Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

Zceptre said:

lol. Poor Bart. For the record, I'm laughing at the erroneous perception of sovereignty, not Bart himself.

You died and seen the third Heaven? I'm intrigued.

Click to expand...

Is this your cosmology also?

Job 33:6 said:

Adam being archetypal and not a literal person does not make the account untrue. Just as we wouldn't call the story of the good Samaritan untrue just because it was a parable.

Click to expand...

Where's the starting point for sin then?

Zceptre said:

You died and seen the third Heaven? I'm intrigued.

Click to expand...

Did Paul see the third heaven on the road to Damascus?

Akita Suggagaki said:

Is this your cosmology also?
View attachment 366934

Click to expand...

In principle as pertaining to levels yes. The "planets" aren't found in the Bible, as that is a purely extra-Biblical claim made by men.

I haven't traversed them myself, and the details of the second heavens is of no concern of mine really any longer, as that is where the angelic war is waged, not where Christ is seated. The debate on minor details is of no consequence to me regarding this.

My interest is in the third Heavens primarily. I personally only know of one account (that I could Biblically validate) where the person described the face of the Father on His throne. (temporarily visible) Many have experienced sitting on the Fathers lap like a little child. The rest of the accounts the Father's face is shrouded in light and not able to be seen.

ARBITER01 said:

Did Paul see the third heaven on the road to Damascus?

Click to expand...

Paul was stoned in Lystra until they all thought Paul had died and dragged him outside the city. (Acts 14:19)

Afterward, when the Disciples gathered around Paul, then he got up. (Acts 14:20)

Later Paul tells a story of "a man" who was caught up to the third heaven. (2 Corinthians 12:2)

Paul died when he was stoned (Jewish people weren't unfamiliar with killing people this way as it was part of the law) and had a near death experience that he recounts later in his writings. I cannot prove this to anyone, each man can and must pray for discernment and if they choose or must doubt it is the case, that is fine and it makes no difference to me.

But I am certain he is referring to himself and his own experience, otherwise he wouldn't be able to tell such a story with such certainty and claim there were sacred words not permitted to tell. Another man can't tell Paul the "unlawful" words that he heard to validate they are unlawful, and it simply becomes obvious they thought he was dead because he was dead. The goal of the stoning was to kill the man, not to beat him unconscious. Can people believe he didn't die? Sure... But I don't think it is the most reasonable conclusion even based on simple logic.

You can't kill a man God sends on a mission, and so God sent him back and told him to keep going, that he had more preaching to do.

"Whether it was in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows." (2 Corinthians 12:2)

This is a statement pertaining to a first hand experience, and there would be no reason to not mention the man's name except the man he is referring to is himself.

Zceptre said:

In principle as pertaining to levels yes. The "planets" aren't found in the Bible, as that is a purely extra-Biblical claim made by men.

I haven't traversed them myself, and the second heavens is of no concern of mine really any longer, as that is where the angelic war is waged, not where Christ is seated. The debate on minor details is of no consequence to me regarding this.

My interest is in the third Heavens primarily. I personally only know of one account (that I could Biblically validate) where the person described the face of the Father on His throne. (temporarily visible) Many have experienced sitting on the Fathers lap like a little child. The rest of the accounts the Father's face is shrouded in light and not able to be seen.

Click to expand...

In your view is the Third Heaven a physical place or a metaphor?

Akita Suggagaki said:

In your view is the Third Heaven a physical place or a metaphor?

Click to expand...

Oh, it is a place for sure. King Jesus is in a physical body that was raised from the dead, and that body is sitting on a physical seat.

Angels though invisible pick up physical people and transport them, or move them, or protect them physically.

The Lord Jesus rose in a physical body and proved it to the disciples by eating fish in front of them, yet also didn't need a door and appeared inside the building without using a door. He also told Thomas to "touch" his side, meaning it was physical and tangible. (John 20:27)

Luke 24:36-43
36Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” 37But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”


40When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” 42So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43And He took it and ate in their presence.

He also left the Earth in His physical body in front of everyone meaning He didn't evaporate or vanish into thin air. (Acts 1:9)

Seems to me the physical nature of God's realm above sort of aligns with the physical reality of a literal Adam and Eve like is mentioned in the OP.

Real people, real places, real interactions. Yes, I believe thoroughly and without reservations it is a tangible place where people sit, stand, walk, talk, and interact just like here, and I have heard no accounts that were Biblical to suggest otherwise personally.

Do you differ in opinion?

Zceptre said:

Oh, it is a place for sure. King Jesus is in a physical body that was raised from the dead, and that body is sitting on a physical seat.

Angels though invisible pick up physical people and transport them, or move them, or protect them physically.

The Lord Jesus rose in a physical body and proved it to the disciples by eating fish in front of them, yet also didn't need a door and appeared inside the building without using a door. He also told Thomas to "touch" his side, meaning it was physical and tangible. (John 20:27)

Luke 24:36-43
36Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” 37But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”


40When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” 42So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43And He took it and ate in their presence.

He also left the Earth in His physical body in front of everyone meaning He didn't evaporate or vanish into thin air. (Acts 1:9)

Seems to me the physical nature of God's realm above sort of aligns with the physical reality of a literal Adam and Eve like is mentioned in the OP.

Real people, real places, real interactions. Yes, I believe thoroughly and without reservations it is a tangible place where people sit, stand, walk, talk, and interact just like here, and I have heard no accounts that were Biblical to suggest otherwise personally.

Do you differ in opinion?

Click to expand...

I though God was Spirit.

​

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Akita Suggagaki said:

I though God was Spirit.

Click to expand...

I didn't say God is not Spirit.

Angels are spirits yet they interact with physical people in the Bible in Sodom.

The idea that "spirit" means ghost, or vapor, or smoke, or intangible, or untouchable, and that spiritual things have no form or solidity at all, is a very common misconception.

I don't think it means that at all. In fact, the spiritual things are more real and more solid and more tangible and eternal. Streets of gold? Is that poetry? A throne? People sit on them. The Lord Jesus said there are many mansions being prepared for us, and I don't think he is making some kind of untouchable habitation for a ghost.

The angel standing in front of Balaam's donkey was not visible, but became visible and had a form holding a sword, yet he said clearly he would have killed Balaam if the donkey had not turned to the side. The spiritual angel stated he was going to physically kill Balaam with a spiritual sword.

Akita Suggagaki said:

If it were an assumption I would ne be asking.

Click to expand...

Then you get to Biblically demonstrate its veracity.

Clare73 said:

Then you get to Biblically demonstrate its veracity.

Click to expand...

lol Fiesty much?

(apologies, I am unware of any previous interactions, just gave me giggles)

Am just kidding.

(Looks like you are up Akita)

2PhiloVoid said:

Yes, I agree. But there are things that even Jesus didn't know in his human form during the first Advent. We seem to ignore that and when we think we have the "mind of Christ," some in the Christian Church talk and act like they "know all" because they put claim upon the Mind of Christ which we have through the Holy Spirit. And I'm saying........................that ain't the case and we need to stop popping each other in the eye because we all are so darn confident that we think we have it all figured out, especially along denominational lines.

Click to expand...

We know only of one thing Jesus didn't know, it being merely assumption that there were other things he did not know.

Zceptre said:

lol Fiesty much?

Click to expand...

LOL! . . .I get that way with long-time deniers.

Zceptre said:

(apologies, I am unware of any previous interactions, just gave me giggles)

Am just kidding.

(Looks like you are up Akita)

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

We know only of one thing Jesus didn't know, it being merely assumption that there were other things he did not know.

Click to expand...

That's a huge assumption to make, based on the very thinnest of historical evidence and, thereby, is of weak inference.

The truth is, and it's undeniable, we don't have a comprehensive record of all that Jesus did or said or thought.

And so, I can only be 'agnostic' about that which I have no clear and discernible evidence.

On the other hand, one would think that Jesus regained His omniscience upon His Resurrection. That I can affirm.

2PhiloVoid said:

That's a huge assumption to make,

Click to expand...

I'm thinking yours is a huge assumptio to make.

Clare73 said:

I'm thinking yours is a huge assumptio to make.

Click to expand...

Best buy a textbook or two on Logic, and a couple on Historiography, if you're thinking that, Clare.

ARBITER01 said:

Where's the starting point for sin then?

Click to expand...

That’s a really important and fair question, and it’s actually one of the strengths of the archetypal view it still provides a theologically coherent answer.

In the archetypal understanding, Genesis 3 isn’t a blow-by-blow report of how sin biologically entered the world through a single couple. Rather, it’s a deeply theological and symbolic story that describes the universal human condition, that we all, when given the freedom and moral responsibility, choose self over God. That is the essence of sin.

So when did sin “start”? It began when humans became morally aware and accountable, when we were capable of understanding good and evil, and chose rebellion. Genesis 3 reflects that moment in narrative form. It doesn’t have to pinpoint a date or a literal couple; instead, it reflects a reality that is true for everyone: humans are made in God’s image, but we all reach a point where we break trust with God.

Romans 5:12 says, “Sin entered the world through one man…” But Paul is speaking of Adam typologically (he even says Adam is a “type” in Romans 5:14). He’s not necessarily making a scientific or historical claim; he’s highlighting a representative truth, Adam stands in for all of us.

This archetypal view still takes sin seriously. It doesn’t diminish its effects. In fact, the pattern of sin is exactly what the Bible shows after Genesis 3, Cain, Lamech, the spread of violence, the flood. It’s not a one-time event that’s locked in the past; it’s the ongoing human story.

Genesis 3, then, isn’t “less true” because it’s symbolic. It’s the kind of truth that holds across all cultures and generations, the truth about what it means to be human, how we relate to God, and why we need redemption. That’s the theological focus, and it remains powerful whether or not Adam was a literal historical figure.

So in this view, the “starting point” of sin is the first human rebellion, however that looked, and the Adam and Eve narrative gives us a God-inspired window into the nature of that rebellion.

2PhiloVoid said:

Best buy a textbook or two on Logic, and a couple on Historiography, if you're thinking that, Clare.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking it's best to understand Scripture in the light of Scritpure. . .I'm going with Jesus' divinity (Jn 1:1, 14) on that one.

Clare73 said:

I'm thinking it's best to understand Scripture in the light of Scritpure. . .I'm going with Jesus' divinity (Jn 1:1, 14) on that one.

Click to expand...

That's only one aspect of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. Everyone should know that.

If you want to argue with 30 other conservative Biblical scholars [a few of whom are, at the very, very least, likely also have the Holy Spirit] about how to apply biblical exegesis beyond the one identified, basic interpretive principle you're advocating here, then I can help you with that................................

Maybe you want to argue with Walter C. Kaiser or Moises Silva, or Craig L. Blomberg? I have a few dozen others both more conservative and more liberal you can choose from whom you can attempt to critique and override if you so wish.

Job 33:6 said:

That’s a really important and fair question, and it’s actually one of the strengths of the archetypal view it still provides a theologically coherent answer.

Click to expand...

There being no generic link between animal and man, I'm going with the Genesis account.

Job 33:6 said:

In the archetypal understanding, Genesis 3 isn’t a blow-by-blow report of how sin biologically entered the world through a single couple. Rather, it’s a deeply theological and symbolic story that describes the universal human condition, that we all, when given the freedom and moral responsibility, choose self over God. That is the essence of sin.
So when did sin “start”? It began when humans became morally aware and accountable, when we were capable of understanding good and evil, and chose rebellion. Genesis 3 reflects that moment in narrative form. It doesn’t have to pinpoint a date or a literal couple; instead, it reflects a reality that is true for everyone: humans are made in God’s image, but we all reach a point where we break trust with God.

Click to expand...

Romans 5:12 says, “Sin entered the world through one man…” But Paul is speaking of Adam typologically (he even says Adam is a “type” in Romans 5:14). He’s not necessarily making a scientific or historical claim; he’s highlighting a representative truth, Adam stands in for all of us.

Click to expand...

Half-truth is falsehood.

Ro 5:14 presents a spiritual type of the imputation of Adam's sin, not a physical type. . .which spiritual type therefore
1) has no bearing on his physical origin, and
2) is not representive, but actual, in that spiritual imputation of his sin to all of us (Ro 5:17-19).

2PhiloVoid said:

That's only one aspect of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. Everyone should know that.
If you want to argue with 30 other conservative Biblical scholars [a few of whom are, at the very, very least, likely also have the Holy Spirit] about how to apply biblical exegesis beyond the one identified, basic interpretive principle you're advocating here, then I can help you with that................................
Maybe you want to argue with Walter C. Kaiser or Moises Silva, or Craig L. Blomberg? I have a few dozen others both more conservative and more liberal you can choose from whom you can attempt to critique and override if you so wish.

Click to expand...

Doesn't change that it is best to understand Scripture in the light of Scripture. . .