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.
i.e. you implied that humanity had to reach some state first to which God responded by initiating a relationship with human beings.
Assuming TE
Man would have only gotten a "soul" and began a personal relationship with God when he reached whatever arbitrary state that God deemed "sufficient" enough, that is, when he evolved out of his lesser, primitive forms reaching his state of "sentience".
Let us remember that death did not occur until the fall, and hence no death existed until man achieved this "state".
Question: What would be the implications of debased humanoids reproducing and not dying for millions of years until mankind was "created" so to speak.
And by extension, what about the vast plethora of biological life that seemingly evolved and reproduced throughout not only millions, but billions of years before the Fall, when death was non-existent.
Essentially, the first "humans" would have been walking around with billions (most probably even trillions and beyond) of other humanoids. Then we have "the Fall", and hence we have this positively enormous amount of "humanoids" (ranging from the most debased to the most advanced) dying within the same margin of time.
1) such events would blatantly contradict the fossil record.
2) how could evolution have possibly worked before the fall, as natural selection could not exist.
And on a side not, if the evolution was guided, then how could it be purely naturalistic? You cannot have both. The moment you say evolution is "guided" you have redefined evolution.
Truly those who want to claim there is no "major" differences between theistic/non-theistic evolution must be fooling themselves!?
Could I suggest you tell us what you own views are, rather than you making assumptions about TEs, and TEs making assumptions about you?Just because I may not agree with you doesn't make me a creationist, I do not identify myself with creationists at all. In all honesty, this pitting of "evolutionist" vs "creationist" is nothing more than stupidity.
How is it stupidity? You either believe that the universe functions like science has observed and tested, or you assume God supernaturally "created" it with varying levels of involvement.
If Adam and Eve were immortal, why did God ban them from eating from the Tree of Life, to prevent them from gaining immortality?
Absolutely nothing in Genesis indicates physical death was non-existant until the fall.
What makes you think the Tree of Life is allegorical? Are there any other passages from Genesis 1 or 2 that you read allegorically?
And as of Chapter 4, there is no reason to believe it is anything but historical, not allegorical.
So, if I understand you correctly, you read the account of Eve being made from Adam's rib literally because Adam refers to it subsequently.21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
I do not take this as allegorical for example, as it is the cause for Adam exclaiming...
This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.
And as of Chapter 4, there is no reason to believe it is anything but historical, not allegorical.
Who was Cain so scared of that God had to give him a mark of protection, and how did he build a city with a population of three?
So, if I understand you correctly, you read the account of Eve being made from Adam's rib literally because Adam refers to it subsequently.
What, then, about Genesis 3:21-24's subsequent referral to the Tree of Life?
I agree largely with what you're saying here. I just don't understand what leads you interpret the Tree of Life allegorically and other parts of the Genesis creation accounts literally. You haven't been particularly clear about what sets the Tree of Life apart.Those are two different aspects, you can't just take "allegory" and applied across the board for every single thing within the first few chapters of genesis.
The fundamental truth behind that portion of scripture is essentially that woman came from man.
The fundamental truth behind the Tree of Life is that mankind was able to partake in everlasting life before the fall.
Symbolism always represents a truth of some sort, we do not interpret symbolism on the basis of denying the content altogether...
Yet verse 23 is immediately followed by an editorial comment saying Eve being made from Adam's flesh, flesh of his flesh, is the reason husband and wife become one flesh in the sexual union.21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
I do not take this as allegorical for example, as it is the cause for Adam exclaiming...
This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.
And as of Chapter 4, there is no reason to believe it is anything but historical, not allegorical.
I agree largely with what you're saying here. I just don't understand what leads you interpret the Tree of Life allegorically and other parts of the Genesis creation accounts literally. You haven't been particularly clear about what sets the Tree of Life apart.
Yet verse 23 is immediately followed by an editorial comment saying Eve being made from Adam's flesh, flesh of his flesh, is the reason husband and wife become one flesh in the sexual union.
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
I really don't see how this follows as a consequence of Eve literally being cloned from Adam's rib. It would follow however, if the picture of rib is an allegory of the unity of husband and wife.
Yeah, it doesn't work too well. Then again, it's hard to reconcile heliocentrism with biblical statements to the effect that the earth doesn't move. How has Christianity dealt with this in the past? We re-evaluated our strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible. Evolutionary creationists are only suggesting we be consistent by applying the same accommodationist hermeneutic to the opening chapters of Genesis.There is no "setting apart". I am attempting to apply evolution to the claim Adam made...
This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.
I don't know of any evolutionary creationists here who confine God to acting only via natural means. I have, however, come across many a neocreationist who feels that God acts ONLY supernaturally, and feel threatened when natural explanations are put forth by science to explain what we see in nature. I believe God is perfectly capable of acting both naturally and supernaturally, so positing natural explanations for what we see in nature is in no way contrary to God.Something I noticed about TE, it's almost like you must force yourself to only view God working within the confinement of natural laws. In other words, God is not allowed to be God.
It's odd that you should say that, yet advocate that the Tree of Life is symbolic or allegorical.I do not see how this can be reconciled with evolutionary theory. We cannot just claim symbolism wherever we want, especially in parts where it is not warranted in any way.
Depends on whether God used the Y chromosome or two copies of the X, but that is not actually dealing with my point.
It's odd that you should say that, yet advocate that the Tree of Life is symbolic or allegorical.
You are not thinking sensibly here. If we infer evolution as the cause for bio-diversity, then that means Man was not created in his current form, but that he hailed from other species (animals) that did not possess any ability to even experience a relationship in any way or form. Whether you agree or not, this relationship between God and Man (as the scriptures reveal it to be) could only have began at a certain stage of human evolution, where man possessed his full faculties and cognitive abilities. Scripturally, this would have to be the point where God endows man with a "soul". Do we not forget this is theistic evolution?
The problem is not that scripture describes the sexual union metaphorically, but that it says the sexual union is the result of Eve being made from Adam rib. The sexual union being 'one flesh' is because Eve was one flesh with Adam from being made from his rib. You also have the 'one flesh' in the the verse you take literally, being used metaphorically in a editorial comment in the very next verse.Scripture reveals that woman was derived from man, one specific passage that speaks about the symbolic union between man and woman does not change this.
I'm having a really hard time following your reasoning. WHY do you think woman being made from man's rib cannot be symbolic, but eating fruit from a tree that grants everlasting life must be?If scripture reveals woman being derived from man specifically, we should interpret it accordingly.
The relation between eating fruit and having everlasting life cannot be anything but symbolic, so we interpret it accordingly.
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?