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

[Hank77]

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. My only evidence of the things of God is the word of God.

It takes faith to believe in the things that we cannot see, such as the resurrection of the Christ.

It does not take faith to believe the things we can see.

 

[Hank77]

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.

I agree that it was Satan. Is it possible that calling him the serpent was the same as when Jesus called the leaders of the Jewish people 'vipers' and children of Satan? How would Satan have gotten into the Garden, is it possible that this is when sin was revealed in this angel, now call Satan and so it is now that God punishes him?

 

[nolidad]

I think that's an interesting question.

First, we should read Genesis chapters 2-3 with a true listening, without trying to see this or that idea, but really to learn the deeper lessons.

Things like the essential deep issue for our souls like: Trusting in God, instead of ourselves, ultimately....


---------

But, once we do really listen, and really hear, and have these invaluable deep lessons, then we could just for fun ask the very much less important questions about what parts were only literally concrete (none, some, much, all, etc....) and what parts instead of just-concrete (alone) have deeper meaning.

But, since the meanings are crucial for us, let's look at one.

Here's a great example of something with a deeper meaning:

Genesis 2:22 And from the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man, He made a woman and brought her to him.

Of course God could have chosen to form Eve from the ground, just like Adam....

From "dust" or from "mud".... Or from a piece of Adam's skin(?).... Or a thigh bone marrow?....

But He didn't choose those.

Instead, He chose a part of Adam close to his heart.

She is for Adam closer than his own skin. She in some sense protects his very breath, and heart.

Those are the kind of messages we are to absorb from scriptures, see. They are profound, and deeply helpful in life.

-----------
About the relatively unimportant speculation on concrete details. My total speculative guess is that the Garden was literally on the Earth -- not in another dimension, even though it has the wondrous, time-stopping (or time-altering) Tree of Life (!!)....

But this is only speculation, and not really important if person A or B guesses correctly about some esoteric detail about 'when' or 'how' or such. (only the profound meanings really matter)

What you write is profound and deep and has real sense to it!

However it doesn't in any way negate the fact that God formed Adam and then gave him life and then took a rib and made Eve for adam! Just because we can find many applications in a verse, does not mean that the verse should not be taken anything less than literal unless the construct demands us to!

 

[renniks]

Just curious. I really don't.

Jesus did.
4He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

 

[Halbhh]

What you write is profound and deep and has real sense to it!

However it doesn't in any way negate the fact that God formed Adam and then gave him life and then took a rib and made Eve for adam! Just because we can find many applications in a verse, does not mean that the verse should not be taken anything less than literal unless the construct demands us to!

Totally agree. Hope I didn't give anyone the impression I disbelieve in the Garden of Eden! I have the opposite view: it is so very real it is more real than 99% of the things around us we think are meaningful. Was there a place it seemed as if I suggest it's not about reality? I want to communicate clearly. Maybe my post was too long and complex? When I said I think it was literally present on Earth here in this dimension, was that too far down and not read you think?

Also, I don't want to lose or obscure the main thing I was hoping to communicate: that the deeper meanings are the reason we have this account available, and we are to listen to hear those, first and last.

 

[nolidad]

Totally agree. Hope I didn't give anyone the impression I disbelieve in the Garden of Eden! I have the opposite view: it is so very real it is more real than 99% of the things around us we think are meaningful. Was there a place it seemed as if I suggest it's not about reality? I want to communicate clearly. Maybe my post was too long and complex? When I said I think it was literally present on Earth here in this dimension, was that too far down and not read you think?

Also, I don't want to lose or obscure the main thing I was hoping to communicate: that the deeper meanings are the reason we have this account available, and we are to listen to hear those, first and last.

I didn't imply anything. Iwas just making a general response without anyone in mind. But glad to know you believe God as He caused men to write!

 

[Halbhh]

I didn't imply anything. Iwas just making a general response without anyone in mind. But glad to know you believe God as He caused men to write!

What we should most want is for people to stop preaching doctrines, and truly listen to the Word, fully, with all of their heart, and really hear it, so that they are changed.

 

[nolidad]

What we should most want is for people to stop preaching doctrines, and truly listen to the Word, fully, with all of their heart, and really hear it, so that they are changed.

I partially agree! Doctrinne is simply what God has to say about a matter. So we need to know what God has to say about salvation inorder to be saved!

We need to know the doctrine of Joy, inorder to know how access the fullness of Joy Jesus offers us!

 

[Halbhh]

I partially agree! Doctrinne is simply what God has to say about a matter. So we need to know what God has to say about salvation inorder to be saved!

We need to know the doctrine of Joy, inorder to know how access the fullness of Joy Jesus offers us!

You can take Truth and represent part of it in a doctrine. But the Truth Himself is the better thing. Like how a pizza is better than just a piece of pepperoni.

The real cause for joy. That transformation that happens to us, from above.

John 10:27 My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me.

 

[dad]

I agree that it was Satan. Is it possible that calling him the serpent was the same as when Jesus called the leaders of the Jewish people 'vipers' and children of Satan? How would Satan have gotten into the Garden, is it possible that this is when sin was revealed in this angel, now call Satan and so it is now that God punishes him?

I suspect he can fly. Ha. How did he get to the meeting in heaven of the sons of god in Job? How did he cause a house to be blown down also in Job? How did he take Jesus to a high mountain?

 

[Hank77]

I suspect he can fly. Ha. How did he get to the meeting in heaven of the sons of god in Job? How did he cause a house to be blown down also in Job? How did he take Jesus to a high mountain?

Nevermind, I'd like a discussion rather than whatever this is. Enjoy.

 

[nolidad]

You can take Truth and represent part of it in a doctrine. But the Truth Himself is the better thing. Like how a pizza is better than just a piece of pepperoni.

The real cause for joy. That transformation that happens to us, from above.

John 10:27 My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me.

Absolutely. The Written Word without the Living Word is just dead orthodoxy! But always remember we must border any spiritual experiences we have by what the Scriptures define. Otherwise we have a spiritual experience without God who is Spirit.

Its a both/and thing! We need both the word to define and the spirit to live what is defined!

 

[MrsFoundit]

I agree that it was Satan. Is it possible that calling him the serpent was the same as when Jesus called the leaders of the Jewish people 'vipers' and children of Satan? How would Satan have gotten into the Garden, is it possible that this is when sin was revealed in this angel, now call Satan and so it is now that God punishes him?

Yes.

"And so it should come as no surprise when John’s Revelation makes the connection explicit. In Revelation 12 v 9 we read about the defeat of Satan, and notice how John refers to him:

The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray.

We can safely conclude that, even though Genesis does not specifically use the name “Satan” in connection with the serpent in the garden, the snake is in fact a manifestation of the evil one."

Where did Satan come from? | The Good Book Blog

 

[dad]

Nevermind, I'd like a discussion rather than whatever this is. Enjoy.

Angels fly, Jesus flew up to heaven, we will be like Him. Not sure why anyone would think that was open to debate.

 

[Deus Vult!]

Just curious. I really don't.

As time moves forward the human race grows larger. Logical conclusion would be that if you went backwards in time the human race would become smaller and smaller, until eventually the human race went back to one man and one woman.

 

[Job 33:6]

As time moves forward the human race grows larger. Logical conclusion would be that if you went backwards in time the human race would become smaller and smaller, until eventually the human race went back to one man and one woman.

you could conclude that the numbet doesn't go down to two until an extraordinary long time ago, before people existed.

Studies suggest a population of over 1,000,000 people, 10,000 years ago. But with agriculture, by 1,000bc to the year 0, that number increased to over 100,000,000. Which is a number that would be impossible without modern farming of crops and livestock.

At the above rate, we might expect there to be no people by the year 20,000 bc, but we have human fossils much older, suggesting that people lived further back in history, but just didn't have modern agriculture and lived in a Hunter gatherer society.

And those fossils continue back to times before people existed, suggesting that populations do not originate as two individuals, but rather they originate as pre existing communities. At least going back long long before any observed human fossil.

 

[MrsFoundit]

As time moves forward the human race grows larger. Logical conclusion would be that if you went backwards in time the human race would become smaller and smaller, until eventually the human race went back to one man and one woman.

Research is happening on this - Hössjer

 

[Archivist]

Just curious. I really don't.

I'm with you. I believe that the story is an analogy, not a factual account. To me the fact that Genesis contains two creation accounts that do not agree with each other proves this. Others are, of course, free to have their own beliefs.

 

[RTP76]

At the above rate, we might expect there to be no people by the year 20,000 bc, but we have human fossils much older, suggesting that people lived further back in history, but just didn't have modern agriculture and lived in a Hunter gatherer society.

And those fossils continue back to times before people existed, suggesting that populations do not originate as two individuals, but rather they originate as pre existing communities. At least going back long long before any observed human fossil.

Hi Komatiite and Happy New Year. To be clear, stating "we have human fossils much older" is a statement of faith, correct? In other words, it is an inferred/calculated age based upon a set of assumptions, as opposed to a written record corroborating when these humans lived relative to a fixed date we could anchor to from today's date?

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi Komatiite and Happy New Year. To be clear, stating "we have human fossils much older" is a statement of faith, correct? In other words, it is an inferred/calculated age based upon a set of assumptions, as opposed to a written record corroborating when these humans lived relative to a fixed date we could anchor to from today's date?

The statement is inferred no more than we might infer that rock beneath our feet pre-exist ourselves. Which is really just a logical deduction. If we were older than the rock beneath our feet then we would be floating in space.

This is what we call the law of superposition. And if we have a succession of fossils in which we can apply to law of superposition, we can logically conclude what is older or younger than something else. And with that said, I'll give an example.

In northern Pennsylvania Connecticut and New York we have at least six or seven independent layers of glacial deposits. Glacial deposits of course come from glaciers. Below these further we have cyclothems and numerous layers of oceanic transgressive and regressive deposits. These deposits further are intermingled with things like foot tracks, borrow networks, feeding traces, etc. And even further these formations are divided with the classic angular unconformities.

To suggest that humanity and life is not ancient, is to suggest that what we see has not taken extraordinary expanses of time to form. Which is an idea that would defy logic reason and what we know about physics chemistry biology geology and more.

Do we infer that in the past it would have taken a long time for a glacier to advance from the North Pole down to North America? How about five times over? How about in addition to the migration of a volcanic island arc such as Hawaii?

Yes it is logically deduced that these events would take millions of years. But I would say that it is a reasonable deduction, given that everything we have ever known and observed about physical reality supports it (the theory of plate tectonics, theory of ice ages, theory of Earth etc).