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

[misput]

Revelation 12:9 tells us who that 'snake' actually was, showing that it was a euphemism. Have you not read it?

For sure, we would rather the devil be some other being we could blame. Eve offered that excuse "the serpent deceived me" and Adam tried to blame "the woman" (and if that is not good enough) "you gave me" even trying to shift the blame to God. Each trying to shift the blame anywhere but themselves. It didn't work then and it will not work now. Any thinking person knows the main demon we struggle against is our own fleshly nature but the good news is we can have a spiritual nature from God that will crush the head of the fleshly nature Gen. 3:15 NIV.

 

[Carl Emerson]

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

If you limit your perception of reality to what science with it's moving feast of 'knowledge' presents, your ability to appreciate anything spiritual will be greatly limited.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Possibly but when we connect the dots of what we see in creation with scripture saying observing creation is one of the main ways we can know God and scripture saying the seventh day is ongoing (Hebrews 3 & 4) I have a different picture.

I read Hebrew 3&4 (I use the NIV) but I didn't see anything that implied the seventh day is still continuing.

 

[misput]

I read Hebrew 3&4 (I use the NIV) but I didn't see anything that implied the seventh day is still continuing.

The writer continually refers to today as the seventh day that God rested as being the day of salvation that continues as long as it is today, so the seventh day is not about God getting tired and resting, it is about salvation being offered as long as there is a today. Pay close attention to the first few verses of chapter 4 and in the King James version. Whether we get it or not, if we truly have faith in God it is being worked out in each of our lives every day.

 

[Davy]

For sure, we would rather the devil be some other being we could blame. Eve offered that excuse "the serpent deceived me" and Adam tried to blame "the woman" (and if that is not good enough) "you gave me" even trying to shift the blame to God. Each trying to shift the blame anywhere but themselves. It didn't work then and it will not work now. Any thinking person knows the main demon we struggle against is our own fleshly nature but the good news is we can have a spiritual nature from God that will crush the head of the fleshly nature Gen. 3:15 NIV.

The Occultists don't believe that Satan is a real entity. They instead teach the idea of evil as a 'force', something inside us. That's not a new idea, it's a very ancient philosophy. But that's all it is, just an old philosophy that negates God's written Word, which is its real purpose, i.e., to deceive those who are foolish enough to believe those Occultists. Theirs is a dangerous doctrine.

 

[Davy]

The word satan means tempter, adversary, accuser, the only one I know of who does these things to me is my own fleshly nature or some other fleshly person, think about it, the only one or the main one who walks to and fro on this earth trying to destroy me is me. We really are our own worst enemy.

Careful. The devil is a real entity. It is not about some idea of evil existing inside you.

Those of the Occult are one of the groups pushing the lie that Satan isn't real. They don't believe 'hell' is real either. Now those groups believe in all sorts of really weird stuff, like reincarnation, shape shifting, astral projection, some of them will use black magic to conjure up demons. Even some of those of the Church of Satan will lie and tell you they don't really worship Satan, but that they worship nature.

Satan is just as real as God is. But Satan is only a heavenly cherub, and is not equal with God at all. Per Ezekiel 28, God original created Satan to be a covering cherub (guard of God's throne), and that he was original perfect in his ways, until iniquity was found in him.

Those who don't believe Satan is real put their trust in this material world and obviously don't understand there is another world, a world of spirit where God and the angels dwell.

 

[misput]

OK Davy, I'll be careful, thanks.

 

[agapelove]

I think whether or not we take the Bible literally is not as important as whether or not we understand what the message it's trying to get across is.

 

[misput]

I think whether or not we take the Bible literally is not as important as whether or not we understand what the message it's trying to get across is.

You are right and if you don't mind, what is the message?

 

[agapelove]

You are right and if you don't mind, what is the message?

It is clear that everybody here has a different idea of what the Adam and Eve account is trying to say. This is just my personal interpretation as well.

Adam and Eve represent all of humanity. Eve being made from Adam’s rib represent how we are all connected through our humanity, and how we are all made in the image of God. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents God’s ultimate wisdom and judgment and his ability to discern between good and evil. The serpent represents the forces of evil that are present in our world. Adam and Eve eating of the tree represent the innate desire in all humans to “be God” and take his place as judge.

I’m not sure if that answers your question but that is the main takeaway I see in the Genesis account.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

The writer continually refers to today as the seventh day that God rested as being the day of salvation that continues as long as it is today, so the seventh day is not about God getting tired and resting, it is about salvation being offered as long as there is a today. Pay close attention to the first few verses of chapter 4 and in the King James version. Whether we get it or not, if we truly have faith in God it is being worked out in each of our lives every day.

God's rest in Hebrews 4:1–11 - creation.com

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

As Christians have long pointed out in response to that, and I myself have pointed out to you in a previous discussion, if God can create the entire universe, then he can create light directly instead of creating the sun as a source of light.

That's not what "morning" and "evening" mean. Morning is when the sun rises. Evening is when it sets. If you have to redefine words to make you new doctrine work, that's a pretty good clue that it's wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

That might have been a bad example, my point was that something can have a symbolic or allegorical meaning in addition to being something that does occur or has occurred.

Yes. There was a real Adam and a real Eve, and a real Fall. But the people and events are shown symbolically.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

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.
That's not what "morning" and "evening" mean. Morning is when the sun rises. Evening is when it sets. If you have to redefine words to make you new doctrine work, that's a pretty good clue that it's wrong.

Genesis 1:5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

God defines day and night, morning and evening, by light or lack of it (not including things like lightbulbs or torches). It makes no practical difference to saying it's when the sun is below or above the horizon, since the sun has been the main source of light since God made it, but you can't say that since the sun is always above the horizon during the day and below it at night, then that is what defines night and day and morning and evening.

 

[The Barbarian]

God defines day and night, morning and evening, by light or lack of it (not including things like lightbulbs or torches).

No. A bright moon or a supernova does not cause "morning." Nor does an eclipse cause evening. Again, if you have to redefine words to make your interpretation work , than any story is equally believable.

It makes no practical difference to saying it's when the sun is below or above the horizon, since the sun has been the main source of light since God made it, but you can't say that since the sun is always above the horizon during the day and below it at night, then that is what defines night and day and morning and evening.

Conflating "evening" and "night" or "morning" and "day" likewise won't work. Words mean things, and if you change the meanings to make your interpretation work, it's an important clue for you.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

No. A bright moon or a supernova does not cause "morning." Nor does an eclipse cause evening. Again, if you have to redefine words to make your interpretation work , than any story is equally believable.

I should have been more specific. The Bible says that God made the earth, which rotates on its axis, and God also created light. Both were there from day 1. If God had the light emanating from one place, then there could be evening and morning and day and night because of the rotating earth, it would be night when the part of the earth you were on (not that there were people yet anyway) was facing away from the aforementioned light it would be night, and before noon (when the source of light was directly overhead from the part of the earth you were on) it was morning, and for similar reasons we can define day and evening. Then on day 4 God created the sun (and moon and stars) which functions the same as the aforementioned light, and since there's no practical difference we have no reason to say that morning and evening could not be applied before the creation of the sun.

Sorry for ranting.

 

[The Barbarian]

I should have been more specific. The Bible says that God made the earth, which rotates on its axis, and God also created light. Both were there from day 1.

But that's not morning or evening, which has a specific meaning related to the position of the sun. Again, if the doctrine requires redefining common words, it has a problem.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

But that's not morning or evening, which has a specific meaning related to the position of the sun. Again, if the doctrine requires redefining common words, it has a problem.

Yes, morning and evening are generally defined by the position of the sun (not meaning geocentricism) but that is because the sun is the primary source of light I mentioned earlier. Were there no sun but God directly created light coming from where the sun is, there would be no practical difference and the aforementioned light would fulfil the same purpose as the sun, so you cannot legitimately claim that the definition of morning and evening excludes it.

 

[The Barbarian]

so you cannot legitimately claim that the definition of morning and evening excludes it.

The only way you can make that work, is by redefining words. And that's probably the important clue for you.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

The only way you can make that work, is by redefining words. And that's probably the important clue for you.

First of all, before you come up with yet more permutations of saying I am redefining words, you should perhaps consider that if I hadn't noticed the first 1800 times then saying it again is a waste of time.
Second, Genesis 1:5 makes it very clear that day and night are defined by the light he made on day one, which achieved the exact same thing as the sun does now. Day and night are not synonymous with evening and morning, however it would be very strange to define day and night by the light that now comes from the sun yet was present from day one, and morning and evening by the position of the sun itself. With that in mind arguing that the presence of the words 'morning' and 'evening' before the sun but after the light which achieved the same purpose as the sun does now, to argue that the creation account in genesis is figurative even though evidence from the rest of the Bible supports it being historical Genesis is history - creation.com constitutes a very weak argument on which to reach the conclusion that creation was not perfect before the fall, which undermines other passages in the Bible, such as 1 Corinthians 15 https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_70-75.pdf