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

Presbyterian Continuist · Apr 21, 2020

The Barbarian said:
No, the text itself tells us that it's not a literal history. As Christians over a thousand years ago pointed out, you can't have mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

So, your God is not powerful enough to create a light source that is not the sun?

That's a testable claim. Did Jesus announce He was about to say a parable, each time He told his followers a parable?

The difference is when Jesus uses real names of real people, it is not a parable. For example, Lazarus and the rich man is not a parable, because Jesus names two real people in the story, Lazarus and Abraham.

I've looked for that, but I can't find where He said "this was an actual historical event." And since there's no reason why one can't have an allegory about real people and real events, there's no evidence whatever to show that He thought of those allegories as literal histories.

This is a weak argument. Jesus names Adam and Eve as real people, in the context of marriage, and He mentions Noah as a real person in relation to what the world was like in the time of the Flood, and what the world will be like when He comes again. He talks of the days of Noah as real history, not allegory.

The key is that it makes no difference at all to one's salvation. Believe either way, God doesn't judge you on it.

But it might be significant for a believer to progress beyond the novice, spiritual 'baby' level.

You've assumed what you intended to prove. I could make the same argument that He recognized them as allegories, since He said nothing at all about them being literal history.

Every mature Christian believer whom I have associated with over my more than 50 years in the faith have all, without exception, accepted Genesis as literal history. In my experience those whom I have met who have asserted that Genesis is some kind of myth or allegory have shown themselves, through their basic attitude and practice, a serious deficiency in their knowledge of what the Bible is all about.

Presbyterian Continuist · Apr 21, 2020

The Barbarian said:
Physical death was there on Earth for billions of years before Adam.

As you see, it's pretty simple to understand, if you accept that God is truthful.

What you are saying is evolutionary theory, because evolution depends on death of organisms to ensure that survival of the fittest can occur.

But it also shows a disbelief in the literal text of the Bible and if one cannot believe in a literal Genesis, how can they believe in the rest of it? So, Jesus saying to Nicodemas, "You must be born again" is not really meaning what He is saying? And when Jesus said, "Unless a person is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" was He not meaning what He was saying to Nicodemas?

The problem is, if we say that Genesis is just myth and not literal history, we could as easily say that the four Gospels are myth as well and we don't have to actually believe them as historical truth, and that Jesus is not historical but is "the Christ of faith" for us, that believing in this "Christ of faith" makes us just better human beings.

So, Jesus dying on the cross for our sins could just be an allegory, a myth as well, and didn't really happen. And that leads us to the possibility that the resurrection of Christ didn't really happen, and Paul might be right when he said that if there is no resurrection, then we are of all people most miserable. But then, if the Gospels are allegory and myth, then can we really believe what Paul wrote in his letters?

So, deciding not to believe the Genesis record as literal history, opens up a big can of worms concerning the Christian hope of millions who have received Christ as their Saviour.

Presbyterian Continuist · Apr 21, 2020

Archivist said:
I believe that I answered your question unless I missed something.

Are you saying that a Christian cannot believe in theistic evolution?

I can't say that and I won't, because I don't want to imply that a person who has turned to Christ because they believe that He is the Son of God who died on the cross for them, is not a genuine Christian, because Peter was quite definite in Acts 2 about what a person should believe in order to receive Christ as Saviour.

But I wonder if such a Christian believer would progress beyond the novice "baby" stage?

Presbyterian Continuist · Apr 21, 2020

Archivist said:
Well, I don't recall Animal Farm starting with the words "This is an allegory about..." Likewise I don't recall seeing those words in Moby Dick or The Chronicles of Narnia.

Come on! We know that these are works of fiction. Surely you can do better than that cobber!

Qwertyui0p · Apr 22, 2020

The Barbarian said:
Yes, it's mostly interpreting the first three chapters of Genesis as literal history, that is problematical for our redemption.

What I'm asking is how is that problematical?

Qwertyui0p · Apr 22, 2020

Archivist said:
Yes, I’m aware of that. I said that earlier and I never said otherwise. But bats are not birds. They were not in Biblical times, they aren’t today. The Bible is wrong when it says that they are. Yet you said that you must believe what the Bible says. Well I certainly don’t believe it when it is wrong.

Does the Bible call a bat a bird?

The Barbarian · Apr 22, 2020

Oscarr said:
What you are saying is evolutionary theory,

No,the geologic record, showing the death of countless organisms before there were people. This was known long before Darwin.

The Barbarian · Apr 22, 2020

Qwertyui0p said:
Does the Bible call a bat a bird?

Yes, it does. Your link admits what I told you; the Israelites classified organisms funtionally, not by taxonomy. So it if flies and isn't an insect, it's a bird, according to them.

They didn't extend that to insects, because they could see that vertebrates were taxonomically a thing, but they didn't have enough understanding to realize that birds and mammals are different things. Indeed, that's an evolutionary idea, that bats and birds are one thing; vertebrates are all descended from a common ancestor. But they classified analogous wings, instead of homologous hair and jaws to make their decision.

In their understanding that was a good call.

Job 33:6 · Apr 22, 2020

Oscarr said:
What you are saying is evolutionary theory, because evolution depends on death of organisms to ensure that survival of the fittest can occur.

But it also shows a disbelief in the literal text of the Bible and if one cannot believe in a literal Genesis, how can they believe in the rest of it? So, Jesus saying to Nicodemas, "You must be born again" is not really meaning what He is saying? And when Jesus said, "Unless a person is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" was He not meaning what He was saying to Nicodemas?

The problem is, if we say that Genesis is just myth and not literal history, we could as easily say that the four Gospels are myth as well and we don't have to actually believe them as historical truth, and that Jesus is not historical but is "the Christ of faith" for us, that believing in this "Christ of faith" makes us just better human beings.

So, Jesus dying on the cross for our sins could just be an allegory, a myth as well, and didn't really happen. And that leads us to the possibility that the resurrection of Christ didn't really happen, and Paul might be right when he said that if there is no resurrection, then we are of all people most miserable. But then, if the Gospels are allegory and myth, then can we really believe what Paul wrote in his letters?

So, deciding not to believe the Genesis record as literal history, opens up a big can of worms concerning the Christian hope of millions who have received Christ as their Saviour.

You're still continuing to suggest that an end result of an idea, determines if the cause of the result is true.

It is unreasonable to say that you do not believe that I went to the supermarket, simply on the basis that I didn't buy groceries (because you feel as though it contradicts your preconceived idea that nobody goes to the market just to browse).

Whether you feel as though the effect is comforting or upsetting, is irrelevant to the question of if the cause is true.

Understanding truth begins with having a logical foundation. Manipulating that foundation so that the end result is what you feel it should be, is an intellectually broken act.

You continue to insist on putting the cart before the horse without acknowledging that the horse must first come before the cart. And none could ever understand the mind of a theistic evolutionist by this means.

Job 33:6 · Apr 22, 2020

Oscarr said:
In my opinion, a person cannot believe the Bible and not believe the Bible at the same time.

This is all irrelevant to what I am saying to you.

You cannot make a logical case for Christ if you begin on an illogical foundation.

The Barbarian · Apr 22, 2020

Oscarr said:
But it also shows a disbelief in the literal text of the Bible and if one cannot believe in a literal Genesis, how can they believe in the rest of it?

The notion that the Bible must be entirely literal history, or entirely figurative, seems completely wrong, given that the Bible itself says otherwise.

So, Jesus saying to Nicodemas, "You must be born again" is not really meaning what He is saying?

Obviously, he doesn't have to go through another birth in the literal sense. Jesus is using birth in a figurative way, calling for a "new person." He didn't mean one had to be delivered from the womb, again.

And when Jesus said, "Unless a person is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" was He not meaning what He was saying to Nicodemas?

He was using "born again" in a metaphor for the complete change when one accepts God and one's sins are forgiven. It's not really a physical birth like your first one. It's a spiritual birth.

The problem is, if we say that Genesis is just myth and not literal history,

"The problem is, if we say that Jesus' parables are just myth and not literal history..."

That makes no sense.

we could as easily say that the four Gospels are myth as well and we don't have to actually believe them as historical truth,

See above. We know from the Bible itself that some of it is literal history, and some of it is figurative.

So, Jesus dying on the cross for our sins could just be an allegory, a myth as well, and didn't really happen.

If you cling to the idea of "all literal history, or all allegory", it might seem so. But as you now see, that's not how the Bible is set up.

Deciding not to believe the Bible when it describes some things as literal history and some things allegorically, opens up a big can of worms concerning the Christian hope of millions who have received Christ as their Saviour.

Let it be His way, and this won't bother you any longer.

Presbyterian Continuist · Apr 22, 2020

The Barbarian said:
The notion that the Bible must be entirely literal history, or entirely figurative, seems completely wrong, given that the Bible itself says otherwise.

Obviously, he doesn't have to go through another birth in the literal sense. Jesus is using birth in a figurative way, calling for a "new person." He didn't mean one had to be delivered from the womb, again.

He was using "born again" in a metaphor for the complete change when one accepts God and one's sins are forgiven. It's not really a physical birth like your first one. It's a spiritual birth.

"The problem is, if we say that Jesus' parables are just myth and not literal history..."

That makes no sense.

See above. We know from the Bible itself that some of it is literal history, and some of it is figurative.

If you cling to the idea of "all literal history, or all allegory", it might seem so. But as you now see, that's not how the Bible is set up.

Deciding not to believe the Bible when it describes some things as literal history and some things allegorically, opens up a big can of worms concerning the Christian hope of millions who have received Christ as their Saviour.

Let it be His way, and this won't bother you any longer.

The question remains: If Genesis is just a myth, why did Jesus die on the cross?

The Barbarian · Apr 22, 2020

Oscarr said:
The question remains: If Genesis is just a myth,

What makes you think it's not an allegory about real people and a real event? You seem hung up on imagining it as a "myth." "Myth" is probably bad term to use for the allegory of the Fall, especially as that word has become a term for "not true."

why did Jesus die on the cross?

Because the allegory is about real people who disobeyed God.

BlessedCreator · Apr 26, 2020

I believe the story of Adam and Eve is real. Where did the first humans come from if they weren't real?

misput · Apr 26, 2020

The story, for all intents and purposes is true but obviously some things in the story are representing something else. For instance the "Tree of Life" obviously represents Christ, etc,etc, etc.. In other words the gospel is taught from the very beginning if you can pick up on it.

BlessedCreator · Apr 26, 2020

misput said:
The story, for all intents and purposes is true but obviously some things in the story are representing something else. For instance the "Tree of Life" obviously represents Christ, etc,etc, etc.. In other words the gospel is taught from the very beginning if you can pick up on it.

I think you're interpretation is wrong.

misput · Apr 26, 2020

BlessedCreator said:
I think you're interpretation is wrong.

That's ok, would you like to elaborate on your view?

Qwertyui0p · Apr 27, 2020

misput said:
The story, for all intents and purposes is true but obviously some things in the story are representing something else. For instance the "Tree of Life" obviously represents Christ, etc,etc, etc.. In other words the gospel is taught from the very beginning if you can pick up on it.

The bread and wine at the last supper was real, as well as being symbolic of Christ's sacrifice.

misput · Apr 27, 2020

Qwertyui0p said:
The bread and wine at the last supper was real, as well as being symbolic of Christ's sacrifice.

Yes, and???

The Barbarian · Apr 27, 2020

BlessedCreator said:
I believe the story of Adam and Eve is real. Where did the first humans come from if they weren't real?

Of course they were real. And the story is real, just told in the form of an allegory.

They came from other humans who were not given living souls directly by God. When that happened is not known, nor is it important.

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

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Senior Veteran

Crabby Old White Guy

Salvation=Obedience

JimD

Salvation=Obedience

JimD

Active Member

JimD

Crabby Old White Guy

Similar threads