Adam

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Does it come to mind that Adam/Eve defined the archtype? It was probably the first story.

 

[Lexluther]

Frankly, I think the whole creation story makes a little more sense if you look at things with a little more perspective. It can be perfectly true without Adam having to be a single homo sapiens sapiens. His name means "man" and the story explains in detail how sin came into the world. If Adam is all men and the tree is knowledge, then the story makes sense.

If it was all literal, suddenly you have to start apologizing. Why would God punish everyone for the actions of two? Since when do snakes talk? How do we explain why Adam and Eve were farming before farming appears in the archaeological record? Since when do snakes talk? How did the lions survive without meat? Who did Cain marry? How did a population of two produce a genetically diverse population of billions? These kinds of questions take a long time to explain, and they distract you from the whole point. The three accounts of creation are supposed to teach us about theology, not history.

 

[oworm]

Lets see what Scripture has to say:
GE 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

Looks very much like a single individual God is referring to there.

GE 4:1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man."

GE 4:25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.


Nothing general there either!

Lets go to the NT now.

I wont quote the whole genealogy of Christs lineage as found in Lukes gospel but here is the last verse:

Luke 3:23-38..................................the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.


Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1Corinthians 15:45-47
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

1Timothy 2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Why do all these writers refer to Adam as a literal historical figure ?
why isnt it obvious that the Genesis narrative is.....................obvious?

Surely if the Genesis account were merely symbolic we would be left in no doupt that we should see it that way,after all the very last book of the bible (Revelation)is written in symbolism and tells us we should interpret it in that way(Rev 11:8, 12:1, 17:15-18 to name but a few) Surely if Genesis were meant to be taken as a symbolic or allegorical account then the Lord would have revealed that to us?

God is not natural.......He is supernatural and is not bound by the boundaries he has set for his creation.

If the Lord can speak to a man from the mouth of a donkey:
Numbers 22:27-31

If He can cause fire to be kindled in a stack of soaking wet wood:
1 Kings 18:30-38

If he can part a sea:
Exodus 14:21-26

And a River:
Joshua 3:1-17

If He can cause a child to be born of a virgin,and that same child to grow into a man and be crucified and raised from the dead. why then do so many proffessing the name of Christ find it difficult to assume that He can create something out of nothing?!

 

[theFijian]

Oh, I am in the process of building a church and a town right now, that is why I am away: gathering funds, support, and wisdom. But you are correct, at present, a lot of research stations comprise the continent.

On your own??

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Lets see what Scripture has to say:
GE 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

Looks very much like a single individual God is referring to there.

Of course He is. Within the figurative narrative structure - it's just like the Days of Genesis 1.

GE 4:1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man."

GE 4:25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.


Nothing general there either!

Ditto.

Lets go to the NT now.

I wont quote the whole genealogy of Christs lineage as found in Lukes gospel but here is the last verse:

Luke 3:23-38..................................the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

Luke is making a theological point that Jesus is a human being - a Son of Adam, just like us. Why do you think it has to be a literal genealogy?

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1Corinthians 15:45-47
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

1Timothy 2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Why do all these writers refer to Adam as a literal historical figure ?

They don't. They refer to him as a type. Why does mentioning someone imply that the figure is historical?

why isnt it obvious that the Genesis narrative is.....................obvious?

It's obviously myth. Talking snakes, trees with symbolic fruit - deities wandering around the place. Sounds like myth to me.

Surely if the Genesis account were merely symbolic we would be left in no doupt that we should see it that way,after all the very last book of the bible (Revelation)is written in symbolism and tells us we should interpret it in that way(Rev 11:8, 12:1, 17:15-18 to name but a few) Surely if Genesis were meant to be taken as a symbolic or allegorical account then the Lord would have revealed that to us?

God didn't write Genesis. He inspired the writers to express the mythologies they already had in a way that carried theological truth. He wasn't that bothered to teach scientific truth about it so He left it at that. Your "surely" is presumptuous - why do you think you know what God "would" or "should" have done?

God is not natural.......He is supernatural and is not bound by the boundaries he has set for his creation.

If the Lord can speak to a man from the mouth of a donkey:
Numbers 22:27-31

If He can cause fire to be kindled in a stack of soaking wet wood:
1 Kings 18:30-38

If he can part a sea:
Exodus 14:21-26

And a River:
Joshua 3:1-17

If He can cause a child to be born of a virgin,and that same child to grow into a man and be crucified and raised from the dead. why then do so many proffessing the name of Christ find it difficult to assume that He can create something out of nothing?!

Creationist misunderstanding No. 3 - let's get this clear. I do believe that God COULD create something out of nothing. I do believe that He COULD create as described by a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. However, the scientific evidence is that He didn't.

 

[oworm]

Karl.....no disrespect to your good self mate but im not going to enter into a debate with you out of respect for the Op. I think you will agree it will probably go around in circles anyway as these debates often do. I have stated my position and will leave it at that.

 

[feo fill]

On your own??

can any build a town on their own??

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Trying to.

Ah, Hello again Karl. Still one problem:You assume that science is so far correct and/or the majority of evidence points to your view. Would you change you view of God and the Bible just because some non-Christian in the world had new "evidence" about something? Or do you have the Hebrews 11:1 faith?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Depends how good the evidence is, and about what. Whatever you mean by "Hebrews 11:1 faith", my faith does not include the possibility of believing what I know isn't true.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Then it seems as if you put your own knowledge and understanding over that of faith. Thats not a good thing to do; its a form of pride. God's words first, our opinions second.

 

[theseed]

Frankly, I think the whole creation story makes a little more sense if you look at things with a little more perspective. It can be perfectly true without Adam having to be a single homo sapiens sapiens. His name means "man" and the story explains in detail how sin came into the world. If Adam is all men and the tree is knowledge, then the story makes sense.

If it was all literal, suddenly you have to start apologizing. Why would God punish everyone for the actions of two? Since when do snakes talk? How do we explain why Adam and Eve were farming before farming appears in the archaeological record? Since when do snakes talk? How did the lions survive without meat? Who did Cain marry? How did a population of two produce a genetically diverse population of billions? These kinds of questions take a long time to explain, and they distract you from the whole point. The three accounts of creation are supposed to teach us about theology, not history.

All those quesitons have been answered, you can find them on the internet.

 

[theseed]

Luke is making a theological point that Jesus is a human being - a Son of Adam, just like us. Why do you think it has to be a literal genealogy

Luke says so his Greetings, and Christ had to be the seed of David.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The overwhelming majority (>90%) of mainstream clergy (anglican, catholic, lutheran, presbyterian, etc) believe that Adam and Eve were not actual people. They also do not subscribe to a literal interpretation of genesis. Now we are talking about well educated people here. People who have studied theology, the bible, philosophy as well as science and literature. Not only that, but they are - for obvious reasons - deeply religious people. WHen it comes right down to it, young earth creationism is really only taught by a small minority of those calling themselves christian - all too often they are lay preachers with little or no real education biblical or otherwise.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Where do you get 90% from? And, well-educated in theology may not be the correct term. Deeply religious either. Faith has given way to false, embracing incomplete science instead of complete truth. Even the first century church believed a literal interpretation of Genesis, as is evident from NT scripture.

 

[theseed]

The overwhelming majority (>90%) of mainstream clergy (anglican, catholic, lutheran, presbyterian, etc) believe that Adam and Eve were not actual people. They also do not subscribe to a literal interpretation of genesis. Now we are talking about well educated people here. People who have studied theology, the bible, philosophy as well as science and literature. Not only that, but they are - for obvious reasons - deeply religious people. WHen it comes right down to it, young earth creationism is really only taught by a small minority of those calling themselves christian - all too often they are lay preachers with little or no real education biblical or otherwise.

Source please.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

If you take the time to Google for about 5 seconds you will find the source. This is a well known survey of clergy in Great Britain.

I am not sure though that Lutheran/Presbytarian should be included in the passage. My memory was that it was Catholic/Anglican clergy only.

Google, I know it is around. It's on religioustolerance website too.

 

[theseed]

If you take the time to Google for about 5 seconds you will find the source. This is a well known survey of clergy in Great Britain.

I am not sure though that Lutheran/Presbytarian should be included in the passage. My memory was that it was Catholic/Anglican clergy only.

Google, I know it is around. It's on religioustolerance website too.

Which narrows things consideribly, and how large was this sample?

Also, Catholics and Anglicans tend to agree on issues because their established church requires it.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

And Britain is a representative sample of the world? Actually, are modern Christians even representative of Christ? Its all a joke nowadays.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Hark! Do I hear the skirl of the bagpipes of a True Scotsman approaching?

 

[feo fill]

The overwhelming majority (>90%)

Your claim is 9 out of 10 people, very unlikely result