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

[BroRoyVa79]

"You think YEC are forcing 4.6 billion years of Earth history into 6,000 years? It makes me suspicious that you don't even look at what they say unlike we do when we look at what Old Earthers say."

@BroRoyVa79

What do young earthers say about the geology of New York or of the green River formation?

Old Earth Geology

Every time I read their articles, I find them to contradict themselves and some even outright disagree with others.

Are you capable of technically describing their views?

Of course not, why bother even asking. And yet you claim that people aren't actually examining their words?

Let us examine their words here and now, if you believe them to be true.

Sigh,

You're like a broken record.
I'm not taking you seriously cause you don't read properly and you tend to rail against straw men.

Edited to add: Of course I'm going to claim people aren't examining their words when they repeat the usual atheist mantra, accuse them of saying things they don't, aren't keeping up with new information out of their ministries, etc.

Edited to add: Case in point, look at your statement, "some tend to disagree with others." It's not like I didn't tell you in the other thread somewhere that two of them were DEBATING different positions on the Green River Formation. Once again, you prove you don't read properly or you like building straw men which makes me wonder if your being disingenuous. So I've decided to stop taking you seriously just like Barbarian.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sigh,

You're like a broken record.
I'm not taking you seriously cause you don't read properly and you tend to rail against straw men.

Edited to add: Of course I'm going to claim people aren't examining their words when they repeat the usual atheist mantra, accuse them of saying things they don't, aren't keeping up with new information out of their ministries, etc.

Edited to add: Case in point, look at your statement, "some tend to disagree with others." It's not like I didn't tell you in the other thread somewhere that two of them were DEBATING different positions on the Green River Formation. Once again, you prove you don't read properly or you like building straw men which makes me wonder if your being disingenuous. So I've decided to stop taking you seriously just like Barbarian.

So when do we get to the part where we actually discuss their positions?

Or is this something that you would rather not do?

 

[BroRoyVa79]

So when do we get to the part where we actually discuss their positions?

Or is this something that you would rather not do?

 

[Job 33:6]

As expected.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

As expected.

No, you don't read everything and you build straw men. Why would I have an honest dialogue with someone who does that? I don't understand why you can't get that.

 

[coffee4u]

The events of the Bible didn't take place in a vacuum. There was a whole lot more going on in the world at that time, and the Bible is just one group of people's attempt at trying to explain things. Case in point, the story of a flood has its origins in the Epic of Gilgamesh in Sumer which predates the writing of Genesis. Also, Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees. Basically, he was a Sumerian. Ur was in modern day Iraq, in the cradle of civilization, and it was one of many. There was also Egypt, China, and the Indus valley civilization. There are multiple fields of study that show that this earth is a lot older than 6,000 years, that there was no global flood in 2348 BC, and that there are traces of both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in modern human DNA.

I go where the evidence leads, and that leads to the truth that this planet is a lot older than what YECs are saying.

What people in the YEC/global flood camp do is try to ramrod 4.6 billion years of earth's history into a mere 6,000 years, and it's no wonder that people don't take it seriously.

An event happened, one person decides to write of it sooner, another decides to write it down later. Does this mean the person who wrote it down later is copying the first? Not at all, especially not if it was directed by God to write down the correct story. The very fact that civilizations across the globe have flood stories points back to it being true. People split at the Tower of babble, they took the stories with them as all stories go people changed, embellished or got parts wrong until the society made the story into what it is. The Bible, on the other hand, is God-breathed. It is not a meer tale written down, but a written record of us to what God has done, is doing and will do. If one piece of scripture is a fairy tale then why would the rest be true?
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
All scripture is God-breathed including Genesis. The events in the Bible were written down under God's directive as the scripture is the word of God or don't you believe that?

Next, you have no idea of what we believe as yet once again 6,000 years comes trotting out as if this is what all YE creationists cling to. Those of us who believe in creation, the global flood and 6-day creation believe anywhere from 6 to 50 thousand years so you might want to update your 'knowledge' of us. Not everyone follows Usser.

As to 4.6 billion, that comes directly from secular science which is man's attempt to understand the world. Word of man or word of God? I know which one I will believe.

 

[JackRT]

Rabbi Brian Zachary Mayer wrote ~~~ I do not take the Bible literally. But I take it seriously. To take it literally would mean that I believe that every word, as it is written, was spoken by God. I cannot do that. But I can and do take it seriously. To take the Bible seriously means to examine it in its time and for the culture in which it was written. I want to offer up a very handy distinction that can help in our understanding of the Bible. That distinction I would like to make is revealed in the two words: true and truth. True is if it actually happened. It is a fact of history. Truth is the moral. It is the actual essence of things. I do not believe that most of the biblical stories are true stories. But I sure do believe that they are truth stories. It doesn’t matter to me if the Red Sea parted or if Noah had an ark. I don’t care if Jonah was swallowed by a whale or if that’s not necessarily factually so. To me, the great meaning of these stories has nothing to do with whether they’re historically accurate or not. Whether Jonah slept or didn’t sleep for three nights in the proverbial halibut hotel does not take away from the moral of the story – that it is human nature to run away from the things that we don’t want to do. I don’t believe this historically happened. I don’t believe Jonah was swallowed by a great fish and brought to the bottom of the sea-world after not doing what he knew he had to do. This is a truth story. Not a true story. This is a story about humanity, about me, about the troubles we get into when we don’t do what we should do and about how it will bring us down to the very bottom of our existence. It’s a truth story, not a true story. And if we look at the miracles in the Bible as truth stories, what we learn from these stories will be liberative for us. In this important way the Bible can be a very liberating force in our lives. If we read the Bible in this way we will probably fight less with what we read in the Bible. Moreover, seeking the "truth" of the stories can allow us to have meaningful conversations with people who might read the stories to be true stories rather than truth ones. The truth aspect of the story offers a place of connection between myself and those who read the words literally.

 

[JackRT]

Rabbi Brian Zachary Mayer wrote ~~~ I do not take the Bible literally. But I take it seriously. To take it literally would mean that I believe that every word, as it is written, was spoken by God. I cannot do that. But I can and do take it seriously. To take the Bible seriously means to examine it in its time and for the culture in which it was written. I want to offer up a very handy distinction that can help in our understanding of the Bible. That distinction I would like to make is revealed in the two words: true and truth. True is if it actually happened. It is a fact of history. Truth is the moral. It is the actual essence of things. I do not believe that most of the biblical stories are true stories. But I sure do believe that they are truth stories. It doesn’t matter to me if the Red Sea parted or if Noah had an ark. I don’t care if Jonah was swallowed by a whale or if that’s not necessarily factually so. To me, the great meaning of these stories has nothing to do with whether they’re historically accurate or not. Whether Jonah slept or didn’t sleep for three nights in the proverbial halibut hotel does not take away from the moral of the story – that it is human nature to run away from the things that we don’t want to do. I don’t believe this historically happened. I don’t believe Jonah was swallowed by a great fish and brought to the bottom of the sea-world after not doing what he knew he had to do. This is a truth story. Not a true story. This is a story about humanity, about me, about the troubles we get into when we don’t do what we should do and about how it will bring us down to the very bottom of our existence. It’s a truth story, not a true story. And if we look at the miracles in the Bible as truth stories, what we learn from these stories will be liberative for us. In this important way the Bible can be a very liberating force in our lives. If we read the Bible in this way we will probably fight less with what we read in the Bible. Moreover, seeking the "truth" of the stories can allow us to have meaningful conversations with people who might read the stories to be true stories rather than truth ones. The truth aspect of the story offers a place of connection between myself and those who read the words literally.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Next, you have no idea of what we believe as yet once again 6,000 years comes trotting out as if this is what all YE creationists cling to.

It is a straw man.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Just curious. I really don't.

Since Jesus did, who is described as being there, so do I.

Jesus believed in a literal Adam and Eve, so do I. I can only guess that those who don’t find thinking about Jesus believing this a. subject to be avoided. Verses one needs to remove from one’s Bible.

 

[MrsFoundit]

In this important way the Bible can be a very liberating force in our lives. If we read the Bible in this way we will probably fight less with what we read in the Bible..

Your post represents an option I can see would work for some people. I just do not need to do much fighting to believe what I read in the Bible.

 

[Tom 1]

Just curious. I really don't.

I think taking the story literally prevents the reader from understanding that actual meanings of the story, so in that sense a literal interpretation is a negative thing. It also encourages people to accept things without asking questions, questions that can lead to more useful understanding.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Jesus believed in a literal Adam and Eve, so do I. I can only guess that those who don’t find thinking about Jesus believing this a. subject to be avoided. Verses one needs to remove from one’s Bible.

I would find it easier to accept people questioning it if it was not for the fact that all notions about life origins are tenuous. If a person does not believe there is a Creator at all, then they need to turn to "we do not really know" anyway. I cannot understand someone who does know Creation happened and there is a Creator, questioning Jesus over it, for "?" .

Maybe it is semantics in some cases, since "literally" and "scientifically" do not mean the same thing.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I would find it easier to accept people questioning it if it was not for the fact that all notions about life origins are tenuous. If a person does not believe there is a Creator at all, then they need to turn to "we do not really know" anyway. I cannot understand someone who does know Creation happened and there is a Creator, questioning Jesus over it, for "?" .

Maybe it is semantics in some cases, since "literally" and "scientifically" do not mean the same thing.

It’s sometimes a desire to compromise and not be laughed at.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I think taking the story literally prevents the reader from understanding that actual meanings of the story, so in that sense a literal interpretation is a negative thing. It also encourages people to accept things without asking questions, questions that can lead to more useful understanding.

The difficulty comes in why Jesus spoke of them as real people. Also, if it never happened there is no meaning.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Rabbi Brian Zachary Mayer wrote ~~~ I do not take the Bible literally. But I take it seriously. To take it literally would mean that I believe that every word, as it is written, was spoken by God. I cannot do that. But I can and do take it seriously. To take the Bible seriously means to examine it in its time and for the culture in which it was written. I want to offer up a very handy distinction that can help in our understanding of the Bible. That distinction I would like to make is revealed in the two words: true and truth. True is if it actually happened. It is a fact of history. Truth is the moral. It is the actual essence of things. I do not believe that most of the biblical stories are true stories. But I sure do believe that they are truth stories. It doesn’t matter to me if the Red Sea parted or if Noah had an ark. I don’t care if Jonah was swallowed by a whale or if that’s not necessarily factually so. To me, the great meaning of these stories has nothing to do with whether they’re historically accurate or not. Whether Jonah slept or didn’t sleep for three nights in the proverbial halibut hotel does not take away from the moral of the story – that it is human nature to run away from the things that we don’t want to do. I don’t believe this historically happened. I don’t believe Jonah was swallowed by a great fish and brought to the bottom of the sea-world after not doing what he knew he had to do. This is a truth story. Not a true story. This is a story about humanity, about me, about the troubles we get into when we don’t do what we should do and about how it will bring us down to the very bottom of our existence. It’s a truth story, not a true story. And if we look at the miracles in the Bible as truth stories, what we learn from these stories will be liberative for us. In this important way the Bible can be a very liberating force in our lives. If we read the Bible in this way we will probably fight less with what we read in the Bible. Moreover, seeking the "truth" of the stories can allow us to have meaningful conversations with people who might read the stories to be true stories rather than truth ones. The truth aspect of the story offers a place of connection between myself and those who read the words literally.

Do you approach the resurrection also seriously instead of a literal event?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Your post represents an option I can see would work for some people. I just do not need to do much fighting to believe what I read in the Bible.

The apostles contended for the faith, that is, they fought error.

 

[MrsFoundit]

I think taking the story literally prevents the reader from understanding that actual meanings of the story, so in that sense a literal interpretation is a negative thing.

I could agree with this if you had used the word "if" then. Like this:

If taking the story literally prevents the reader from understanding the actual meanings of the story,

And since you cannot determine actual meaning for everyone,

If taking the story literally prevents the reader from understanding other meanings of the story.

It also encourages people to accept things without asking questions, questions that can lead to more useful understanding.

A literal interpretation does not preclude asking questions, a lot of literal believers became so by asking questions, and while we are on the subject what do you see as "more useful" about your own understanding, which a literal perspective lacks?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I could agree m if you had used the word "if" then. Like this:

If taking the story literally prevents the reader from understanding the actual meanings of the story,

And since you cannot determine actual meaning for everyone,

If taking the story literally prevents the reader from understanding other meanings of the story.



A literal interpretation does not preclude asking questions, a lot of literal believers became so by asking questions, and while we are on the subject what exactly do you see as "more useful" about your own understanding, which a literal perspective lacks?

“Meaning”instead of literal (never happened to real people) is about as useful as seeing the tale of Cinderella as a help for a single young woman to find a nice guy. If it never happened to her, there’s no reason to think it will happen to anyone else.

 

[Tom 1]

I could agree with this if you had used the word "if" then. Like this:

If taking the story literally prevents the reader from understanding the actual meanings of the story,

And since you cannot determine actual meaning for everyone,

If taking the story literally prevents the reader from understanding other meanings of the story.



A literal interpretation does not preclude asking questions, a lot of literal believers became so by asking questions, and while we are on the subject what do you see as "more useful" about your own understanding, which a literal perspective lacks?

That’s the thing - the examples of literal interpretation I have seen sometimes involve a person getting what is meant, but then, for some other reason, adding ‘oh but it is also literally true’.
Where it can be established that a literal interpretation was not meant, then the result is generally a mish mash of meanings that include some literal elements and some stuff about what the purpose of the story was.