that the Gospel makes no sense without it. Sin exists, no matter how it got here.

I see, but there is no evidence of them being anything other than historical figures. Just because some of our literature use fictional characters to display some truth doesn't mean that we can treat it away like Genesis. Like I said before in my post, Romans 5 claims it was historical and most Biblical scholars agree that Genesis is written in a historical narrative. If Adam wasn't a historical figure, then Noah wasn't either, and so wasn't Abraham, and even Jesus wasn't real either. Because real people have to come from real people.

 

[hedrick]

I see, but there is no evidence of them being anything other than historical figures. Just because some of our literature use fictional characters to display some truth doesn't mean that we can treat it away like Genesis. Like I said before in my post, Romans 5 claims it was historical and most Biblical scholars agree that Genesis is written in a historical narrative. If Adam wasn't a historical figure, then Noah wasn't either, and so wasn't Abraham, and even Jesus wasn't real either. Because real people have to come from real people.

Yes, Genesis was written as a historical narrative in terms of its style. Biblical scholars agree on that. It wasn't like Pilgrim's Progress where there are characters but they're really symbols for other things. That's an example of a symbolic story. But don't confuse the agreement that it was non-symbolic with being a correct account of history. Biblical scholars certainly do not agree with that unless you throw out all scholars that disagree with you.

There are very suspicious similarities with legends from other groups in the area. (https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~kdickson/233W5Q8.html) Those stories, however, had the earth created by the gods playing some quite ungodly games. In my opinion, the early Jews didn't have any way of knowing how creation was done. But they did know what God is like, and knew that the stories currently going around weren't like him. So they created a corrected epic that's consistent with God's character.

 

[MrsFoundit]

If Adam wasn't a historical figure, then Noah wasn't either, and so wasn't Abraham, and even Jesus wasn't real either. Because real people have to come from real people.

I believe that the issue is was Adam directly created or was he rendered "Adam" by spiritual intervention, in either scenario a biological Adam from whom there were descendants can exist.

 

[Livingstones2020]

Yes, Genesis was written as a historical narrative in terms of its style. Biblical scholars agree on that. It wasn't like Pilgrim's Progress where there are characters but they're really symbols for other things. That's an example of a symbolic story. But don't confuse the agreement that it was non-symbolic with being a correct account of history. Biblical scholars certainly do not agree with that unless you throw out all scholars that disagree with you.

There are very suspicious similarities with legends from other groups in the area. (https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~kdickson/233W5Q8.html) Those stories, however, had the earth created by the gods playing some quite ungodly games. In my opinion, the early Jews didn't have any way of knowing how creation was done. But they did know what God is like, and knew that the stories currently going around weren't like him. So they created a corrected epic that's consistent with God's character.

I see. But could it be possible that Adam and Eve were real and the Genesis account was based on a true story?

 

[hedrick]

I see. But could it be possible that Adam and Eve were real and the Genesis account was based on a true story?

No, it couldn't be. Here's a good article on the subject: Cover Story: Historical Adam

 

[coastal_hiker]

reframing the question, did we develop the capacity to see the world in third person? yes this absolutely happened literally. Did we develop a kind of blindness to first person? yes factually we have. The intellect is a funny region of the cranium. it loves itself.

So yes the story is literal in that regard.

 

[MrsFoundit]

I see. But could it be possible that Adam and Eve were real and the Genesis account was based on a true story?

If science does not define what is possible, yes it is. "In the beginning, God..." fails a science exam anyway.

 

[Livingstones2020]

No, it couldn't be. Here's a good article on the subject: Cover Story: Historical Adam

I read through the article, and it didn't explain much. First of all, it had very literal Bible references in it.

2nd, it is taking man fallible ideas and added into the Word of God. We are fallible creatures, trying to understand the world around us. However, when God said that this occurred, I rather believe the Creator more than man. None of the things that are in the article comes from the Bible.

3rd, it is written in a view of putting a great age on the Earth. It talked about hundreds of thousands of years, which isn't true because of many reasons. It talks about the bottleneck theory in population. The only problem is that the bottleneck theory is not 150,000 years, like most scientific resources will tell you. We currently have over 6 billion people today. Around 1999, we crossed into 6 billion people. In the 1800s, we cross a billion people. If we go further back, around the time of Jesus, there was 1/4 of a million people here. The timeline can be traced back to around 4,300 years not hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Livingstones2020]

If science does not define what is possible, yes it is. "In the beginning, God..." fails a science exam anyway.

So it is impossible to have a global flood or the virgin birth or even a man walking on water. However, God's can exceed of what is possible or impossible.

 

[MrsFoundit]

So it is impossible to have a global flood or the virgin birth or even a man walking on water. However, God's can exceed of what is possible or impossible.

"But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26.

In other words, yes.