Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

[Zceptre]

The Bible is not a book of "fiction". It is a book of many genres. is that so hard to understand?

Whether the people are real people is still the question at hand.

If the people are real people, it is a non-fictional account.

If the people are not real people, it is a fictional account.

If there is a mixture of them in your opinion, well good luck with that.

 

[trophy33]

The Jewish people are notorious for record keeping.

I do not think so.

The question you are posing can be carried over into literally every account in the Bible and every verse. Where did Moses get Genesis?

I do not think that Genesis was written by Moses.

Doubt is dangerous

No, it is not dangerous. It leads to examination without bias. Fanaticism and blind faith are dangerous.

That is right, but the text is on my side.

It is like saying that the text is on your side if you believed that Jesus is a literal wooden door. ("I am the door".)

If the text is symbolic in nature and some of those people are fabrications, then there is no lineage back to Adam, who was made directly by God, through king David's line for the promised Messiah.

And what would change? Nothing.

With one author, God.

With many authors. You even tried to ascribe some books to Moses, some to Solomon in the same post of yours... then we have letters written by Paul etc.

 

[trophy33]

Of course it is speculation. All we know is that Luke was a diligent historian, and that he included information that Mary would have known first hand. It would have been very unlikely that Luke did not talk to Mary to get his facts straight.

There is no evidence Luke ever met Mary. He might, who knows. Even if he did and even if Mary dictated him the genealogy, it still would not mean the genealogy must be historical.

 

[Zceptre]

I do not think so.

I was aware.

I do not think that Genesis was written by Moses.

I think this pattern is well established.

No, it is not dangerous. It leads to examination without bias. Fanaticism and blind faith are dangerous.

Show me a verse that encourages doubt in the Bible. I think you cannot.

It is like saying that the text is on your side if you believed that Jesus is a literal wooden door. ("I am the door".)

That example depicts the dramatic nature I alluded to with raining dogs and cats. The indication is quite obvious.

And what would change? Nothing.

In your opinion, but if God said it then it probably matters to Him. It is His book, He wrote it, and included it for a reason I'm sure.

With many authors. You even tried to ascribe some books to Moses, some to Solomon in the same post of yours... then we have letters written by Paul etc.

2 Peter 1:20-21
knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

 

[trophy33]

I was aware.

I think this pattern is well established.

Why do you act like you were not aware, then?

Show me a verse that encourages doubt in the Bible. I think you cannot.

"Test everything".

2 Peter 1:20-21
knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

We are not talking about prophecies or about their interpretation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Welcome to the Age of Hyper-Pluralism everyone! I hope everyone enjoys their stay.

Proverbs 17:22 is an excellent verse that I love very much. Not sure its relevance, but I always welcome the reminder.

The Bible is written primarily and in its majority in historical narrative style, and with that are symbols and representations and the like included. To turn real people into non-literal symbols I personally feel is a bit dramatic of one in the sense of taking their own liberties with the text.


Lol... What does that mean? He didn't convert people into vapor and poetic symbols? Or are you trying to say I was laughing at him and not his ideas??? I know you are a provocateur sir. No lion poking.


Ahh, but you are not alone in the non-literal camp, and they have their varied versions all their own...

Someone is claiming Adam isn't a real person at one end of the genealogical listing, and the Lord Jesus and Joseph are real at the other end of the listing...

Believe me when I say I'm ok brother. It's you guys I'm concerned for. lol

The Jewish people are notorious for record keeping. The question you are posing can be carried over into literally every account in the Bible and every verse. Where did Moses get Genesis? How are you sure the scribes didn't make up the accounts they provided? Who says it was Solomon, or king David, or Esther... This is a bag of worms and a tangent that kind of gets crazy. Doubt is dangerous, and a person must sort out the credibility of the text as a whole for themselves in a sense. You want me to provide you some proof of a genealogy, but what I can say is I approach the text of the Bible like Simon Greenleaf did.


That is right, but the text is on my side. It says there are people from God, to Adam, to Joseph, to Jesus, and it is given in a style that represents a historical account of a family lineage of people. Just like the kind they write for kings when they follow their lineage, that is to supply evidence for their qualifications as the next king. Meaning the text provided this as a basis to offer evidence that Christ Jesus is who He says He is and He qualifies as the person to save us, be the Messiah, and the true King of Israel.

If the text is symbolic in nature and some of those people are fabrications, then there is no lineage back to Adam, who was made directly by God, through king David's line for the promised Messiah.

I'm not coming to the text to impose what I think, but taking what it tells me at face value. If someone sends me a letter and adds a genealogy, I don't turn it into symbols, I view the people as people because they were described as people. If they tell me it is raining cats and dogs, I'll take the liberty of assuming they don't mean that literally. It gets kind of obvious when things are not meant literally, and the dramatic nature of the expression tends to indicate the non-literal nature of the intended meaning.


With one author, God. The collection as a whole has a name, is collected into a single compilation as one book, with one binding, with one story, about one person. The entire book is about Jesus Christ, cover to cover. If anyone doesn't know that yet, time to dig deeper.

The "fictional" things you are alluding to, I have suspicions are going to prove to be more so not-so-much considering what you are alluding to currently in this discourse

What does "being in the non-literal camp" mean? And in what way are you citing that I'm a provocateur?

 

[Zceptre]

Why do you act like you were not aware, then?

I told you "The Jewish people are notorious for record keeping."

How is that acting like I wasn't aware? That is your disbelief, was I suppose to not tell you because you don't believe it? lol

Stay tracking.......

"Test everything".

I counter with the entire chapter of Hebrews 11...

Also, testing is not doubting... but I'll digress.

We are not talking about prophecy or about its interpretation.

Agree to disagree. Thanks for playing.

 

[trophy33]

I told you "The Jewish people are notorious for record keeping."

How is that acting like I wasn't aware? That is your disbelief, was I suppose to not tell you because you don't believe it? lol

Stay tracking.......

I think you lost track. If you understand my position that I do not buy your beliefs, then you do not need to repeat them to me like something new.

Also, testing is not doubting... but I'll digress.

Doubting was your terminology. You categorize even non-literal reading as doubt. However, testing can lead to doubting some wrong position and it is a great thing.

 

[Zceptre]

What does "being in the non-literal camp" mean?

Well keeping up with stances is proving difficult, I'll welcome the correction, but I assumed you didn't consider Adam a literal man made by God by using clay and breathing life into him. Maybe my memory slipped me on your views there and mixed with something from someone else I've read more recently.

And in what way are you citing that I'm a provocateur?

The harmless kind. lol

 

[Aseyesee]

Proverbs 17:22 is an excellent verse that I love very much. Not sure its relevance, but I always welcome the reminder.

The Bible is written primarily and in its majority in historical narrative style, and with that are symbols and representations and the like included. To turn real people into non-literal symbols I personally feel is a bit dramatic of one in the sense of taking their own liberties with the text.

Your post to me said you laughed at my post ... though I didn't see this in your post to me ...

I believe God has a language that natural things speak to, but in depths that the spirit alone can open to us (as it is for everything God), and the history of the Bible is metaphorical (and literal), and ochrastared by God to that end, which all of speaks to the purpose God purposed in himself, which is being revealed in us, as us (ie. God speaks to us by son). But it doesn't have to be literal to me to believe ...

 

[Zceptre]

I think you lost track. If you understand my position that I do not buy your beliefs, then you do not need to repeat them to me like something new or something.

I'm not tracking your beliefs. I follow Jesus, not people's beliefs about Him.

I told you the Jewish people keep meticulous records. Sure, you might doubt that, but the fact that I think it is true is still relevant and so I stated it. I stated I was aware that you would likely deny it... that does not mean I acted like I was not aware by telling you regardless of how you responded.

You are not tracking. Sorry... It was a simple statement. I will not respond to anything about this particular comment further.

Doubting was your terminology. You categorize even non-literal reading as doubt.

You finding alternate words to impose support for doubting in God's Word isn't shocking to me. I'm sure you will have some difficulty finding any encouragement to "doubt" in the Bible, like I said. I don't think the principle is in there for doubting much of anything, but testing things was about as close as it gets.

I don't think God wants us to trust everything, I think He wants us to trust Him. (The Bible) Maybe I should specify that as well. I think you may find a verse about testing God to see He is legitimate as well, but that leads ultimately to having faith in Him through the evidence of the relationship.

I don't equate testing with doubting though. You can test a person's willingness to tell the truth, without doubting they will pass the test.

 

[Zceptre]

Your post to me said you laughed at my post ... though I didn't see this in your post to me ...

Not sure. I think you might have been looking at a reply to Trophy, or 2Philo.

I believe God has a language that natural things speak to, but in depths that the spirit alone can open to us (as it is for everything God), and the history of the Bible is metaphorical and ochrastared by God

So I'm curious how that interacts with the historicity of the Bible, Augustus Caesar for example during Lord Jesus' day, the empire that existed in the real world, Egypt and the evidence at the Red Sea for the Egyptians chasing the Hebrews into the Sea, Jericho and the remains they found of it, Sodom's remains found even to this day, and things of the like?

How are those events metaphorical?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well keeping up with stances is proving difficult, I'll welcome the correction, but I assumed you didn't consider Adam a literal man made by God by using clay and breathing life into him. Maybe my memory slipped me on your views there and mixed with something from someone else I've read more recently.

If anything, where the Bible is concerned, I'm a Historiographical Contextualist rather than either a Literalist or a non-Literalist.

The upshot in this is that I don't look around, expecting every other Christian to follow suit with me, and I do my best to extend graciousness and solidarity toward other Trinitarian believers if at all possible.

The harmless kind. lol

I'm glad you see through me as you do.

 

[trophy33]

I told you the Jewish people keep meticulous records. Sure, you might doubt that, but the fact that I think it is true is still relevant

You think so. I do not think so. Nothing to talk about, no evidence relevant for the Luke's genealogies presented.

You finding alternate words to impose support for doubting in God's Word isn't shocking to me.

Oh, we arrived to the station named "doubting the God's Word", already. Let us get back to Bible.

I don't think God wants us to trust everything, I think He wants us to trust Him. (The Bible)

Bible is not God. You are trying another logical fallacy, here. Doubting Bible (or even just doubting that something in the Bible is literal) is not doubting God.

 

[Clare73]

I decided to elaborate.
Yes, I laughed, and I made it known. But I separate people from their ideas and it is the ideas I'm addressing here.
I am not and would not laugh directly at you. I am absolutely laughing as the idea you presented.
I was laughing at how fast a response the inquiry got to convert real people into vapor.
The next step in such a paradigm is that the Lord Jesus is a metaphor and the cross He was crucified on becomes poetry...

And there you have it!

 

[HBP]

I have little doubt Paul thought Adam and Eve were historical figures. Paul and other first century Jews believed lots of things we now know are completely wrong. The authors of Genesis may have thought Adam and Eve were historical figures, although I strongly doubt they did - any more than the authors of the Egyptian, Babylonian or Hopi creation accounts thought they were writing history. My guess would be that Jesus, as a first century Jew, may well have thought Adam and Eve were historical figures. If so, he was simply wrong. We now know beyond any doubt that human origins and development do not mesh with the Genesis account at all. At all. The earliest humans were not raising crops (Cain), tending flocks (Abel) or building cities (Cain). They were inarticulate cave dwellers who evolved into hunter-gatherers and were not raising crops, tending flocks or building cities for hundreds of thousands of years.

If I were to assert a belief in the literal truth of the Egyptian, Babylonian or Hopi creation accounts, I'd be regarded as insane. To assert a literal belief in Adam and Eve is, it seems to me, to put yourself in a straitjacket. This seems particularly misguided when (1) there is no theological reason to assert a literal Adam and Eve - even fundamentalist theology "works" perfectly well with a metaphorical Adam and Eve, and (2) those who assert a literal Adam and Eve must live in a constant state of cognitive dissonance vis-a-vis huge swaths of firmly established science and history.

Those who do this must have some view of biblical inspiration whereby God was literally dictating Genesis and even Paul's epistles. There simply CAN'T BE an error because God is literally the author. The human authors were merely stenographers. Worse than that, God isn't even allowed the freedom to do what human authors do - i.e., use metaphor, analogy and other literary devices. This is, to me, an extreme and bizarre view of inspiration. It is certainly a miniscule minority view of inspiration among theologians and biblical scholars.

Ditto with Jesus' divinity. The view seems to be that he had to know everything - including how to fix the transmission on a 1957 Ford. He isn't allowed to hold the erroneous views of other first century Jews. He isn't allowed to borrow the Adam and Eve metaphor even though he used literary devices all the time - indeed, he was a master of them. No, if he referred to Adam then he had to KNOW Adam was an historical figure and had to be speaking in literal terms because ... well, because our view of inspiration requires Adam to be an historical figure and our view of Jesus requires him to know this.

Sorry, but the entire discussion just seems silly to me. Not as silly perhaps as the notion that every infant who dies in a mass disaster was inevitably one of the non-elect and destined for hell anyway, but still pretty silly.

 

[trophy33]

I have little doubt Paul thought Adam and Eve were historical figures. Paul and other first century Jews believed lots of things we now know are completely wrong. The authors of Genesis may have thought Adam and Eve were historical figures, although I strongly doubt they did - any more than the authors of the Egyptian, Babylonian or Hopi creation accounts thought they were writing history. My guess would be that Jesus, as a first century Jew, may well have thought Adam and Eve were historical figures. If so, he was simply wrong. We now know beyond any doubt that human origins and development do not mesh with the Genesis account at all. At all. The earliest humans were not raising crops (Cain), tending flocks (Abel) or building cities (Cain). They were inarticulate cave dwellers who evolved into hunter-gatherers and were not raising crops, tending flocks or building cities for hundreds of thousands of years.

If I were to assert a belief in the literal truth of the Egyptian, Babylonian or Hopi creation accounts, I'd be regarded as insane. To assert a literal belief in Adam and Eve is, it seems to me, to put yourself in a straitjacket. This seems particularly misguided when (1) there is no theological reason to assert a literal Adam and Eve - even fundamentalist theology "works" perfectly well with a metaphorical Adam and Eve, and (2) those who assert a literal Adam and Eve must live in a constant state of cognitive dissonance vis-a-vis huge swaths of firmly established science and history.

Those who do this must have some view of biblical inspiration whereby God was literally dictating Genesis and even Paul's epistles. There simply CAN'T BE an error because God is literally the author. The human authors were merely stenographers. Worse than that, God isn't even allowed the freedom to do what human authors do - i.e., use metaphor, analogy and other literary devices. This is, to me, an extreme and bizarre view of inspiration. It is certainly a miniscule minority view of inspiration among theologians and biblical scholars.

Ditto with Jesus' divinity. The view seems to be that he had to know everything - including how to fix the transmission on a 1957 Ford. He isn't allowed to hold the erroneous views of other first century Jews. He isn't allowed to borrow the Adam and Eve metaphor even though he used literary devices all the time - indeed, he was a master of them. No, if he referred to Adam then he had to KNOW Adam was an historical figure and had to be speaking in literal terms because ... well, because our view of inspiration requires Adam to be an historical figure and our view of Jesus requires him to know this.

Sorry, but the entire discussion just seems silly to me. Not as silly perhaps as the notion that every infant who dies in a mass disaster was inevitably one of the non-elect and destined for hell anyway, but still pretty silly.

I agree with most things, I just believe that Jesus rather accommodated to Jewish tradition than being Himself unaware about the authorship of Scriptures and similar.

 

[Fervent]

I agree with most things, I just believe that Jesus rather accommodated to Jewish tradition than being Himself unaware about the authorship of Scriptures and similar.

I think that centers on some deeper questions, such as just how far are we willing to accept Jesus as a genuine human being. Are we going to attribute quasi-omniscience to Him, and exempt him from the limitations of a 1st century understanding of the world including Scripture; or are we going to take Him as adopting the full measure of human limitations including cultural and knowledge limitations. I don't think there's a clear answer in Scripture, but it has important theological implications.

 

[HBP]

I agree with most things, I just believe that Jesus rather accommodated to Jewish tradition than being Himself unaware about the authorship of Scriptures and similar.

Sure, and I think that's entirely possible. Likewise that God in inspiring the authors of Genesis accommodated his revelation to their understanding. For God to have revealed all that we now know would not only have completely confused the authors of Genesis but would have resulted in Genesis being something like William Lane Craig's In Quest of the Historical Adam, which is 439 pages! All without revealing any greater spiritual truth than the Genesis we have does anyway.

I think that centers on some deeper questions, such as just how far are we willing to accept Jesus as a genuine human being. Are we going to attribute quasi-omniscience to Him, and exempt him from the limitations of a 1st century understanding of the world including Scripture; or are we going to take Him as adopting the full measure of human limitations including cultural and knowledge limitations. I don't think there's a clear answer in Scripture, but it has important theological implications.

Hence my reference to Jesus knowing how to fix the transmission on a 1957 Ford! Virtually all the Christianities later declared heresies were attempt to come to grips with how Jesus could be both human and divine. I lean toward a fully human Jesus with an understanding of his mission but with the cultural and knowledge limitations of his time.

 

[expos4ever]

Genesis presents Adam and Eve not as metaphorical symbols but as literal individuals created uniquely by God. Genesis 2:7, ESV, says, “Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”

This verse isn’t written in the style of myth or parable. It’s a clear and deliberate account of the origin of humanity. Later, in Genesis 2:22, the creation of Eve is described in similarly specific terms: “And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”

This argument seems rather obviously flawed to me - you could make the same argument to "show" that any piece of writing, even one that is universally regarded as a metaphorical, cannot be so. For example, Orwell's book "Animal Farm" describes in some detail the lives of some farm animals. Does the presence of all this detail mean that it is not a metaphor? Of course not, it is obviously a metaphor.

You appear to be simply claiming that the Adam and Eve story doesn't meet the requirements for something to be determined to be a metaphor. But you need to enumerate those requirements.

By the way, I am not saying that there are not problems with taking the creation account as metaphorical, but the argument you present above does not seem very convincing. In any metaphor, you do have to provide details. You seem to simply assume that the provision of details about how Adam and Eve came to be rules out the possibility that the text is metaphorical.

But in order to be credible, a metaphor must present an otherwise credible story about how something came to pass, even if that something is to be understood as a metaphor.