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

[Kees Hogenbirk]

Just curious. I really don't.

 

[Kate30]

Just curious. I really don't.

Kees what reasons would you give for Adam & Eve not being a literal account?

 

[pdudgeon]

Just curious. I really don't.

Yes, I believe that. Most people think with "forward logic" that there has to be a seed that is planted, before a tree springs from the ground.
In point of fact, it is the seeds that are the last thing created, not the first.

In order for the created seed to grow, there first has to be more trees of the same species, some air, wind, clouds, water, earth, the sunlight, gravity, and of course, the dirt in which the seed is planted.

That's why the seeds come last, not first.
And that's why Man and Woman were created last.

 

[Halbhh]

Just curious. I really don't.

I think that's an interesting question.

First, we should read Genesis chapters 2-3 with a true listening, without trying to see this or that idea, but really to learn the deeper lessons.

Things like the essential deep issue for our souls like: Trusting in God, instead of ourselves, ultimately....


---------

But, once we do really listen, and really hear, and have these invaluable deep lessons, then we could just for fun ask the very much less important questions about what parts were only literally concrete (none, some, much, all, etc....) and what parts instead of just-concrete (alone) have deeper meaning.

But, since the meanings are crucial for us, let's look at one.

Here's a great example of something with a deeper meaning:

Genesis 2:22 And from the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man, He made a woman and brought her to him.

Of course God could have chosen to form Eve from the ground, just like Adam....

From "dust" or from "mud".... Or from a piece of Adam's skin(?).... Or a thigh bone marrow?....

But He didn't choose those.

Instead, He chose a part of Adam close to his heart.

She is for Adam closer than his own skin. She in some sense protects his very breath, and heart.

Those are the kind of messages we are to absorb from scriptures, see. They are profound, and deeply helpful in life.

-----------
About the relatively unimportant speculation on concrete details. My total speculative guess is that the Garden was literally on the Earth -- not in another dimension, even though it has the wondrous, time-stopping (or time-altering) Tree of Life (!!)....

But this is only speculation, and not really important if person A or B guesses correctly about some esoteric detail about 'when' or 'how' or such. (only the profound meanings really matter)

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yes literal...

God has the ability to create in an instant an entity with age built in.

Think water into a good vintage.

 

[-57]

Just curious. I really don't.

Yes, here's one example why....Paul presented them as literal.

Paul wrote about women in the church and presented a rule to them. He based the rule on a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve.
1st Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.
I don't think Paul would have based the rule on an event that didn't happen.

 

[miamited]

Hi kees,

My answer would be yes. I believe that there was, in history past, a man by the name of Adam who was the first created human to live on the earth. Followed by a woman by the name of Eve. For me, without Adam and Eve, then there is no Cain and Able. There is no, after 130 years of life upon this planet, Seth. If Adam and Eve are not real living breathing people, then the entire genealogical account of their future offspring, also becomes some sort of game for which I really would find it hard for Jesus to proclaim that his Father's word is truth.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[MrsFoundit]

Yes and Amen to Carl, -57 and Ted.

 

[-57]

Here is another example of Paul presenting a literal Eve to the Corinthians

2nd
cor 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

 

[Kees Hogenbirk]

Kees what reasons would you give for Adam & Eve not being a literal account?

Because no talking snakes and magic fruits have ever been observed by science as far as I'm aware.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Because no talking snakes and magic fruits have ever been observed by science as far as I'm aware.

No other notion anyone holds to for the origin of life has been either.

 

[LoG]

Because no talking snakes and magic fruits have ever been observed by science as far as I'm aware.

Billions of talking "apes" and we should become doubters because of one talking snake?
But seriously I remember reading a few years back that Adam and Eve being perfect were capable of conversing with every animal in whatever way any particular animal was capable of communicating. So it wasn't necessary for the serpent to be speaking in ancient hebrew.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Because no talking snakes and magic fruits have ever been observed by science as far as I'm aware.

I think there are good reasons to doubt the literal nature of the story of Adam and Eve but lack of scientific observation is not one of them.

 

[Job 33:6]

The story of Adam and Eve doesn't appear to be literal. A woman made from a rib bone and talking snakes? I mean come on now.

Is it truth? Yes. Should it be viewed as literal reality? No.

 

[-57]

you were asked...."Kees what reasons would you give for Adam & Eve not being a literal account?"

And replied back with.....

Because no talking snakes and magic fruits have ever been observed by science as far as I'm aware.

let me ask you this.....I see you have "christian" listed by your name. Understanding that, why is it you write off Genesis because of science...Yet, have the ability to reject science when science says if you die you stay dead on day 3?

Jist curious.

 

[-57]

I think there are good reasons to doubt the literal nature of the story of Adam and Eve but lack of scientific observation is not one of them.

One major problem the non-literal Genesis people have is it presents Genesis as an allegorical story or some sort of parable. Man wasn't formed from the dust. Eve wasn't formed from Adams rib....no garden, no tree of life....no tree of the knowledge of good and evil...no serpent....NO FALL...which means no original sin.

How do the non-literal Genesis people explain our sin nature? How did we get it? When did we get it? Why did we get it? Where did we get it?

 

[-57]

The story of Adam and Eve doesn't appear to be literal. A woman made from a rib bone and talking snakes? I mean come on now.

Is it truth? Yes. Should it be viewed as literal reality? No.

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?

 

[Job 33:6]

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?

Its unfortunate that some Christians are able and willing to believe literally anything, so long as they feel as though it's true.

Even to the extent that they would reject what is observed to the contrary in physical reality.

 

[miamited]

Because no talking snakes and magic fruits have ever been observed by science as far as I'm aware.

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

 

[Kate30]

Because no talking snakes and magic fruits have ever been observed by science as far as I'm aware.

Kees I’ve never come across a talking snake either but cockatoos do like to chat very much that we do know, it depends on the owner or families around them with what they say. As to magical fruits their qualities are many. Ranging from Medicine asprin etc. Health and ecstasy also, be that both in the Physical or in the spiritual realm. A magical mushroom may enlighten you of its powers should you ever pick one by mistake. Kees I guess with what we can evaluate in the physical realm the evidence is already there for both talking aminals and for the magical fruits as well. I’m sure Balaam and his talking donkey would agree ( Numbers 22:21-39) along with Dr Dolittle too. My little doggy does talk with me every day.. : )