Adam & Eve Story and What It Means

[christianbeginning]

Adam & Eve vs. Evolution - not even a contest because....

...The Adam & Eve story is NOT about the first man and woman and is not a story of how God created the first humans.

Here's what it is really about:

It shows that if man breaks God's laws, man sins and looses salvation.

The essence of the story is "keep God's laws".

"God's laws" are symbolized in the story by God's single command to Adam to not eat of the fruit of the tree. Adam disobyed God (did not keep God's laws) and he fell from grace.

What the story does NOT mean:

1) It has nothing to do with how humans first appeared on earth and should not be taken literally.

2) It is not a divine polemic against humans trying to learn about the world, or seeking knowledge.

Note: was debating this with a literalist friend and brought it here for further discussion.

 

[mikemoore]

...The Adam & Eve story is NOT about the first man and woman and is not a story of how God created the first humans


How did you arrive at this conclusion? What would be your source of information?

Here's what it is really about_:

What is the source of this statement? How do you know what it's about?

It shows that if man breaks God's laws, man sins and looses salvation.


Did man even have salvation at this point? Granted there is a covenant of works but the gospel and establishment of grace has not even taken place yet.

The essence of the story is "keep God's laws".

Really at this point in Biblical history there aren't many laws described. The only law is not to eat from the one tree in the middle of the garden. So what laws are we talking about here? I see from your next statement you are imaging the Probationary Tree as something symbolic but this comes across as sophistry.

"God's laws" are symbolized in the story by God's single command to Adam to not eat of the fruit of the tree. Adam disobyed God (did not keep God's laws) and he fell from grace.


What the story does NOT mean:

1) It has nothing to do with how humans first appeared on earth and should not be

The covenant of grace is not introduced to man until Gen 3:15 after the fall and is given by God because it didn't exist and man now needed it. Surely God didn't institute this covenant because the story' plot failed. Later a second Adam will come and He is real also literal. The term 2nd Adam in Romans seems to lead us to the conclusion there was a first.

1) It has nothing to do with how humans first appeared on earth and should not be taken literally.


In Gen 5 the genealogy begins with Adam and gives us the impression that Adam was the first man. Again if Adam was a story figure why bother with a genealogy?

2) It is not a divine polemic against humans trying to learn about the world, or seeking knowledge.

Why not?
Adam & Eve Story and What It Means

Well it's not some bedtime story and it's not God's anwser to evolutionist' sophistry of "ooze gone amuck". It's not God against us but for us.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

The Bible pretty much says that the story is exactly what you say that it is not. I am confused as why you see need to explain it away. Is it so hard to believe that our omnipotent God created the first human from the dust of the earth? We are given a lifespan for Adam (Genesis 5:3-4) we see him as the first person of the lineage in 1 Chronicles 1:1, and we see him referenced in the New Testament as the beginning of when sin reigned (Romans 5:14). Why would you think he was not a real person and the whole tale is a myth?

The evidence that he is not a myth is continued in 1 Corinthians 15:45 where we see him referenced as the first man. In 1 Timothy 2:13 where it states that Adam was formed first. And again in Jude 1:14 where it is referenced how far Enoch was from Adam in lineage. The whole of the scriptures seems to not agree with your points.

 

[wonder111]

well if Adam was formed first without the expectation of Eve, did he have reproductive organs? or were they given to him after Eve was created

also,

According to ReligionToday (Dec. 29, 1999), out of 103 clergy polled in
Britain (including Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant
ministers);
a whopping 97% do not believe in a literal six day creation, and 80%
acknowledge that Adam and Eve were not actual people.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I would assert that those who do not believe have allowed man made science to get in the way of faith. The Bible states what happened and is the final authority on the subject. Trying to explain away what the Bible says is either heresy or balsphemy depending on who is doing the explaining. The Bible means what is written and that should be the final word for Christians. A man who is strong in his faith needs no proof or explanation for what the Bible says. He accepts it as truth, as should be the case.

 

[wonder111]

these people I mentioned in the survey are obviously believers. The majority of Christians do not believe it literally. This does not make the bible untrue. I believe the bible to be true, however not 'all' literal. The message stays the same

check out the science and evolution section

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I have no need for evolution, none at all. The Bible lists Adam as the first man in geneologies, and refers to him in the New Testament as the same. I believe what it said and have no need for science that attempts to prove otherwise. This is my faith in the fact that the scriptures are the un-erring, imparted Word of God and that they mean what they say. For me science does not provide any proof to the contrary. Science as a field is a corruption of the use of the knowledge and wisdom that God has given us in a lot of cases. Why would I want to look into something that I believe fully to be a heretical teaching and blasphemous at the very least?

 

[wonder111]

Why would I want to look into something that I believe fully to be a heretical teaching and blasphemous at the very least?

because it would be interesting to see why other believers like you do not believe it is blasphemous

 

[mikemoore]

Why a geneaology and why is Adam described as the 1st Adam and Christ the 2nd? Was Christ non-literal and are all the people in the genealogy non-literal after Adam and Eve seeing that a non-literal cannot produce a literal?

 

[mikemoore]

According to ReligionToday (Dec. 29, 1999), out of 103 clergy polled in
Britain (including Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant
ministers);
a whopping 97% do not believe in a literal six day creation, and 80%
acknowledge that Adam and Eve were not actual people.


Just because they are responding as liberal Christians does not place any more weight of their answers on a survey? Should they change thier mind about it tomorrow will you do the same? If our God is not soveriegn then how shall you know if any of what the Bible says is literal?

well if Adam was formed first without the expectation of Eve, did he have reproductive organs? or were they given to him after Eve was created




In response to the bit about the reproductive organs is not our God all knowing or was He waiting for Adams response to see if He would add the extra parts, or what? Can I ask what exactly is your doctrine concerning the attributes of God, Wonderful 111?

these people I mentioned in the survey are obviously believers

How do you know? What exactly would be a non-literal test to see?

The majority of Christians do not believe it literally

Again how do you know this? At 25 it would not allow you enough time to interview that many people who make this claim.

I believe the bible to be true, however not 'all' literal

What is the process for the non-literal here and literal there approach? I never seen anything form our historic faith in regards to this. Is there confessions or creeds and verses to back up this approach or is it an anthropological approach?

The message stays the same

check out the science and evolution section

Is this a good place to check out Truth?

 

[adam332]

What has science actually shown us except that; it changes constantly based on newer theories and newer "evidence". It poses each theory as truth until a newer one comes along and replaces it. There is nothing constant about science except for it's inconsistency! Their version of truth has been rewritten a thousand times over and will continue to, as long as mans fallible minds try to solve anything with his own fallible methods. They try to put God's creative prowess into question, and even non-existence.

The saddest thing of all is that many of those who profess to believe in God and his word, have now fallen into line with mans thinking over God's word.

If you are one of those who believe in God and evolution simultaneously, consider this....

Isa. 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

If you do believe in this statement, then any doubts that science has given you in the literal implications of creation should be simply dispelled and replaced by faith. To try to understand what he has done in his creative account based on what our science currently teaches, is admirable. But, if you or science cannot account for how he literally did it as he said, then refer back to that passage.

 

[adam332]

Try…

[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/[/url]

May I also suggest…

[url]http://www.creationevidence.org/[/url]

There are two sets of videos that I found very interesting….

Creation in Symphony: The Evidence

Creation in Symphony: The Model

You can order them at….

[url]http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html[/url]

 

[wonder111]

ok I haven't spent my entire life surveying people's beliefs, but every survey i've read, the majority don't believe it literally, even the polls on this website show that. Plus the Catholic church believes evolution fits ins

are you asking what I think the physical attributes of God are? obviously there is no answer to that, as we both know God is spirit.

the reason I am under the impression that those in the poll are believers is because they are all clergy from different denominations

I also would not change my views based on polls, nor do I expect you to. However, i have never read all parts of the bible literally, it was just obvious to me when I first read it what was real and what wasn't.
I also believe literally all of Christ. However, he used parables to share truths as well

I have no need to defend why I feel this way, that's my opinion we all have one

 

[mikemoore]

His disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the Kingdom of God has been given you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
" 'though seeing, they may not see;
thought hearing, they may not understand.' [Luke 8:9-10]

...Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
Hearing you will hear and shall not understan,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.' [Matthew 13:13-15]

Most of Jesus' parables were delivered to and a response to peoples unbelief and inability to understand. They serve as an instrument of judgement by hardening the impenitent. Comparing the Genesis of man to a parable just doesn't hold much water. Still your lack of answers to the Romans letter question of Chap 5 that basically is saying that Adam was real and the basis for God' redemptive story was delivered in the 2nd Adam, Jesus Christ leaves you threading on man made theology. Do you not have any Biblical truth that can stand on it's own in defense of this non-literal sophistry?

 

[wonder111]

His disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the Kingdom of God has been given you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
" 'though seeing, they may not see;
thought hearing, they may not understand.' [Luke 8:9-10]

...Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
Hearing you will hear and shall not understan,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.' [Matthew 13:13-15]

Most of Jesus' parables were delivered to and a response to peoples unbelief and inability to understand. They serve as an instrument of judgement by hardening the impenitent. Comparing the Genesis of man to a parable just doesn't hold much water. Still your lack of answers to the Romans letter question of Chap 5 that basically is saying that Adam was real and the basis for God' redemptive story was delivered in the 2nd Adam, Jesus Christ leaves you threading on man made theology. Do you not have any Biblical truth that can stand on it's own in defense of this non-literal sophistry?

Mike, i'm confused as to why you are arguing with me, I did not come here to start a debate, and I don't feel like I need to push my beliefs on you. I was not by the way comparing Jesus' parables to genesis, I know why he spoke in parables. Just because I don't believe that Adam was physically missing a rib and that the snake was actually speaking to Eve does not take away it's meaning.

good night!

 

[mikemoore]

My apologies wonderful111. I was discussing. This is a forum. Good night.

 

[Javier G]

Is God Male of Female?
Genesis 1:27 “God created man in his own image
in the image of God he created him; male and
female he created them”

When God created the first human, it was gender-
less. It was not until it's mate was provided by God
that Adam became a He, or male of the species.
This may sound foolish but I'll say it anyway.
Men think about sex every three seconds. It absorbs
our minds. It becomes difficult for young adolecents
when they go to college to concentrate because of
the strong sexual magnetism inherent in humans.
Adam needed a clear mind to be able to tend the
garden, name the animals and familiarize himself with
his enviroment. Once all this out of the way, God
provided for Adam a mate. It was Gods choice to ma-
ke Adam male. The fact that God produced a female
partner for Adam implies that Adam had both sexes
in him. Try to picture this in an mental way not phyisical.
The word for man in Genesis may also be translated
HUMAN or EARTHLING. These words are genderless.
They would apply better than MAN which does reflect
a one sided view.
It is obvious when Adam named his mate that he
established this new creature as FEMALE.
Genesis 2:23 "This is now bone of my bones and flesh
of my flesh; she shall be called WOMAN"
The question that we are faced with now is, Did not
his genitalia make it obvious that he was male?
Now I'm really shooting to left field.
Did he have genitalia?
When God put him to sleep to create his mate did He
alter of added some new equipment in Adams body?
Genesis 1:27 "God created man (human) in his own
image, in the image of God he created him; male and
female he created them"
Sexually speaking man and woman were created at
the same time. Prior to the woman Adam was not a
man. Therefore if God created Adam in his image, God
has no sex. Sex was provided for the purpose of pro-
pagating the species. Spirits have no need for sex.
Matthew 22:30 "At the resurrection people will neither
marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the
angels of heaven".
John 4:24 “God is a SPIRIT, and his worshipers must
worship him in spirit and truth.

 

[mixaleena]

because it would be interesting to see why other believers like you do not believe it is blasphemous

Matthew 7:14-15
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Mike, i'm confused as to why you are arguing with me, I did not come here to start a debate, and I don't feel like I need to push my beliefs on you. I was not by the way comparing Jesus' parables to genesis, I know why he spoke in parables. Just because I don't believe that Adam was physically missing a rib and that the snake was actually speaking to Eve does not take away it's meaning.

good night!

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Because our logic so very rarely matches up with God's infinite knowledge and wisdom, I have to ask this: How did you come to that conclusion? I mean if the Bible says that God took Adam's rib out and formed Eve from it or that the serpant spoke to Eve, and you do in fact believe 2 Tim 3:16, where did the idea come from that these things didn't 'literally' happen? Nothing that I have found in scripture suggests this?

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Mixee.