Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

[ARBITER01]

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.



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.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[ARBITER01]

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.

How about this,... it started with Adam and Eve in the garden.

There,.... see how simple that is?

 

[ARBITER01]

There certainly is a whole heap of tares amongst the wheat.

 

[Clare73]

How about this,... it started with Adam and Eve in the garden.

There,.... see how simple that is?

Why the need to "improve" upon the Biblical account.

Paul, who received his revelation in heaven from Jesus Christ (2 Co 12:1-8, Gal 1:11-12) presented Adam as a reality, not just figurative.

 

[ARBITER01]

Why the need to "improve" upon the Biblical account.

Paul, who received his revelation in heaven from Jesus Christ (2 Co 12:1-8, Gal 1:11-12) presented Adam as a reality, not just figurative.

Exactly, absolutely true.

I think it's a deeper spiritual problem,..... one that deals with regeneration.

Anytime a person goes out of their way to talk themselves out of believing what the scriptures say, and then also tries to talk another person out of their faith in GOD's word, that's a tare.

It's one of those definite tell tell signs that The Holy Spirit will point out to you about people. We just need to acknowledge it and move on.

 

[Clare73]

Exactly, absolutely true.
I think it's a deeper spiritual problem,..... one that deals with regeneration.
Anytime a person goes out of their way to talk themselves out of believing what the scriptures say, and then also tries to talk another person out of their faith in GOD's word, that's a tare.
It's one of those definite tell tell signs that The Holy Spirit will point out to you about people. We just need to acknowledge it and move on.

No doubt about it. . .

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Then you get to Biblically demonstrate its veracity.

Me?

I asked you , "Just curious Do you also believe the Parables depicted actual literal historical evens? Like an actual a prodigal son who returned? A good Samaritan who helped while Jews kept walking? Etc."

You did not answer. What am I supposed to demonstrate?

 

[Clare73]

If it were an assumption I would ne be asking.

1) Your assumption remains. . .

2) The meaning of the word "parable" answers your question.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

1) Your assumption remains. . .

2) The meaning of the word "parable" answers your question.

No it doesn't, since you have not acknowledged an appreciation for literary forms & genres . Parable is one of them.

 

[Clare73]

No it doesn't, since you have not acknowledged an appreciation for literary forms & genres . Parable is one of them.

You are now the arbiter of the dictionary.

 

[ARBITER01]

Think it's time for me to move on to other subjects on the site.

 

[Job 33:6]

How about this,... it started with Adam and Eve in the garden.

There,.... see how simple that is?

The Bible isn't a science textbook people aren't made of rib bones, snakes don't talk, trees do not bear magical fruits of wisdom and life. Adams name, in Hebrew, even means "humanity". He's typologically the representative of humanity. That's why Paul refers to Adam as a "type" of the one who is to come. Just like Jonah who sank down into the ocean, down to the underworld sheol. It's not scientific. It's literary.

Jonah 2:2 ESV
[2] saying, “I called out to the Lord, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice.

Unless you think that a man actually sank literally down to the underworld where bars and doors closed upon him forever:

Jonah 2:5-6 ESV
[5] The waters closed in over me to take my life; the deep surrounded me; weeds were wrapped about my head [6] at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.

Typology. Not science.

 

[HBP]

There certainly is a whole heap of tares amongst the wheat.

Well, I see why you chose the name Arbiter. You, at least in your own mind, are the arbiter of who is or isn't a Christian. It might astound you to learn, Your Honor, that I came to Christianity 55 YEARS AGO via a wholly unanticipated and specifically Christian mystical experience and, moreover, that I had another one more than 40 years later. Nothing as deep and profound as yours, I feel sure , but impressive to me. I, by sheer happenstance, entered onto the Perpetual Vacation Bible School path you seem to exemplify - Campus Crusade, SBC, yada yada. My SBC pastor felt sure I was the next Billy Graham and sponsored me for SBC seminary. Alas, I had the epiphany at some early point that what I was being asked to swallow was flatly contrary to history, science, biblical scholarship, rationality and my own intuitive sense of what could POSSIBLY be true. Ergo, I embarked on a 40-year quest in which I IMMERSED myself in every conceivable branch of philosophy, theology and science that seemed relevant to me -perhaps nothing as deep as you, He Who Declares Himself the Arbiter , but pretty deep. But since you have declared that I "need more experience" with Christianity, I will do my best to reach your elevated standard. Perhaps one day I will feel sufficiently worthy to change my user name to ARBITER02 or even ARBITER01 JR. if I'm feeling especially pleased with myself.

Actually, I wouldn't make a very good Arbiter. I happen to think God is laughing at all of this, at pretty much everything Christianity, Inc., has become. Yes, laughing at me, too. I fully accept that Flat Earth, Young Earth, literalist, inerrantist, yee-haw Fundamentalism MIGHT be true, or at least closer to true than what I believe. The Catholics may have the truth absolutely nailed, or maybe it's the Southern Baptists or Jehovah's Witnesses, or some combination thereof. Maybe it's Calvinism, or perhaps Universalism, or perhaps what Jesus was actually all about is now buried beneath so many layers of nonsense he wishes he could have a do-over. I REALLY DON'T CARE who is the "wheat" and who are the "tares." I believe what I believe and, more to the point, what I am constitutionally capable of believing. If that isn't good enough for God, if he would actually prefer that I had continued on the Perpetual Vacation Bible School path and pretended to believe things that I was incapable of actually believing - well, too bad, I guess. Yeah, I don't guess I'm destined to be ARBITER01 JR., so perhaps it's good that we have you to separate the wheat from us dang tares.

 

[HBP]

What I never understand is this: God created a universe that operates according to principles and laws. God blessed humans with minds and senses capable of investigating and to a large extent understanding the universe. The achievements of science and the associated disciplines like philosophy and logic are perhaps the most profound achievements of humanity. Science tells us the cosmology of Genesis is completely wrong. Science tells us the origin and development of humanity set forth in Genesis is completely wrong. Not simply "not accurate," but as false as it could possibly be. Yet literalists insist it is science that is completely wrong, even though they rely on science pretty much every waking moment of their lives.

What is the logic? Are an orderly universe and humans with minds and senses capable of investigating it just a big joke on God's part? Is it all just a cosmic test to see if we will trust our lying minds and senses or the words of Genesis? Is science just some Satanic illusion? What sort of God would this be? I truly just don't get it. I cannot escape the conclusion that literalism seems more like a mental illness than what I would call faith or belief. I've always been deeply interested in epistemology, the branch of philosophy that deals with how we know what we know, and I would love to understand how any rational human actually believes Genesis is literally true. Is it some badge of honor (borrowing Mark Twain's quip about faith) to "believe things you know ain't so"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

The problem is that NO SCRIPTURE is comprehensive in explanation, even when all 66 works in the Bible are collectively considered.

Besides, the Church as it was during most of the 1st Century didn't even have a collective set of New Testament works to casually peruse and thereby attempt a systematic theology.

Exactly, absolutely true.

I think it's a deeper spiritual problem,..... one that deals with regeneration.

Anytime a person goes out of their way to talk themselves out of believing what the scriptures say, and then also tries to talk another person out of their faith in GOD's word, that's a tare.

It's one of those definite tell tell signs that The Holy Spirit will point out to you about people. We just need to acknowledge it and move on.

I'm sure there are those persons who indeed fit the description you're giving here, but I assure you it doesn't fit my case, and I would appreciate it if you take what I'm saying about myself as an expression of honesty rather than duplicity. I've been a Christian since 1986, and I'm still a Christian, and will remain a Christian.

Furthermore, as I've already stated more than several times, I'm not here to "change" other Christians minds for anything other than perhaps their attitudes. So, if there's anything to "acknowledge and move on" with, it's this.

Thank you for your brotherly consideration in this ahead of time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What I never understand is this: God created a universe that operates according to principles and laws. God blessed humans with minds and senses capable of investigating and to a large extent understanding the universe. The achievements of science and the associated disciplines like philosophy and logic are perhaps the most profound achievements of humanity. Science tells us the cosmology of Genesis is completely wrong. Science tells us the origin and development of humanity set forth in Genesis is completely wrong. Not simply "not accurate," but as false as it could possibly be. Yet literalists insist it is science that is completely wrong, even though they rely on science pretty much every waking moment of their lives.

What is the logic? Are an orderly universe and humans with minds and senses capable of investigating it just a big joke on God's part? Is it all just a cosmic test to see if we will trust our lying minds and senses or the words of Genesis? Is science just some Satanic illusion? What sort of God would this be? I truly just don't get it. I cannot escape the conclusion that literalism seems more like a mental illness than what I would call faith or belief. I've always been deeply interested in epistemology, the branch of philosophy that deals with how we know what we know, and I would love to understand how any rational human actually believes Genesis is literally true. Is it some badge of honor (borrowing Mark Twain's quip about faith) to "believe things you know ain't so"?

I agree with just about all you're saying, although.....and I mean this in the most endearing terms.....there might be (just maybe????) a slightly better way to qualify the nature of the seemed clash between science and Genesis.

I could be drastically and tragically wrong, but like you, I've studied the same stuff you have and I would rather say that, "Science tells us the cosmogony of Genesis is very old and an inverted expression, perhaps a correction, of prior Mesopotamian mythologies." I think that despite its ancient garb, it still has something to say to us today. I'm guessing you probably think so too on a similar critical level.

As it goes, there are couple of us here on CF who, like you, have interest in Epistemology and the Philosophy of History. I even humbly submit, for what it's worth----and most people let me know all too readily that it's not worth much at all-----that I have a B.A. in Philosophy.

So, take heart, Sis! I feel your some of your 'pain' in having to say what we have to say to fellow Christians of the more fundamentalist sort.

 

[Clare73]

The problem is that NO SCRIPTURE is comprehensive in explanation, even when all 66 works in the Bible are collectively considered.

It is as comprehensive as God intends, which is good enough for me.
Where Scripture makes an end to teaching, I make an end to learning.

Besides, the Church as it was during most of the 1st Century didn't even have a collective set of New Testament works to casually peruse and thereby attempt a systematic theology.

Relevance?

 

[ARBITER01]

I happen to think God is laughing at all of this, at pretty much everything Christianity, Inc., has become.

Exhibit a

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is as comprehensive as God intends, which is good enough for me.
Where Scripture makes an end to teaching, I make an end to learning.

Relevance?

Don't play coy, Clare. You're attitude doesn't give me any reason to talk to you about the points of the Bible on which I'm sure we do agree.

The sad thing is, you don't care to find out either. But you sure do love to pontificate, don't you?

Anyway, have a blessed day, Sis!

 

[Clare73]

Don't play coy, Clare. You're attitude doesn't give me any reason to talk to you about the points of the Bible on which I'm sure we do agree.

The sad thing is, you don't care to find out either.

Has anyone kept you from presenting what you wish to present?

But you sure do love to pontificate, don't you?

Anyway, have a blessed day, Sis!

Strawman. . .

It falls to you to Biblically demonstrate the error of my "pontification."