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

[Archivist]

It would be good to examine the original Hebrew to establish that is what is actually said. If you want to use that to try and justify not believing the Genesis history, then it seems to be a fairly weak reason to use just one kind of animal mixed in with a list of others.

I'm going by the terminology used in numerous translations. Remember, the post to which I was replying said if you can't believe one part of the Bible, why believe any of it. Now I'm being told that it is acceptable to not believe that bats are birds because it is "just one kind of animal mixed in with a list of others."

In my opinion. because the Genesis record is integrally linked with definite statements about it by Jesus and Paul, then not to believe it is not to believe what Jesus and Paul said about it. And if Jesus and Paul are not believable, then anything that Jesus or Paul has said about salvation cannot be believed, because if they both lied in one place, how can we believe anything else they said?

I don't recall Jesus or Paul commenting on whether bats are birds.

And if Genesis was just an allegory, or whatever, then we could say the same about the historical Jesus, his death and resurrection. And if they were allegories, then there is no assurance for salvation for anyone. That's my opinion about it.

And you are entitled to your opinion. I think you are wrong.

But I believe that Genesis 1-11 is straight history of how it all happened, and that Jesus and Paul spoke the truth about it, that Jesus was a real person who died on a real cross, taking the penalty for my real sin, and who had a real resurrection, and is a real person at the throne of God interceding before the Father for the people of God.[p/QUOTE]

If you want to destroy your own assurance of salvation because of one type of animal that doesn't seem to fit the list, then so be it. Your choice.

I also believe that Jesus was a real person who died on a cross and took the penalty for my sin, that He had a real resurrection a that he is seated at the right hand of the Father interceding for the people of God. But that has nothing to do with whether bats are birds.

 

[Paul James]

I'm going by the terminology used in numerous translations. Remember, the post to which I was replying said if you can't believe one part of the Bible, why believe any of it. Now I'm being told that it is acceptable to not believe that bats are birds because it is "just one kind of animal mixed in with a list of others."



I don't recall Jesus or Paul commenting on whether bats are birds.



And you are entitled to your opinion. I think you are wrong.



I also believe that Jesus was a real person who died on a cross and took the penalty for my sin, that He had a real resurrection a that he is seated at the right hand of the Father interceding for the people of God. But that has nothing to do with whether bats are birds.

You are correct. It has nothing to do whether bats are birds, and the reference could quite easily be the result of a mistake in translation which a Hebrew scholar could confirm.

 

[Paul James]

I'm going by the terminology used in numerous translations. Remember, the post to which I was replying said if you can't believe one part of the Bible, why believe any of it. Now I'm being told that it is acceptable to not believe that bats are birds because it is "just one kind of animal mixed in with a list of others

I don't recall Jesus or Paul commenting on whether bats are birds.



And you are entitled to your opinion. I think you are wrong.



I also believe that Jesus was a real person who died on a cross and took the penalty for my sin, that He had a real resurrection a that he is seated at the right hand of the Father interceding for the people of God. But that has nothing to do with whether bats are birds.

Here is an interesting quote:
"Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.
The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers).

It's similar to refuting geocentrism charges against the Bible by showing that even modern astronomers use terms like "sunset" and "sunrise" without being accused of being geocentrists, so why shouldn't we make the same allowance for the Bible writers." Does the Bible call a bat a bird?

 

[Archivist]

You are correct. It has nothing to do whether bats are birds, and the reference could quite easily be the result of a mistake in translation which a Hebrew scholar could confirm.

No, my understanding is that the people of the day considered anything with wings to be birds. That doesn’t make the statement that they are birds correct.

 

[Archivist]

Here is an interesting quote:
"Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.
The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers).

It's similar to refuting geocentrism charges against the Bible by showing that even modern astronomers use terms like "sunset" and "sunrise" without being accused of being geocentrists, so why shouldn't we make the same allowance for the Bible writers." Does the Bible call a bat a bird?

Yes, I’m aware of that. It doesn’t make a bat a bird. The Bible is incorrect.

 

[Paul James]

No, my understanding is that the people of the day considered anything with wings to be birds. That doesn’t make the statement that they are birds correct.

That's what the original Hebrew word implies - anything with wings. It is a word that describes function and not an animal classification. It could equally apply to any creature that swims, and would then include sharks and dolphins, one being a fish and the other a mammal. But it wouldn't imply that a dolphin is a fish if it were part of a list of sea creatures that swim in water.

 

[Paul James]

Yes, I’m aware of that. It doesn’t make a bat a bird. The Bible is incorrect.

It is correct because the Hebrew word is functional not classifying. It describes creatures that fly. It is the translator who used the word "bird" instead of the correct translation which should have read "flying creatures", which would have made the Bible totally correct in its list of birds and bats.

 

[Archivist]

It is correct because the Hebrew word is functional not classifying. It describes creatures that fly. It is the translator who used the word "bird" instead of the correct translation which should have read "flying creatures", which would have made the Bible totally correct in its list of birds and bats.

That's what the original Hebrew word implies - anything with wings. It is a word that describes function and not an animal classification. It could equally apply to any creature that swims, and would then include sharks and dolphins, one being a fish and the other a mammal. But it wouldn't imply that a dolphin is a fish if it were part of a list of sea creatures that swim in water.

Yes, I’m aware of that. I said that earlier and I never said otherwise. But bats are not birds. They were not in Biblical times, they aren’t today. The Bible is wrong when it says that they are. Yet you said that you must believe what the Bible says. Well I certainly don’t believe it when it is wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 & 3 -- I also see the temptation to take the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the agricultural revolution. In the agricultural revolution we work by the sweat of our brow. Also the ground is cursed, all of sudden some plants are “weeds” and some creatures are “pests”. The agricultural revolution is all about learning which plants and animals are “good” and which are evil. It is really the tree of death as we have to have pesticides, and herbicides and all kinds of poison to have our farms. Also the two forms of society the hunter gatherer and the agricultural revolution cannot coexist. Farming involves lots and lots of possessions, barns, storehouses, stealing and guarding and barbed wire, etc. So once we fell for the temptation of the agricultural revolution we were kicked out of the garden.

It's interesting, since many cultural anthropologists think that agriculture was a disaster for humanity. Some have called it a "fall from grace." So there's evidence for your interpretation.

The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race
The advent of agriculture was a watershed moment for the human race. It may also have been our greatest blunder.
The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

Interesting that you came to the same place from an entirely different starting point. I'm not sold on everything, but I'm listening. Go on, if you will.

 

[ZNP]

It's interesting, since many cultural anthropologists think that agriculture was a disaster for humanity. Some have called it a "fall from grace." So there's evidence for your interpretation.

The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race
The advent of agriculture was a watershed moment for the human race. It may also have been our greatest blunder.
The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

Interesting that you came to the same place from an entirely different starting point. I'm not sold on everything, but I'm listening. Go on, if you will.

Well for years they theorized that the agricultural revolution led to the great religious worship with cathedrals, etc. because you needed the wealth and large work force that you could support with the agricultural revolution. But recent archaeological discoveries have shown that the oldest known temple for worshipping God, Gobekli Tepe, was probably the motivation for the agricultural revolution. Nearby they also see evidence that a camp of men were fed with grains cultivated at the site. This would also correspond with the story that it was the temptation to be like God that caused them to "eat" of this tree.

For quite awhile archaeologists have known that hunter gatherers would have learned about farming from their latrines. They come through an area, certain crop is in season so everyone in the group eats from that crop for a couple of weeks until it is time to move on. When they return a year later they discover that the latrine area that everyone was using is now the site of many more of these same plants that they had been eating. Perhaps they move the latrine area over a little so as not to disturb them. After five or ten years they have a little garden of these desirable plants.

The idea is they wanted to build this temple, so they actively planted and grew grains that would support the work crew. That is how the agricultural revolution began.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Neither can the Bible given that there are two creation accounts that differ from each other.

Genesis contradictions? - creation.com

 

[Qwertyui0p]

That's one of the problems with trying to make it a literal history. If it is, then there's no need for the Resurrection.

On the other hand, if it's about real people, who disobeyed God, then there's no problem with the creation week being an allegory.

I'm aware that many YE creationists adjust the concept to allow a literal week of 24-hour days, and still consider the death and resurrection of Jesus to be necessary for our salvation. It's a little forced, but so long as they accept that fact, they can be wrong about the rest of it, and still be saved.

I may have misunderstood you, but how does a plain reading of Genesis mean there's no need for the Resurrection? Reading genesis literally means that Adam and Even were real people who disobeyed God.

 

[Archivist]

Genesis contradictions? - creation.com

Yes, I have read similar articles. The problem is that they ignore the plain meaning of the words in Genesis.

 

[The Barbarian]

I may have misunderstood you, but how does a plain reading of Genesis mean there's no need for the Resurrection?

A plain reading requires a Savior and the Resurrection. Converting it to a literal history makes both of those problematical.

Reading genesis literally means that Adam and Even were real people who disobeyed God.

Yes, that is true. But a plain reading does not mean that the allegory of the Creation week thereby becomes a literal history.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well for years they theorized that the agricultural revolution led to the great religious worship with cathedrals, etc. because you needed the wealth and large work force that you could support with the agricultural revolution. But recent archaeological discoveries have shown that the oldest known temple for worshipping God, Gobekli Tepe, was probably the motivation for the agricultural revolution.

Yes, that was kind of a shock, to find an urban culture, with no agriculture. But we have hints in artwork much earlier in the Neolithic, that men were looking to some kind of belief in the supernatural.

Nearby they also see evidence that a camp of men were fed with grains cultivated at the site. This would also correspond with the story that it was the temptation to be like God that caused them to "eat" of this tree.

Yes, it would. I understand that Gobekli Tepe was occupied for nearly a millennium before agriculture appeared.

For quite awhile archaeologists have known that hunter gatherers would have learned about farming from their latrines. They come through an area, certain crop is in season so everyone in the group eats from that crop for a couple of weeks until it is time to move on. When they return a year later they discover that the latrine area that everyone was using is now the site of many more of these same plants that they had been eating. Perhaps they move the latrine area over a little so as not to disturb them. After five or ten years they have a little garden of these desirable plants.

The idea is they wanted to build this temple, so they actively planted and grew grains that would support the work crew. That is how the agricultural revolution began.

Interesting idea. I need to do some reading. Thanks.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

A plain reading requires a Savior and the Resurrection. Converting it to a literal history makes both of those problematical.
Yes, that is true. But a plain reading does not mean that the allegory of the Creation week thereby becomes a literal history.

But a literal reading of Genesis (recognizing figure of speech, such as 'the flood gates of the heavens were opened meaning lots of rain) doesn't undermine the need for a Savior and the Resurrection.
Also, I suggest you read this article carefully: Genesis is history - creation.com

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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

I have a talking cat. There he is in the picture. I know what he says through the different forms of meow that he makes.

There were two muffins in an oven. One turns to the other and says, "Boy, it's getting hot in here!"
The second muffin says, "Good grief! A talking muffin!"

 

[The Barbarian]

But a literal reading of Genesis (recognizing figure of speech, such as 'the flood gates of the heavens were opened meaning lots of rain) doesn't undermine the need for a Savior and the Resurrection.

Yes, it's mostly interpreting the first three chapters of Genesis as literal history, that is problematical for our redemption.

But of course, there aren't literal doors in a dome of heaven, although that was the way the Hebrews understood it. So it's not surprising they'd use that. I suppose God didn't really want to teach them that there isn't a dome up there, with lots of liquid water being held back.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yes, it's mostly interpreting the first three chapters of Genesis as literal history, that is problematical for our redemption.

But of course, there aren't literal doors in a dome of heaven, although that was the way the Hebrews understood it. So it's not surprising they'd use that. I suppose God didn't really want to teach them that there isn't a dome up there, with lots of liquid water being held back.

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.

 

[Archivist]

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.

How is there no sin or death without a literal Adam and Eve?