- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Since there has been a lot of argument about the historical veracity of Adam and the Fall, why not we quantify the support for each position.
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Was Adam a real person, and was the Fall real?
- Thread starter shernren
- Start date
- Status
bluemarkus
Veteran
- Nov 19, 2004
- 2,045
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
why do we have a family tree of his sons etc, that are written down just in the way all the other family trees and genealogies of the OT are written ?
there is a lot of scripture portraying him as the first human being.
i cannot find any scripture portraying him as a ghost or something else.
greetings
MB
Gen_2:19; Gen_2:20; Gen_2:21; Gen_2:23; Gen_3:8; Gen_3:9; Gen_3:17; Gen_3:20; Gen_3:21; Gen_4:1; Gen_4:25; Gen_5:1; Gen_5:2; Gen_5:3; Gen_5:4; Gen_5:5; Deu_32:8; Jos_3:16; 1Ch_1:1; Job_31:33; Luk_3:38; Rom_5:14; 1Co_15:22; 1Co_15:45; 1Ti_2:13; 1Ti_2:14; Jud_1:14;
there is a lot of scripture portraying him as the first human being.
i cannot find any scripture portraying him as a ghost or something else.
greetings
MB
Gen_2:19; Gen_2:20; Gen_2:21; Gen_2:23; Gen_3:8; Gen_3:9; Gen_3:17; Gen_3:20; Gen_3:21; Gen_4:1; Gen_4:25; Gen_5:1; Gen_5:2; Gen_5:3; Gen_5:4; Gen_5:5; Deu_32:8; Jos_3:16; 1Ch_1:1; Job_31:33; Luk_3:38; Rom_5:14; 1Co_15:22; 1Co_15:45; 1Ti_2:13; 1Ti_2:14; Jud_1:14;
Upvote
0
PaladinValer
Traditional Orthodox Anglican
- Apr 7, 2004
- 23,587
- 1,245
- 44
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I am a TE who does believe that a literal Adam and Eve did live, although I recognize the true significance of the words "Adam" and "Eve" so that I have no problem with fellow TEs who take the words not as literal people but generally as humanity as a whole, which is still completely orthodox.
Upvote
0
S Walch
-
Adam + eve = real.
Or else, Paul incorrectly states this:
Romans 5:12-19
12 When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. 13 Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. And though there was no law to break, since it had not yet been given, 14 they all died anyway--even though they did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. What a contrast between Adam and Christ, who was yet to come! 15 And what a difference between our sin and God's generous gift of forgiveness. For this one man, Adam, brought death to many through his sin. But this other man, Jesus Christ, brought forgiveness to many through God's bountiful gift. 16 And the result of God's gracious gift is very different from the result of that one man's sin. For Adam's sin led to condemnation, but we have the free gift of being accepted by God, even though we are guilty of many sins. 17 The sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over us, but all who receive God's wonderful, gracious gift of righteousness will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.
18 Yes, Adam's one sin brought condemnation upon everyone, but Christ's one act of righteousness makes all people right in God's sight and gives them life. 19 Because one person disobeyed God, many people became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many people will be made right in God's sight.
Or else, Paul incorrectly states this:
Romans 5:12-19
12 When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. 13 Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. And though there was no law to break, since it had not yet been given, 14 they all died anyway--even though they did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. What a contrast between Adam and Christ, who was yet to come! 15 And what a difference between our sin and God's generous gift of forgiveness. For this one man, Adam, brought death to many through his sin. But this other man, Jesus Christ, brought forgiveness to many through God's bountiful gift. 16 And the result of God's gracious gift is very different from the result of that one man's sin. For Adam's sin led to condemnation, but we have the free gift of being accepted by God, even though we are guilty of many sins. 17 The sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over us, but all who receive God's wonderful, gracious gift of righteousness will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.
18 Yes, Adam's one sin brought condemnation upon everyone, but Christ's one act of righteousness makes all people right in God's sight and gives them life. 19 Because one person disobeyed God, many people became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many people will be made right in God's sight.
Upvote
0
PaladinValer
Traditional Orthodox Anglican
- Apr 7, 2004
- 23,587
- 1,245
- 44
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
There is no historical proof of a literal Adam and Eve. It is possible only due to the theory of evolution, oddly enough, that the very idea could be based upon.
Upvote
0
Ceris
I R the Nutness (and I love sedatta )
- Mar 10, 2004
- 6,608
- 443
- 40
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
PaladinValer said:
I'm confused as to what exactly you're saying in the second sentence PaladinVader. Could you perhaps rephrase or elaborate upon this a little more? Thank you.God Bless,
Ceris
Upvote
0
PaladinValer
Traditional Orthodox Anglican
- Apr 7, 2004
- 23,587
- 1,245
- 44
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Happily.
There is no actual evidence of who or what the first human man and woman were like according to history. None. Although most religions in the world do have their theories on who the first man and woman are, they are, at all times, circular reasoning to rely one (The Bible is True because it says so, etc). This isn't to say that there wasn't a first man and woman of the modern human species, but it isn't through history that we can come to this (although, as a historian, I can estimate a date of their appearance in time based on the physical evidence given).
Oddly enough, it is through the natural sciences that we get the glimpse. Evolution can give us an idea of when the very first modern human man and female lived. It can even tells us in which area they lived in, although it cannot do much more than that.
The idea of a literal Adam and Eve is therefore possible due to the theory of evolution. How it is theorized makes it possible for the first two modern humans to be one man and one woman.
There is no actual evidence of who or what the first human man and woman were like according to history. None. Although most religions in the world do have their theories on who the first man and woman are, they are, at all times, circular reasoning to rely one (The Bible is True because it says so, etc). This isn't to say that there wasn't a first man and woman of the modern human species, but it isn't through history that we can come to this (although, as a historian, I can estimate a date of their appearance in time based on the physical evidence given).
Oddly enough, it is through the natural sciences that we get the glimpse. Evolution can give us an idea of when the very first modern human man and female lived. It can even tells us in which area they lived in, although it cannot do much more than that.
The idea of a literal Adam and Eve is therefore possible due to the theory of evolution. How it is theorized makes it possible for the first two modern humans to be one man and one woman.
Upvote
0
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Well, SBG, the Bible doesn't give me any evidence that the Sun is a fusion chamber or that the Moon is an inert lump of rock either. But it's easier to me to assume that Adam and Eve were real. Less headache. I'm intellectually lazy. and I mean it, not being sarcastic.
What about some stuff from those who answered No?
and I mean it, not being sarcastic.What about some stuff from those who answered No?
Upvote
0
PaladinValer
Traditional Orthodox Anglican
- Apr 7, 2004
- 23,587
- 1,245
- 44
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
The Bible contains everything for the fullness of salvation and is authoritative in matters of doctrine and faith.
That is the belief of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It is also my belief.
Whoopie-doo-dah-day that the Bible is wrong historically in several places. Whoopie-doo-dah-day that the Bible is based on a flat-Earth cosmology which is laughably wrong. Whoopie-doo-day-dah that the Bible is mainly psuedonymically written.
Those aren't what the Bible is about. Those who think that misuse the Scripture and will always find themselves in contradiction to what we can and do discover as fact and truth in the world about the world. The Bible isn't a worldly book; it is a spiritual book, and that is how it is to be used.
God gave us a brain and expects us to use it. He gave us the most complex brain with the most advanced and complex ability of any known species. It is why we are said to be made in God's image.
I refuse to rely on illogic. I refuse to rely on misinformation based on some "theology" which was never believed in by the Early Church and is therefore historically not a part of my Christian faith. I refuse to rely of anti-intellectualism out of an irrational fear that the natural or social sciences are some "boogyman" that can destroy my faith when in reality they are of no threat unless who accept some "theology" which historically was never believed in within Christianity.
That is the belief of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It is also my belief.
Whoopie-doo-dah-day that the Bible is wrong historically in several places. Whoopie-doo-dah-day that the Bible is based on a flat-Earth cosmology which is laughably wrong. Whoopie-doo-day-dah that the Bible is mainly psuedonymically written.
Those aren't what the Bible is about. Those who think that misuse the Scripture and will always find themselves in contradiction to what we can and do discover as fact and truth in the world about the world. The Bible isn't a worldly book; it is a spiritual book, and that is how it is to be used.
God gave us a brain and expects us to use it. He gave us the most complex brain with the most advanced and complex ability of any known species. It is why we are said to be made in God's image.
I refuse to rely on illogic. I refuse to rely on misinformation based on some "theology" which was never believed in by the Early Church and is therefore historically not a part of my Christian faith. I refuse to rely of anti-intellectualism out of an irrational fear that the natural or social sciences are some "boogyman" that can destroy my faith when in reality they are of no threat unless who accept some "theology" which historically was never believed in within Christianity.
Upvote
0
shernren said:
OK. With all due respect to PaladinVader I cannot accept his explanation. While evolution does give us a target date for the appearance of the first Homo sapiens, it cannot really pinpoint a specific man and woman. This is because evolution is a matter of change in species, so by evolutionary theory, humanity arose as a species, a population, not as a couple of individuals. So, if Adam and Eve were specific individuals, they were not the only humans on earth, as they would have parents and siblings and cousins, etc. who were also human.
Since this is the case, focusing on two particular individuals is erroneous for then we would have to consider that some humans fell and others did not.
On that basis, I have to see the Fall as something that happens to the species, not to one or two people. So I see Gen. 2-3 as a pictorial story of how humanity collectively falls into sin, with Adam and Eve as figures of all people.
Upvote
0
PaladinValer
Traditional Orthodox Anglican
- Apr 7, 2004
- 23,587
- 1,245
- 44
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I understand your critique and welcome it. However, I feel I must stress that I believe Adam and Eve were the first man and woman. I do not believe all the rest of modern humanity stemmed by them, although I do believe that, through them, all did Fall.
Does that help?
Does that help?
Upvote
0
PaladinValer said:
Yes, as long as you see the fall involving all of humanity I have no objection to your interpretation. But personally, I would still be hard put to identify a first man and woman out of a species group.
Upvote
0
*cough* interpret Genesis 1 literally.
- Status
Similar threads
