Adam and Eve spoke What language?

[kiwimac]

They spoke Ido!

 

[grasping the after wind]

For anyone who claims that Genesis is actual history please explain what would have happened if Adam had eaten of the tree of life before he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Remember God had not forbidden Adam and Eve to eat of that tree.

 

[Jig]

Adam and Eve spoke 17th century old English.

Proof 1611 KJV:
3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
​

 

[Jig]

For anyone who claims that Genesis is actual history please explain what would have happened if Adam had eaten of the tree of life before he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Remember God had not forbidden Adam and Eve to eat of that tree.

For anyone who believes that Genesis is an actual metaphor please explain the reasoning for including Genesis 3:22-24 to the narrative. What is the metaphorical meaning here?

 

[Assyrian]

For anyone who claims that Genesis is actual history please explain what would have happened if Adam had eaten of the tree of life before he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Remember God had not forbidden Adam and Eve to eat of that tree.

For anyone who believes that Genesis is an actual metaphor please explain the reasoning for including Genesis 3:22-24 to the narrative. What is the metaphorical meaning here?

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"
23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

It shows us that because mankind breaks God's law we are cut off from God and cut off from the source of eternal life. Interesting imagery of the cherubim, we meet cherubim again around the ark of the covenant where the tablets of the 10 commandments were kept. Have a look at Heb 2:2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution (see also Act 7:53 & Gal 3:19). The law was ministered by angels yet its result was to show just how sinful we were, deserving death not everlasting life. Cherubim guarded God's presence in the holy of holies, mankind was shut out. A flaming sword? It is a great biblical imagery that the word of God is a sword that slays the wicked and judges the thoughts and intentions of our hearts. The Law may have been ministered by angels but it was the word of God.

At the same time the ark of the covenant surrounded by cherubim was also the mercy seat on which sacrificial blood was poured bringing forgiveness. Of course the OT animal sacrifices were not able to achieve anything, but they pointed to a greater sacrifice to come, where God's own son would bring forgiveness from the law and eternal life by his death ...on a tree.

Now would you like to try and answer grasping's question?

 

[Jig]

It shows us that because mankind breaks God's law we are cut off from God and cut off from the source of eternal life.

Do you believe there was ever a time where humans were not sinful? Like how Adam and Eve were before they ate the fruit?

 

[Assyrian]

Do you believe there was ever a time where humans were not sinful? Like how Adam and Eve were before they ate the fruit?

Yes when we were children. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. I take it you are to not going to try and answer grasping's question?

 

[Papias]

Do you believe there was ever a time where humans were not sinful? Like how Adam and Eve were before they ate the fruit?

Sure there was. Do you consider your dog sinful, or the geese that fly overhead? Before humans evolved the mental capacity to rebel against God (ate the fruit of knowledge), they were incapable of sin.

 

[theFijian]

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--" .

Interesting how the Tree of Life makes a reappearance in Rev 22 right at the end of the Bible. Coincidence?

 

[Jig]

Sure there was. Do you consider your dog sinful, or the geese that fly overhead? Before humans evolved the mental capacity to rebel against God (ate the fruit of knowledge), they were incapable of sin.

So at one point in time a mother incapable of sin gave birth to a child capable of sin?

Did his mother have a soul capable of going to Heaven? Or did she miss out by one generation, even though she was 99.99 percent similar to her child?

 

[Mallon]

So at one point in time a mother incapable of sin gave birth to a child capable of sin?

Did his mother have a soul capable of going to Heaven? Or did she miss out by one generation, even though she was 99.99 percent similar to her child?

Maybe a more pertinent question is: If we don't know these details (and how can we?), does it have any impact whatsoever on our knowledge THAT humanity is fallen? Isn't that the whole point of Genesis -- to tell us THAT we are fallen?

 

[Jig]

Maybe a more pertinent question is: If we don't know these details (and how can we?), does it have any impact whatsoever on our knowledge THAT humanity is fallen? Isn't that the whole point of Genesis -- to tell us THAT we are fallen?

My question just shows the irrational implications of believing that mental capacity to sin against God somehow evolved in humans. Either you're capable or you're not, there is no middle ground. There must be a line that was crossed. Did the humans on the non-capable side still need Jesus? Or were they like dogs and geese?

 

[Mallon]

My question just shows the irrational implications of believing that mental capacity to sin against God somehow evolved in humans. Either you're capable or you're not, there is no middle ground. There must be a line that was crossed. Did the humans on the non-capable side still need Jesus? Or were they like dogs and geese?

I don't see how your question in any way shows that an evolved mental capacity to sin is irrational. If you're a sinner, you need Jesus -- if you're not, you don't. I would even argue that the ability to sin is what makes us human, so there were no "humans on the non-capable side".

Not sure why you're suddenly invoking rationalism, anyway, since appealing to reason and rationality is the enemy of YECism.

 

[Papias]

Jig wrote:

So at one point in time a mother incapable of sin gave birth to a child capable of sin?

Did his mother have a soul capable of going to Heaven? Or did she miss out by one generation, even though she was 99.99 percent similar to her child?

Yes. That is correct in my view of the theistic evolution that both myself as well as the Pope and millions of Catholics support. God had to give a soul at some time, since our Australopithicene ancestors didn't have one (they are very similar to modern chimps), and we do. Our souls are God given gifts, not something we developed gradually. After all, if we did, then would that mean we'd have been, at some point, 96% able to go to Heaven? See why God made it a sharp point?

You may say it was unfair for her to miss out, but at the same time she was also incapable of going to Hell, so I'm not sure she should complain. More to the point, if you want to argue about whether or not God is just or good, then there is a whole lotta thread on various aspects of that theodicy question in other fora here on CF.

Papias

 

[Papias]

Jig wrote:

My question just shows the irrational implications of believing that mental capacity to sin against God somehow evolved in humans.

Your question shows that you are learning my position, which is fine. There is nothing irrational about you lack of understanding it - if you didn't ask questions, you wouldn't learn, just like any of us.

Either you're capable or you're not, there is no middle ground. There must be a line that was crossed. Did the humans on the non-capable side still need Jesus? Or were they like dogs and geese?

Sure there is a line. And before crossing it, our ancestors weren't human, so there were no humans on the non-capable side. Being capable is part of what made one human.

When it was crossed, they were human, and were given souls. The two happened simultaneously, so there were no non-humans with souls nor humans without souls (non-capable). The non-humans were like dogs and geese in that they didn't have souls, and God gave divinely created soul when to the first human (Adam), just as he gives us each a divinely created soul.

Is that starting to make sense? I'm not asking you to agree, just to understand. It is a good thing to understand the position of the largest Christian church in the world, after all.

Papias

 

[Jig]

Sure there is a line. And before crossing it, our ancestors weren't human, so there were no humans on the non-capable side. Being capable is part of what made one human.

It appears the only true difference (in terms of physical and mental make-up) between this soul-less non-culpable mother and her child who has a soul and was culpable for its actions is negligible. Would we have been able to tell the difference just be sight that one was human and one was not?

She would have looked like him, thought like him, and would have had a working personal relationship with her child throughout his life. Yet, she was not human and he was?

This is silliness.

Is that starting to make sense? I'm not asking you to agree, just to understand. It is a good thing to understand the position of the largest Christian church in the world, after all.

Papias

No this doesn't make sense. It is ridiculous. And this is not what all Catholic's believe!

 

[Mallon]

It appears the only true difference (in terms of physical and mental make-up) between this soul-less non-culpable mother and her child who has a soul and was culpable for its actions is negligible. Would we have been able to tell the difference just be sight that one was human and one was not?

She would have looked like him, thought like him, and would have had a working personal relationship with her child throughout his life. Yet, she was not human and he was?

This is silliness.

You have yet to explain why it's silly, though. All you're doing is projecting your feelings, which doesn't amount to a rational argument. Just because you think it's silly doesn't make it so.

 

[Papias]

It appears the only true difference (in terms of physical and mental make-up) between this soul-less non-culpable mother and her child who has a soul and was culpable for its actions is negligible.

Maybe, maybe not. That depends on the mutations involved, and I don't pretend to know either way. I agree that it may be been neglible, but that neither of us knows.

And by "true differences", are you implying that a soul isn't a "true difference"? So are you saying that souls don't really exist, and are just a superstition? Is that a Christian position?

Would we have been able to tell the difference just be sight that one was human and one was not?

She would have looked like him, thought like him, and would have had a working personal relationship with her child throughout his life. Yet, she was not human and he was?

Do we see with the eyes of God? Far be it from me to say that I can tell just by looking what has a soul or not, or what is going to Heaven, Hell or neither.

I'll have to admit that I might not have been able to tell the difference. Who knows? I'll also admit, for the record, that I'm not God.

People do have relationships with non-humans, you know. Ask any primate trainer, or blind person with a seeing eye dog.

This is silliness.

Well, you may consider it such if you like.

However, do you consider it more or less silly than the idea that a talking animal convinced a mud-pie (who had been brought to life by mouth to nose resuscitation) and his rib-woman wife to eat magical fruit before being chased out by a levitating sword?

No this doesn't make sense. It is ridiculous. And this is not what all Catholic's believe!

​

Well, not all individual catholics, of course (I did't say all Catholics believed it). Some Catholics are atheists, and some expect Jesus to return next week. So it is with humans. However, hundreds of millions of Catholics do believe it, including the Pope himself, who said:


​

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. (Pope Benedict XVI)

Papias

 

[Jig]

You have yet to explain why it's silly, though. All you're doing is projecting your feelings, which doesn't amount to a rational argument. Just because you think it's silly doesn't make it so.

So you don't think it is silly to believe that a non-culpable non-human mother with no soul gave birth to a culpable human child with a soul?

Actually this had to happen at least twice to a male and female child around the same time period within the same group of non-human non-souled non-culpable ape people. Unless this human child could have reproduced with a lesser non-human non-souled mate.

 

[Mallon]

So you don't think it is silly to believe that a non-culpable non-human mother with no soul gave birth to a culpable human child with a soul?

No. And I still fail to understand why you think it's so.

Actually this had to happen at least twice to a male and female child around the same time period within the same group of non-human non-souled non-culpable ape people. Unless this human child could have reproduced with a lesser non-human non-souled mate.

We don't know how it happened. And we have no way of knowing because the soul is not a physical thing. I'm content to leave it at that.