Could Adam and Eve talk to Animals like we can talk to each other?

[coffee4u]

Please don't suggest that I'm not a Christian. Why are you demanding I have an answer and lack of an answer means I'm not a Christian?

You just said that you are an agnostic.

 

[DamianWarS]

You just said that you are an agnostic.

I didn't say I was "an agnostic", look up the word and context, I used it correctly. I am not agnostic with regards to belief in God or faith, I used it as an adjective not a noun to describe my cosmological position. I understand the word may often be used to describe belief in God but that is not the context I used it in and I was specific to still include God.

I'm agnostic about the exact play by play of creation under a theistic context and don't see the early Genesis accounts answering this (nor I am asking). Don't confuse this with my confidence in my belief in God, it is my confidence in the how not the who. This means that I don't reject a 6 day creation in itself, or various young earth/old earth models but I also don't see the biblical account revealing the literal detail of this event be it young earth or old earth.

 

[coffee4u]

I didn't say I was "an agnostic", look up the word and context, I used it correctly. I am not agnostic with regards to belief in God or faith, I used it as an adjective not a noun to describe my cosmological position. I understand the word may often be used to describe belief in God but that is not the context I used it in and I was specific to still include God.

I'm agnostic about the exact play by play of creation under a theistic context and don't see the early Genesis accounts answering this (nor I am asking). Don't confuse this with my confidence in my belief in God, it is my confidence in the how not the who. This means that I don't reject a 6 day creation in itself, or various young earth/old earth models but I also don't see the biblical account revealing the literal detail of this event be it young earth or old earth.

I've never heard anyone say "I'm a Christian, but an agnostic about this belief/situation" Never.
Cambridge Dictionary:
someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists
If that's the word terminology you use where you are from you might want to rethink it on an international forum because I thought you were saying that you're an agnostic which is the definition above.

So in this belief of non belief, because it sound like you are trying to hedge your bets, where does sin come from?

 

[DamianWarS]

I've never heard anyone say "I'm a Christian, but an agnostic about this belief/situation" Never.
Cambridge Dictionary:
someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists
If that's the word terminology you use where you are from you might want to rethink it on an international forum because I thought you were saying that you're an agnostic which is the definition above.

So in this belief of non belief, because it sound like you are trying to hedge your bets, where does sin come from?

I didn't say "I'm an agnostic..." I said "I'm agnostic..." one is a noun the other an adjective. You're going to have to look at how I'm using the word and try and remove your bais from it to determine my meaning but I assure you I'm using it correctly and I'm not compromising my faith in using it despite your protest. The word is essentially a fancy way of saying "I don't know" and can be used for any concept or idea not just belief in God but you are free to report me if you disagree.

 

[coffee4u]

I didn't say "I'm an agnostic..." I said "I'm agnostic..." one is a noun the other an adjective. You're going to have to look at how I'm using the word and try and remove your bais from it to determine my meaning but I assure you I'm using it correctly and I'm not compromising my faith in using it despite your protest. The word is essentially a fancy way of saying "I don't know" and can be used for any concept or idea not just belief in God but you are free to report me if you disagree.

I already explained why I thought this. I have never heard the term used before in this context (with or without 'an' ) and neither has the Cambridge Dictionary. Nothing to do with bias, I thought you were saying that you were agnostic. I've seen people on these forums change their belief tag before. Since you explained this isn't what you meant I took it to be what you said it meant. I still don't think its a good word to use as its too easily misconstrued. "I don't know' is certainly clearer.

 

[DamianWarS]

I already explained why I thought this. I have never heard the term used before in this context (with or without 'an' ) and neither has the Cambridge Dictionary. Nothing to do with bias, I thought you were saying that you were agnostic. I've seen people on these forums change their belief tag before. Since you explained this isn't what you meant I took it to be what you said it meant. I still don't think its a good word to use as its too easily misconstrued. "I don't know' is certainly clearer.

The word is deliberate despite it's misunderstandings it may cause. It's more than "I don't know" and it's capturing the idea that all arguments perhaps have their points but are flawed too.

Science is logical but has no desire to include God and biblical accounts are prehistory and imo speaking beyond mere literal words; it's just the wrong question and distracts us to what the text's deeper message is.

Various young earth/old earth theories do similar things typically focused on reconciling some invented or borrowed theory to a biblical way.

I also don't thing there are any true literalist as everyone of them will add or invent things to the account to reconcile it in a 6 day model so, at least from whom I've had discussions with, they take a lot a liberties in the accounts that it can't support and are just "guessing". This thread is a perfect example starting with the OP.

I also am not "ambivalent" about the accounts. I feel they are highly misunderstood and have much deeper meanings then a surface question of if it's literal.

So agnostic is the word I choose because no position seems to be asking the right questions. I would rather say "it doesn't matter what happened" than be trapped in some holding pattern inside a literal framework. This opens the accounts to reveal so much more.

I don't know why Cambridge defines it so narrowly but they are not the only online dictionary out there and it's curious why you stopped there since typing the word in google instantly triggers a definition, one of which is "(in a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude towards something. until now I've been fairly agnostic about electoral reform"

People not understanding a broader application of a word is a poor excuse to stop using the word. Just Google something if you don't understand it rather than accusing someone of not being a Christian.

 

[coffee4u]

rather than accusing someone of not being a Christian.

I wasn't accusing you, I was responding to what I thought you were saying. If you want to use words like that go right ahead but don't be surprised when you get misunderstood

I am not going to respond to this silly argument again. I said I was mistaken.

 

[DamianWarS]

So in this belief of non belief, because it sound like you are trying to hedge your bets, where does sin come from?

moving on... it doesn't matter where sin came from what matters is that we are in a state where we need God to save us. This is what the account of the fall shows us that we need a redeemer and this point is more valuable than the question "Where did sin come from?"

If sin came from Adam and Eve partaking from the forbidden fruit then this begs the question did Adam and Eve need a redeemer before the fall? To me, this is the flaw in the account as it exposes a period where we did not need God.

Innately we are unable to meet with God simply because we are not God and like a pristine piece of paper will burn just as quick as a tarnished one we too are unable to connect with God without a sanctifier regardless of a fall or not. This would point to the fall acting as a role to show us we need a redeemer rather than a literal retelling of where sin comes from. The latter is the wrong focus.

 

[coffee4u]

moving on... it doesn't matter where sin came from what matters is that we are in a state where we need God to save us. This is what the account of the fall shows us that we need a redeemer and this point is more valuable than the question "Where did sin come from?"

If it's in the Bible of course it matters.
Romans 5:
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

And if we were unsure if the 'one man' meant Adam other verses back it up.
1 Corinthians 15:22
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45
45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

If sin came from Adam and Eve partaking from the forbidden fruit then this begs the question did Adam and Eve need a redeemer before the fall? To me, this is the flaw in the account as it exposes a period where we did not need God.

Of course they needed God, they communed directly with him in the garden. The need of a redeemer came with the fall. God knew what would happen and had it all planned out from creation. The Old Testament shows a shadow of a future event. One clear example is the Passover and the blood on the door lintel and eating of lamb was a foreshadow of what Christ would do on the cross. But even the temptation in the garden was one, Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan and failed, Jesus was tempted by Satan and succeeded.

The old testament and the writing of Moses were important to Jesus and so they are important to us.
Luke 24:25–27
25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

the Old Testament is full of prophesies about Jesus and foreshadowing events.

Hebrews 8:4–6
4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”

Innately we are unable to meet with God simply because we are not God and like a pristine piece of paper will burn just as quick as a tarnished one we too are unable to connect with God without a sanctifier regardless of a fall or not. This would point to the fall acting as a role to show us we need a redeemer rather than a literal retelling of where sin comes from. The latter is the wrong focus.

All the Bible is important to focus on. God gave the Israelite's laws so they could see that nobody could keep the law and that the blood of sacrificed animals was not enough, that they needed a saviour. The fact the death is not intrinsic to life but came in as an enemy is important because God says one day it will be done away with, not just lost its sting. It's part of the overall plan shown across the entire Bible. It all fits together, which shows even more that the Bible is God's word because different people wrote it over many centuries.
It doesn't stop with being saved and going to heaven but carries on to the second coming and the New Heavens and New World. Creation can be seen as a foreshadowing of that New World.
Revelation 21:4
4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

Does someone have to believe all of it to be saved? No. But I think it is like looking at a puzzle with some pieces missing, it is richer with all the pieces.

 

[DamianWarS]

If it's in the Bible of course it matters.
Romans 5:
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

And if we were unsure if the 'one man' meant Adam other verses back it up.
1 Corinthians 15:22
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45
45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.



Of course they needed God, they communed directly with him in the garden. The need of a redeemer came with the fall. God knew what would happen and had it all planned out from creation. The Old Testament shows a shadow of a future event. One clear example is the Passover and the blood on the door lintel and eating of lamb was a foreshadow of what Christ would do on the cross. But even the temptation in the garden was one, Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan and failed, Jesus was tempted by Satan and succeeded.

The old testament and the writing of Moses were important to Jesus and so they are important to us.
Luke 24:25–27
25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

the Old Testament is full of prophesies about Jesus and foreshadowing events.

Hebrews 8:4–6
4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”



All the Bible is important to focus on. God gave the Israelite's laws so they could see that nobody could keep the law and that the blood of sacrificed animals was not enough, that they needed a saviour. The fact the death is not intrinsic to life but came in as an enemy is important because God says one day it will be done away with, not just lost its sting. It's part of the overall plan shown across the entire Bible. It all fits together, which shows even more that the Bible is God's word because different people wrote it over many centuries.
It doesn't stop with being saved and going to heaven but carries on to the second coming and the New Heavens and New World. Creation can be seen as a foreshadowing of that New World.
Revelation 21:4
4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

Does someone have to believe all of it to be saved? No. But I think it is like looking at a puzzle with some pieces missing, it is richer with all the pieces.

the accounts are like pieces as you describe them but because they are prehistory those pieces being called literal I think misses the point, like putting the pieces together upside down, only looking at the edges and how they fit but not the picture. I get all the scripture and you're using them to build a literal case but you haven't explained how they exactly prove this or more specifically how non-literal accounts voids this. The accounts are divinely ordained so are implicitly truth, they foreshadow Christ and have a role that pre-ordains him, but how does this exactly have to do with them being literal accounts?

 

[coffee4u]

the accounts are like pieces as you describe them but because they are prehistory those pieces being called literal I think misses the point, like putting the pieces together upside down, only looking at the edges and how they fit but not the picture. I get all the scripture and you're using them to build a literal case but you haven't explained how they exactly prove this or more specifically how non-literal accounts voids this. The accounts are divinely ordained so are implicitly truth, they foreshadow Christ and have a role that pre-ordains him, but how does this exactly have to do with them being literal accounts?

There are only two ways for the world to get here, either God used special creation over 6 days or evolution.

Since the Bible outlines carefully over 2 chapters that God used special creation and nowhere is evolution or a gradual creation mentioned. Nothing in the way the Genesis account was written suggests that Mosses meant it to be taken as an allegory or a parable. I do not believe God would simply have 2 chapters of such an error in his word if what he really did was use evolution, and if he had where are the supporting verses for this view? Scripture always interprets scripture. The only supporting verses I know of support the original literal interpretation.

Then we come to the question of where did sin come from? If man merely evolved from some animal primate are they suggesting one day that one that of these man type creatures suddenly became aware and made in the image of God and God called him Adam? Even though it clearly says that God made him separately from clay and breathed into his nostrils and he became a living being. The Bible says that there was no death before sin, so if evolution happened how does death over millions of years fit into that?

Then we have the fact that Adam was made on day 6 and died 930 years later. Allegories don't die, literal people do.

If we turn to the new testament Jesus used the writings of Moses.
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4–6), cf. Mark 10:6-8)

No suggestion that Jesus thought of the creation as being a parable.

Matthew 23:35

35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
Here Jesus talks about Abel as a real person and he does the same about Noah in another verse and you can tell he assumed his listeners understood these were real people, not an allegory.

Peter does the same thing.
1 Corinthians 11:8
8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
He assumes his listeners knew the Genesis account and says it as a well known fact.

1 Corinthians 15:45
45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
Again it's assumed that Adam was as real a man as was Jesus.

I would suggest this article for why a literal account is important to correct theological understanding. The Theological Significance of a Literal Creation Account, Part 1 - Calvary University
All four parts are there just remove the 1 near the end of the link and swap it for 2,3 and 4 to read the other pages.

 

[DamianWarS]

There are only two ways for the world to get here, either God used special creation over 6 days or evolution.

Since the Bible outlines carefully over 2 chapters that God used special creation and nowhere is evolution or a gradual creation mentioned. Nothing in the way the Genesis account was written suggests that Mosses meant it to be taken as an allegory or a parable. I do not believe God would simply have 2 chapters of such an error in his word if what he really did was use evolution, and if he had where are the supporting verses for this view? Scripture always interprets scripture. The only supporting verses I know of support the original literal interpretation.

Then we come to the question of where did sin come from? If man merely evolved from some animal primate are they suggesting one day that one that of these man type creatures suddenly became aware and made in the image of God and God called him Adam? Even though it clearly says that God made him separately from clay and breathed into his nostrils and he became a living being. The Bible says that there was no death before sin, so if evolution happened how does death over millions of years fit into that?

Then we have the fact that Adam was made on day 6 and died 930 years later. Allegories don't die, literal people do.

If we turn to the new testament Jesus used the writings of Moses.
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4–6), cf. Mark 10:6-8)

No suggestion that Jesus thought of the creation as being a parable.

Matthew 23:35

35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
Here Jesus talks about Abel as a real person and he does the same about Noah in another verse and you can tell he assumed his listeners understood these were real people, not an allegory.

Peter does the same thing.
1 Corinthians 11:8
8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
He assumes his listeners knew the Genesis account and says it as a well known fact.

1 Corinthians 15:45
45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
Again it's assumed that Adam was as real a man as was Jesus.

I would suggest this article for why a literal account is important to correct theological understanding. The Theological Significance of a Literal Creation Account, Part 1 - Calvary University
All four parts are there just remove the 1 near the end of the link and swap it for 2,3 and 4 to read the other pages.

you're arguing a case that isn't mine. I am not trying to replace a 6-day creation with something else like evolution and I recognize the vast value the creation accounts give us so I in no way remove the values or negate the accounts. I am not trying to "insert grand amounts of time", nor do I claim, "God said" is a "euphemism ... to mean that God is sovereign over the processes of natural selection..." (to quote the article)

The article goes off into tangents and never really answers it's own question. It shows the value of God speaking something into existence and it related this both to the name of Yahweh and to The Word of God (Christ) but it never really unpacks either one of these.

Yahweh or YHWH is actually "Yihweh" meaning "HE IS". All Hebrew words have Hebrew meanings, the word "yahweh" has no meaning so it is not a Hebrew word; argo not God's name. Yihweh however does and it is the third person singular of "I AM" which is the first thing that God told Moses what his name was. Moses tells the Hebrews "YHWH [He is] sent me because if he said "I AM" he would be referring to himself and it would be confusing. The grammar changes because it is being used correctly in context spoken in the third person. This "name" is not even a name it is a state and it transcends names, it's like God say "I am not a name, I simply am", then Moses repeating "He is not a name, He simply is". God is not a box and we cannot use a name to capture him, he simply is. So the statements "Let there be..." "...and there was" are connected to the tetragrammaton because they are the same word just in a different context. "He is" and "it was" are the same word just used in a different grammar. I, however, fail to see some sort of mystic connection here that the article suggests. To me, it's just utilization of grammar and what gives the statement more meaning is it's context not using some sort of sacred word.

moving on with the Word of God. There is a danger in the translation of "the word" that we think it means "spoken word" so the implications of God saying things like "Let there be..." is that this spoken word was "The Word" which is where the article is leading us (but doesn't commit to). This is not true, The Word of God is not conceived from an articulated sound because this would mean that the Word is a part of God's creation. The Greek is "logos" and what John is really trying to do is connect to a greek audience as it was an established part of greek philosophy essentially expressing man's ability to reason and think and separating us from the rest of the animal kingdom (monkeys don't have a logos). When Christ is referred to as the logos this get's their intention, then "the logos is with God and the logos is God" really grabs their attention. It is not a statement to limit Christ but to call him God himself on full equal standing. Christ is not the spoken word of the Father, he is not the thoughts and reason of the Father. These things, just like the logos, are indivisible and you cannot pull the logos out and keep the other parts and that is John's point and important to the understanding the trinity. Father/Son/Spirit can be intellectually discernable such as what we see demonstrated through scripture using words like Father, Son, etc.. but they are inseparable and one is not without the other and we cannot experience one without experiencing the other.

So I'm not sure where this leaves the conclusions of the article because it ends there like it's some sort of mic drop. It isn't. At best it shows us the accounts are important and we should not discard them to prop up another theory (and I am in complete agreement there) but I don't see how this proves they are literal.

What happens if they are not literal? We still need a redeemer. The sinful nature still is apart of us and we can't fix it on our own. We still are created to worship and praise God. God still sends his son to rescue us. This is my point of it being literal or not. If the accounts are not needed to in order for all of that to be true then are the accounts themselves actually literal depictions or is their role more of a framework of the innate human state that cries out for a saviour and foreshadows an answer written in story.

This is why I use the word "agnostic" because I am not looking for another answer and certainly not trying to replace the biblical accounts. You may tell me 1000 reasons why evolution is wrong and I may agree with you, but you've missed the point if that's all you can focus on.