If Genesis 3 is a metaphor...

[-57]

Because we're sinners. We aren't guilty of Adam's sins, we're guilty of our own.

"Mankind" doesn't sin, you and I do.

Irrelevant.

"Mankind".whoever that is, was never "thrust into sin". Sin is voluntary or it's not sin, and it's individuals who are guilty of it.

No literal talking snake necessary.

the Bible tells us because of Adam we have what is called a sin nature.
Mankind in the way I used it means every single person who has lived or will ever live.

My original question was for the christians who believe in evolution and how they say sin entered the world.

 

[-57]

if Gen 3 is some sort of abstraction then the crux of the text still shows us that man is fallen and all the products of fallen man still remain the same.

The reason to look at this account as a non-literal account could be for various reasons but a strong one might be that if we assume Moses penned this account through divine authority then this is 2500 years after the fact and that's a long time for an oral account to be preserved without corruption.

Some questions we need to ask are:

What did the post-exodus Hebrew's believe before Moses told them the orthodox account?
Was there competing accounts analogous to the fall of man in surrounding cultures?
Do the post-exodus Hebrews show us a dis-value to truth in favour of false teaching?

Then ask does it matter? If this is a non-literal account then does it affect the main points of the account that man is fallen and needs a redeemer regardless of how it may have actually happened?

The details that make up the account are important but I don't see the surface literal meaning important but rather a greater message being proclaimed in the account. If we are to accept a strict literal account then we should absolutely avoid snakes at all costs because it's just not worth getting caught in their deception again and it shows us that there is a secret garden hidden in the world with the gift of eternal life, but look out its guarded by an angel. These are not productive messages of the account nor are they anything to do with the point of it but a strict literal interpretation demands it.

You can present why you don't think it's literal BUT, you failed to answer where this sin came from if evolution is true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Should I strike the verses out of Romans, 1 Corinthians and Acts?

... of course not, but you may want to consider the social and cultural contexts in which they were written. It's not like Paul was writing those works in a Holy Spirit Vacuum ...

 

[-57]

Both Jesus and Paul treated Genesis as a literal account of the events. To them, Adam was a real person. Paul says that, "Death reigned from Adam to Moses", referring to them both as real people who lived at a particular point in history. Paul also says that Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't, so according to him, Eve was a real person in history as well.

There are many unassailable proofs that the Bible is literally true, so if it is true in other areas, then Genesis is a true historical record as well.

You said ""Death reigned from Adam to Moses", referring to them both as real people who lived at a particular point in history."

Excellent point.

Jesus the creator would have known that.

 

[-57]

... of course not, but you may want to consider the social and cultural contexts in which they were written. It's not like Paul was writing those works in a Holy Spirit Vacuum ...

Why would the God inspired author present something that wasn't true?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why would the God inspired author present something that wasn't true?

Directly, God wouldn't inspire 'untruth,' but since God left the physical and cultural accidentals of thought, concepts, and language up to the writers, He wasn't inspiring them to drop-kick a science or history textbook into the grasp of humanity, and He wasn't dropping the bible out of heaven and into the skulls of His Prophets and Apostles. No. What we have are essential ideas that allow us to recognize how to reconcile with God, not how to fully understand the past or to do science with our physical world.

Some of us Christians need to stop thinking of Inspired Scripture as a comprehensive manual for humanity and see it instead as what it is and what it has (only) been intended to be ... a message of 'Good News' for reconciling with God through Christ by the power of His Spirit.

 

[-57]

Directly, God wouldn't inspire 'untruth,' but since God left the physical and cultural accidentals of thought, concepts, and language up to the writers, He wasn't inspiring them to drop-kick a science or history textbook into the grasp of humanity, and He wasn't dropping the bible out of heaven and into the skulls of His Prophets and Apostles. No. What we have are essential ideas that allow us to recognize how to reconcile with God, not how to fully understand the past or to do science with our physical world.

Some of us Christians need to stop thinking of Inspired Scripture as a comprehensive manual for humanity and see it instead as what it is and what it has (only) been intended to be ... a message of 'Good News' for reconciling with God through Christ by the power of His Spirit.

What you consider as past history was deposited in a biblical event called a world wide flood.

God used Paul and other biblical authors to present the truth. You severely distort the truth when you filter the Bible through mans false science called evolution.

 

[DamianWarS]

You can present why you don't think it's literal BUT, you failed to answer where this sin came from if evolution is true.

because if it is a non-literal account then that information is not given nor is it important. It's good enough for me to know I am in a sinful state and I need Christ.

 

[-57]

because if it is a non-literal account then that information is not given nor is it important. It's good enough for me to know I am in a sinful state and I need Christ.

Fine.
That's all you really need to know.

Your problem is that the Bible tells us why we are in that state. But, you disregard it when you filter your bible through evolutionism....which then leaves you with no answer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What you consider as past history was deposited in a biblical event called a world wide flood.

God used Paul and other biblical authors to present the truth. You severely distort the truth when you filter the Bible through mans false science called evolution.

What is "truth"? Is it the same as REALITY?

Obviously, you and I live in difference conceptual modes of perception and thought about our surrounding world and as to what the nature of the Bible is exactly, which on some level is to be expected. The problem here is that there seems to be a number of complicated issues between: 1) our human articulations which we all create and by which we attempt to express something about what we think we've encountered in the world [i.e. "truth"], and 2) the fullness of God's Reality itself.

The upshot of all of this is that the Bible itself does not fully capture for us, however inspired it is, the fullness of God's (and thereby "our") Reality. Fortunately, I don't think God holds us fully culpable for our limited capacities [or incapacities?] to write about and express for ourselves, in human terms, what we think His Being and Work actually are, and it is this that my more Fundamentalistic Christian brethren can't seem to come to terms with. Our Lord, and Life itself, are bigger than the Bible.

 

[His student]

If Genesis 3 is a metaphor

The story of the direct creation of man and the literal fall in the garden is the truth of God - substantiated as it is in the New Testament as well as the old. It is not a metaphor.

But evolution is a "metaphor" for God's Word on the matter and is only need by men and women of little faith.

Evolution is, IMO as well as the opinion of God Himself as I see it, a metaphor needed only by fools and is beneath the dignity of men and women created in the image of God and indwelt by His Holy Spirit.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The same books all from the same God. That's why. All written by mosses or about mosses.

So Moses wrote about himself in the 3rd person?

 

[lifepsyop]

the pre-Abrahamic accounts of Genesis would be written aprox 1000-2500 years after they took place and major accounts like the creation, flood and separation of languages would have many competing accounts from surrounding cultures, especially those who are more advanced.

Whereas the Abrahamic accounts themselves would be a lot closer to the time they were written and have no competing accounts because Abraham's story is uniquely for the Hebrew's and no one else so their high value of preserving their detail is far more likely. Also, the Abrahamic accounts are far more detailed than the pre-Abrahamic accounts which also suggests more accurate information.

What we have is post-exodus Hebrews with very little detail about God and a propensity to surrender to pagan ways as evident in many accounts. They were quick to complaining and lacked trust in their direction as a people and their leader, also evident in many accounts. This points to pre-Moses Hebrews were probably unorganized in leadership, had a poor understanding of God, had no to very little systems of official faith and probably were saturated in pagan ways or some sort of hybrid folk faith. and what do you expect with no guidance and left to their ways for hundreds of years?

Moses had a task to unite the people, start a monotheistic system of faith and orthodox beliefs, and cleanse pagan elements from the Hebrews, an entire generation had to die off to prepare the Hebrews to go the promise land so this points to very deep seated values systems that were counter-God.

This in no way disvalues literal accounts from the rest of the Bible. it just looks at the early Genesis accounts far removed from the time they were written with a greater focus than surface literal details, such as to de-paganize the post-exodus Hebrews and points to the one true God, creator and sustainer of all things.

That's a long way of saying that you believe Genesis is a lie.

Jesus Christ is The Word made flesh. The alpha and omega, the beginning and the end of all creation.

Was Jesus really just lying when he testified to the Genesis flood in Luke 17:26 ?

Jesus was comparing the flood to His return, and the judgment that comes with him.
Is that all made up nonsense as well?

Why choose the wisdom of men over the plain word of God? Why not just believe what he said he did?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Should I strike the verses out of Romans, 1 Corinthians and Acts?

No. Just accept them in the cultural context in which they were written.

Maybe the real issue here is "inspiration". That is not dictation, as if God is whispering in the ear of the writer who merely acts as a conduit. That seems to be the why some here understand inspiration. I think of it more as an inner, intuitive expression on a matter. It deals with meaning and purpose rather than detailed facts. That is why poetry often more accurately conveys feelings than factual details.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Your problem is that the Bible tells us why we are in that state. But, you disregard it when you filter your bible through evolutionism....which then leaves you with no answer.

If I may butt in, all we need to know is that the Old Testament tells us to love God and seek justice. The New Testament tells us to follow Jesus and his primary commandment, "Love on another as I have loved you."

Everything else seems to be fodder for argumentation. very few Christians can agree on much else. But it is easier to argue than to love.

 

[Resha Caner]

If Genesis 3 is a metaphor, parable, myth...what ever, then what really happen?

If there was no Garden, no real Adam, no Eve created from Adams side, no serpent, no tree of knowledge of good and evil and no fall Can the Theo-Evo's tell us why we are sinners in need of a savior?

When did mankind sin? What stage of evolution?
Why does mankind sin?
How was mankind thrust into sin in need of a savior?

IMO it creates a cognitive dissonance, but of course theistic evolutionists would disagree. I know they don't all follow the same logical chain, but many have: If Genesis is not history, but only allegory, it means God had no need to reveal history to us. If God had no need to reveal history, then history is irrelevant to our salvation, If history isn't relevant to our salvation, then it doesn't matter whether Jesus was physically resurrected or not. If Jesus wasn't physically resurrected, then he wasn't divine, he was only an example. If Jesus was only an example, then salvation must come from his example. If salvation comes from a person's example, then salvation equates to moral goodness.

If Jesus didn't rise, neither will we. So, the point of Christianity is to be as good as we can in this life, and then we die and that's it.

 

[lifepsyop]

If I may butt in, all we need to know is that the Old Testament tells us to love God and seek justice.

If someone loves the God of the Bible, then why discount so much of his word?

"I love you God! ... Oh yea, I'm going to teach people that all your most significant acts were made-up fairytales! That whole 6-day creation thing you mention repeatedly? Yea, I'm gonna tell people that's all fake and didn't happen. No hard feelings!"

The New Testament tells us to follow Jesus and his primary commandment, "Love on another as I have loved you."

How are we following JESUS THE WORD MADE FLESH, when we say the foundation of the word is a fake story that didn't really happen?

Is it really loving to sow doubt in the plain reading of scripture? Why should people even believe in sin? or God's judgment, or heaven, etc. Is it all just allegorical story-telling to make us feel good?

Was the Book of Revelation just a crazy science-fiction story that the authors wanted to tack onto the end for excitement?

Everything else seems to be fodder for argumentation. very few Christians can agree on much else. But it is easier to argue than to love.

Then why did Jesus testify to the Genesis Flood in Luke 17:26?

Was he just trying to stir up argument fodder for the future church?

 

[DamianWarS]

Fine.
That's all you really need to know.

Your problem is that the Bible tells us why we are in that state. But, you disregard it when you filter your bible through evolutionism....which then leaves you with no answer.

You seem to think I have an evolution agenda and am forcing it to fit in scripture, well I don't and such an agenda would be irresponsible. I just happen to have a lot of experience with cultures from around the word, eastern philosophies and have studied ancient cultures and their mythologies. So when I read these accounts and pair them with their context surrounding there authorship I recognize them quite acutely. But just because I think the early Genesis accounts are not literal accounts doesn't mean I subscribe to evolution. I'm in fact agnostic to what actually happened.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

lifesyop, I appreciate your concerns and will get to answering your post as the day goes on. I don't have time now. But it does appear that your faith and spirituality are totally depended on a literal interpretation. So I can see why you would defend it so strongly. And so I am reluctant to tamper with it. But since you continue to ask, I do think it is important to express my view because I actually believe it is closer to reality. Just give me time.

 

[Cis.jd]

If someone loves the God of the Bible, then why discount so much of his word?

How are we following JESUS THE WORD MADE FLESH, when we say the foundation of the word is a fake story that didn't really happen?

Is it really loving to sow doubt in the plain reading of scripture? Why should people even believe in sin? or God's judgment, or heaven, etc. Is it all just allegorical story-telling to make us feel good?

It isn't discounting the Bible but making sure we are understanding it correctly before projecting a false message that we think it says/means when it is really just us giving "holy credibility" to our lack of knowledge. We call it reasonable faith. Since God's word is true and if we presenting a story/message that is debunked by evidence and even reason then we are showing God's word to be fallible.