corpuschristi
Member
- Aug 18, 2006
- 9
- 0
- 57
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
God was warning Adam of spritual death i.e. the seperation from God when we sin against him...Jase said:
Upvote
0
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.
God was warning Adam of spritual death i.e. the seperation from God when we sin against him...Jase said:Yes, Adam did - hundreds of years after the Bible says he would.
It doesn't say that. We call that a metaphoric interpretation.corpuschristi said:God was warning Adam of spritual death i.e. the seperation from God when we sin against him...
Carey said:I dont get how it pertains to Creationism?
But of course the story has value.
rmwilliamsll said:Now it is impossible for God to communicate in writing to people without using words, that is a limitation of people, not God. In order to accommodate Himself to our weaknesses the Scriptures are human words. Words required a linguistic context, which in turn requires a cultural one as well. Words do not and can not exist without this context.
...
The point is that context and purpose matter, they matter in Scripture. The fundamental error of YEists is to take the modern scientific cultural milieu and wholesale wrap the Scriptures in it and address to the Scriptures modern questions, which revolve around how. When the Scriptures primarily are interested in who and why type of questions.
Carey said:The jews today could answer that but their language is the most pure oldest and unchanged language on earth.
Yet this thread isn't really about science but history. (some tries to use what they believe is science and make it history) Was Adam a real person or not? is the question. Again your "boy cry wolf" story stands alone but not the account in Genesis. The Adam connection is thoughout the whole bible including those extremely boring genealogies found in the first 9 chapters of 1 Chronicles. So you "boy cried wolf" isn't a good comparison with Adam but it can be a comparison to parables. Parables also stand alone (not connected with other parts of scripture) and uses unnamed characters.jereth said:These are fantastic words worth reflecting upon
I do agree that Adam die spiritually... thus Adam ran and hide from God but I don't agree God didn't mean phyical death. Adam life was spared just the same as King David life was. (the Law /Commandments demand death on both accounts) While God spared both David and Adam yet he also proclaim the heavy price of their sin as well. Both were forgiven.corpuschristi said:God was warning Adam of spritual death i.e. the seperation from God when we sin against him...
djbcrawford said:Well, ultimately he ate it and did die, so the bible is correct. I believe if he hadn't eaten it, he wouldn't have died - ever. I believe his death began that day where his Godly self and innocence died immediately he had eaten, resulting in his physical body beginning to deteriate and dying some time later.
Arguing why he didn't drop dead on the spot just seems like a waste of time.
RichardT said:All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Smidlee said:Yet this thread isn't really about science but history. (some tries to use what they believe is science and make it history) Was Adam a real person or not? is the question. Again your "boy cry wolf" story stands alone but not the account in Genesis. The Adam connection is thoughout the whole bible including those extremely boring genealogies found in the first 9 chapters of 1 Chronicles. So you "boy cried wolf" isn't a good comparison with Adam but it can be a comparison to parables. Parables also stand alone (not connected with other parts of scripture) and uses unnamed characters.
According to the scriptures God was directly involved with both bringing both Adam into the world and the Second Adam; Jesus Christ. Both Jesus and Adam acted out of love with their eyes wide open. Jesus Christ was successful where Adam failed and was able to turn down Satan's offer.
Tinker Grey said:It strikes me that "it was written as history" is a poor argument.
I imagine 1000 yrs from now some bizarre cult arguing about whether 20th Century humans travelled to the stars.
Cultist A: Clearly they did. Asimov wrote that they did. It was clearly written as history.
Cultist B: They did not. We lack any archeological evidence suggesting such advanced technology as "hyper-relays". Sheesh.
"I have no pleasure in any man who despises music. It is no invention of ours: it is a gift of God. I place it next to theology. Satan hates music: he knows how it drives the evil spirit out of us." -Martin Luther
Yeah, I know that Luther didn't use tavern music. But that's not what the quote is referring to, I really like that quote, and it's way off topic.RichardT said:
jereth said:A literal historical Adam is by no means fundamental to Christian doctrine, nor to the gospel. The Genesis 2-3 story conveys the truth about humanity, that it was created by God but has turned against him in sinful rebellion. This is the foundation of the gospel. Whether Adam was a historical person or not is irrelevant.
Genesis itself makes it pretty clear that Adam is not meant to be taken literally. In Genesis 1:27 and 5:2 the text literally says that God named both male andfemale "Adam". "Adam" is simply the hebrew word for "man" or "mankind". In Genesis 2 the man (adam) is created from the ground, "adamah". It is all a play on words.
The genealogies don't prove anything either -- by having "adam" at the start they simply teach that the line of men arose from generic humanity.
Not necessarily.mark kennedy said:It is irrelevant to you and to you alone. The historicity of the Gospel and the historical Adam are strongly related. The New Testament is clear that Jesus, Luke and Paul considered Adam the first man. As much as you would love to marginalize the Bible as history you leave out one important consideration. The historicity of the Gospel and the historical Adam are intimatly related.
No, Adam was called mankind because Adam is Hebrew for mankind. Adam is technically not a name, it's a Hebrew word.Adam was called 'mankind' because he was the father of all mankind. Eve was called 'mother' because she was the mother of all mankind. Your semantics are without substance, relavance or merit.
Says who?You really have no idea how a Biblical doctrine is founded do you? Let me clue you in, you look at the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament revelation of Christ in the Gospel.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?