"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve"

[dfnj]

And possibly on two counts, namely that these narratives can be interpreted as being allegorical, but also that why should one assume that the authors actually knew what may or may not have happened eons before they lived?

Many theologians believe that many of these accounts were carried orally, possibly for centuries, before submitted to writing, and we well know what can happen within oral traditions as far as historical accuracy is concerned. However, the good news is that these oral traditions can be altered to deal with new situations and new beliefs that may emerge, thus always being relevant to the times.

Obviously our omnipotent God knew exactly what was going to happen in the garden with a naked woman prancing about!

 

[exchemist]

And that has been my point but apparently viewed differently by others when I stated that.

When I stated "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth", which does not denote time, it fits with "billions of years".

And although I have stated it as such, it seems like I still but heads with science adherents, even though I accepted it. I just can't figure that out.

Talking about "mate", my daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren live in Australia. Is it that type of "mate"?

I'm not Australian, just live in London. The Aussie use of "mate" derives from Londoners who found their way to Australia, not ahem always voluntarily.......

Revenons à nos moutons, yes, willingness to recognise that the bible, especially the OT, needs to be interpreted, and that such interpretations may need to be revisited, is key to keeping religion relevant to thinking people. It is ridiculous, for instance, to insist that death literally entered the world at the Fall, because if that were so then how do we account for fossils, i.e. dead animals from long ago? One has to see it as spiritual death, i.e. something that applies to Man, as a moral issue, not a biological one.

And so on. Sadly, biblical literalism has made Christianity a laughing stock to so many people today, who do not realise how unrepresentative it is of mainstream Christian thought.

 

[outlawState]

Don't see the reasoning here, but

Ok, let me spell it out. The many thousands of years of homosapiens that are recorded by archaelogists prior to the advent of civilizations like Sumer etc do not find such persons worshipping a monotheistic God. Adam and Eve and their children are a lot more refined than early homosapiens cave-dwellers. Therefore Adam and Eve is referencing a religious aspect of mankind, rather than a biological nature.

WOW! this is some stretch. In fact, way too much. Sorry, but I can't buy it.

Consider the general license the Israelites were given by God to dispatch the idolatrous Canaanites occupying the "promised land." It was effectively the same "license to kill" as God gave to mankind over the animal kingdom.

If you don't buy it, it is because you don't buy Old Testament theology, as many do not, even Christians. However, the fact remains that Jesus did buy into it.

 

[Kenny]

I'm not Australian, just live in London. The Aussie use of "mate" derives from Londoners who found their way to Australia, not ahem always voluntarily.......

Revenons à nos moutons, yes, willingness to recognise that the bible, especially the OT, needs to be interpreted, and that such interpretations may need to be revisited, is key to keeping religion relevant to thinking people. It is ridiculous, for instance, to insist that death literally entered the world at the Fall, because if that were so then how do we account for fossils, i.e. dead animals from long ago? One has to see it as spiritual death, i.e. something that applies to Man, as a moral issue, not a biological one.

And so on. Sadly, biblical literalism has made Christianity a laughing stock to so many people today, who do not realise how unrepresentative it is of mainstream Christian thought.

I have found it interesting how some people first say that the Bible should not be taken literally and then quote the Bible (such as the rabbit eating the cud) and then want to quote it literally.

I do believe (and scripturally so) that the death mentioned is first spiritual. But, to be honest, I believe that it does have a natural consequence but with a caveat on the word "death" since it is plural in the original Hebrew text.

For an example, ulcers is a type of death (or a manifestation of death) in that it isn't classified as the abundance of life. It is separate from the life of God. Yet worry, classified as a spiritual sin, can cause ulcers. So in that respect, it is manifested physically and literally.

My view is that some are literal and some aren't. For an example, a parable definitely is not literal. Some parts are dual in purpose. IMV.

 

[metis]

I think there were misprints in Genesis where it refers to "Adam and Eve", whereas it should be "Adam and Steve", so we should all be gay.

Wait a minute, ...

 

[Kenny]

In Luke 3:23, it explicitly says “Joseph son of Heli”, not “Mary daughter of Heli”.

Neither gospels explicitly say whose Mary’s parents were.

Beside that both gospels state that Joseph is from the line of King David, and none of the gospels claimed that Mary herself was David’s descendant.

And in Luke 1:36 indicated that Elizabeth was related to Mary:


But before that, the gospel says Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron:


So wouldn’t that imply Mary was also a descendant of Aaron, and of Levi?

If you are interested, this will help clarify it for you.

Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

 

[Kenny]

I think there were misprints in Genesis where it refers to "Adam and Eve", whereas it should be "Adam and Steve", so we should all be gay.

Wait a minute, ...

I think some things are very literal.

When it says that 120 people were praying and in one Accord, it really was a record on how many people they stuffed into a Honda Accord.

 

[exchemist]

I have found it interesting how some people first say that the Bible should not be taken literally and then quote the Bible (such as the rabbit eating the cud) and then want to quote it literally.

I do believe (and scripturally so) that the death mentioned is first spiritual. But, to be honest, I believe that it does have a natural consequence but with a caveat on the word "death" since it is plural in the original Hebrew text.

For an example, ulcers is a type of death (or a manifestation of death) in that it isn't classified as the abundance of life. It is separate from the life of God. Yet worry, classified as a spiritual sin, can cause ulcers. So in that respect, it is manifested physically and literally.

My view is that some are literal and some aren't. For an example, a parable definitely is not literal. Some parts are dual in purpose. IMV.

Yes and that is why I qualified my remarks by stressing that the OT in particular requires nuanced interpretation. The teaching of Christ in the NT is generally more straight forward, being both more recent and of course a conscious updating and in parts replacing of the old doctrines of the OT (e.g. the Commandments).

I'm not sure I understand your comment about people quoting the bible. Surely there is no conflict between quoting from the bible and not taking the whole bible literally, is there? Anyone who thinks there is a message for us in the bible has to start by quoting a passage, and then applying to that quotation the interpretation that seems to make most sense. Isn't that what we do?

 

[metis]

I think some things are very literal.

When it says that 120 people were praying and in one Accord, it really was a record on how many people they stuffed into a Honda Accord.

I hope they all wore deodorant.

 

[Kenny]

I hope they all wore deodorant.

It was a sweet fragrance of prayer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have found it interesting how some people first say that the Bible should not be taken literally and then quote the Bible (such as the rabbit eating the cud) and then want to quote it literally.

I do believe (and scripturally so) that the death mentioned is first spiritual. But, to be honest, I believe that it does have a natural consequence but with a caveat on the word "death" since it is plural in the original Hebrew text.

For an example, ulcers is a type of death (or a manifestation of death) in that it isn't classified as the abundance of life. It is separate from the life of God. Yet worry, classified as a spiritual sin, can cause ulcers. So in that respect, it is manifested physically and literally.

My view is that some are literal and some aren't. For an example, a parable definitely is not literal. Some parts are dual in purpose. IMV.

Really? You don't understand that? It is one of the best ways to prove the Bible wrong. One quotes it and then explains what that quote would lead to if taken literally. You need to remember that some Christians even take the parables literally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you are interested, this will help clarify it for you.

Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

We are all familiar with that failed explanation. In fact in the past it was argued the other way around. It is an unjustified assumption and is only made to excuse the obvious self contradiction between the two.

 

[exchemist]

Really? You don't understand that? It is one of the best ways to prove the Bible wrong. One quotes it and then explains what that quote would lead to if taken literally. You need to remember that some Christians even take the parables literally.

Well , be careful here. You can certainly prove the bible wrong if taken literally, that way. If you treat the bible as a literary work, with messages for mankind in it, by means of analogy, metaphor and example, then proving those messages wrong is a less obvious process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well , be careful here. You can certainly prove the bible wrong if taken literally, that way. If you treat the bible as a literary work, with messages for mankind in it, by means of analogy, metaphor and example, then proving those messages wrong is a less obvious process.

Correct. Haven't had my first cup of coffee yet.

 

[Skwim]

Ok, let me spell it out. The many thousands of years of homosapiens that are recorded by archaelogists prior to the advent of civilizations like Sumer etc do not find such persons worshipping a monotheistic God. Adam and Eve and their children are a lot more refined than early homosapiens cave-dwellers. Therefore Adam and Eve is referencing a religious aspect of mankind, rather than a biological nature.

In as much as we have few if any records of what pre-Sumarian people did religion wise, you're in no position to assert that the rest of mankind was "unspiritual."

.

 

[Kenny]

We are all familiar with that failed explanation. In fact in the past it was argued the other way around. It is an unjustified assumption and is only made to excuse the obvious self contradiction between the two.

I suppose if you need a reason not to believe, any excuse is good enough. Hermaneutically speaking, it also makes you irrelevant.

However, we understand it to be true. As John Gill said:

Luke 3:23

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
&c.] Or Jesus, when he was baptized and began his public ministry, was about thirty years of age: an age at which the priests, under the law, who were typical of Christ, entered on their work, ( Numbers 4:23 ) ( 1 Chronicles 23:3 ) The word, "began", is left out in the Syriac and Persic versions: and is often indeed redundant, as in ( Luke 3:8 ) and frequently in Mark's Gospel. The Arabic version renders it, "Jesus began to enter into the thirtieth year", which carries the sense the same with our translation:

being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph;
who had espoused Mary before she was with child of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards took her to wife, and brought up her son; so that it was not known but that he was the son of Joseph. Whether or no the Jewish notion of the Messiah, the son of Joseph F25 may not take its rise from hence, may be considered: however, Joseph might very rightly be called, as he was supposed to be, the father of Jesus, by a rule which obtains with the Jews F26 that he

``that brings up, and not he that begets, is called the father,''

or parent; of which they give various instances F1 in Joseph, in Michal, and in Pharaoh's daughter.
Which was the son of Eli;
meaning, not that Joseph was the son of Eli; for he was the son of Jacob, according to ( Matthew 1:16 ) , but Jesus was the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi till you come to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell F2 us of one,

``that saw, (yle tb Myrm) , "Mary the daughter of Eli" in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere F3, the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear.''

By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews F4, that

``the family of the mother is not called a family.''

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose if you need a reason not to believe, any excuse is good enough. Hermaneutically speaking, it also makes you irrelevant.

However, we understand it to be true. As John Gill said:

Luke 3:23

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
&c.] Or Jesus, when he was baptized and began his public ministry, was about thirty years of age: an age at which the priests, under the law, who were typical of Christ, entered on their work, ( Numbers 4:23 ) ( 1 Chronicles 23:3 ) The word, "began", is left out in the Syriac and Persic versions: and is often indeed redundant, as in ( Luke 3:8 ) and frequently in Mark's Gospel. The Arabic version renders it, "Jesus began to enter into the thirtieth year", which carries the sense the same with our translation:

being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph;
who had espoused Mary before she was with child of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards took her to wife, and brought up her son; so that it was not known but that he was the son of Joseph. Whether or no the Jewish notion of the Messiah, the son of Joseph F25 may not take its rise from hence, may be considered: however, Joseph might very rightly be called, as he was supposed to be, the father of Jesus, by a rule which obtains with the Jews F26 that he

``that brings up, and not he that begets, is called the father,''

or parent; of which they give various instances F1 in Joseph, in Michal, and in Pharaoh's daughter.
Which was the son of Eli;
meaning, not that Joseph was the son of Eli; for he was the son of Jacob, according to ( Matthew 1:16 ) , but Jesus was the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi till you come to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell F2 us of one,

``that saw, (yle tb Myrm) , "Mary the daughter of Eli" in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere F3, the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear.''

By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews F4, that

``the family of the mother is not called a family.''

You have it backwards as usual. I need a reason to believe, not a reason not to believe. This failed argument only harms your beliefs. Of course once one realizes that parts of the New Testament was written by Biblical scholars that tried to make it look as if prophecies came true this error is understandable. This whole thing is based upon the misinterpretation into the Greek of the Septuagint. "Young woman" was mistranslated as "virgin".

 

[Kenny]

You have it backwards as usual. I need a reason to believe, not a reason not to believe. This failed argument only harms your beliefs. Of course once one realizes that parts of the New Testament was written by Biblical scholars that tried to make it look as if prophecies came true this error is understandable. This whole thing is based upon the misinterpretation into the Greek of the Septuagint. "Young woman" was mistranslated as "virgin".

No... in this case you have demonstrated that you don't care no matter any reason,.

And virgin, understandibly so, and not just because of the Septuagint that was translated by Jews.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No... in this case you have demonstrated that you don't care no matter any reason,.

And virgin, understandibly so.

No, I do care. You are the one that is unwilling to understand the flaws in your beliefs. Luke not only has a different genealogy than Matthew. He has Jesus being born both roughly 4 BCE and 6 CE. He made multiple errors in his version of the virgin birth.

 

[Kenny]

No, I do care. You are the one that is unwilling to understand the flaws in your beliefs. Luke not only has a different genealogy than Matthew. He has Jesus being born both roughly 4 BCE and 6 CE. He made multiple errors in his version of the virgin birth.

Since in was very clearly stated by John Gill using Jewish understanding, I just don't see the above statement as having any weight.

"You are the one that is unwilling to understand the flaws in your beliefs." This statement reinforces the reality that I am right in my understanding.