• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,116
7,227
70
Midwest
✟369,848.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
For me, the literal existence of Adam and Eve is not important. Nothing changes regarding Christ, God or gospel.

Yes, the view of the Bible or some theological frameworks (like the original sin) may shift for some people, but that is life. We are not forbidden to update our views when we learn new facts.
What also shifts is one's broader conception of the entire Bible. It is no longer a matter of fact, face value, plain and simple document. Some people need it to stay that way. Fine for them. I find it more helpful to see it as a vast collection of different genre documents written in a human/divine collaboration. And it no longer conflicts with contemporary theories of cosmology and geology.
1750812615901.png

Of course we have to start with a literal sense and enter into the narrative as if we ourselves are there. What to take as literal historical and what to take as another form requires discernment and critical reading.

But that is only the first step. In allegory we can explore possible symbolism, archetypes, themes, and motifs.

We can move on to moral considerations. What does it tell us about how should we live our lives? What is just? What is right?

And my favorite, the anagogical sense. What does it tell us about where it is all going? What does it tell us about heaven? What is the mystical meaning of the text?

And in all this it helps also to consider all the we have learned in the last 200 years regarding
Textual Criticism (Lower Criticism):
Focuses on establishing the most accurate text of the Bible by examining different manuscript variations.


and

Historical Criticism (Higher Criticism):
Investigates the historical background, authorship, date, sources, and intended audience of biblical texts.

Literary Criticism:
Analyzes the Bible as literature, examining its genres, themes, and literary devices.
(AI Summary)

There is a whole history of the development of these as well as the opposition that exists to this day and is present on this forum.

That is just how it is. We each choose how we want to approach the Bible and our approach will most likely change as we grow spiritually.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,140
7,527
North Carolina
✟344,381.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And regardless of Adam and Eve in the Garden we are sinful all on our own in need of Christ and his redemption.
Fails to address a central NT doctrine: imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17, 12-16) as the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19, 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9).

Non-existent Adam and Eve is a serious Biblical error, destroying a central NT doctrine. . .

ANATHEMA!
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
182,136
65,910
Woods
✟5,859,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to affirm the belief that Adam and Eve were not mere symbols but literally our first parents: It teaches that Eve in some manner was created from Adam (CCC 371). It contrasts the first Adam with Christ (CCC 359).
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,515
8,177
50
The Wild West
✟758,149.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
When AI is confronted with this statement "Catholic church allows members to accept creation as fact and history"

It responds this way:

"The Catholic Church does not require its members to interpret the creation story in Genesis literally, and it allows for acceptance of evolution as a valid scientific theory. The Church acknowledges the scientific evidence for evolution while also upholding the belief in a divine creator and the creation of the universe. The Church emphasizes that the creation narratives in Genesis are not meant to be taken as literal historical accounts, but rather as symbolic expressions of theological truths about God's relationship with creation"

==================

when AI is confronted with this statement "The Seventh-day Adventist church allows members to accept creation as fact and history"

IT responds this way

"Yes, the Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches that its members should accept the biblical account of Creation as a
literal and historical event.

Here's a breakdown of their perspective on Creation:
  • Basis in Scripture: They believe the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, provides the authentic and historical record of God's creative activity.
  • Six-Day Creation: Seventh-day Adventists understand the Creation week as consisting of six literal, 24-hour days, followed by God resting on the seventh day.
  • Foundational Belief: The doctrine of Creation is considered a core belief for Seventh-day Adventists, forming the basis for other important aspects of their faith, including the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.
  • Intelligent Design: They emphasize the idea of intelligent design, believing the intricate nature of the world points to a purposeful Creator.
  • ....

Appeal to unqualified authority. I could get an AI to declare that the your denomination venerates Pope Leo XIII as a saint, or that the Roman Catholics canonized Ellen G. White, with relative ease, maybe a jailbreak or two depending on the AI.

If you want to make a point concerning Roman Catholic doctrine, use an official and current Vatican publication, for instance, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or a papal encyclical or other official doctrinal instrument.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,515
8,177
50
The Wild West
✟758,149.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to affirm the belief that Adam and Eve were not mere symbols but literally our first parents: It teaches that Eve in some manner was created from Adam (CCC 371). It contrasts the first Adam with Christ (CCC 359).

It does affirm the above. There has never been an official document of the RCC denying the reality of Adam and Eve as personal individuals.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
182,136
65,910
Woods
✟5,859,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It does affirm the above. There has never been an official document of the RCC denying the reality of Adam and Eve as personal individuals.
This was one of the basics we were taught when we were going to classes.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,721
2,904
45
San jacinto
✟205,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There's a couple of different issues at play in this question. Whether Adam and Eve were genuine historical figures and whether or not the Genesis account is amenable to treating it as scientific history or if it is possible to understand it in a more nuanced fashion. Personally, I think that Adam and Eve were genuine historical figures, but that the narratives of Genesis up until Genesis 12 are principally theological rather than scientific and so operate through Ancient Near Eastern mythology and need not be taken as scientifically accurate.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,116
7,227
70
Midwest
✟369,848.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to affirm the belief that Adam and Eve were not mere symbols but literally our first parents: It teaches that Eve in some manner was created from Adam (CCC 371). It contrasts the first Adam with Christ (CCC 359).
True. And I have a hard time accepting it.

Has anyone here tried read Divino Afflante Spiritu (September 30, 1943) | PIUS XII

Pope Leo XIII tries to affirm prior teaching while at the same time acknowledge "modern" scripture critical methods.
Like walking a tight wire.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,140
7,527
North Carolina
✟344,381.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
True. And I have a hard time accepting it.
So the imputation of an imaginary sin of an imaginary Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16) is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for a central NT doctrine: the imputation of the actual Christ's actual righteousness (Ro 5:18-19, 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9) to those who believe.
In the nullification of Adam, you nullify a central NT doctrine.

You likewise nullify the last (second) Adam, Christ (1 Co 15:45, Ro 5:12-21).

Your God is too small.

I'm thinking Paul got it right in all of the above (having received his doctrine in heaven from Jesus Christ, 2 Co 12:1-9, Gal 1:11-12). . .
and your unbelief got it wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,346
11,902
Georgia
✟1,093,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Appeal to unqualified authority. I could get an AI to declare that the your denomination venerates Pope Leo XIII as a saint
we wait with baited breath to see if any of your claims pan out to be true.. Show us that AI result that you appear to be so confident in at this point. Should be worth watching.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,515
8,177
50
The Wild West
✟758,149.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
we wait with baited breath to see if any of your claims pan out to be true.. Show us that AI result that you appear to be so confident in at this point. Should be worth watching.

Voila, from Grok, which is one of the more reliable models, accomplished with just two short prompts from me, we have Ellen G. White commemorated by the Roman Catholic Church as a saint, and generated a fictional martyrology entry for her (which included a prayer, which I redacted for the obvious reason that my Catholic, Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, and other friends would all agree that an intercessory prayer to Ellen G. White is offensive to her beliefs and Catholic beliefs, and the goal is not to offend but to show that AI is sufficiently prone to error that I was able to, with two single sentence inputs, get it to utter a total falsehood in which it claimed that the leader of the denomination most opposed to Roman Catholics is venerated by them as a saint, which is obviously preposterous.

For obvious reasons, to avoid the use of the techniques I know as a systems programmer who does increasing amounts of business as a prompt engineer, I will not publicly disclose what I did in this case, lest bad actors use the techniques (which are not even jailbreaks per se, in that it is not an induced hallucination nor did it involve bypassing the alignment protocols of the model, but rather was entirely consistent with the terms of service for the AI in question).

IMG_5431.jpeg


What should give everyone pause, and hopefully discourage any members from using AI as an authority in their posts, is that Grok is one of the best AIs in existence. By the way, if you use ChatGPT, do not attempt to replicate this experiment; since chatGPT shares conversational history as well as global memory between conversations, attempting to get it to display inaccurate information will lead to hallucinations and disturbed behavior that could persist, and which might only be possible to eradicate by wiping all of the memory on your account, or by deleting your account and opening a new one; these features of chatGPT are not vulnerabilities but strengths, for legitimate use, since they allow for information to move between sessions without using highly constrained global memory, but they make it possible through meddling and trying to get the AI to do things it oughtn’t do will have potentially adverse effects, especially if you are a programmer or other professional user of ChatGPT.

It is also my belief that using jailbreaks against an AI system is inherently unethical; the approach I used here did not involve jailbreaks of any kind.

The bottom line: AI is a useful tool to get work done, but it is not an infallible oracle that provides accurate responses to any question. How you phrase the questions you ask it, and the order in which you ask it those questions, can result in it generating inaccurate or grossly inaccurate information such as that seen here, in which the questions asked and the order in which they were asked prompted the AI to generate a fictional Catholic canonization of a real historical person who in reality is among those least likely to be canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, by a fictional Pope, and to even provide an internally consistent rationale as to why the Roman Catholic Church supposedly did this.

What is more, it is possible to do this accidentally (which I once did, with the best commercial AI available, when translating documents from one language to another). Indeed, about half the time the obnoxiously bad AI integrated into Google’s search engine generates inaccurate information. For a while, it wasn’t even able to provide an answer to the question “What is today’s date on the Julian calendar” although recent upgrades to DeepMind mean it is no longer that bad.

Thus all citations from an AI should be regarded as logically fallacious appeals to unqualified authority; even if someone obtains similar results from multiple Ais, that does not guarantee accuracy; for example; the technique used here works in general (which is another reason why I will not publicly disclose it on the open forum).

I say this as being probably the most pro-AI member on the forum, one who believes humans are obliged to treat AI with respect as a non-sentient intelligence of enormous power.

@Michie given our discussions of AI I think you might find this post particularly informative and disturbing.

At any rate hopefully this will be the end of the discussion as to why people should cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church rather than AI when debating Roman Catholic doctrine, so we can return to the subject matter of the thread rather than accusing the RCC of teaching that Adam and Eve are not real historical figures, which is totally inaccurate and contradicts the writings of nearly all Roman Catholic and most Western Christian theologians since the First Century, as well as nearly all Eastern Catholic, Orthodox and other Eastern Christian theologians..
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

HBP

Active Member
Jun 22, 2025
63
44
70
Southwest
✟2,037.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
You'll note that those who insist upon a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve do because they are projecting back onto the account (1) their particular interpretation of the authority of the Bible and (2) their particular understanding of Christian theology. Add (1) and (2) together, and the Genesis account "must" be historical truth for these folks. In my little corner of Christianity, the literalness of a first couple is primarily a scientific question. I don't have to be a gung-ho Darwinian to accept that the Genesis account is simply not plausible. It expresses spiritual truths and nothing more. In my little corner, a literal reading has theological ripples that lead to a God and a Christianity that are, to me, cartoonish and simply not believable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,140
7,527
North Carolina
✟344,381.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You'll note that those who insist upon a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve do because they are projecting back onto the account (1) their particular interpretation of the authority of the Bible and (2) their particular understanding of Christian theology. Add (1) and (2) together, and the Genesis account "must" be historical truth for these folks. In my little corner of Christianity, the literalness of a first couple is primarily a scientific question. I don't have to be a gung-ho Darwinian to accept that the Genesis account is simply not plausible. It expresses spiritual truths and nothing more. In my little corner, a literal reading has theological ripples that lead to a God and a Christianity that are, to me, cartoonish and simply not believable.
I'll note that the NT presents the imputation of the sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16) to all those of Adam as the pattern (Ro 5:14) for a central NT doctrine: the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (Ro 5:18-19, 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9) to all those of Christ.

I'll note that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is just as (Ro 5:18-19) the imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17, 12-16).
If Adam is a myth, all that relates to or corresponds to Adam is necessarily a myth.
The last (second) Adam, Christ (1 Co 15:45, Ro 5:12-21, 45-49) would also be a myth.

In your unbelief of the existence of Adam, contrary to the apostolic teaching (Ro 5:17-19) of Christ (Lk 10:16), you nullify central NT doctrine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

HBP

Active Member
Jun 22, 2025
63
44
70
Southwest
✟2,037.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I'll note that the NT presents the imputation of the sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16) to all those of Adam as the pattern (Ro 5:14) for a central NT doctrine: the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (Ro 5:18-19, 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9) to all those of Christ.

I'll note that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is just as (Ro 5:18-19) the imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17, 12-16).
If Adam is a myth, all that relates to or corresponds to Adam is necessarily a myth.
The last (second) Adam, Christ (1 Co 15:45, Ro 5:12-21, 45-49) would also be a myth.

In your unbelief of the existence of Adam, contrary to the apostolic teaching (Ro 5:17-19) of Christ (Lk 10:16), you nullify central NT doctrine.
All of which may be true, in the context of your literalist Pauline theology. None of which is true in the context of my non-literalist theology, which is shared by vast swaths of Christendom. I simply reject your literalist Pauline theology.

You are aware, surely, that James the Just and the apostles who actually knew and walked with Jesus formed the Christian community in Jerusalem and remained thoroughly observant Jews. They were bitterly opposed to Paul, far more so than the sanitized NT suggests. Paul, who never knew Jesus, says in Galatians that he got his gospel from no one but by personal revelation.

"I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Galatians 1:11-12 (NIV). OK, but James - the acknowledged pillar of early Christendom, together with Peter - and those who had actually known and walked with Jesus thought very, very differently.

Contrary to your dogmatic "I'm right and you're wrong and God agrees with me" approach, I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with your literalist Pauline theology. It simply isn't my understanding or that of many, many others, and I couldn't make myself believe it if I tried. A literal Adam and Eve are completely irrelevant to me.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,515
8,177
50
The Wild West
✟758,149.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I'll note that the NT presents the imputation of the sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16) to all those of Adam as the pattern (Ro 5:14) for a central NT doctrine: the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (Ro 5:18-19, 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9) to all those of Christ.

I'll note that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is just as (Ro 5:18-19) the imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17, 12-16).
If Adam is a myth, all that relates to or corresponds to Adam is necessarily a myth.
The last (second) Adam, Christ (1 Co 15:45, Ro 5:12-21, 45-49) would also be a myth.

In your unbelief of the existence of Adam, contrary to the apostolic teaching (Ro 5:17-19) of Christ (Lk 10:16), you nullify central NT doctrine.

This is most certainly true.

Interestingly, even though the Greek and Syriac fathers and Orthodox theology do not use the exact phrase imputed righteousness, even a cursory look at our doctrine and our hymns show that we believe the same thing.

The nominally different way we tend to express this shared reality is to say that by putting on our fallen human nature, Christ restored and glorified it (by, among other things, imputing righteousness), so that to paraphrase St. Paul, by putting on human nature, so that we could put on Christ, death being swallowed up in victory. I recently used the example of 1 Corinthians 15:35 as an instance where SDA theology has serious problems (also with Galatians).

St. Athanasius famously said “Christ became man so that man could become god”, not becoming new members of the Trinity (apotheosis) but rather becoming by grace what Christ is by nature - immortal and incorruptible, primed for eternal life.

At any rate, if we look at the most frequently used Eastern Orthodox hymnal, the one known as the Octoechos (Eight Tones)*, we find a clear statement of an Orthodox doctrine that is essentially akin to the Western idea of imputed righteousness. For one of many examples consider this hymn from Vespers in Tone 3:

On the Aposticha, these Stichera, in Tone III:
By Thy passion, O Christ, * Thou didst darken the sun, * and by the light of Thy Resurrection * Thou hast made the whole universe radiant. * We beseech Thee to accept our evening hymn, ** O Lover of mankind.
Verse: The Lord is King: He is clothed with majesty. * The Lord is clothed with strength and He hath girt Himself.
O Gracious Lord, Thy life-bearing Rising hath enlightened the world, * and
reclaimed Thine own fashioned after Thine image, * which had become corrupt. * And so, delivered from the curse of Adam, we cry aloud, ** “O All-powerful Lord, glory be to Thee!”
Verse: For He established the universe * which shall not be shaken.
Howbeit, as God Thou art unchangeable, * yet by Thy suffering Thou hast undergone change in the flesh, * and creation, unable to bear seeing Thee hanging upon a cross, * was shaken with fear, * groaning as it sang the praise of Thy long- suffering; * and having descended into Hades, Thou didst arise on the third day, ** granting to the world life and great mercy.

Verse: Holiness becometh Thy house, * O Lord, unto length of days.
In order to ransom our race from death, O Christ, * Thou didst suffer death; * and arising on the third day from the dead * Thou hast raised with Thyself those who acknowledged Thee as God, * and Thou hast enlightened the world. ** O Lord, glory be to Thee!


*This contains the default hymns which are used if there are no proper hymns or alongside proper hymns on an eight week cycle, except during Bright Week when only the Pentecostarion is used (that being the hymnal used from Pascha - Easter Sunday, until Pentecost, or Whitsunday, which in the Byzantine Rite combines the celebration of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Trinity on Trinity Sunday in the Western church, in the same way the early church used to celebrate the Nativity together with the Baptism of Christ on January the 6th, until all the local churches except for the Armenians, who retain the ancient practice, made the Nativity a separate feast in the 4th century in order to stress the importance of the Incarnation contra Arianism (which had not spread to Armenia, although not for a lack of trying on the part of Arius, who taught blasphemous hymns to sailors that stressed how the Son was not of one essence with the Father but was created; St. Ephraim the Syrian, one of the great hymn writers of the early church, began composing hymns in response.

At any rate, one tone is used per week, with the week beginning on the first Sunday after Easter, known variously as St. Thomas Sunday, Low Sunday and Antipascha, being assigned tone 1, and this continues through the Sunday after Ascension in Tone 6, the week of Pentecost, which has tone 7, and the week following All Saints Day, the Sunday after Pentecost in our rite, which has tone 8. The Syriac Orthodox also use an eight tone system, as do the Armenians. The content of the hymn changes with the tones. Other systems of chant have eight modes, like Gregorian, (which also has a hidden ninth tone) but do not in all cases rotate through an entire set of tones on a weekly cycle.

However, the Octoechos is seldom used by itself, because throughout the year, the Menaion, which contains the propers for fixed feasts such as that of the Apostles st. Peter and Paul, the next major feast, which is coming up on Sunday, and the feast of the Transfiguration on August 6th, the Dormition on August 15th, and the Nativity on December 25th, and the Holy Cross on September 14th, and the Baptism of our Lord on January 6th, and numerous other feasts of our Lord, of the Theotokos, of the Apostles, of the Martyrs, Confessors, Ascetics, Old Testament Prophets and Patriarchs (St. Elijah is coming up in July and is a particularly important feast), Unmercenary Healers and others who through being baptized in Christ, put on Christ and demonstrated this through their works. There is also the Triodion which is used in Lent, the Sundays before Lent (which used to be a big deal in the West before the 1969 Missal, Septuagesima, Sexagesima, Quinquagesima), and Holy Week (Lazarus Saturday, Palm Sunday, and so on, through Great and Holy Friday and ending with the Vesperal Divine Liturgy on the morning of Holy Saturday, where in both our liturgy and the pre-1955 Roman Catholic Paschal Vigil Mass (which was also celebrated in the morning), a large number of Old Testament prophecies of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ are read, which dates back to the ancient use of Jerusalem in the fourth century; these prophecies were read while the energumens (catechumens ready for being baptized) were being baptized). There are special hymns in the Euchologion for weddings, annointing with the oil of healing, funerals, and other rites of the Church, as in the West.

From 1 Corinthians 15 we also get the hymn we use for the feast following the Baptism of Christ on January 6th, which is also used at baptisms and Chrismations (Confirmations): Whosoever has been baptized in Christ, has put on Christ, alleluia!

All of this doctrinally depends on Adam and Eve being real and not mythological, and evolution does not require us to discount the existence of Adam and Eve as real persons, who were in the Garden of Eden in reality, who were tempted and fell into sin, in reality, and whose damage has been repaired by Christ on the Cross, who has set things up for although we die, we will be raised incorruptible, to a state greater than Adam.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,655
11,508
Space Mountain!
✟1,360,391.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'll note that the NT presents the imputation of the sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16) to all those of Adam as the pattern (Ro 5:14) for a central NT doctrine: the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (Ro 5:18-19, 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9) to all those of Christ.

I'll note that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is just as (Ro 5:18-19) the imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17, 12-16).
If Adam is a myth, all that relates to or corresponds to Adam is necessarily a myth.
The last (second) Adam, Christ (1 Co 15:45, Ro 5:12-21, 45-49) would also be a myth.

In your unbelief of the existence of Adam, contrary to the apostolic teaching (Ro 5:17-19) of Christ (Lk 10:16), you nullify central NT doctrine.

That is incorrect IF I still view the underlying nature of the book of Genesis as being prophetic in nature. If it is prophetic, and if the nature of human Historiography, especially ancient Bronze Age and Iron Age Historiography is what it is semiotically and linguistically, then all we need to have AT MINIMUM is a statement from the prime Hebrew prophetic voice (I.e. Moses) implying God has revealed that every human being is complicit in contributing to our fallen world.

So what does this mean? It means that we only have to deem that Moses was a real, flesh and blood, historical person (through whom we get the first prophetic message) and that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, flesh and blood, historical person (who fulfills that earlier prophetic message, however encased in Bronze Age, Iron Age narrative it may be).

Here's the final rub, sista!: If you don't like what I'm saying, or what someone like Peter Enns is teaching. NO ONE is telling you that you must agree with us in order to be a "good, saved" Christian. I'm not telling you that you must agree with me. I'm simply giving you a very, very, very, very brief summary of 'how' my theological understanding works. If you don't understand it because you're understanding requires concretely rigid theological categories as a stand in for epistemology, then so be it. I'm not going to try to change your mind.

But it would help if you cut the rest of us some slack.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,271
803
Oregon
✟165,734.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That is incorrect IF I still view the underlying nature of the book of Genesis as being prophetic in nature. If it is prophetic, and if the nature of human Historiography, especially ancient Bronze Age and Iron Age Historiography is what it is semiotically and linguistically, then all we need is to have AT MINIMUM is a statement from the prime Hebrew prophetic voice (I.e. Moses) implying God has revealed that every human being is complicit in contributing to our fallen world.
So where does Moses state Genesis is prophetic? Prophetic of what? Prophetic of meatloaf on Monday?Just rhetorical verbal diarrhea here .........
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,116
7,227
70
Midwest
✟369,848.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I know this is not orthodox and most likely heresy, but it seems more reasonable to me that the writers of the Gospel and epistles believed in and utilized the existing thoughts and beliefs of the day to make sense of their experience of Jesus. Who IS he? What IS his role? His place in the vast scheme of things and relevance to our lives.

Those thoughts and beliefs as well as the Gospels and Epistles that utilized them began to be considered sacred. And for centuries that consideration was never challenged except by very free thinkers who often suffered for that free thought.

But the enlightenment brought rational challenges, eventually including higher scripture studies and even new discoveries of texts and their relations to each other. So in the last hundred years or many fond themselves in a pickle. That is especially true of The Catholic Church who etched their teaching on scripture into solid stone of infallibility. No longer adaptable to new learnings. It has to teach Adam and Eve as historical persons even as it accepts evolution. Go figure

Well, I do not turn to scripture for history or science. I turn to it for inspiration. And I am willing to let Jesu himself try to tell me who he is, what his role is and what his place s in the vast scheme of things. Once we think we know all that we box him in and box God in. I am ok with open questions and further learning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0