Do you think that the story of Adam and Eve literally happened?

[Dorothy Mae]

Well, that's how you see it. Obviously I disagree. Not a problem for me, you're free to take the text however you like to.

How come you can’t give me the names of the symbolic creatures you suggested? Instead of giving me names you retreat to “we disagree.”

 

[Tom 1]

The author is immaterial to the accounts in those first 5 books.

And you used the word “established” which means established. If you mean suggested or implied or wished for then use those words.

We were discussed the contents of the accounts, not extraneous matters.

I'm not going to get into a silly argument. If you have any comments pertinent to the issue, please go ahead.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I know the 4.6 billion years comes from secular science, and I accept it as fact. I don't treat the bible as a science book. The Bible tells us who, secular science does a pretty good job of answering how.

So do I take creation as being a literal 6 day week? No.
Do I believe that the universe with all those other galaxies came in to existence though the Big Bang? Yes, because scientists have discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Is there evidence in the earth itself that this planet is older than the 50,000 years you mentioned? Yes. YECs cannot satisfactory answer when in in time the late heavy bombardment happened, nor a lot of other things. I don't treat ICR or Answers in Genesis as being legitimate sources of information.

Do I take Adam and Eve as being the first ever humans on the planet? No. I believe in what science has revealed, in that there have been various hominid species that have existed at various points in time in the long history of this planet. Cro-Magnon, Neanderthals, Denisovans.

Do I believe in a global flood? No, and the reading of the text doesn't mean it was planet wide.
Do I believe that dinosaurs and man lived on the earth at the same time? No.

Do I believe that the Tower of Babel is factual? No. There are a handful of language isolates (Sumerian among them) that exist across the world.

Like I said in my prior post, I go where the evidence leads. And that means a universe that's 13+ billion years old, and earth that is 4.6 billion years old, and a planet that never experienced a global flood.

I think we get it. You don’t believe the Bible. Seems pretty clear.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I'm not going to get into a silly argument. If you have any comments pertinent to the issue, please go ahead.

Thought so. No symbolic names, no stories established as not relating to real events, just lots of claims you’re not prepared to back up.

 

[Jadis40]

I think we get it. You don’t believe the Bible. Seems pretty clear.

There's a difference in believing a particular interpretation of scripture and not believing it at all. I happen to disagree with YECs, and think they're wrong.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

There's a difference in believing a particular interpretation of scripture, and I happen to disagree with YECs, and think they're wrong.

Their point is the age of the earth, not mentioned in the Bible. The accounts you mentioned have nothing to do with the YEC position on the age of the earth.

You said you don’t believe in a lot more than the YEC position on the age of the earth.

 

[Tom 1]

Thought so. No symbolic names, no stories established as not relating to real events, just lots of claims you’re not prepared to back up.

Symbolic naming of / symbolic names, different meanings. You stick to your guns if you feel that is a good thing to do, you can of course read more on the subject if you choose to. Over and out.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Symbolic naming of / symbolic names, different meanings. I have to say I find your attitude rather unpleasant, I tend to stay out of discussions with overtly religious people who refuse to question their own beliefs and resort to manipulation and the like instead of engaging in reasonable discussion. You stick to your guns if you feel that is a good thing to do, you can of course read more on the subject if you choose to. Over and out.

How is asking you which creatures were given symbolic names in Genesis being “overtly religious” or refusing to question my beliefs?? I asked you to give examples of what you claim is there and you instead attack me. Tells you you have no examples of your position although you claim you do. And you accuse me of refusing to question my beliefs!!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

There's a difference in believing a particular interpretation of scripture and not believing it at all. I happen to disagree with YECs, and think they're wrong.

You and I are not discussing the age of the earth. I disagree with them too but that’s not a part of this discussion.

 

[public hermit]

What is the meaning that was supposed to be conveyed in your opinion? I’m curious.

I'll give what seem to be the most salient meanings that come to mind, there may be others.

1. God is the Creator
2. Creation is not God, but creation is good (This is contrary to pantheism, but not necessarily panentheism)
3. The creation, which is created good, implies a Good Creator
4. God created in an orderly fashion and creation has order (God brings order out of chaos, i.e. out of "tohu wa-bohu")
5. Humanity is created in the image of God
6. Humanity is created for relationship with the Creator (the image of God and humanity walking together in the cool of the day)
7. Humanity is created to flourish in the presence of the divine
8. Sin is destructive and reveals the inherent fragility of life, and dependence on the Creator (they see their "nakedness")
9. Sin is not an essential part of creation
10. Sin adversely affects human moral sensibilities (indicated by the "It's not me who is to blame, but her")
11. Sin is not commensurate with God's intention for creation (implied by the limits of death and finitude imposed by the divine).
12. Humanity, under their own power, cannot "make things right" (implied by the expulsion from the garden which is guarded by an angel with a flaming sword to keep humanity from the tree of life).

These are some that come to mind, there may be others. Hopefully, this list shows the rich meaning that is embedded in those opening chapters. Much of the rest of the scriptures, including the gospel, only make sense in light of these meanings. Now, if someone believes all that matters is if they believe the account is historical fact, then they are missing the rich meaning the account was intended to convey. In fact, what is most needed is not a belief in the historicity of the account, but an understanding of the meaning, and how the meaning informs the rest of the scriptures.

Maybe it helps to know the Hebrew of the text and see how poetic is reads and the inherent imagery, even in the names. Most Hebrew readers recognize this, I think. Moreover, even early Christian exegetes understood some of the issues that arise if one attempts to read those opening chapters literally, and they certainly understood the grave error involved in acting as if a literal reading was all that was necessary. If anyone knew how to pull out deep meanings within the scriptures it was those early Christian exegetes.

 

[klutedavid]

As with Kees above Im confused. Jesus spoke into the tomb and stinky dead for 4 days Lazarus came out alive....later on this same guy who raised Lazarus from the dead was beaten and crucified...also had a spear jammed into his side. He was taken down from the cross and placed into a tomb.
On day 3 he came back to life! Resurrected!

When you say "I mean come on now." are you truly saying this guy who resurrected...also know as the Word that became flesh....couldn't make a women from a rib?

Whether Adam and Eve actually existed as Genesis portrays, is an entirely open question.

Though I strongly doubt that the genealogy is correct.

Many scholars believe that the ancient Israelites had creation stories that were told and retold; these stories eventually reached the Biblical authors, who wrote them down in Genesis and other books of the Bible. Creation stories in Genesis were etiological, Shawna Dolansky and other Biblical scholars argue.1 That is, the creation stories in Genesis served to provide answers to why the world was the way it was, such as why people wear clothes and why women experience pain during childbirth. (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/creation-stories-in-genesis)

Obviously, the history of humanity goes much deeper into time than the Genesis account portrays. As an overview though, the Genesis account is entirely accurate but not in a literal way.

The problem is that the Genesis account does become literal around the time of Abraham.

 

[hedrick]

Whether Adam and Eve actually existed as Genesis portrays, is an entirely open question.

Though I strongly doubt that the genealogy is correct.

Many scholars believe that the ancient Israelites had creation stories that were told and retold; these stories eventually reached the Biblical authors, who wrote them down in Genesis and other books of the Bible. Creation stories in Genesis were etiological, Shawna Dolansky and other Biblical scholars argue.1 That is, the creation stories in Genesis served to provide answers to why the world was the way it was, such as why people wear clothes and why women experience pain during childbirth. (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/creation-stories-in-genesis)

Obviously, the history of humanity goes much deeper into time than the Genesis account portrays. As an overview though, the Genesis account is entirely accurate but not in a literal way.

The problem is that the Genesis account does become literal around the time of Abraham.

If you're depending upon standard history and archaeology, that's way too early. By the time of David there's probably historical content, though even that is disputed.

 

[klutedavid]

If you're depending upon standard history and archaeology, that's way too early. By the time of David there's probably historical content, though even that is disputed.

The historical setting for Abraham is more than likely incorrect, as I said in the post, that I do not accept the genealogy.

But the literal reality of Abraham being the father of the Hebrews is correct. That is Jewish history!

King David is also a historical fact as far as I am concerned.

 

[hedrick]

The historical setting for Abraham is more than likely incorrect, as I said in the post, that I do not accept the genealogy.

But the literal reality of Abraham being the father of the Hebrews is correct. That is Jewish history!

King David is also a historical fact as far as I am concerned.

Actually I agree about David, but it is disputed.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Whether Adam and Eve actually existed as Genesis portrays, is an entirely open question.

Not to Jesus but it is to agnostics. So it’s only open to those who decide its open. To those who believe the teachings of Jesus it’s settled.

Though I strongly doubt that the genealogy is correct.

That’s a personal choice since there’s no info upon which to base doubt.

Many scholars believe that the ancient Israelites had creation stories that were told and retold; these stories eventually reached the Biblical authors, who wrote them down in Genesis and other books of the Bible.

Since they quickly decided the golden calf was their god, it seems pretty unlikely they believed the Genesis account at that point. Their thinking was too primitive. Genesis is pretty deep. So the internal evidence is too weak for that assumption.

Creation stories in Genesis were etiological, Shawna Dolansky and other Biblical scholars argue.1 That is, the creation stories in Genesis served to provide answers to why the world was the way it was, such as why people wear clothes and why women experience pain during childbirth. (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/creation-stories-in-genesis)

That makes me laugh. Anyone old enough can tell you why we wear clothes, or those who far enough north at any age and they don’t need Genesis to know why. Childbirth is somewhat better but a very minor point. Answers why weeds grow easily whereas evolution would suggest foods should be heartier than weeds.

Obviously, the history of humanity goes much deeper into time than the Genesis account portrays. As an overview though, the Genesis account is entirely accurate but not in a literal way.

Genesis is much deeper into time than any other account. It answers the who and why we are as we are as no other account can begin to you. But it takes an adult thinking mind and not the Sunday school version.

The problem is that the Genesis account does become literal around the time of Abraham.

Thats pretty arbitrary.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I'll give what seem to be the most salient meanings that come to mind, there may be others.

1. God is the Creator
2. Creation is not God, but creation is good (This is contrary to pantheism, but not necessarily panentheism)
3. The creation, which is created good, implies a Good Creator
4. God created in an orderly fashion and creation has order (God brings order out of chaos, i.e. out of "tohu wa-bohu")
5. Humanity is created in the image of God
6. Humanity is created for relationship with the Creator (the image of God and humanity walking together in the cool of the day)
7. Humanity is created to flourish in the presence of the divine
8. Sin is destructive and reveals the inherent fragility of life, and dependence on the Creator (they see their "nakedness")
9. Sin is not an essential part of creation
10. Sin adversely affects human moral sensibilities (indicated by the "It's not me who is to blame, but her")
11. Sin is not commensurate with God's intention for creation (implied by the limits of death and finitude imposed by the divine).
12. Humanity, under their own power, cannot "make things right" (implied by the expulsion from the garden which is guarded by an angel with a flaming sword to keep humanity from the tree of life).

These are some that come to mind, there may be others. Hopefully, this list shows the rich meaning that is embedded in those opening chapters. Much of the rest of the scriptures, including the gospel, only make sense in light of these meanings. Now, if someone believes all that matters is if they believe the account is historical fact, then they are missing the rich meaning the account was intended to convey. In fact, what is most needed is not a belief in the historicity of the account, but an understanding of the meaning, and how the meaning informs the rest of the scriptures.

Maybe it helps to know the Hebrew of the text and see how poetic is reads and the inherent imagery, even in the names. Most Hebrew readers recognize this, I think. Moreover, even early Christian exegetes understood some of the issues that arise if one attempts to read those opening chapters literally, and they certainly understood the grave error involved in acting as if a literal reading was all that was necessary. If anyone knew how to pull out deep meanings within the scriptures it was those early Christian exegetes.

All of this hinges on it really happening in time and space to real people. If it didn’t, it teaches nothing at all since it never happened. Cinderella teaches us nothing about finding a life partner. Same reason. Never happened in real life and doesn’t pretend to have.

 

[public hermit]

All of this hinges on it really happening in time and space to real people. If it didn’t, it teaches nothing at all since it never happened. Cinderella teaches us nothing about finding a life partner. Same reason. Never happened in real life and doesn’t pretend to have.

Good enough. Take care and God bless.

 

[klutedavid]

Actually I agree about David, but it is disputed.

Here is an interesting article.

Is the Biblical Exodus fact or fiction?

This is a loaded question. Although Biblical scholars and archaeologists argue about various aspects of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt, many of them agree that the Exodus occurred in some form or another.

The question “Did the Exodus happen” then becomes “When did the Exodus happen?” This is another heated question. Although there is much debate, most people settle into two camps: They argue for either a 15th-century B.C.E. or 13th-century B.C.E. date for Israel’s Exodus from Egypt.
(https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction)

Interesting that the Exodus event is widely accepted as a factual account. Where as the Genesis events are highly debated.

 

[MrsFoundit]

All of this hinges on it really happening in time and space to real people. If it didn’t, it teaches nothing at all since it never happened. Cinderella teaches us nothing about finding a life partner. Same reason. Never happened in real life and doesn’t pretend to have.

I am going DA for this, but does Cinderella really teach nothing ? Could it teach us not to be the nasty sisters, that happy endings emerge from unhappy circumstances, and that it is worth a bit of trouble finding a good life partner? Yes, it is not very meaningful, but it is for children.

I think the Bible is probably not the same as a fairy tale for all non-literal believers. Since I am not one it is a bit hard to imagine, but at a stretch maybe for them it is about God and all humans, like a proto-type story that applies to us all? (Inviting non-literal people to take it from there, and my apologies if my attempt to wear your shoes/glass slipper was messed up).

Reverse DA and turn back into myself...I cannot see the advantage in appealing to secular evidence if I am going to believe in an Incarnate Deity and a Resurrection (more than one resurrection even) anyway, and I do, so that is that.

 

[hedrick]

I am going DA for this, but does Cinderella really teach nothing ? Could it teach us not to be the nasty sisters, that happy endings emerge from unhappy circumstances, and that it is worth a bit of trouble finding a good life partner? Yes, it is not very meaningful, but it is for children.

I think the Bible is probably not the same as a fairy tale for all non-literal believers. Since I am not one it is a bit hard to imagine, but at a stretch maybe for them it is about God and all humans, like a proto-type story that applies to us all? (Inviting non-literal people to take it from there, and my apologies if my attempt to wear your shoes/glass slipper was messed up).

Reverse DA and turn back into myself...I cannot see the advantage in appealing to secular evidence if I am going to believe in an Incarnate Deity and a Resurrection (more than one resurrection even) anyway, and I do, so that is that.

The point of the Bible is that God's actions happened in history. We can and should expect historical study to be useful. The broad outline of how a whole nation was founded is likely to leave evidence. Not so much a single person's crucifixion and resurrection. But if we had accurate records from 30 AD, I'd certainly expect them to show at least the crucifixion. Probably the Romans wouldn't have recorded the resurrection, for all kinds of reasons. But if it happened, it happened in history, and at least in principle is subject to historical inquiry.

The fact that the Exodus didn't happen as described doesn't mean it was all made up. I'd assume some of the people who made up Israel had actually been slaves in Egypt. The historical background is consistent with that. But there's good reason to think that Israel moved in largely peacefully, and that the large-scale events described in Exodus didn't quite happen.