Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't know for sure, but the creation story is structured like poetry. This is suggestive of metaphor, as when similar form is sometimes used elsewhere in the Bible. Unlike the life of Jesus, which is written as historical accounts, the creation story appears to be highly symbolic.
There can be a fall without a literal Adam and Eve, when understood as metaphor. The point is that humanity was deceived and fell from God's grace, regardless of whether it involved only two people and a talking snake.
If you’re committed to inerrancy you can always come up with excuses for anything. But that’s hardly a literal read of Scripture.
In fact there are three common explanations: Matthew was Mary's genealogy, Luke's was, or one of them is some kind of legal lineage. But there's no way to decide between the excuses, because there's no evidence in the text.What I've shown you is that many believe in the two genealogy answer.
There is another which has something like a brother marring into the genealogy but I'm not all that well versed on it.
The problem with your view is that it creates contradiction.
When was humanity deceived? How was humanity deceived? Why was humanity deceived?
I love this, an attempt to justify that animal tracks throughout the world's strata were made by animals walking underwater? Is that really what you're making a case for here?
So when we have tracks spanning hundreds of feet, were animals just holding their breath? Lol. Or when they were building their nests and laying eggs?
Couldn't be.
"The other side" really is just a handful of heavily religious people who frequently omit observations, such as in the article above.
Observation is what makes science what it is. The scientific method requires observation.
When was humanity deceived?
How was humanity deceived?
Why was humanity deceived?
The contradiction is that the bible says through one man sin and death came about ...via an act of disobedience.
Just for the record Adam wasn't deceived.
we can be fallen, but if there wasn’t an actual Adam, ideas like imputing his guilt don’t work. Of course Paul doesn’t actually say that. It also messes up his parallels between Adam and Christ, though they are really metaphors, so that’s not necessarily a big deal. But the big problem is that in the evolutionary understanding there was never a time when we were perfect. Agiain, that’s not necessarily a big deal, but for some theology it is.
I'm probably more radical than most, but I'll give what I think is the more common understanding. We're in a fallen condition, although not from a single act. Since there was no single Fall, it's not due to one person being deceived, but certainly the basic condition of being alienated from God includes not having a clear understanding of God and his will, i.e. being deceived. If we truly understood God, we would appreciate him, and not be in the condition we're in.There does not seem to be anyone who rejects a literal Adam and Eve who can answer this. I am a bit surprised, I would have expected at least the ability to explain what truth it represents in principle, as symbolic and poetic expression can easily do that.
Can any non-literalists answer these questions? Were we even deceived?
"Adam" may be one or many people
The animals aren't fallen
Yes, I do. It seems to me as though it is meant to be taken at face value, as something that really happened. And the New Testament references Genesis often, as though talking about things which truly happened.
"the observations of the locomotive behaviour of the living salamanders indicated that all spent the majority of their locomotion time walking on the bottom, underwater, rather than swimming."
Apart from salamanders, there are plenty of land animals that walk through water as well as amphibians, to animals like the platypus.
Given that evolutionists believe all life came from the ocean and developed legs I find it hard to believe you would discount animals that could walk underwater given that you all believe there to be hundreds of in-between steps between the different animal forms.
Exactly, and no one has observed one animal slowly changing into another and no one observed animals making those tracts. Salamander location though can be observed.
Of course some animals walk in water. But you should understand that there are foot prints of land animals worldwide through every geologic period dating back to at least the ordovician.
Which is to say that animals were continuously walking around the entire world throughout the deposition of all the world's post cambrian strata.
So the question is not whether some animals can walk in shallow water such as in a pond or stream. But rather the question is if there was a global flood in which waters covered the planet and deposited tens of thousands of feet of sediment worldwide.
How would animals walk in such an environment? Would they not be buried by sediment that was deposited above their tracks? If so, how could they walk if being buried? Would they not drown underwater? Or was the water really shallow? And if it was shallow, and we have things like nests with eggs, were animals going into labor and laying eggs in the middle of a shallow water flood?
These are questions that young earthers will never be able to clarify.
What world is it where animals sense a massive tsunami and they all run and make nests and lay eggs just before it hits...an flood so epic that it couldn't even wash the twigs away from the nests, yet somehow so epic that it lifted created mountains?
Obviously you didn't read a word that I said. Somethings get buried quickly some gradually depending on what is happening and what elevation you are on.
No, the op asked about the story of Adam and Eve which includes the whole story.I'm not lumping anyone.
The OP was about a literal Adam and Eve.
You must work that out for yourself. I have already given my opinion.For those of the opinion Adam wasn't literal....then where in the list did those mentioned become not literal?
In fact there are three common explanations: Matthew was Mary's genealogy, Luke's was, or one of them is some kind of legal lineage. But there's no way to decide between the excuses, because there's no evidence in the text.
You're right. There's a contradiction. In fact, neither Matthew nor Luke knew his actual lineage, but they both knew he was descended from David, so they gave their best interpretation.
Genesis explains what happened. Those who reject a literal Adam and Eve will require extra biblical material to make their case.There does not seem to be anyone who rejects a literal Adam and Eve who can answer this. I am a bit surprised, I would have expected at least the ability to explain what truth it represents in principle, as symbolic and poetic expression can easily do that.
Can any non-literalists answer these questions? Were we even deceived?
Long ago.
Placing the blame on Eve causes more theological problems, in my opinion, than the notion of a metaphorical Genesis.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?