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.
What makes you think metaphors are meant to become literal? Jesus said he was the true vine, will this beautiful metaphor ever become literal and we all grow leaves?
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.Has anyone considered the possibility that the years Adam was recorded to have lived could have started after the fall of man when he became mortal and his days became numbered? Adam and Eve could have lived for thousands or even millions of years as immortal beings in the garden of Eden before the fall.
I think it's more likely that he was created in the Late Cretaceous period rather than living millions of years before the fall.
We know what Adam named these animals?? Surely their names have changed since then. We don't even know what language Adam spoke.
OK...
We both believe Adam knew what the term "death" meant. It would make no logical sense for God to tell Adam he would experience death if he ate a piece of fruit, if he didn't know what death was.
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.Our difference comes from "where" this knowledge came from. We are both bias with our conclusions because of our current theological position on origins. It's no surprise you disagree with me. You have no other choice if you want to remain faithful to your position.
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.I have answered this question already. I believe God created Adam whole and complete as a ready able bodied adult. I believe this because my hermeneutic of the first two chapters of Genesis implies this. If this is true, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that Adam must also be mature in other ways too, including in his understanding and knowledge base - it would make good sense. I have stated above Adam was able to understand what "death" was (even though he never observed it) because God supernaturally granted Adam this knowledge to him.
Can God not do such a thing?
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.Wild ideas? Not really. Given my interpretation of the text is is a very reasonable assumption.
If you applied the same hermeneutic to Genesis 1 and 2 that I do, would you have suggested the text implied something different? My conclusion is rational considering my theological position. I can not help that it directly clashes with your philosophy.
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.I know you want to disagree with this but if you read the text literally in Genesis it is not possible to interpret the text as saying he had a childhood. This is especially true for Eve. The text literally says she came from Adam's side and was formed while Adam was sleeping. This could not have been longer than 8 hours, if that!
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.Did Jesus speak Greek? When an author writes a historical narrative down he typically does so in his own language and translates dialogue into his language as well - this is for his benefit and his audiences. This is what Moses did with the first two chapters of Genesis. God really did name the first man a name that meant "man" (in whatever language God provided to be the first language) and this man actually did name his created wife "mother of all" in this language as well. There is no way to prove what this language was. I just find it a bit illogical to suggest it was the same Hebrew that Moses penned the Pentateuch with.
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.This question is off topic but here is a excerpt for your entertainment anyway:
The Genesis narrative suggests that God intended the tree of life to provide Adam and Eve with a sacramental symbol of life in fellowship with and dependence on him. Mans life, as distinguished from that of the animals, was much more than merely biological; it was also spiritual and found its deepest significance in fellowship with God. Life in the fullness of its physical and spiritual dimensions, however, could remain mans possession only so long as he remained obedient to Gods command (Gn 2:17). It would seem unlikely that there was ever any intrinsic life-giving efficacy in the chemical properties of the fruit of the tree of life, but God made the fruit life-giving so far as he had sealed his grace to man in the use of it. When by disobedience man lost that which the tree of life signified, he also lost access to the symbol itself.
Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1988), 2105.
It seems that death is not necessary for there to be a tree of life - you have misunderstood its original purpose. But I'm sure your theological and philosophical beliefs will inspire you to disagree with me here.
If you take this account literally, then it is implied...
This question is off topic but here is a excerpt for your entertainment anyway:
The Genesis narrative suggests that God intended the tree of life to provide Adam and Eve with a sacramental symbol of life in fellowship with and dependence on him. Mans life, as distinguished from that of the animals, was much more than merely biological; it was also spiritual and found its deepest significance in fellowship with God. Life in the fullness of its physical and spiritual dimensions, however, could remain mans possession only so long as he remained obedient to Gods command (Gn 2:17). It would seem unlikely that there was ever any intrinsic life-giving efficacy in the chemical properties of the fruit of the tree of life, but God made the fruit life-giving so far as he had sealed his grace to man in the use of it. When by disobedience man lost that which the tree of life signified, he also lost access to the symbol itself.
Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1988), 2105.
It seems that death is not necessary for there to be a tree of life - you have misunderstood its original purpose. But I'm sure your theological and philosophical beliefs will inspire you to disagree with me here.
Genesis 3 said:22 And the LORD God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.
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.
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.Given a literal interpretation, the indication is, Adam was talking the very same day he was created.
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.
You have completely misunderstood me.
Moses gave us the Hebrew translation for Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, etc.
It's amazing how often a purely literal, scripture-only interpretation has to do this. It's also amazing how Christians who believe in a purely literal, scripture-only interpretation accept such thinking without question.
Are you avoiding my questions? If you don't answer, I'll just assume it's because you can't.
Of course I can't answer them. I'm a stupid YEC. I have no formal higher-level education and handle snakes on Sunday service.
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.We are both dealing with the same word of God. We hit heads on issues of hermeneutics. However, your attitude about my position is hypocritical. You believe your interpretation is correct (just as I do) therefore you believe that your position is the same as God's position. Do not pretend that you are doing something different. We both believe our interpretation is the correct "word of God."
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.You fail to see that this is exactly how I see your position. You also believe that a "non-literal" interpretation should be given to the text of Genesis one and two. You don't believe you could possible be mistaken.
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.This is not completely true. That WIDE range isn't as wide as you make it out to be. For instance, all literal interpretation is thrown out. In fact, your range of interpretation is pretty narrow. Your interpretation is not allowed to contradict many current scientific theories (like cosmic evolution, macro-evolution, and a billion-plus year historical time-line). You are limited in range just like me.
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.Even if you thought the text in Genesis could be read literally, you still wouldn't be able to adhere to such a hermeneutic because origin science dictates your final interpretation needs to be non-literal.
Not it is not, you just read it into the passage.I am not making up wild claims. The idea that Adam and Eve were created as whole and complete adults is CLEARLY implied by a literal interpretation.
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.If this is true, then of course some kind of innate knowledge must have been given to them. On the same day we see them talking and walking.
I'm still learning, aren't you?This explains why it is easy for you to live with the holes and unanswered questions in your current position. And don't act like your position doesn't have holes or unanswered questions!
No. You are reading that into the account.Given a literal interpretation, the indication is, Adam was talking the very same day he was created.
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.You have completely misunderstood me.
Moses gave us the Hebrew translation for Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?