Did Adam and Eve eat?

Sayre said:

That isn't an ad hominim . There is nothing "against the person". I said it puts a veneer over your words, not over you as a person.

Click to expand...

You half accused me of antagonism on the basis of how I spell a certain word. Adding "over the words" doesn't change that. I spoke the words. The words held arguments. The "antagonism" mention puts a bomb under the words that form arguments by implying some kind of motivation or personal character of mine that I put into those words.

But never mind...

DogmaHunter said:

You half accused me of antagonism on the basis of how I spell a certain word. Adding "over the words" doesn't change that. I spoke the words. The words held arguments. The "antagonism" mention puts a bomb under the words that form arguments by implying some kind of motivation or personal character of mine that I put into those words.

But never mind...

Click to expand...

I don't know about a bomb, but you kind of lost your composure and exploded a bit there.

DogmaHunter said:

You half accused me of antagonism on the basis of how I spell a certain word. Adding "over the words" doesn't change that. I spoke the words. The words held arguments. The "antagonism" mention puts a bomb under the words that form arguments by implying some kind of motivation or personal character of mine that I put into those words.

But never mind...

Click to expand...

Yes, yes it does. Adding "over the words" makes it about what you are saying and not you as a person. Try looking up the definition of ad hominem.

When we say "your argument is rubbish" that isn't an ad hom even though a person made the argument. Or every single disagreement on the forum would be an ad hom.

To be clear, it is Jesus, with two s's, and we capitalise names.

Sayre said:

To be clear, it is Jesus, with two s's, and we capitalise names.

Click to expand...

As does the autocorrect function on this site.

Delphiki said:

Did Adam and Eve need to eat? We all know she ate the forbidden fruit, but is this the only thing she ever ate?

Click to expand...

Yes humanity is a creature that needs food to survive.

Delphiki said:

I think that, because God instructed what was edible, Adam and Eve must have rquired sustenance to survive. This goes against the idea that death didn't exist until the fall. Because of this, it shows the allegorical and mythological nature of Genesis.

Click to expand...

This requires some delicate interpretation. Let me say a few things:

1. The creation narrative is about Yahweh conquering chaotic forces and bringing wise structure to the world in order to create a habitat where humans could flourish. If he removed any one of his creative decrees (such as separation between land and water) then humanity would be obliterated. It's not just the food they need. They need all the divine structure that God has given to the physical world (including marriage!) in order to survive. Death wasn't impossible before the fall. But before the fall God would always provide all that was needed to preserve life.

2. The traditional reformed interpretation of the story is that it's primary purpose is to teach us about Jesus Christ, though it is also a true historical account. Adam is the mediator between heaven and earth and the judicial head of the human race. He is placed in the garden as a test. If he obeys God then he will earn eternal life for himself and his race (sacrament ally signified by the tree of life). If he disobeys he will earn wrath and death for himself and his race. Adam, like the rest of us, failed to obey God. But even this points us forward to the second Adam who would obey God in the garden and triumph over temptation so that we could have eternal life. Notice that Adam does not immediately die after eating the fruit, even though God said: "on the day that you eat of it you will die..." After Adam eats God immediately shows mercy and even promises that a son will come from Eve's line who will crush the serpent. This son is Jesus. Jesus took the curse of death that Adam earned so that we could have the blessing of life that Jesus earned.

TLK Valentine said:

Shakespeare does -- you should read him sometime.

Click to expand...

Normal writers are alive.

DogmaHunter said:

Evidence is the key to differentiate truth from fiction.How do you differentiate a "vision" from a "hallucination" or a "delusion"? Or just a dream?How do you know that "visions" are real?And do you trust all "visions" or just some of them? If only some of them, what is the criteria, the methodology to decide which one to trust and which one to discard (as delusion? dream? hallucination?)? How do you explain hallucinations/delusions/dream etc that are mistaken for visions?How to tell the difference?Looking forward to your answers...

Click to expand...

All experiences are the same, real or imagined.
Some are reinforced through replication over time.
This is learning.

Of course they eat. This isn't a deep question. Once sin came into the world our bodies were able to die of starvation. So they had to eat. If they didn't then no one would exist past them because they would have died. Now did they eat meat? Not sure. Going by the future after them I don't think they did since meat wasn't to be eaten. I may be wrong though.