The Literal Fall of Man

[-57]

The "wages of sin" is only death because God punished Adam and Eve for it to be that way. But death should not by default include eternal torture. Eternal torture is not love or just in any sense. It's wicked and unjust and evil, or anyone would say so if it was anyone else doing it/ Would you toss your child into a burning pit where they are tortured forever and ever and say you still love them? People would call you sick and twisted and evil and the farthest thing from loving or just.

You can believe what ever you want to believe...BUT....the bible tells us eternal punishment for the evil is what will happen.
If you disagree, which apparently you do...then lets see a line of biblical theology that clearly indicates your view is correct...OR...argue that the bible can be judged right or wrong based upon what we feel is right or wrong.

 

[expos4ever]

If Genesis was simply a metaphor as you and others suggest..then why doesn't the rest of the bible explain the metaphor?

First, I don't think any of us are suggesting that the entire book of Genesis is metaphor. For my part, I have been restricting my comments to the creation account. And I believe that parts of it probably are indeed literal - I am inclined to believe, for example, that there was an "Adam" (although I think he was produced by evolution).

And how you know the rest of the Bible does not "explain the metaphor"? I suggest that, in the broadest sense, the entire narrative of Scripture tells how God uses Israel, and then Jesus (and the church, perhaps) to bring about the restoration of the pre-fall Edenic state of the world. And I suggest that the garden of Eden account could easily be a metaphor (even if there was a real first Adam who fell) to describe that idealized state of the entire world.

What actually happens is that the bible presents Genesis as a literal and historical event.

You are begging the question - assuming the very thing you need to make a case for.

When you make Genesis a metaphor you tell all of us that the fall in the garden didn't happen and sin and death were not the result of one mans disobedience.

As just stated, I am inclined to believe that Adam was real.

I truly hope above you didn't say the idea of a literal Genesis is endorsed by a tiny thin fridge group of believers...believing in a ridiculous idea.

Well, I do think that young earth creationism is a fringe belief that is "ridiculous" in the sense that there is devastatingly convincing evidence that the earth (and life) have been around for billions of years. I suggest that it is only in the United States that a significant fraction of Christians deny evolution.

 

[expos4ever]

deleted own post.

 

[-57]

Again, Got Questions just sites Revelation, which was written much later, is symbolic, and Genesis itself never indicates it was anything but a serpent. The punishment God gave the serpent would have been completely different.

True, each "serpent" gets it's just punishment. First the Satan influenced serpent for allowing him to be used in mans fall by being punished to crawing on his belly and secondly the serpent of old, Satan gets his punishment by being tossed into the fire.

It's more than just Rev. In the garden the Satan influenced serpent used a line of questioning on Eve. The serpent question what God had said with..."“Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?"...In the new testament we read about Jesus' temptation where Satan tried to get Jesus to fall by following the same style of questioning God.

Matt 4:3 And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.”

30 days earlier Jesus at His baptism heard God say... “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” Satan was saying to Jesus just as He was saying to Eve.....did God really say you were his son? IF so, do the following...prove it.

 

[-57]

First, I don't think any of us are suggesting that the entire book of Genesis is metaphor. For my part, I have been restricting my comments to the creation account. And I believe that parts of it probably are indeed literal - I am inclined to believe, for example, that there was an "Adam" (although I think he was produced by evolution).

You are quite correct. There was a literal Adam. The following list from Luke 3:23-38 shows that:

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri, Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er, Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech, Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

If Adam wasn't literal then somewhere this ancestry changes from fact to fiction as it ends with Adam then God. If Adam was a result of evolutionism the Romans 5:12 is wrong as well as much of christian theology concerning our sin nature.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

In 1 Cor 15:21 we read 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Evolution tells us populations evolve...and the Theo-Evo sects tells us sin wasn't a product of one man named Adam but instead evolved through and into the population. If Adam was a man in that evolving population then Adam would have had parents, neighbors, cousins, Eves relatives....all being sinless. A sinless population living and producing a progeny. They would have been a race of people living side by side with Adam and Eves progeny.
But, that isn't what the bibl teaches.
The bible teaches in Acts 17:26 .... And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

The bible clearly denies God used evolution to populate the earth.
Now, if you want to say...(although I think he was produced by evolution)...you need to get around these verses.

 

[SeventyOne]

While I still think you are not clearly expressing your argument, I think you are making this argument, which is clearly not very strong:

1. We have the account in Genesis of the snake being consigned to travel on his belly;
2. We observe that snakes travel on their bellies in the present;
3. We are told that even when the curse is "reversed" in the future, the snake will still travel on its belly.
4. Therefore, the snake in Genesis is a real snake.

This argument - which is my guess at what you are saying - is clearly flawed. I can counter that while, obviously, snakes travel on their belly in the present and may well do so in the future, this in no way prevents the author of Genesis from inventing a story about the snake having previously not been on its belly and only been consigned to traveling on its belly as the result of the fall. You seem to think that because snakes are real, writers cannot use them as metaphors - a very odd thing to try to argue. And I don't get the relevance of the prophecy about the snake continuing on its belly in the "new world. Even if we ignore that prophecy, you would appear to believe that because real snakes travel on their belly, this means that the snake in Genesis is an example of such a real snake.

Well, that obviously does not work: real bears eat honey. But surely this does not prevent me from creating a story about a honey-eating bear.

There's nothing wrong with my argumentation, just your ability to understand outside the evolutionary framework. You haven't thought it through obviously. I think your evolutionary approach to the subject prevents understanding.

Number 3 is false. We are not told it is reversed. In fact, I clearly showed it was not being reversed. I could use your silly argument the other way and state that you seem to think just because there are metaphors, it cannot be real. And your thing about the bear means you didn't even attempt to think it through from beginning to end. This does take some thought effort.

 

[expos4ever]

Evolution tells us populations evolve...and the Theo-Evo sects tells us sin wasn't a product of one man named Adam but instead evolved through and into the population.

Not all of us who believe in evolution and are Christians say this. I have agreed that likely there was a real Adam but - and I know you won't agree - this does not mean that there weren't "pre-Adamic, "pre-humans" before Adam. And that evolution produced the whole shebang.

If Adam was a man in that evolving population then Adam would have had parents, neighbors, cousins, Eves relatives....all being sinless. A sinless population living and producing a progeny. They would have been a race of people living side by side with Adam and Eves progeny.
But, that isn't what the bibl teaches.

The bible teaches in Acts 17:26 .... And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

It's not that simple, although I am sure you will accuse me of violating inerrancy in what follows. I have little doubt that Paul, Jesus, and whoever wrote Acts believed that Adam was really the first human. And I am confident they would all therefore reject evolution. We can get into the details if you like, but I see no reason to believe that Biblical authority is cast into doubt if we admit that people like Paul and even Jesus had mistaken beliefs, and that those beliefs get presented in scripture. Jesus took on human form and almost certainly inherited the "weakness" of human ignorance.

Let's be clear: If Jesus believed the earth was 6000 years and it is really 4.3 billion years, that makes Jesus "uninformed", not a sinner.

 

[expos4ever]

There's nothing wrong with my argumentation, just your ability to understand outside the evolutionary framework. You haven't thought it through obviously. I think your evolutionary approach to the subject prevents understanding.

Number 3 is false. We are not told it is reversed. In fact, I clearly showed it was not being reversed. I could use your silly argument the other way and state that you seem to think just because there are metaphors, it cannot be real. And your thing about the bear means you didn't even attempt to think it through from beginning to end. This does take some thought effort.

It doesn't matter that number three is false. I happen to think that the correctness of number three is irrelevant to your argument. So let's agree with you on number 3, as follows:

1. We have the account in Genesis of the snake being consigned to travel on his belly;
2. We observe that snakes travel on their bellies in the present;
3. We are told that the snake will still travel on its belly in the "new earth".
4. Therefore, the snake in Genesis is a real snake.

This argument is still wrong: you still appear to believe that because real snakes travel on their belly, this means that the snake in Genesis is an example of such a real snake

You are mistaken in your claim that "I could use your silly argument the other way and state that you seem to think just because there are metaphors, it cannot be real".

I never made such an argument; I happen to believe the snake is a metaphor, but not "just because there are metaphors" - please do not misrepresent me.

 

[-57]

Not all of us who believe in evolution and are Christians say this. I have agreed that likely there was a real Adam but - and I know you won't agree - this does not mean that there weren't "pre-Adamic, "pre-humans" before Adam. And that evolution produced the whole shebang.

It seems as if you want to believe the bible but feel it's ok to contradict the bible with your beliefs. Adam was the first man or the bible is wrong.
1st Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
This would mean there were no ..."pre-humans" before Adam. And that evolution produced the whole shebang.

It's not that simple, although I am sure you will accuse me of violating inerrancy in what follows. I have little doubt that Paul, Jesus, and whoever wrote Acts believed that Adam was really the first human. And I am confident they would all therefore reject evolution. We can get into the details if you like, but I see no reason to believe that Biblical authority is cast into doubt if we admit that people like Paul and even Jesus had mistaken beliefs, and that those beliefs get presented in scripture. Jesus took on human form and almost certainly inherited the "weakness" of human ignorance.

I suppose Jesus inhereted human weakness when He quoted to Nicodemus John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

You forget, Jesus was fully human and fully God. Jesus had no mistaken belief. In fact Jesus made Adam.

 

[-57]

I never made such an argument; I happen to believe the snake is a metaphor, but not "just because there are metaphors" - please do not misrepresent me.

The bible presents serpents in both a metaphorical and literal way.

Metaphorical
Matt 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
Literal
Matt 7:10 Or also, if he will ask for a fish, will give him a serpent?

Why does the serpent in the garden have to be a metaphor when it's presented as literal?
2nd cor 11:3 presents the serpent as literal:
I am afraid, however, that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may be led astray from your simple and pure devotion to Christ.

 

[expos4ever]

It seems as if you want to believe the bible but feel it's ok to contradict the bible with your beliefs. Adam was the first man or the bible is wrong.

It appears we have a basic difference: I believe the author of Genesis was using literary device, and literary device, by its very nature, involves distortions to the literal truth. You, on the other hand, appear to deny the possible use of literary device and see any departure from strict literality as a denial of scriptural authority.

I believe that Adam was the first "man" in the sense that he was the first "homo sapien" who was entrusted with governance of God's created order. No doubt, you will howl that I am contradicting scripture.

The real disagreement, I suggest, is our disagreement over the very nature of this account - I am open to seeing it as a "story" that communicates an important truth: there was indeed a point at which God decided to put human beings in charge of His world, and that happened with Adam. You, on the other hand, appear to not consider a literary reading to be even possible.

In my defence, and as a challenge to you, I suggest is clear beyond reason that other sections of Scripture clearly use "literal-truth-distorting" metaphors. So why not Genesis?

About 1 Corinthians 15:45: Of course Adam became a "living being". As do we all. How does that challenge the possibility that Adam had a father?

Even if you think that does not respond to your objection, I think it is indeed highly plausible that Paul is simply ignorant of evolution. As I tried to argue in my last post, I don't think that challenges scriptural authority. The important theological point, I suggest, is that Jesus has solved the Adam problem (sin) - it doesn't really matter that Adam may have had parents.

 

[expos4ever]

I suppose Jesus inhereted human weakness when He quoted to Nicodemus John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

You forget, Jesus was fully human and fully God. Jesus had no mistaken belief. In fact Jesus made Adam.

Your argument that Jesus had no mistaken belief is not convincing - where in scripture are we told this? Yes, there is a sense in which Jesus is God, but we know from Paul that Jesus differs from God in that, unlike God, Jesus is subject to temptation. So it is very reasonable to assume Jesus, as a man, shared in many other human weaknesses. Such as ignorance of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

 

[expos4ever]

The bible presents serpents in both a metaphorical and literal way.

Metaphorical
Matt 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
Literal
Matt 7:10 Or also, if he will ask for a fish, will give him a serpent?

Of course, I never denied this.

Why does the serpent in the garden have to be a metaphor when it's presented as literal?

Once again, I never said the serpent has to be a metaphor; I am saying I believe there is powerful evidence that it is a metaphor.

It talked, remember. How many talking snakes do you know? This screams metaphor!

 

[-57]

Your argument that Jesus had no mistaken belief is not convincing - where in scripture are we told this? Yes, there is a sense in which Jesus is God, but we know from Paul that Jesus differs from God in that, unlike God, Jesus is subject to temptation. So it is very reasonable to assume Jesus, as a man, shared in many other human weaknesses. Such as ignorance of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

You do understand Jesus was the creator? Do you think Jesus forgot..out of igmnorance or weakness?


(talking about Jesus)


COL 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

COL 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.


JOH 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.


JOH 1:10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.


HEB 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.

 

[expos4ever]

You do understand Jesus was the creator? Do you think Jesus forgot..out of igmnorance or weakness?

I am surprised you are pushing this. We know that Jesus had some limitations that the Father does not have. Example: Jesus is subject to temptation.

Another clear example of Jesus' limited knowledge: He proclaims that only the Father knows when the Son will return.

I see no case for simply assuming that Jesus was omniscient, especially since Paul argues forcefully that He was "just like us, except without sin".

None of the texts you cited demonstrate that the human Jesus possessed all possible knowledge.

 

[-57]

Of course, I never denied this.

I don't think anyone denied it.

Once again, I never said the serpent has to be a metaphor; I am saying I believe there is powerful evidence that it is a metaphor.

You haven't presented any powerful evidence. Perhaps you truly do believe there is powerful evidence that the serpent is a metaphor..but just haven't posted the powerful evidence as of yet.

It talked, remember. How many talking snakes do you know? This screams metaphor!

Numbers 22:28 Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”.......metaphor?

 

[-57]

I am surprised you are pushing this. We know that Jesus had some limitations that the Father does not have. Example: Jesus is subject to temptation. I see no case for simply assuming that Jesus was omniscient, especially since Paul argues forcefully that He was "just like us, except without sin".

None of the texts you cited demonstrate that the human Jesus possessed all possible knowledge.

Jesus answered, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'

Do you think Jesus didn't know He was the creator?

What else did Jesus get wrong? Just the stuff concerning evolutionism? Did Jesus get it wrong when He said... “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"?

 

[expos4ever]

You haven't presented any powerful evidence. Perhaps you truly do believe there is powerful evidence that the serpent is a metaphor..but just haven't posted the powerful evidence as of yet.

Sure I have. The snake talked. That, alone, is a huge clue. Plus, we have the well-known fact that the snake is seen as powerful symbol of evil in many human cultures.

Numbers 22:28 Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”.......metaphor?

Probably, yes.

People back in those days were not idiots - they knew the value of a good metaphor.

 

[expos4ever]

Jesus answered, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'

Do you think Jesus didn't know He was the creator?

I believe Jesus knew He was the creator. Not sure what that has to do with what we are discussing.

What else did Jesus get wrong? Just the stuff concerning evolutionism? Did Jesus get it wrong when He said... “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"?

I would bet Jesus did not any of the following things:

1. E=mc squared;
2. The sun is 150 million kilometres from the earth;
3. DNA is the "code" for living beings;
4. The proton is about 2000 times more massive than the electron;
5. The universe sprang into existence about 14 billion years ago.

Do you believe Jesus knew these things?

And please do not insult my intelligence or that of any poor soul who happens to be lurking - I never posted anything that would justify your suggestion that I might believe Jesus was mistaken about being the way the truth and the life.

 

[-57]

Sure I have. The snake talked. That, alone, is a huge clue. Plus, we have the well-known fact that the snake is seen as powerful symbol of evil in many human cultures.

I would tend to think the snake is a symbol of evil because of the event in the garden.

...The snake talked....tell me, are all supernatural events considered as metaphors?
Dead people don't come back to life on day 3. Was Christ resurrection a metaphor? There are some groups of christians that claim Christ resurrection was a metaphor.

Probably, yes.

Was the angel of the Lord mentioned in the previous verse also a metaphor?