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.
So you are going back to the version you had said was Satan's lie
I think it's more likely that he was created in the Late Cretaceous period rather than living millions of years before the fall.
OK...
No, this is a very basic difference I have seen here between creationist and TEs, YECs will defend their interpretation of Genesis as if their interpretation was the very word God itself. And as we have see, in defense of their interpretation even conjectures not mentioned in scripture, like no death before the fall, they will invent all sorts of bizarre ideas which must be true because their interpretation couldn't possibly be mistaken. TEs on the other hand are happy to look at a wide range of different interpretations and see how they fit the text. I don't disagree with you because I have different presuppositions but because you are making up wild claims with no basis in the text.
Possibly, I don't know if innate knowledge is possible for a sentient intelligence without a framework it understand it in. But it is irrelevant since God was not creating some abstract intelligence capable of innate knowledge, but a human being, and we don't work that way. Death would be meaningless to us if our only experience was immortality in an perfect immortal world. Not only that but the text specifically says there were things Adam and Eve did not know, the knowledge of good and evil came when they ate from the forbidden tree. Yet the knowledge you are claiming God must have given them was an innate understanding of the consequences of their disobedience, the knowledge of evil. Your innate knowledge is not only unsupported by the text and makes no sense, it goes against what we see in the text itself.
No, back when I was a literalist, I preferred to live with the holes and unanswered questions rather than assume any wild speculation I came up with must the right answer.
You probably have a better case for Eve, though there is still no indication how long was it before she was chatting with the local reptiles. There is even less evidence of innate knowledge, she did not know not to talk to Satan and her version of God's command came with embellishments, "neither shall you touch it" not there in the original command. I agree with the Eastern Orthodox view rather than western creationists, that Genesis gives us a picture of Adam and Eve's childlike innocence rather than superhuman intelligence.
You mean Moses made us the all the names 'Adam', 'Eve', 'Cain' and 'Seth', that they were not actual names Abraham, Isaac or any of the Israelites coming out of Egypt would have heard of or recognised? Wow. That is radical Jig, but not very literal, the text says that is what their names were. The problem is, while translators will translate words, names are transliterated. The New Testament talks of Abraham, αβρααμ, not πατεραπολλωνεθνων, Father-of-many-nations; Isaac, ισαακ, not γέλως.
Elwell is right that the tree has to be symbolic, the problem is, in the story the tree is an effective source of everlasting life. It wasn't that when they lost the life the tree signified they lost assess to the symbol too. When they sinned they were thrown out of the garden because the tree was still able to give them everlasting life. Gen 3:22 Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever-- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden.
No, mistaking their interpretation for the word of God is a creationist problem. Another difficulty creationists often seem to have is a complete inability to understand how other people approach Genesis, or other interpretations of Genesis, which is why you can only assume I am treating my interpretation the same way you do yours. I don't, though I used to be a Creationist so I have a much better understanding of your approach than you seem to have of mine.
Not true either. For one thing it isn't a choice between literal a non literal, there are plenty of different literal interpretations as well as plenty of non literal ones. Not all the literal interpretations are young earth either and even young earth creationists interpret some of Genesis 1-3 non literally. I don't in fact think there is one single correct interpretation, it is a section of scripture with a wide range of meaning and significance. I am quite open to being shown a better understanding of the text. I just don't see why with all the possible ways to understand Genesis we should pick one we have been been shown is simply wrong.
Again completely wrong. Most TEs here are quite happy with a literal interpretation of flat earth and geocentric passages which as you realise are contradicted by science. The reason I interpret the Genesis creation accounts figuratively is that there is plenty of evidence in scripture that is how they were meant. Now there was a time, long before modern science when literal or figurative interpretations were perfectly reasonable ways to approach the creation accounts and you have church father and Jewish scholars taking either approach. The literal interpretation of the geocentric passages was just as reasonable. Until we found out from science it was wrong.
If there are different ways to interpret the passage why pick an interpretation shown to be wrong? Of course if the text was clearly speaking literally without the slightest hint of another meaning, either in the passage itself or how it was treated in the rest of scripture, as you have with the geocentric passages, then the obvious conclusion is that the writer was being quite literal. Then you have to figure out why God spoke to us that way when it is the earth that goes round the sun.
Not it is not, you just read it into the passage.
We see Adam with the ability to make words for the things he saw. No suggestion of innate knowledge, and no suggestion God gave him a innate knowledge of a world completely unlike (according to Creationists) the world God created him in.
I'm still learning, aren't you?
No. You are reading that into the account.
No I understood you quite well. Genesis says these were their names, not what their names meant, their names. If you want to take Genesis literally anyway.
