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

[Job 33:6]

If Genesis 1-3 isn't literal history, then there were no Adam and Eve, no disobedience, no sin and death, so no need for redemption at all, because there is nothing for us to be redeemed from. Therefore, if none of it is literal history, then I don't understand why Jesus had to come and die on a cross and suffer the wrath of God for sin that doesn't exist. It makes no sense to me at all. If Genesis 1-3 is not literal history, then much of the rest of the Bible would make much sense to me either.

You shouldn't base your beliefs on the result of an idea. You base your beliefs on the idea itself.

If you drive a car into a telephone pole, you shouldn't deny the reality of driving into a telephone pole, just because you don't like the outcome. You should base your beliefs on the merit of the initial topic.

You being unable to understand a result, doesn't change the merit of the cause.

 

[The Barbarian]

If Genesis 1-3 isn't literal history, then there were no Adam and Eve, no disobedience, no sin and death, so no need for redemption at all, because there is nothing for us to be redeemed from.

The assumption you're making is that real people and real events can't be described in an allegory. But it's a false assumption.

Therefore, if none of it is literal history, then I don't understand why Jesus had to come and die on a cross and suffer the wrath of God for sin that doesn't exist.

See above. It's actually not hard at all.

If Genesis 1-3 is not literal history, then much of the rest of the Bible would make much sense to me either.

That's unfortunate. I don't see what is so difficult to understand.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You shouldn't base your beliefs on the result of an idea. You base your beliefs on the idea itself.

If you drive a car into a telephone pole, you shouldn't deny the reality of driving into a telephone pole, just because you don't like the outcome. You should base your beliefs on the merit of the initial topic.

You being unable to understand a result, doesn't change the merit of the cause.

If there was no disobedience by two real people in a real garden, then, would there be any meaning in Christ's death on the cross? If He died for our sin, then where did the sin come from?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The assumption you're making is that real people and real events can't be described in an allegory. But it's a false assumption.



See above. It's actually not hard at all.



That's unfortunate. I don't see what is so difficult to understand.

As a Catholic brother in Christ, you would believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sin. My question is, where did original sin come from?

 

[Archivist]

As a Catholic brother in Christ, you would believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sin. My question is, where did original sin come from?

Sin entered the world. Does it really matter how?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Sin entered the world. Does it really matter how?

Yes it does. If it didn't enter with Adam, then Jesus would have been mistaken when He referred to Adam as a real person, and Paul would have given false doctrine by saying that death reigned from Adam to Moses.

The question is: Did death exist before or after Adam?

 

[Job 33:6]

If there was no disobedience by two real people in a real garden, then, would there be any meaning in Christ's death on the cross? If He died for our sin, then where did the sin come from?

This question, regardless of what the answer might be, does not determine whether or not the story of Adam and Eve were myth or fact.

If I drive my car to the grocery store, we could ask a million questions about what groceries I may or may not buy, but this secondary question is irrelevant to the initial occurrence of me driving to the store. Whether I buy grapes or simply drive there just to use the restroom is really just an afterthought.

 

[Archivist]

Yes it does. If it didn't enter with Adam, then Jesus would have been mistaken when He referred to Adam as a real person, and Paul would have given false doctrine by saying that death reigned from Adam to Moses.

The question is: Did death exist before or after Adam?

Again, it is irrelevant whether death existed before Adam or whether there was an actual Adam. Sin entered the world, Jesus died to forgive us of our sins.

 

[The Barbarian]

As a Catholic brother in Christ, you would believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sin. My question is, where did original sin come from?

The first two humans given living souls by God, disobeyed Him. Remember, real people and real events can be in an allegory.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Again, it is irrelevant whether death existed before Adam or whether there was an actual Adam. Sin entered the world, Jesus died to forgive us of our sins.

The reason why you can't answer the question one way or the other is that the question itself puts one into a lose lose situation for a Christian who believes in theistic evolution. If he answers after Adam he has to deny theistic evolution and if he answers before Adam he denies the Bible. For a Christian who believes in theistic evolution, he doesn't want to deny it, and the Bible as well, so he can't answer the question.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The first two humans given living souls by God, disobeyed Him. Remember, real people and real events can be in an allegory.

But the text reads as history, not allegory. I should know the structure of the English language seeing that I have an M.A. in it. John Bunyan's Pilgrims Progress is an allegory, which is obvious because he said it is. If Moses intended it to be just an allegory and not historical facts, he would have said so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus would have said something like, "In the allegory about Adam and Eve"; but He didn't. He spoke of Adam and Eve as real people to show the one-flesh nature of marriage between a man and a woman. Also He spoke of the days of Noah as actual historical events. He did not say, "According to the allegory of the days of Noah". If Jesus didn't treat Genesis as an allegory, then I don't either. For me, Jesus' authority in what He said in the gospels, takes absolute priority over any notion finite man has about Genesis.

 

[Job 33:6]

The reason why you can't answer the question one way or the other is that the question itself puts one into a lose lose situation for a Christian who believes in theistic evolution. If he answers after Adam he has to deny theistic evolution and if he answers before Adam he denies the Bible. For a Christian who believes in theistic evolution, he doesn't want to deny it, and the Bible as well, so he can't answer the question.

If I drove to the supermarket to use the restroom, you can't say "well I'm not going to believe that because nobody drives to the supermarket just to use the restroom". Your consideration of the result of an idea is irrelevant to the merit of whether or not the initial idea occurred to begin with.

What ultimately matters is not what you believe about an effect, it is what you know about the initial cause.

When we hinge to the effects, unwilling to change beliefs because it does feel right, we lose our ability to embrace a cause, even one that has merit.

 

[The Barbarian]

But the text reads as history, not allegory.

No, the text itself tells us that it's not a literal history. As Christians over a thousand years ago pointed out, you can't have mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

If Moses intended it to be just an allegory and not historical facts, he would have said so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus would have said something like, "In the allegory about Adam and Eve"; but He didn't.

That's a testable claim. Did Jesus announce He was about to say a parable, each time He told his followers a parable?

He spoke of the days of Noah as actual historical events.

I've looked for that, but I can't find where He said "this was an actual historical event." And since there's no reason why one can't have an allegory about real people and real events, there's no evidence whatever to show that He thought of those allegories as literal histories.

The key is that it makes no difference at all to one's salvation. Believe either way, God doesn't judge you on it.

For me, Jesus' authority in what He said in the gospels, takes absolute priority over any notion finite man has about Genesis.

You've assumed what you intended to prove. I could make the same argument that He recognized them as allegories, since He said nothing at all about them being literal history.

 

[The Barbarian]

The reason why you can't answer the question one way or the other is that the question itself puts one into a lose lose situation for a Christian who believes in theistic evolution. If he answers after Adam he has to deny theistic evolution and if he answers before Adam he denies the Bible.

Rather, he denies the modern re-interpretation of the "death" as a physical one. God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from that tree. Adam eats and lives on physically for many years. If God told the truth, then the death He spoke of was not a physical death.

Physical death was there on Earth for billions of years before Adam. Adam brought spiritual death into the world.

For a Christian who believes in theistic evolution, he doesn't want to deny it, and the Bible as well, so he can't answer the question.

As you see, it's pretty simple to understand, if you accept that God is truthful.

 

[quaternion]

No, the text itself tells us that it's not a literal history. As Christians over a thousand years ago pointed out, you can't have mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

You have to admit, though, it would be nice to know some history of God's people prior to 0 AD ... or 4 BC ... whatever number you ascribe to.

 

[Archivist]

The reason why you can't answer the question one way or the other is that the question itself puts one into a lose lose situation for a Christian who believes in theistic evolution. If he answers after Adam he has to deny theistic evolution and if he answers before Adam he denies the Bible. For a Christian who believes in theistic evolution, he doesn't want to deny it, and the Bible as well, so he can't answer the question.

I believe that I answered your question unless I missed something.

Are you saying that a Christian cannot believe in theistic evolution?

 

[Archivist]

But the text reads as history, not allegory. I should know the structure of the English language seeing that I have an M.A. in it. John Bunyan's Pilgrims Progress is an allegory, which is obvious because he said it is. If Moses intended it to be just an allegory and not historical facts, he would have said so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus would have said something like, "In the allegory about Adam and Eve"; but He didn't. He spoke of Adam and Eve as real people to show the one-flesh nature of marriage between a man and a woman. Also He spoke of the days of Noah as actual historical events. He did not say, "According to the allegory of the days of Noah". If Jesus didn't treat Genesis as an allegory, then I don't either. For me, Jesus' authority in what He said in the gospels, takes absolute priority over any notion finite man has about Genesis.

Well, I don't recall Animal Farm starting with the words "This is an allegory about..." Likewise I don't recall seeing those words in Moby Dick or The Chronicles of Narnia.

 

[The Barbarian]

You have to admit, though, it would be nice to know some history of God's people prior to 0 AD ... or 4 BC ... whatever number you ascribe to.

Ascribe what to? I'm just pointing out that the revision of the first two chapters of Genesis to be a literal history, is ruled out by the text itself.

 

[quaternion]

Ascribe what to?

The date for the birth of Christ.

I'm just pointing out that the revision of the first two chapters of Genesis to be a literal history, is ruled out by the text itself.

And I was just commenting that it would be nice to know something about the history of God's people prior to the birth of Christ.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If I drove to the supermarket to use the restroom, you can't say "well I'm not going to believe that because nobody drives to the supermarket just to use the restroom". Your consideration of the result of an idea is irrelevant to the merit of whether or not the initial idea occurred to begin with.

What ultimately matters is not what you believe about an effect, it is what you know about the initial cause.

When we hinge to the effects, unwilling to change beliefs because it does feel right, we lose our ability to embrace a cause, even one that has merit.

In my opinion, a person cannot believe the Bible and not believe the Bible at the same time. For example, if I believe that God, through His awesome and almighty power created the world and everything in it in six 24 hour days, and then say that God didn't do it that way, but through millions of years, then I am saying something that contradicts my personal belief in the literal text of the Bible. I would then find it difficult to answer a person who might ask me, "How do you reconcile that with your Christian belief that the Bible is literally true?" I would not be able to answer that question without saying that I am wrong in saying that God took millions of years to create the world, and that I believe the Bible when it says He created the world in six 24 hour days.