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

public hermit said:

Good enough. Take care and God bless.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I do and He does too.

hedrick said:

The point of the Bible is that God's actions happened in history. We can and should expect historical study to be useful. The broad outline of how a whole nation was founded is likely to leave evidence. Not so much a single person's crucifixion and resurrection. But if we had accurate records from 30 AD, I'd certainly expect them to show at least the crucifixion. Probably the Romans wouldn't have recorded the resurrection, for all kinds of reasons. But if it happened, it happened in history, and at least in principle is subject to historical inquiry.

The fact that the Exodus didn't happen as described doesn't mean it was all made up. I'd assume some of the people who made up Israel had actually been slaves in Egypt. The historical background is consistent with that. But there's good reason to think that Israel moved in largely peacefully, and that the large-scale events described in Exodus didn't quite happen.

Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that the event never happened? I’ve seen evidence it did.

MrsFoundit said:

I am going DA for this, but does Cinderella really teach nothing ? Could it teach us not to be the nasty sisters, that happy endings emerge from unhappy circumstances, and that it is worth a bit of trouble finding a good life partner? Yes, it is not very meaningful, but it is for children.

Click to expand...

Yes, I see your point and there is something taught. But it has no weight. If you told a person not to be cruel to siblings or to be good to them and you’ll be rewarded with a good life, the person can answer that cinderella never existed so doing that doesn’t promise anything. You’d have no answer. The bible has weight because it really happened and still happens. Do you see what I mean?

I think the Bible is probably not the same as a fairy tale for all non-literal believers. Since I am not one it is a bit hard to imagine, but at a stretch maybe for them it is about God and all humans, like a proto-type story that applies to us all? (Inviting non-literal people to take it from there, and my apologies if my attempt to wear your shoes/glass slipper was messed up).

Click to expand...

Pretty good answer although not a stretch to believe for those of us who have lived its teachings.

Reverse DA and turn back into myself...I cannot see the advantage in appealing to secular evidence if I am going to believe in an Incarnate Deity and a Resurrection (more than one resurrection even) anyway, and I do, so that is that.

Click to expand...

Non-biblical sources confirm what we know by faith. They are helpful for unbelievers too.

klutedavid said:

Here is an interesting article.

Is the Biblical Exodus fact or fiction?

This is a loaded question. Although Biblical scholars and archaeologists argue about various aspects of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt, many of them agree that the Exodus occurred in some form or another.

The question “Did the Exodus happen” then becomes “When did the Exodus happen?” This is another heated question. Although there is much debate, most people settle into two camps: They argue for either a 15th-century B.C.E. or 13th-century B.C.E. date for Israel’s Exodus from Egypt.
(https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction)

Interesting that the Exodus event is widely accepted as a factual account. Where as the Genesis events are highly debated.

Click to expand...

Genesis speaks to mans rebellion which hits closer to home than an Israelite change of location.

Dorothy Mae said:

Do you see what I mean?

Click to expand...

Yes, but you yourself say it still happens now. We can therefore see real life examples, so rather than "cinderella never happened" one can see real life examples, and say "there is an example of what the Bible says" about events in the now.

For me it does have more weight if I just believe it.

Dorothy Mae said:

Pretty good answer although not a stretch to believe for those of us who have lived its teachings.

Click to expand...

I agree. I was just saying I cannot always know where others are in their faith, or why, so I assume they can justify a non literal understanding, if it is their way.

MrsFoundit said:

Yes, but you yourself say it still happens now. We can therefore see real life examples, so rather than "cinderella never happened" one can see real life examples, and say "there is an example of what the Bible says" about events in the now.

Click to expand...

True. For those events not finished in the past we can still see them.

For me it does have more weight if I just believe it.

Click to expand...

But don’t you want to see what you previously only believed come to pass in real
life? When I saw the lame walk, it bolstered my faith.

I agree. I was just saying I cannot always know where others are in their faith, or why, so I assume they can justify a non literal understanding, if it is their way.

Click to expand...

Well, a non-literal (never happened to real people) is not a faith that will endure the challenges of life. If one believes what the Bible teaches never really happened for real people, why believe it will happen for them? See what I mean? It’s hard enough to believe God did it then and will still do the same for us.

Dorothy Mae said:

Well, a non-literal (never happened to real people) is not a faith that will endure the challenges of life.

Click to expand...

This is presumptuous nonsense. Just because someone doesn't take the opening chapters of Genesis literally in no way means their faith won't endure the challenges of life. Instead of presumption, you should ask, "Has the fact that you don't take Genesis literally hampered your faith so that it doesn't withstand the challenges of life?" The answer is, "No." Trust me when I tell you that I know pain and suffering, loss and sorrow, and my faith has endured. Now, you can accept what I am saying as accurate. Or, you can assume I am lying. But, I can tell you, in this instance you don't know what you're talking about.

Dorothy Mae said:

True. For those events not finished in the past we can still see them. But don’t you want to see what you previously only believed come to pass in real.

Click to expand...

I do.

Dorothy Mae said:

When I saw the lame walk, it bolstered my faith..

Click to expand...

Yes, but we need to be able to explain why the paralysed are never rendered able to walk.

Dorothy Mae said:

Well, a non-literal (never happened to real people) is not a faith that will endure the challenges of life. If one believes what the Bible teaches never really happened for real people, why believe it will happen for them? See what I mean? It’s hard enough to believe God did it then and will still do the same for us.

Click to expand...

Did you not say it was "not a stretch" for those who live it?

Also, wonders do happen through the application of Biblical principles, slowly and consistently discovered, no miracles required.

MrsFoundit said:

Yes, but we need to be able to explain why the paralysed are never rendered able to walk.

Click to expand...

Why? Besides, there is such a thing as asking or not asking.

Did you not say it was "not a stretch" for those who live it?

Click to expand...

I did.

Also, wonders do happen through the application of Biblical principles, slowly and consistently discovered, no miracles required.

Click to expand...

Well I sort of count on them to some degree. At least I count on Him actively doing things in my life. Maybe those aren’t wonders.

public hermit said:

This is presumptuous nonsense. Just because someone doesn't take the opening chapters of Genesis literally in no way means their faith won't endure the challenges of life. Instead of presumption, you should ask, "Has the fact that you don't take Genesis literally hampered your faith so that it doesn't withstand the challenges of life?" The answer is, "No." Trust me when I tell you that I know pain and suffering, loss and sorrow, and my faith has endured. Now, you can accept what I am saying as accurate. Or, you can assume I am lying. But, I can tell you, in this instance you don't know what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

Your words tell me something else. Those whose faith has endured talk differently than you do above. Those whose faith is diminished talk like the above.

Dorothy Mae said:

Why? Besides, there is such a thing as asking or not asking.

Click to expand...

Please can you explain?

MrsFoundit said:

Please can you explain?

Click to expand...

Why do we have to answer why not everyone is healed? The answers are individual. But most common is “you have not because you ask not.”

Dorothy Mae said:

Your attitude tells me something else. Those whose faith has endured talk differently than you do above. Those whose faith is diminished talk like the above.

Click to expand...

Why does my pointing out that you have made a unfounded presumption constitute an attitude? Your claim was/is nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about. How could you? If you take the opening chapters of Genesis literally, then you have no basis upon which to judge another's faith who doesn't. And yet, you declare that if they don't take it literally then they can't have the kind of faith that endures. That is presumption. So, now you have given two criteria by which you judge whether or not another person's faith is able to endure: 1) whether or not they take the opening chapters of Genesis literally, and 2) whether or not they meet your standard of a fitting way to "talk."

Dorothy Mae said:

Those whose faith has endured talk differently than you do above.

Click to expand...

How? What is the difference?

MrsFoundit said:

How? What is the difference?

Click to expand...

There was too much defense and attack in the response. The poster started by attacking.

I’ve listened to those who don’t believe the words of Jesus or only some of them. (Jesus believed in a literal Adam and Eve.) Without exception their faith is shallow. That is, they don’t understand many things about God. This makes a faith weak.

The reason is because they don’t accept all of his teachings. This limits how much they can learn from Him.

Dorothy Mae said:

Why do we have to answer why not everyone is healed? The answers are individual. But most common is “you have not because you ask not.”

Click to expand...

Well because Jesus love requires us not to insinuate that individual people are simply to blame for their own suffering because they did not ask for something else. Not to mention belief in a literal Adam and Eve is certainly not required to receive healing, I know a healer who gets results very frequently, but no specific Bible interpretation is required for the recipients.

MrsFoundit said:

Well because Jesus love requires us not to insinuate that individual people are simply to blame for their own suffering because they did not ask for something else.

Click to expand...

The Bible says we have not because we ask not. Also says Jesus couldn’t do many healings cause they didn’t believe.

Not to mention belief in a literal Adam and Eve is certainly not required to receive healing, I know a healer who gets results very frequently, but no specific Bible interpretation is required for the recipients.

Click to expand...

I didn’t say there was. One needn’t be fully informed for God to heal. Information isn’t required.

Dorothy Mae said:

There was too much defense and attack in the response. The poster started by attacking..

Click to expand...

Okay, but I saw objection, not attack.

Dorothy Mae said:

I’ve listened to those who don’t believe the words of Jesus or only some of them. (Jesus believed in a literal Adam and Eve.) Without exception their faith is shallow. That is, they don’t understand many things about God. This makes a faith weak.

Click to expand...

Personally I do not believe Christianity is a depth of faith contest, and I am not convinced anyone can judge a persons soul status, except Jesus can.

Nobody objects to the historicity of the Bible (or any other element of truth contained therein) unless they've already decided in advance to believe something else and reject that aspect of the Bible.

Is any objection to Adam and Eve different in principle to an atheist objecting to the bible as a whole or to God Himself? Not really. Again, it's just a person choosing to believe something different--one still claims to be a Christian and believes other parts of the Bible... the other rejects it (and it's Author) as a whole. It is the same fundamental exercise in faith and choosing what one wants to believe, by faith. Beyond all this it remains, as stated in Isaiah 40:8 that God's word will stand and so even after everybody here tosses in their version of history, God's word is His account given by Him to us with people, events, places, and genealogies from generation to generation... coming from Adam, made from the dust of the ground.

Someone will probably respond to this, thinking they have some irrefutable and ultimate response proving that Adam & Eve did not exist. If this is you, you do not and you only fool yourself. There is no observational science that disproves Adam & Eve. Oddly enough it is the scientists themselves who cannot seem to distinguish truth that has been observed and what can be demonstrated vs "truth" as merely from conjecture. When one accepts conjecture over the word of God as truth, this is acceptance by faith... not in God's word.

Literally it is generally the same people I see here going around in circles chasing down the same issues with the same arguments, over and over. This is not iron sharpening iron, this is people doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. I will say this forum is largely a waste of time and I can barely even bring myself to write yet another post... it is only because I have 25 minutes to throw away here at the end of the day and hope to bring at least 1 other person to their senses.

If you believe God created Adam and Eve (and all of creation for that matter) the way He said He did (and why couldn't He?), then good for you and God bless you for your faith amidst many passing winds of different doctrines. If you don't believe God created Adam and Eve and He wanted to just give specific but false statements to keep the truth from us, it is of no benefit to anyone - it's not my word and you don't answer to me and I am not your judge. Hebrews 11:6 states "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." So if you're out to get those "pseudoscientifc" and "pesky" creationists and look forward to seeing them get what's coming to them at the judgment of God, you will never see that day come. Even if they are wrong, God is not going to punish or scold them for taking His word as it is written. Jesus said blessed are those who believe and yet have not seen so should we think God has something bad in store for them?

On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that if God is pleased by faith (faith in His word... not faith in say, the words of Hinduism, or other written literature contradicting and opposing His word) then having faith in something that suggests His word is untrue is... unpleasing to Him, right? Do not continue in the self-delusion of confusing what it means for something to be true, if God says He formed the man from the dust of the ground then made the woman out of his side, but in reality He formed proteins on a prebiotic earth that got 'zapped' and oozed/crawled out and eventually just organized and elevated themselves to higher and more complex life forms by chance and error and pain and death before sin, but still became you and me... then yes that means God lied. But God does not lie. End of wasting time - out.

Kees Hogenbirk said:

Just curious. I really don't.

Click to expand...

The evidence I have seen is the oldest archaeological find is of what appears to be a temple for worshipping God (pantheistic perhaps) with lots of pictures of different creatures and animals. To build this it would have taken a large group of workers/slaves and there is evidence that for the first time humans grew grains to feed them. In other words it wasn't the agricultural revolution that led to art and religious worship and ceremonies, but rather this creation of a temple (the attempt to be like God -- tree of the knowledge of good and evil) that necessitated the agricultural revolution. We now know that hunter gatherers were healthier than those in the agricultural revolution, they also worked less and had more leisure time. Also, the agricultural revolution required a lot of personal property, tools and things that you had to own, property you had to guard and protect, and a wealth of food stored in barns that attracted thieves, stealing and killing. But the most notable thing about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that once you have the agricultural revolution you have "good" plants and "evil" ones (weeds). You have "good" animals (livestock) and "evil" ones (foxes, etc). You use poison (pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, etc). For hunter gatherers there are no evil or good creatures, they are all just God's creatures that you can learn from.

So when you say you don't believe that the story of Adam and Eve is real are you saying you don't believe there was an agricultural revolution?