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.
I don’t know if I am “that other guy arguing for a literal Adam and Eve.” I do agree “ that snakes do not talk, that women aren't made of rib bones, that the sky doesn't have windows in it that open and close to release water (gen 7:11 and 8:2).” There is a wide spectrum of how one studies and accepts what the Bible says. I did study hermeneutics for a few years, and I agree with most of what you wrote. Putting aside the idea that there was a literal Adam and Eve, literalism does a disservice to Bible study. The Bible contains many types of writing. In Joshua 15, the allotment of land is described in detail. Whoever wrote it was not necessarily inspired by God except to tell the truth, and this is true for many descriptions of the history of people in the Bible. The writer of Psalms was given full poetic freedom. God didn’t dictate what he wrote other than the natural inspiration of a poet devoted to God. I have no idea about The Song of Songs, but I doubt it was God breathed. Everything in the Bible is true in some sense, but not everything is divinely inspired. I might add that the book of Philemon was probably just a personal letter from Paul. I contains Biblical truths, but it is probably not inspired the way literalist claim. However, if the Bible says, “God said . . ..” that is a different thing. Learning that literalism is a mistake while trusting that the Bible is the primary source for God’s plans and interaction with man focuses faith in God and makes the Bible less of a religious talisman.
This topic also came up when I read a book about science and the Bible years ago. The book referenced Psalm 104.Actually, his little video could be of service as an interpretive motif, just not in the exact way that he thinks it is of service.
So, I think we can give him a silver star on his paper for making an effort at applying metaphorical thinking.
I think that it's somewhat of a subjective opinion that a non literal Adam is a disservice to Bible study.
I don't mind. I just don't think this is the intended focus. Just like with Moses crossing the red sea and the waters being gathered. I don't think it's about topography. I think it's intended to describe a supernatural deliverance. God restraining the waters. Like Jesus calming the sea and walking on it. I don't think the text is talking about a natural geographical explanation for water moving.
@Platte
As I wrote, I mostly agree with you. If you would like me to explain why I think there was a literal Adam and Eve, I’d be happy to. Non-literalism does keep the Bible robust, and I explained my level of literalism and non-literalism. Literalism has caused a lot of harm, but it is just another form of usurping authority. There are churches today who all but abandoned the Bible who do much the same thing. In most cases it is “We have a corner on the truth, and you are outside because you don’t agree with us.” I hope your health is good, but it is very disturbing to go to the doctor and be told that there is defiantly something wrong, but we don’t know what it is or how to help. We don’t like things to be unclear. That is why literalists get upset if you question their belief in a passage of the Bible. Maybe it is a lack of faith, but I think it is just human insecurity. Not much in our modern life is stable, and they cling to that stability.
That's fine. I'm not really concerned by more nuanced analysis or emphasis in certain areas of scripture. As long as it doesn't involve the big bang theory and catastrophic plate tectonics, I'm good.No, not so much the primordial mound but rather the prefiguration and telos of "the land" in Genesis, represented as it is in juxtaposition to a watery chaos/abyss which God saves His people from, through, and into the Promise that was yet to come. And of course, this then moves along in later history and becomes all wrapped up finally in the soteriology of Christ, most of which I'm sure I don't need to spell out for everyone in 2,000 words since it would be preaching to the choir. .... that, and the fact that I don't want to steal any of your thunder because you're on a roll.
Genesis 2:7: 7 “Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Animals were already alive, and probably many humanoids, so they already had at least one form of “the breath of life.” Adam and Eve (probably not their real names) received something more. I think it was part of “God’s image” and they became something greater and more complex mentally and spiritually than animals. Animals can’t sin, and their creative abilities are much more limited. Suddenly, after supposedly 900,000 years, mankind started agriculture, building cities, creating idols, and going to war. Adam and Eve were the transition from animals to humans.
This is a concordist hermeneutic approach. Many would disagree. The imago dei isn't even mentioned when God breathes into Adams nostrils. Nor is Adam being created even mentioned in chapter 1. There is nothing in the text about "mental complexity" being an aspect of the imago dei, as if mentally handicapped people might be excluded. There's just a lot to untangle here. And I don't think it would be worth hanging the Bibles legitimacy and a literal Adam on topics that have been contested for generations.
The problem I have with both the literal approach and the approach you presented is that it doesn’t account for how we got an immortal soul. I deal with animals everyday with a small animal hospital, and I can’t believe they die and go to heaven. At best, the life force is returned to God. The literal approach partially accounts for the growth of civilization and the propensity to sin and the soul, but your approach shows its failings. The question of when man changed from animal to human is not explained. If we descended from humanoids, when did we get an eternal soul? Something special happened. I can’t prove anything, but I believe we are not just animals.
I don't think it's necessary to have a literal Adam to hold to a theology about people having souls. How do you even know that your soul was created when Adams soul was created, rather than your soul being created when you were born? Saint Augustine's view was that each soul is created individually by God at conception.
