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

misput said:

The same place Adam got his.

Click to expand...

Where did Adam get his ?

misput said:

No, the op asked about the story of Adam and Eve which includes the whole story.
.

Click to expand...

Are you saying Eve wasn't the mother of all?

coffee4u said:

Did you ever see the films on the Japanese tsunami?

Click to expand...

Whoa!

*These people were standing on a hill overlooking a valley...and their hillside became a river bank...

**[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]...at 14:06 you see people running uphill away from the water...!

Miles said:

I don't know for sure, but the creation story is structured like poetry. This is suggestive of metaphor, as when similar form is sometimes used elsewhere in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Poetry is used as a way to share real news where literacy is a rare skill.

hedrick said:

but certainly the basic condition of being alienated from God includes not having a clear understanding of God and his will, i.e. being deceived. If we truly understood God, we would appreciate him, and not be in the condition we're in.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your effort to explain.

I can see how your position works in a way, but it does seem (to me) to be vague over the part where an instruction was delivered, two conflicting messages were given, and a person chose to trust the lie, not the truth. Something that was not God posed as God, and was treated (trusted) to be God. A person chose to let a substitute in.

MrsFoundit said:

There does not seem to be anyone who rejects a literal Adam and Eve who can answer this. I am a bit surprised, I would have expected at least the ability to explain what truth it represents in principle, as symbolic and poetic expression can easily do that.

Can any non-literalists answer these questions? Were we even deceived?

Click to expand...

The key is to accept what is real, then to derive an interpretation of scripture afterwards. Not to derive an interpretation and then to look back and re-configure reality.

What we are aware of, is a reality of death, and destruction, long before people existed on earth. We have a multitude of evidence for the existence of predation going back to the dawn of time. Which equates to a struggle for life, pain and suffering on earth, long before we arrived.

And it is with this reality that we turn back toward scripture.

People seek salvation from this reality of pain and suffering. And only Jesus can offer that freedom.

Adam and Eve are an expression, used to explain the coming age of mankind, and it's response to a fallen world. Mankind comes to discover that it is broken, naked, afraid, in sin. Mankind hides from God I'm shame. Adam blames Eve. But ultimately, they were always destined to be broken, because that was reality before they came to exist. It was simply a matter of when mankind would gain the awareness of their fallen state.

The writing of the book of Genesis is an effort by mankind to express it's recognition of a broken world and it's recognition of a need for salvation.

The theological problems that literalists pose, are only issues for themselves. If they chose to accept observed reality prior to reading Genesis, as opposed to shaping physical reality around a pre-existing interpretation of Genesis, then their ideas would not be so heavily contested. Whereas a recognition of a broken world pre existing mankind, of course is hardly contested at all and much of the world is well aware of things like death and predation going back hundreds of millions of years. Especially in scientific circles.

-57 said:

Where did Adam get his ?

Click to expand...

This is not preschool : ) you know where he got it.

-57 said:

Are you saying Eve wasn't the mother of all?

Click to expand...

No. Evidently you are not up to speed on this thread.

misput said:

This is not preschool : ) you know where he got it.

Click to expand...

Through an act of disobedience....which plunged all of his progeny for generation after generations into sin.
It was an act of 1 man. But you don't seem to think Adam was a literal man...So, what really happened?

Even if you think Adam was a literal man...what really happened?

-57 said:

Through an act of disobedience....which plunged all of his progeny for generation after generations into sin.
It was an act of 1 man. But you don't seem to think Adam was a literal man...So, what really happened?

Even if you think Adam was a literal man...what really happened?

Click to expand...

That seems to be the general consensus. If it satisfies you, go with it.

Kees Hogenbirk said:

Just curious. I really don't.

Click to expand...

Hi Kees,

I do believe Adam and Eve are literal individuals from history... and it appears the biblical authors did so, as well as how Jesus references scripture.

First off, the creation account was believed to be true and as such, it was evidenced that the Hebrews worked 6 days and rested on the 7th (see reference to Exodus 20:11)--they lived what they believed.

Many others here have given references of the passages throughout scripture supporting that a literal interpretation was how Jesus' disciples understood the creation account (see Genesis 2:4 NIV... "This is the account of the heavens and earth...". Hollywood today may enjoy giving us 'accounts' of whimsical Dr Seuss books and other fictitious events, but such cavalier was not behind the accounts given in the Bible. The idea of Adam & Eve and the creation account being figurative / allegorical is traceable back to early church fathers who were influenced by the philosophy of Plato as was prominent in shaping false doctrines within Greek mythology. Under this paradigm the idea developed that the spiritual was 'good' and the physical was 'bad' and this progressed into the popular view that only the 'elite' could interpret and understand the 'hidden' meaning in scripture that the everyday person could not understand. Thus it became widely spread by some such as Philo, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, etc... that the only way to interpret such texts is allegorical and that the 'real' meaning was a hidden / spiritual meaning. Feel free to research / confirm this further, it is knowledge made publicly available.

There, of course, is symbolic meaning within scripture but this does not necessitate that it not be real, historical people/places/objects. In fact, there is no meaning in the symbolism at all if there is no connection to reality. If, when Paul refers to Christ as the "last Adam" as a symbolic statement, but the first Adam is a fictional character, then what is Paul saying? The understanding is that, like the first Adam, Jesus is the son of God (God directly created Adam). Further, Adam was created and lived without sin [for a time], and like that sinless existence, Christ also lived a sinless life... and none in all of history have done this (hence, Christ is the 'last' Adam). From this, the symbolism in Christ being the last Adam can be seen, but if the first Adam never existed, then there is no significance in the reference and the statement is really meaningless--it would be like writing in a sacred and holy text a reference to the creator and savior of everything and likening them to a made-up person, who never existed, and whose qualities were imagined to be similar so as to draw a false parallel. That does not create spiritual meaning

God bless -

Tone said:

Whoa!

*These people were standing on a hill overlooking a valley...and their hillside became a river bank...

...at 14:06 you see people running uphill away from the water...!

Click to expand...

It's crazy right? People have a tendency to be disbelieving until things get drastic. Same way people ignore evacuation orders for fires and other natural disasters.

Kees Hogenbirk said:

Just curious. I really don't.

Click to expand...

I do, I just don't think its in the time space that people typically understand it.

Literally happened yes

Adam named the animals, etc



---------------
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." I John 5:7. Word = Jesus Christ "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14)

Kate30 said:

Kees I’ve never come across a talking snake either but cockatoos do like to chat very much that we do know, it depends on the owner or families around them with what they say. As to magical fruits their qualities are many. Ranging from Medicine asprin etc. Health and ecstasy also, be that both in the Physical or in the spiritual realm. A magical mushroom may enlighten you of its powers should you ever pick one by mistake. Kees I guess with what we can evaluate in the physical realm the evidence is already there for both talking aminals and for the magical fruits as well. I’m sure Balaam and his talking donkey would agree ( Numbers 22:21-39) along with Dr Dolittle too. My little doggy does talk with me every day.. : )

Click to expand...

I agree. Besides a talking serpent, the Bible also has a record of a donkey talking to Baalam. The idea that all of these recorded events should be taken as not true often stems from the influence of Platonism on early church fathers; however, yet again the Bible stands in opposition to this. We might ask: Did God give the donkey anthropomorphic (human-like qualities), or did God open the donkey's mouth and speak through the donkey? Though we cannot know the exact answer for sure, it is clear this is an account of a man's eyes being opened to a reality of an angel planning to destroy him if God hadn't spoken to him through the donkey in actual spoken words. Could God have done it another way? Sure. Could He in fact have done it any multitude of ways? Yes. But that's not what He chose--He did exactly the way He knew would get Balaam's attention.

In the same way, while serpents aren't known for 'speaking' we know that Satan can as can other evil demons inhabit a host and speak through the host--this is recorded throughout scripture and Jesus has been recorded as casting out demons (good example was the demon calling itself Legion). This demon spoke through the man to Jesus. If this isn't possible and this didn't happen then Jesus is just a theatrical liar. Since that is impossible as Jesus is God the Son, we can have assurance these are true and real events and this is regardless that our simplistic mental convention is that speech requires creatures with a higher level brain, vocal cords and mouths capable of speech.

God bless -

Hi komatite,

You wrote:

KomatiiteBIF said:

ts unfortunate that some Christians are able and willing to believe literally anything, so long as they feel as though it's true.

Click to expand...

Now, let's be honest with each other here for a moment. You don't find that nature true of absolutely everyone that you have ever met or known? That people all over the world and for the last 6 thousand years have been willing to believe literally anything, so long as they feel as though it's true. When's the last time you believed something that you didn't 'feel' was true? When's the last time that you believed something that you knew wasn't true, but you felt that it was true?

Personally, that statement really seems rather not well thought out.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

miamited said:

Hi komatite,

You wrote:


You don't find that nature true of absolutely everyone that you have ever met or known? That people all over the world and for the last 6 thousand years have been willing to believe literally anything, so long as they feel as though it's true. When's the last time you believed something that you didn't 'feel' was true? When's the last time that you believed something that you knew wasn't true, but you felt that it was true?

Personally, that statement really seems rather not well thought out.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Click to expand...

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).

I'll give an example,

There was once a person here on christianforums who once suggested that the inside of Noah's ark was actually larger on the inside than on the outside. The claim was made in an attempt to explain how countless animals could fit on the ark.

Another person suggested that after the global flood receded, God teleported animals to their respective locations (polar bears to the poles, koalas and ostriches to Australia, penguins to Antarctica etc.)

Scripture indicates that Noah was notified of the incoming flood perhaps just a handful of days before the flood began. With that, some have suggested that animals began traversing the planet to reach Noah's ark weeks, months or perhaps even years before God even informed Noah. Genesis 7:4.

One has to wonder what Noah was thinking when animals began gathering around him before God even told him of the incoming flood waters.

This is an example of what I am referring to. It involves a severe stretch of the imagination, in abscence of evidence...simply because the person "felt" that Genesis were literally true, they were willing to believe things that were somewhat shocking. And literalist Christians unfortunately fall into this camp somewhat often.

And I do not find this to be the case with everyone I've ever known. I know people who have initially believed in things because they "felt it was true" only to later correct themselves with evidence. The difference being that some people stick with their initial feelings in spite of evidence, while others let evidence guide their feelings.

Hi komatite,

Thanks for your response:

KomatiiteBIF said:

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.

Click to expand...

Perhaps that's what you should have written if that's what you were suggesting.

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.

I'm perfectly happy to take worldly wisdom and guidance in understanding the engineering of bridge building because I know that great men have built bridges. However, the only one I know who has built universes...is God. Therefore, the evidence I trust regarding those things...is God.

May God richly bless you during this time of joy for the believer that our Savior, the promise of our God throughout the old covenant, has come. Praise God.
In Christ, ted

miamited said:

Hi komatite,

Thanks for your response:


Perhaps that's what you should have written if that's what you were suggesting.

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.

I'm perfectly happy to take worldly wisdom and guidance in understanding the engineering of bridge building because I know that great men have built bridges. However, the only one I know who has built universes...is God. Therefore, the evidence I trust regarding those things...is God.

May God richly bless you during this time of joy for the believer that our Savior, the promise of our God throughout the old covenant, has come. Praise God.
In Christ, ted

Click to expand...

I never mind providing clarity for those who ask.

And yes, faith is belief without observation, I agree.

This is what I believe, to an extent is an issue.

Imagine other religions, such as Islam. What do they do? They believe in the unseen.

Jews? They believe in the unseen.

Hindus? They believe in the unseen.

And so there is this scenario in which belief in the unseen loses its honorable connotation.

But young earthers in particular take this even a step further still, in which even when we have things that are seen, they stretch even further in defiance, as described in the examples of my prior post. I find this concerning.

Indeed, some people truly can believe in literally anything, so long as they feel it is true. And perhaps I should add that without physical observation of reality, their beliefs may go to extreme lengths, without anything tangible to ground their imagination.

Eventually faith in the unseen transitions over a thin line from honorable to disturbing. I believe that young earthers have grossly crossed that line. And intellectually are long gone past rationality.

Kees Hogenbirk said:

Just curious. I really don't.

Click to expand...

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