Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

HBP said:

The fact is, modern science has pretty well gutted literalist theology, to the point where (I speak from long experience) literalism and bibliolatry simply seem silly to almost all nonbelievers and most believers. I just finished a long and scholarly sociological study where the author, a believer and Notre Dame professor, describes traditional religion as "obsolete." Not "declining," but obsolete. His studies show, generation-by-generation, that the younger generations now regard traditional religion as not even being on the table, as too silly to bother with. If literalism were the only thing on offer, I'd find it too silly, too. The trend, he says, is not toward atheism but toward what he calls "enchantment" - the proverbial spiritual but not religious.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've always liked Christian Smith's evaluations, too.

HBP said:

My 55-year involvement in Christianity has brought me to an acceptance of a Christianity that is not only not literal but is accepting of considerable mystery, uncertainty and even doubt. It's a very broad and non-dogmatic Christianity that, to a literalist, might not qualify as Christianity at all. It ain't bibliolatry by a long shot. I believe what I am constitutionally able to believe after a long and diligent quest, and I can't see how God can demand more than this.

And yet, I'm sympathetic to the literalist mindset. Kierkegaard once described faith as a leap into 70,000 fathoms of water, and not everyone can do this. Some need to find their spot in the wading pool. I can understand the appeal of, and even the psychological need for, a religion that is rock solid and doubt-free, a reliable security blanket in a world of uncertainty. Moreover, not everyone has the same level of intelligence or emotional maturity or even the same desire or opportunity to pursue a quest such as I've undertaken. That's OK - there's nothing wrong with choosing the shallow end of the pool. Even if my theology turns out to be closer to the truth, I would think God would welcome literalists and bibliolatrists into his kingdom.

The problem is that those who have the literalist mindset cannot tolerate those who don't share it. To preserve this rock-solid doubt-free faith, they HAVE TO BE correct. God HAS TO BE on their side. Folks like me HAVE TO BE wrong. It can be irritating, sure, but I try to remind myself that internet forums are closer to Monty Python skits than to actual discussions or debates.

Click to expand...

Yeppers.

2PhiloVoid said:

I don't have to apologize for my viewpoint to anyone here. And I'm still waiting for the poor chump who thinks he/she is going to show up and run circles around me for sport. I pity that fool.

Click to expand...

I'm right here, I've already done that thrice, and no need for apologies, I'll just take the wins. lol

That said, you stand by Christ crucified and so I can forgive you for your other viewpoints detached from reality. (Digging deep aren't I)

Jokes aside, you're alright by me. While sometimes you troll me, you absolutely aren't a troll. 9 out of 10 rating... I took a point for questioning my authority.

Did I make another funny... 3 for 3, I'm on a roll. lol...

You have a better attitude than most toward dissent , and that's a compliment.

Job 33:6 said:

Personally, I'd rather not be banned from CF, but I tend to take the opposite approach. I question YECs and how much they actually believe the Bible. Versus how much they've allowed worldly culture to blind them to its ancient near east context.

I ask people like Clare to acknowledge things like ancient Israelite cosmology in Genesis. And there is nothing but silence and crickets every time.

Do these brothers and sisters actually believe what's in the Bible?

I'm not so sure that they do.

Click to expand...

Not everyone is YEC and tied to a particular old translation. Some of us are Gap Theory and accept a lot of what science is proving on the Genesis account.

But that is not the topic of this thread.

But,.... just to push back on your little assertion, the believers here of Adam and Eve as literal people in our bible are not the skeptics and defeatists in the thread.

2PhiloVoid said:

It's as discomfiting and frustrating for me as it is for you. And like you, I have my limits, even with mentally challenged individuals.

Click to expand...

I am not.

Zceptre said:

I am not.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you're not discomfited or frustrated. Some of us can get that way.

2PhiloVoid said:

I'm glad you're not discomfited or frustrated. Some of us can get that way.

Click to expand...

No worries brother. Holding down the fort.

HBP said:

My 55-year involvement in Christianity has brought me to an acceptance of a Christianity that is not only not literal but is accepting of considerable mystery, uncertainty and even doubt. It's a very broad and non-dogmatic Christianity that, to a literalist, might not qualify as Christianity at all.

Click to expand...

I can understand people having doubts, it is rather settling in them to the point of spreading them as the way forward and toward God that I may take issue with. I'm one of the most understanding people I know, to a fault. (cough, pushover) I tend to be staunch stance, but I gained humility the hard way and I have zero condemnation for anyone, not even the worst of us. I don't think I could be so liberal as to allow anything, behaviorally speaking, that slaps a Christian label on themselves as Christian just because. I believe knowing them by their fruit is still a thing, regardless of their literalism or symbolic worldview concerning the Bible.

HBP said:

And yet, I'm sympathetic to the literalist mindset. Kierkegaard once described faith as a leap into 70,000 fathoms of water, and not everyone can do this. Some need to find their spot in the wading pool. I can understand the appeal of, and even the psychological need for, a religion that is rock solid and doubt-free, a reliable security blanket in a world of uncertainty. Moreover, not everyone has the same level of intelligence or emotional maturity or even the same desire or opportunity to pursue a quest such as I've undertaken. That's OK - there's nothing wrong with choosing the shallow end of the pool.

Click to expand...

Having spent the last 22 years of my life sacrificed to research to the point of having nothing else to show but my conviction in the priceless peace of mind I've obtained in the knowledge of the truth of the Gospel of Lord Jesus in the Bible, I agree the shallow end of the pool is ok for many people, and while they think me out of my mind for being so dedicated to something they are overall unconcerned with I admire to some degree the faith they have in light of the grey spots and dark areas in their knowledge that I've been blessed to have. Blessed, because even if I did work like a beaten ox pulling a plow to get what I have, the resources, opportunity, and time had to be given by God to gain any of it. I, unlike them, felt a need to have it, and to know what is and is not at whatever cost.

I simply never have been ok with simply taking a risk assessment and jumping one way or the other on issues. I would rather die trying to find the truth than live not knowing for a certainty what reality contains apart from the delusions and the true map laid bare before me. I want the treasure and if it costs my life, so be it, I have nearly died more than a few times in life, looking down barrels, nearly starving to death, my way or the highway might cause one to really pay the price if they won't budge. I was simply spared by God, because by all odds I should have died trying. Some of the methods were unconventional to put it mildly.

At the end of the day though, I can't say I don't understand the sway of the influx equivalent to to the hoover dam of information that people are forced to consider, navigate, and swim through about life, the Bible, reality, and all that goes with. But I also feel that if I put my conviction on the shelf about things I paid so dearly to have, and yet still been given freely by God, then I'm not sharing the truth I'm blessed with, am selfish, and am an unloving hack at best. Therefore, I choose to push the envelope a bit rather than just live and let live, if the opportunity to move the needle presents itself in the form of dialogue, I consider it a responsibility to offer (though not convince).

HBP said:

The problem is that those who have the literalist mindset cannot tolerate those who don't share it. To preserve this rock-solid doubt-free faith, they HAVE TO BE correct. God HAS TO BE on their side. Folks like me HAVE TO BE wrong. It can be irritating, sure, but I try to remind myself that internet forums are closer to Monty Python skits than to actual discussions or debates.

Click to expand...

This is a trend, and boy and how is it easy to do when you have the confidence of the truth under your belt, so to speak, yeah? The only separating factor is whether they come to the table in love or with an inflated ego that could make a demon blush.

Whether they seem loving or not, I believe many of us have good intentions and extremely poor execution. Sometimes during the debate their humanity does get the best of them, especially because the literalist stance is one more so held in child-like faith than not (self admittedly) and in that child-likeness sometimes a little child-ishness can rear its head. (although this is not an exclusive phenomenon) Doesn't make it ok, but the pattern exists and has for at least (from where I'm sitting) 20 years.

Believe me you, I know I've irritated more than one or two (hundred...) people who seem to me to conflate historical nonfiction prose, imo,with pure poetry and there are rarely two poets that have the same interpretation. (obviously not all are purely poetic)

I have some strong sense of compassion for disagreements when presented with similes and metaphors as theology, but I tend not to have it without objections with tenacity to the sentiment of Biblical allegory. I will make them fight to keep what they believe, just as I have had to do for the foundations I stand on. If they have a solid foundation, then it won't crack, and if they don't... alas, I consider it a privilege to break faulty foundations into the crumbling sand they truly are in nature. If they are built on the Rock of truth, there is nothing to worry about, and if they aren't, I will admit it is my goal to push them onto it. So long as I'm doing it in love. (1 Timothy 1:5) (1 Corinthians 13:2)

Zceptre said:

Whether they seem loving or not, I believe many of us have good intentions and extremely poor execution. Sometimes during the debate their humanity does get the best of them, especially because the literalist stance is one more so held in child-like faith than not (self admittedly) and in that child-likeness sometimes a little child-ishness can rear its head. (although this is not an exclusive phenomenon) Doesn't make it ok, but the pattern exists and has for at least (from where I'm sitting) 20 years.

Click to expand...

IME, the literalist position is rarely held in what I would consider a child-like fashion, which is to say that it is not a guileless and humble acceptance without pride, but is instead held pridefully as if allowing oneself not to engage with critical evaluation is a laudable position. There is no child-like wonder at the mystery of the world, but a sense of being privy to secret knowledge that those who disbelieve are just too foolish to acknowledge.

Zceptre said:

Believe me you, I know I've irritated more than one or two (hundred...) people who seem to me to conflate historical nonfiction prose, imo,with pure poetry and there are rarely two poets that have the same interpretation. (obviously not all are purely poetic)

Click to expand...

nonfiction prose and poetry are not the only options, as there are a litany of potential genres that we might consider placing Genesis into that don't neatly line up with either. Personally, I think the more important part of it is what it says about God and His relationship with the nation of Israel than what it says about what took place in creation's origin. That is to say, what is central about the creation narrative is not its material facts but that it presents God as ultimate Creator.

Fervent said:

IME, the literalist position is rarely held in what I would consider a child-like fashion, which is to say that it is not a guileless and humble acceptance without pride, but is instead held pridefully as if allowing oneself not to engage with critical evaluation is a laudable position.

Click to expand...

I conceded, maybe not to standards, but nevertheless. lol

Given, I was speaking for myself and a percentage of well intended individuals... not everyone.

Zceptre said:

sometimes a little child-ishness can rear its head.

Click to expand...

There is a massive portion of those, like I said, who just "slap on" a Christian label and go to town. The protestant world is overrun with this in a general sense, I think more so than we really know. I wouldn't be as aware of other factions.

Fervent said:

nonfiction prose and poetry are not the only options, as there are a litany of potential genres that we might consider placing Genesis into that don't neatly line up with either.

Click to expand...

This is true, yet there is still only one reality in God's mind when writing. What God intends is correct, whether I line up to it or not. Just like the intent of the discussion is to the subverting of the hearers, otherwise the debate is fruitless and void. (2 Timothy 2:14) (2 Corinthians 13:2) + 2 Commandments Matthew 37. The subverting is in essence the expression of Christ who lives in us to the point a seed is planted and grows in the soil of their heart.

A writer has one message they intend to convey, and while I think doctrine is important, and even historicity, they don't sideline the primary factor God requires. 1 John 4:7 - 1 John 4:8 - John 13:34 - John 13:35 - Matthew 7:16 - Etc --- Whatever we believe, if we become hateful, then we didn't follow the example given by Christ on the cross. Luke 23:34 - The goal is Christ-like, regardless the view on historicity. Romans 8:29

If I feel confident in the narrative the Bible has presented to me that it is actually literal, and I don't defend that as truth being convicted in myself that it is, I think that makes me a coward. (me personally) Doing it wrong is fine, we can learn and grow. But for me, if the opportunity to express the opinion is welcome or there is a domain of common idea transfer and debate, people can freely engage or avoid. In these cases I think standing on what a person believes is true is the good fight of faith. If no one shared the truth with me, the truth that was their own, I could likely have been a person who does not know the Lord Jesus personally today.

Ultimately, if the discussion turns into agree to disagree about non-salvation issues, well ok then, no harm no fowl moving on. But if it leads to an immaterial Messiah who did not come in the flesh and literally died on the cross, I'll push harder because I care about them. It might even hurt and they may throw some hate my way, but I take what God says very seriously pertaining to particular subjects. 1 John 2:22 - 2 John 1:7 - John 3:36

Zceptre said:

I conceded, maybe not to standards, but nevertheless. lol

Given, I was speaking for myself and a percentage of well intended individuals... not everyone.

Click to expand...

I suppose, though I still find the implication that child-like faith refers to an uncritical accceptance of a particular textual understanding unpalatable.

Zceptre said:

There is a massive portion of those, like I said, who just "slap on" a Christian label and go to town. The protestant world is overrun with this in a general sense, I think more so than we really know. I wouldn't be as aware of other factions.

Click to expand...

Yeah,, for sure. Though I think we can set pretty clear borders of when one has stepped outside of the bounds through recognition of the ecumenical anathemas and historic creeds and definitions such counsels produced. None of which required acceptance of literalistically reading the Genesis narratives.

Zceptre said:

This is true, yet there is still only one reality in God's mind when writing. What God intends is correct, whether I line up to it or not. Just like the intent of the discussion is to the subverting of the hearers, otherwise the debate is fruitless and void. (2 Timothy 2:14) (2 Corinthians 13:2) + 2 Commandments Matthew 37. The subverting is in essence the expression of Christ who lives in us to the point a seed is planted and grows in the soil of their heart.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.

Zceptre said:

A writer has one message they intend to convey, and while I think doctrine is important, and even historicity, they don't sideline the primary factor God requires. 1 John 4:7 - 1 John 4:8 - John 13:34 - John 13:35 - Matthew 7:16 - Etc --- Whatever we believe, if we become hateful, then we didn't follow the example given by Christ on the cross. Luke 23:34 - The goal is Christ-like, regardless the view on historicity. Romans 8:29

Click to expand...

I agree, but now we're starting to wade into theories of inspiration and the relationship between human authors and the underlying Divine intentions of texts.

Zceptre said:

If I feel confident in the narrative the Bible has presented to me that it is actually literal, and I don't defend that as truth being convicted in myself that it is, I think that makes me a coward. (me personally) Doing it wrong is fine, we can learn and grow. But for me, if the opportunity to express the opinion is welcome or there is a domain of common idea transfer and debate, people can freely engage or avoid. In these cases I think standing on what a person believes is true is the good fight of faith. If no one shared the truth with me, the truth that was their own, I could likely have been a person who does not know the Lord Jesus personally today.

Click to expand...

If you're confident, I wouldn't attempt to dissuade you. I find literalism unconvincing, and object to it on historic grounds in addition to hermeneutic as my understanding of the doctrinal history is that it developed and ossified as a reaction to atheist polemics centered on developing geologic and biologic sciences in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Zceptre said:

Ultimately, if the discussion turns into agree to disagree about non-salvation issues, well ok then, no harm no fowl moving on. But if it leads to an immaterial Messiah who did not come in the flesh and literally died on the cross, I'll push harder because I care about them. It might even hurt and they may throw some hate my way, but I take what God says very seriously pertaining to particular subjects. 1 John2:22 - 2 John 1:7 - John 3:36

Click to expand...

Yeah, fair enough. And I believe this is the thread I stated this in, but it's worth repeating, the historical existence of Adam and Eve is a distinct question from how literally we can understand the narratives found in Genesis 1-11.

Fervent said:

I suppose, though I still find the implication that child-like faith refers to an uncritical accceptance of a particular textual understanding unpalatable.

Click to expand...

Well Fervent, I will simply refer to the good Lord's own words my brother.

Matthew 18:3
and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

We can discuss what exactly that means if you like, but I may jump over to Hebrews 11, or the beatitudes. lol

Fervent said:

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.

Click to expand...

There is an intended purpose and intended meaning on the part of the author. Your own books for example, could be construed to mean something very symbolic, but if you were writing of... let's say advanced chess strategies and you found some articles online elaborating about how your book had symbolic meanings for all the different pieces, and was really a play on the book "Art of War," and you had essentially made representations that depicted the methods and principles outlined in the book Art of War... If he did a really good job, and made some charts and infographics and the mathematics he presented seemed to parallel the chess strategies with the principles somehow, well I think he would have people believing it. I also think it may indirectly serve them in the sense that they would be memorizing Art of War principles in an alternate way and enhancing their own memory and benefiting (using that term loosely) from the principles being easier to remember and they claimed it changed their lives for the better. Need I go on; truth be told you made a chess strategies book, because you intended to teach people about chess that you spent a lot of time learning how to battle strategically, and make some money and make a name in the chess world. Instead, you get an "Art of War" fan club. Hyperbole, and yet the example could be worse, they could do that with almost anything. (I know I can if I wanted (if I had not love in my heart), and am aware of individuals who do such things to toy with other people)

I concluded with the point of the book (Bible), as God's love and the seed of life through Christ being planted into our heart. The good seed only grows in good soil (parable Mark 4 - Luke 8). The ultimate intention of God's book is His glory through the salvation of His Children in Christ and His love declared in it. That doesn't mean everyone agrees with that, just like everyone doesn't agree about the historicity, but it nevertheless stands that God has His own intentions in mind when producing His letter to us. (Isaiah 55:9)

Fervent said:

I agree, but now we're starting to wade into theories of inspiration and the relationship between human authors and the underlying Divine intentions of texts.

Click to expand...

Yes, but as an example. Rather than stating that God simply told us the truth about the past, and in a relationship you have to start by building on a foundation of trust and believing what someone tells you about their past (in this setting, God)... I simply jumped to an intention by the Author most of us agree on as an example to express the concept of the intended meaning behind the text being dictated by the writer, whether the reader interprets correctly or not. The occult teaches the exact opposite of what Christian's do, and they use the exact same book. Going to go out on a limb and say they are not getting the intended message presented by the Author.

Fervent said:

If you're confident, I wouldn't attempt to dissuade you. I find literalism unconvincing, and object to it on historic grounds in addition to hermeneutic as my understanding of the doctrinal history is that it developed and ossified as a reaction to atheist polemics centered on developing geologic and biologic sciences in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Click to expand...

Actually piques my curiosity. Such as? (Feel like someone gave me a box and told me not to open it.)

Fervent said:

Yeah, fair enough. And I believe this is the thread I stated this in, but it's worth repeating, the historical existence of Adam and Eve is a distinct question from how literally we can understand the narratives found in Genesis 1-11.

Click to expand...

How so boss? If I'm honest, I'm following the rope backwards and putting the old and new on the same timeline. How's that song go? Simple man?

(In what context I guess I mean)

Fervent said:

Yeah, fair enough. And I believe this is the thread I stated this in, but it's worth repeating, the historical existence of Adam and Eve is a distinct question from how literally we can understand the narratives found in Genesis 1-11.

Click to expand...

I was following along, and thought yes your post pointing this out was lost somewhere along the way

I'm not convinced that YEC theology, or literalism in general, can adequately address issues of split context interpretation.

Genesis includes concepts of ancient context. Cosmology in particular, that just don't fit well into a modern literalist material paradigm.

For example, Genesis describes the firmament, separating waters from waters. And it even includes text on windows opening and closing in the sky, Genesis 7:11 and 8:2, that release waters above.

These are common ancient near east cosmological ideas. Not merely poetry, but ideas of a specific contextual background that is shared with neighbors of Moses and the Isrealites.

And from there, we have, essentially proof, that the Bible isn't scientifically concordant. Which means that, we do not have clear justification for Adam and Eve being a single biological pair of people from whom all of mankind descended. Not biologically, that is.

They could still be real people. But to try to put the Bible in an arena against 21st science, is like going to the zoo and arguing that lions should be able to talk because they do so in the Chronicles of Narnia. It just doesn't make any sense. Because the Bible doesn't share a scientifically concordant message.

Adam and Eve are not justifiably the original biological ancestors of all of mankind, anymore than there are literal windows opening and closing in the sky when it rains (Genesis 7:11 and 8:2). Or anymore than there is a solid dome raqia that the birds fly across. Etc.

I’ve been following this thread for some time. It is fine to discuss literal vs. non-literal interpretations, and it has been interesting. Not counting those who do not believe humans have an immortal soul, the question of when we received an immortal soul seems important. The literalist view is obvious, but it is not so clear with the non-literalist view. Please explain.

Jerry N. said:

I’ve been following this thread for some time. It is fine to discuss literal vs. non-literal interpretations, and it has been interesting. Not counting those who do not believe humans have an immortal soul, the question of when we received an immortal soul seems important. The literalist view is obvious, but it is not so clear with the non-literalist view. Please explain.

Click to expand...

The first thing to realize would be that there isn't just one 'non-literalist' view on the tangential topic of the origination of some ancient concept known as a soul.

I'll just the let the cat out of the bag and let it be know, honestly and forthrightly, that I don't concentrate on the issue of whether I know I have a soul or not. The soul, for me, barely blips on the radar of importance, and it's enough for me to simply say, "Okay, so we have the likes of Jesus and early disciples referring to some thing called the soul, so I'll just hold out by weak inference the possibility that eventually I'll find what that is exactly. Until then, the main focus is whether Jesus was a historical person and whether or not He rose again from the dead and is Lord of all."

It is interesting that thinking among the Jews, whether they are from the past or the present, doesn't define the soul as a separate thing. They would say we don't have souls, but rather we 'are souls.'

2PhiloVoid said:

I think it is interesting that thinking among the Jews, whether past or present, don't define the soul as a separate thing. They would say we don't have souls, but rather we 'are souls.'

Click to expand...

I also think that all living beings (not just humans) are souls. I imagine it as water being poured into a vase. The specific shape of the vase will create a specific shape of the water.

Body is the vase, spirit from God is the water and the soul is the specific shape of the spirit created by the body or the connection of these two.

2PhiloVoid said:

The first thing to realize would be that there isn't just one 'non-literalist' view on the tangential topic of the origination of some ancient concept known as a soul.

I'll just the let the cat out of the bag and let it be know, honestly and forthrightly, that I don't concentrate on the issue of whether I know I have a soul or not. The soul, for me, barely blips on the radar of importance, and it's enough for me to simply say, "Okay, so we have the likes of Jesus and early disciples referring to some thing called the soul, so I'll just hold out by weak inference the possibility that eventually I'll find what that is exactly. Until then, the main focus is whether Jesus was a historical person and whether or not He rose again from the dead and is Lord of all."

It is interesting that thinking among the Jews, whether they are from the past or the present, doesn't define the soul as a separate thing. They would say we don't have souls, but rather we 'are souls.'

Click to expand...

Saying that you don’t have a soul or that you don’t care is the best argument that atheist use to dismiss the Christian message. There is nothing to save. I don’t think animals have a soul or it doesn’t need to be saved, but humans are different and need salvation in my view. If we were decedents of humanoids, then we changed from animals to humans at some point. In another thread, a man called the first humans Homo Divinicus, which I know has new age connotations, but it is significant to the creation of Adam and Eve.

trophy33 said:

I also think that all living beings (not just humans) are souls. I imagine it as water being poured into a vase. The specific shape of the vase will create a specific shape of the water.

Body is the vase, spirit from God is the water and the soul is the specific shape of the spirit created by the body or the connection of these two.

Click to expand...

I guess that makes you a dichotomist.

Jerry N. said:

I guess that makes you a dichotomist.

Click to expand...

"The system is more than just the sum of its parts."

Something else emerges, something of the higher order.

trophy33 said:

"The system is more than just the sum of its parts."

Something else emerges, something of the higher order.

Click to expand...

Fine, when did that happen?