Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

Job 33:6 · Tuesday at 4:19 PM

Clare73 said:
Yes, the quotation originally referred to God's calling the nation out of Israel in the time of Moses.
Do you not realize that by inspiration Matthew applies it to Jesus also?

That he sees the history of Israel (God's children) briefly restated in the life of Jesus (God's unique Son).
That just as Israel as an infant nation went down into Egypt, so the child Jesus went there.
And as Israel was lead by God out of Egypt, so also was Jesus.
You think Matthew made a mistake, out of ignorance?

"Ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 3:7)

And no, Mathew didn't make a mistake. But his words do not reflect the original concepts conveyed in Hosea.

Clare73 · Tuesday at 4:21 PM

Job 33:6 said:
Well they apply the texts to Jesus, but they do not re-tell the original narrative. Mathew referencing Hosea to talk about Jesus doesn't make Hosea untrue or less true.

See post #258.

Job 33:6 · Tuesday at 4:22 PM

Clare73 said:
Yes, the quotation originally referred to God's calling the nation out of Israel in the time of Moses.
Do you not realize that by inspiration Matthew applies it to Jesus also?

That he sees the history of Israel (God's children) briefly restated in the life of Jesus (God's unique Son).
That just as Israel as an infant nation went down into Egypt, so the child Jesus went there.

Yes, it applies to Jesus, but Hosea wasn't talking about Jesus. Which is the point. Mathew is not retelling Hosea.

Clare73 said:
And as Israel was lead by God out of Egypt, so also was Jesus.
You think Matthew made a mistake, out of ignorance?

"Ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 3:7)

See above.

2PhiloVoid · Tuesday at 4:25 PM

Clare73 said:
"Ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 3:7)

You need to stop denigrating other fellow Christians with this verse if and when they may disagree with 'how' to interpret the Bible. Doing so is tantamount to saying that those other Christians whom you're applying it to aren't actually Christian. And on THIS public forum, no one is allowed to do that.

Please keep THIS in mind, Clare.

Job 33:6 · Tuesday at 4:27 PM

Clare73 said:
Yes, Matthew is retelling Hosea, he's not retelling Isaiah, and is applying it to Jesus.

See post #259.

No, Mathew is not retelling Hosea. Hosea never mentioned Jesus. Nor is Hosea about Jesus. What are you talking about?

Clare73 · Tuesday at 4:29 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
You need to stop denigrating other fellow Christians with this verse

Perhaps you could present an example of your (false) allegation. . .

2PhiloVoid said:
if and when they may disagree with 'how' to interpret the Bible. Doing so is tantamount to saying that those other Christians whom you're applying it to aren't actually Christian. And on THIS public forum, no one is allowed to do that.
Please keep THIS in mind, Clare.

Threatening now?

Clare73 · Tuesday at 4:36 PM

Job 33:6 said:
No, Mathew is not retelling Hosea. Hosea never mentioned Jesus. Nor is Hosea about Jesus. What are you talking about?

See post #258.

And this is still on the table:
Please present what the Genesis statement should be if Adam and his sin were actual, and not just figurative.

Job 33:6 · Tuesday at 5:18 PM

Clare73 said:
See post #259.

I'm looking at it. I'm not seeing a counter point. The new testament authors regularly change or adapt, rather than plainly retelling, old testament narratives. They aren't the original context for the old testament. Hosea isn't talking about Jesus.

Job 33:6 · Tuesday at 5:28 PM

Clare73 said:
See post #259.

Let's see if this helps:
Yes, I understand that Matthew applies Hosea typologically to Jesus, that’s exactly the point. He is reinterpreting an Old Testament passage for a new theological purpose, just as Paul does in Romans. But if we agree that Hosea’s original meaning referred to Israel’s exodus, then we should also agree that Matthew is not giving the original, authorial intent of Hosea, he’s applying it anew in light of Christ. Likewise, Paul’s use of Adam in Romans 5 tells us more about Paul’s theology than it does about the genre or historical purpose of Genesis. So to interpret Genesis responsibly, we need to start with Genesis itself, its language, culture, and context, and only then consider how later authors may reuse it.

@2PhiloVoid

Akita Suggagaki · Tuesday at 8:26 PM

Job 33:6 said:
Yes, it applies to Jesus, but Hosea wasn't talking about Jesus. Which is the point. Mathew is not retelling Hosea.

Job 33:6 said:
Let's see if this helps:
Yes, I understand that Matthew applies Hosea typologically to Jesus, that’s exactly the point. He is reinterpreting an Old Testament passage for a new theological purpose, just as Paul does in Romans. But if we agree that Hosea’s original meaning referred to Israel’s exodus, then we should also agree that Matthew is not giving the original, authorial intent of Hosea, he’s applying it anew in light of Christ. Likewise, Paul’s use of Adam in Romans 5 tells us more about Paul’s theology than it does about the genre or historical purpose of Genesis. So to interpret Genesis responsibly, we need to start with Genesis itself, its language, culture, and context, and only then consider how later authors may reuse it.

And this is where we assume that we can read Genesis as simply as opening the Book. It is not that easy.

ARBITER01 · Tuesday at 8:49 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
You need to stop denigrating other fellow Christians with this verse if and when they may disagree with 'how' to interpret the Bible. Doing so is tantamount to saying that those other Christians whom you're applying it to aren't actually Christian. And on THIS public forum, no one is allowed to do that.

Please keep THIS in mind, Clare.

Hmmmmmm,...... you get defensive real easy.

Job 33:6 · Tuesday at 8:49 PM

Akita Suggagaki said:
And this is where we assume that we can read Genesis as simply as opening the Book. It is not that easy.

Yea. Everyone starts off as a literalist. But the statistics don't lie. Give it a few years. Those who actually study scripture know full well that aggressive literalism, one way or another, turns to dust.

Not that I'm necessarily opposed to a historical Adam (I just like testing ideas). I think that the biologos foundation has some valid options. But scientific concordism more broadly just comes up short time and time again. The most robust position for the church, undoubtedly, begins with observing the historical context for Genesis. Without that foundation, people are constructing their beliefs on sinking sand.

If people rest their faith in a literal Adam, they're likely to face trouble. Atheists out here are like wolves, preying on the weak. The church needs a robust hermeneutic for damage control.

Zceptre · Tuesday at 10:46 PM

Erasing Adam and Eve as literal people removes the genealogy given to us and turns it into allegory as well. The genealogy is given in the New Testament quite clearly and from both lineages, Joseph and Mary, qualifying the Lord Jesus from both parents.

In Luke chapter three, the Scripture follows the genealogy all the way back to Adam.

So what is the wild story that accounts for such a historical family tree becoming a symbolic metaphor?

Let the games begin...

ARBITER01 · Wednesday at 12:12 AM

Zceptre said:
Erasing Adam and Eve as literal people removes the genealogy given to us and turns it into allegory as well. The genealogy is given in the New Testament quite clearly and from both lineages, Joseph and Mary, qualifying the Lord Jesus from both parents.

In Luke chapter three, the Scripture follows the genealogy all the way back to Adam.

So what is the wild story that accounts for such a historical family tree becoming a symbolic metaphor?

Let the games begin...

Whoa, whoa, whoa,..... wait a minute here, hold on now,...... we can't be literalists all of lives, we have to start viewing everything in the bible as symbolic at some point here. Get with the program brother /sarc.

honey badger · Wednesday at 1:26 AM

Aseyesee said:
God set an advent (inside Adam) as in their name was called) in motion when he said "thou shalt not eat" ... whether the tree was literal or not ... we are Adam and our soul our wife who gives us to eat ...

this question is what Christians should be asking themselves ...

as we know Gods law is not separate from Himself and so the law was in place before it was given as a commandment to Adam who was naked already, but did not know he was ( unashamed ) having named the animals had ate from the tree without knowing he had ...

so did the serpent enter into the garden by way of the law spoken or did it slither in when God called Adam to reason ?

and if they be honest they will come to this answer

Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed.

Job 33:6 · Wednesday at 4:15 AM

Zceptre said:
Erasing Adam and Eve as literal people removes the genealogy given to us and turns it into allegory as well. The genealogy is given in the New Testament quite clearly and from both lineages, Joseph and Mary, qualifying the Lord Jesus from both parents.

In Luke chapter three, the Scripture follows the genealogy all the way back to Adam.

So what is the wild story that accounts for such a historical family tree becoming a symbolic metaphor?

Let the games begin...

In the ancient near east, geneologies are not scientific in nature as they are today. Such as with the Sumerian kings list, in which figures lived to be tens of thousands of years, or such as in the Assyrian kings list or the Akkadian kings list which includes men of legend (not necessarily of literal history). Also, even within the Bible, geneologies differ from one another, add and omit people, and are setup to fit figurative patterns, such as intentionally being structured with set numbers of people.

Geneologies back then are not like 23 and me ancestry websites today.

trophy33 · Wednesday at 4:15 AM

Zceptre said:
Erasing Adam and Eve as literal people removes the genealogy given to us and turns it into allegory as well. The genealogy is given in the New Testament quite clearly and from both lineages, Joseph and Mary, qualifying the Lord Jesus from both parents.

In Luke chapter three, the Scripture follows the genealogy all the way back to Adam.

So what is the wild story that accounts for such a historical family tree becoming a symbolic metaphor?

Let the games begin...

Luke linking the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam is creating the symbolic meaning that Jesus is the savior of all humanity, not just of Jews.

There were no historical records of common families like that of Mary or Josef leading back to Adam.

Zceptre · Wednesday at 4:22 AM

trophy33 said:
Luke linking the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam is creating the symbolic meaning that Jesus is the savior of all humanity, not just of Jews.

There were no historical records of common families like that of Mary or Josef leading back to Adam.

LOL!!!

Ok.

trophy33 · Wednesday at 4:23 AM

Zceptre said:
LOL!!!

Silly reaction.

God would have to dictate one name after another to Luke which is a bit absurd, inspiration does not work this way.

Zceptre · Wednesday at 4:25 AM

trophy33 said:
Silly reaction.

God would have to dictate one name after another to Luke which is a bit absurd, inspiration does not work this way.

Like I said ten seconds later in the edit.

Ok.

Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

I learned to "count" to 666 !!

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Legend

i am

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads