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.
What I am suggesting is that there are no limitations on what people are willing to believe, even without evidence or worse, in contradiction of evidence. And literalist Christians unfortunately find themselves in the latter group surprisingly often.
When I say "feel" what I mean is belief without evidence to surprising extremes (more than simply belief in God, but belief in somewhat extreme ideas).
From my perspective I do not see much difference between the literalist who ascribes the hidden things of God to miraculous events and the one who concludes that it is all meant to be allegorical. It makes the Bible either a book of miracles or a book of fables rather then a literal history of how God brought about the world as we see it today, using the physical laws of this creation.
Yes.Just curious. I really don't.
Hi kees,
Well, to be completely accurate, the Scriptures don't say that it was a snake that Eve spoke with. The snake idea is really something that has come out of a misunderstanding of the Hebrew word and also from the pictorials of the scene that always show some snake slithering around a tree.
In the Revelation God reveals to us who the 'serpent' was. It was Satan.
This from hebrewversity.com: Interestingly, in Biblical Hebrew there is a fascinating strong etymological connection between the ‘Nachash’ and supernatural forces. The Biblical Hebrew word for ‘sorcery’ or ‘witchcraft’ is… that’s right…the SAME as the word for ‘SERPENT’ – meaning ‘Nachash’! {נחש}
So, it is very possible that what God intended for us to understand as regards this 'talking serpent' is really a powerful, supernatural being. Thus...Satan.
God bless,
In Christ, ted
Faith is the evidence of things not seen. The evidence that you are suggesting we put our faith in is of things that are seen.
Because no talking snakes and magic fruits have ever been observed by science as far as I'm aware.
But it was given a punishment as a snake. It looks like the implication of the punishment is that snakes originally walked. I don’t see why God would curse snakes if it was simply an animal possessed by Satan.I think the snake itself didn’t speak on its own but was possessed by Satan and Satan made it speak.
I agree with this, but only in part. The story should be understood as literal rather than some kind of symbol. That's pretty obvious. But that doesn't mean it was understood as historical. I'll use as an analogy the novels about Harry Potter. I have been known to use characters from it as examples in middle school Sunday School because they're characters that everyone knows about. The stories are literal, in the sense that they are about actual people. The characters aren't just symbols or metaphors. But they're also not historical figures. In earlier days people would have used characters from Shakespeare the same way.I do believe that they were literal people because of 5 reasons.
I see, but there is no evidence of them being anything other than historical figures. Just because some of our literature use fictional characters to display some truth doesn't mean that we can treat it away like Genesis. Like I said before in my post, Romans 5 claims it was historical and most Biblical scholars agree that Genesis is written in a historical narrative. If Adam wasn't a historical figure, then Noah wasn't either, and so wasn't Abraham, and even Jesus wasn't real either. Because real people have to come from real people.I agree with this, but only in part. The story should be understood as literal rather than some kind of symbol. That's pretty obvious. But that doesn't mean it was understood as historical. I'll use as an analogy the novels about Harry Potter. I have been known to use characters from it as examples in middle school Sunday School because they're characters that everyone knows about. The stories are literal, in the sense that they are about actual people. The characters aren't just symbols or metaphors. But they're also not historical figures. In earlier days people would have used characters from Shakespeare the same way.
I don't think we can tell just how people understood Adam and Eve. It may not even have been the sane for everyone. Certainly among Romans there were people who understood that the myths weren't historical, but it's likely that others thought they were. I would agree that 1 Tim 2 makes no sense unless the author thought Eve was historical. In contrast, Job 31:33 is poetic, and might actually mean "as men do." But I don't agree that the Gospel makes no sense without it. Sin exists, no matter how it got here.
Yes, Genesis was written as a historical narrative in terms of its style. Biblical scholars agree on that. It wasn't like Pilgrim's Progress where there are characters but they're really symbols for other things. That's an example of a symbolic story. But don't confuse the agreement that it was non-symbolic with being a correct account of history. Biblical scholars certainly do not agree with that unless you throw out all scholars that disagree with you.I see, but there is no evidence of them being anything other than historical figures. Just because some of our literature use fictional characters to display some truth doesn't mean that we can treat it away like Genesis. Like I said before in my post, Romans 5 claims it was historical and most Biblical scholars agree that Genesis is written in a historical narrative. If Adam wasn't a historical figure, then Noah wasn't either, and so wasn't Abraham, and even Jesus wasn't real either. Because real people have to come from real people.
If Adam wasn't a historical figure, then Noah wasn't either, and so wasn't Abraham, and even Jesus wasn't real either. Because real people have to come from real people.
I see. But could it be possible that Adam and Eve were real and the Genesis account was based on a true story?Yes, Genesis was written as a historical narrative in terms of its style. Biblical scholars agree on that. It wasn't like Pilgrim's Progress where there are characters but they're really symbols for other things. That's an example of a symbolic story. But don't confuse the agreement that it was non-symbolic with being a correct account of history. Biblical scholars certainly do not agree with that unless you throw out all scholars that disagree with you.
There are very suspicious similarities with legends from other groups in the area. (https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~kdickson/233W5Q8.html) Those stories, however, had the earth created by the gods playing some quite ungodly games. In my opinion, the early Jews didn't have any way of knowing how creation was done. But they did know what God is like, and knew that the stories currently going around weren't like him. So they created a corrected epic that's consistent with God's character.
No, it couldn't be. Here's a good article on the subject: Cover Story: Historical AdamI see. But could it be possible that Adam and Eve were real and the Genesis account was based on a true story?
I see. But could it be possible that Adam and Eve were real and the Genesis account was based on a true story?
I read through the article, and it didn't explain much. First of all, it had very literal Bible references in it.No, it couldn't be. Here's a good article on the subject: Cover Story: Historical Adam
So it is impossible to have a global flood or the virgin birth or even a man walking on water. However, God's can exceed of what is possible or impossible.If science does not define what is possible, yes it is. "In the beginning, God..." fails a science exam anyway.
So it is impossible to have a global flood or the virgin birth or even a man walking on water. However, God's can exceed of what is possible or impossible.
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?