If Adam and Eve are not real and if no literal fall

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[_Jersey Girl]

Hey HDE,

I gotta get moving here, so am just going to challenge this one thing.

Certain statements made about Solomon in the Old Testament are extremely unlikely for example his 700 wives and 300 concubines or with his Temple and his wealth in gold.

I don't think that 700 wives and 300 concubines or the wealth are unlikely given the fact that it's reported in the Old Testament that he inherited David's kingdom.

Whatcha think about that?

bbl,
Jersey Girl

[_Hoops]

Well, if no one is going to respond to me, perhaps I should be a bit more flambouyant (in the strictest heterosexual way)

jason bourne is a big fat doofus and stak is equally as bad.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Demonstrably false. You know me, and I take that text for what it is. A wonderful love affair.

So sex outside marriage is legit? Because these two were not married.

[_huckelberry]

No. You are left with Biblical literalists are literalists when the text warrants it.

This appears to be a reasonable assessment of the problem. It remains that different people will assess the warrant differently for different texts. I see no possiblity of that variety dissapearing in this world. I also see no substantial problem in the fact that this variety of understandings persist.

I see evidence that death and sin existed in this world priot to Adam to be completely convincing. The only way I could imagine convincing myself there was no evil before Adam would be to blow my brains out somehow and end the trouble of thinkng.

I would find this a problem for a literal Jesus dying for our sins only if our sins were not literal. Our sins , the evil which we do, is real not a myth. I understand Jesus as a real solution to real evil if people join with his project of the Kingdom of God. That would have to be in a real life, literal, way. not just imagination.

[_Jason Bourne]

I believe if one is to take The Bible seriously, then literalism is the only choice that does it justice. I believe if one is to regard The Bible as containing what God wants us to know about Him, then it must be taken at face value. It does not mean that there is NO symbolism, of course there is, for a variety of reasons. But our starting point should be a literal interpretation, otherwise there is no meaning left at all.

I have always wanted to take the Bible seriously but a literal Adam and Eve seem less plausible to me than ever. And then it seems that other stuff starts to unravel. You at least seem to agree though seemingly more liberal Christians might not.

I noted your appeal to science. I don't disagree.

ok...

But the first problem with which one must contend is the idea that The Bible is not a science textbook - while still containing scientific truths.

Agreed.

I'm not sure why it is incumbent upon the "other" natural to explain Himself within purely natural borders. You (not you specifically) say that science disproves Biblical accounts. I say it can not and does not.

But why not? It seems pretty certian that there are human civilizations that predate Noah as well as the time frame for Adam and Eve.

You say it's unfair or illogical to appeal to the "other" natural to explain apparently contradicting evidence. I say it is equally unfair to restrict one's explanation of a creator simply and only by its creation.

This assumes an a priori assumption that there is a creator. And I have always believed in and have had faith is such a being. I still think I do. I know there is much of me that wants too.

There are other Truths that science can not or has not explained adequately.

Of course. This however does not negate the truths science has given us.

And I've found the attempts to be clumsy at best. For example: Love. To explain Love as some sort of evolutionary mechanism is wholely inadequate and not very explanatory at all.

I have not pursued this topic so I cannot opine.

Yes, I take the Bible seriously and therefor have no problem believing the Biblical record for what it tells us.

I understand but wonder how you reconcile what is so seemingly implausible. This is my current struggle.

Could you clarify for me. I thought it was orthodox to Christian doctrine that God intended for human beings to live is a paradisaical state but because Adam and Eve sinned that essentially blew it for the rest of us. Of course this begs the question of why didn't God just replace Adam and Eve rather than condemning all their posterity but that is another subject.

One can only surmise regarding the reasons. But your hypothetical assumes a lot of things that I'm not willing to assume. For example: I'm not sure any religion can adequately explain what sin is in this context. Nor can we understand the relationship that Adam and Eve had with God. Again, taking the Bible at face value, one can only get a slim glimpse of how close that relationship was. Remember, it apparently was common for either/both to be walking in the garden and for God to show up. How does one describe that today? Can we even fathom how close they were? Doesn't that impact the egregiousness of the sin? Given how pervasive sin is today, I think we may have become a bit jaded about sin. In a way, that's a real blessing. In another way, we've lost sight of what we've really lost.

If the story is true indeed it would have been a wonderful thing.

But to get back to your answer, I'm not really sure. I question whether you and I would even be here. If that's the case, Adam and Eve would be living in paradise today.

Lol.

So if Adam and Eve had not sinned I assume we would all be in paradise. Of course one or more of their posterity could have rebelled but maybe that would have just condemned that particular person. I am not sure.

Would they have had children? I'm not so sure.

So are you saying that Adam and Eve may not, would not have had Children, that God created the entire world for them? I believe they were commanded to multiply.

So could you expound for me and share what Christian doctrine is on this one?

To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure. But I'll be happy to give you whatever mundane and trite thoughts I have on this.

Ok.

So you agree with me that the fall of Adam is critical to the core of Christian doctrine about the redemption of human kind.

Absolutely.

It seems so. It certianly is in LDS thought as well. This is one of the reasons LDS persons like BC (and myself at various times) who hold to evolution have to come up with some sort of explanation.

Now by the way, the fall of Adam could be myth and we still could have Orthodox Christianity. However it seems to me that a figurative mythical Adam and Eve and their fall has serious implications for the literalness of the story of salvation through Jesus Christ.

I don't think I agree.

I am not sure I follow. Certainly people could have believed the Adam and Eve story all the while it being a myth and created all sorts of religion from this, Christianity included. Could you explain why you disagree?

I think many would say the story of Adam and Eve are mythical to explain sin and death. It further becomes metaphorical and so may much if not the rest of the message of redemption.

You're assuming that something so common as death requires explanation. Why would it? Without the context of Adam?

Humans evolved to the point that they became self aware and could ask such questions. Thus myths, storied, religions arose to answer such questions. Isn't the Adam, Eve and Fall story a theme found in many other cultures?

[_Hoops]

So sex outside marriage is legit? Because these two were not married.

3:8 Come with me from Lebanon, my bride,
come with me from Lebanon.

[_Jersey Girl]

Uh Bourne?

I thought we had an understanding here.

I am ok with that if you attempt to answer my questions as well.

I thought in the below that I attempted to answer your questions. What is this..

V
V
V
V
V
V

I also don't like to come in at the middle of a topic. I'd rather go back to the beginning and methodically move forward which explains a lot of my frustration on a message board. Okay, let's go.

Jersey, I know your posting style is often to answer questions with questions. I am ok with that if you attempt to answer my questions as well. I am more interested in comments from traditional Christians because I know what the LDS view is and what the potential implications are to LDS teachings based on what the answers are.

I'll do the best that I can. I needed to know what LDS believe first, because I needed to know if there was common ground here to deal with, and there is.

Now to your question, yes, the LDS Church believes Jesus Christ was chosen as savior from the foundation of the world and even before. But LDS teachings state that we all pre-existed, knew Adam would fall as it was really part of the plan, that sin would be part of the world we would enter, that we would all sin and require redemption.

I do not think that is the Orthodox Christian view. I think it is God intended for humans to exist in paradise.

I do not know if I am Orthodox Christian or if I can supply that view. If you'll take an answer for a mixed up Christian who doesn't know what doctrinal day it is, then here goes...

I think it safe to say that there are some Christians who believe that Jesus was chosen as Savior before the world and humans were created. If that is so, then God created us knowing that we were NOT God, NOT divine, and would definitely fall. Thus, the need for a predetermined Savior.

There are some Christians who believe that God is OUTSIDE of creation and always WAS outside of creation because he cannot be in the presences of evil (if you will). Which might explain why in the Genesis story, we see a God who is positioned away from Adam and Eve and the only evidence we have that he is there is his voice.

If Jesus was predestined to be the Savior of mankind and if human beings were destined to fall because of our imperfect nature, then the Garden story could be literal or metaphorical.

I see no problem taking the story as literal. If you see some reason not to take it literally, I'd like to know what it is.

But...if the Garden story is metaphorical, then you can take the geneaologies and throw them out the window which doesn't bode well for the line of David.

A truckload of chopped liver or something? Not response worthy? Do I need to do better? Does this not pass muster?

Until I hear from you, I think I have to go with Hoops' preliminary assessment (who is just a bit more knowledgeable with the Songs of Solomon than is comfortable ;-) and agree that Bourne is a big giant doofus.

:-D

[_MrStakhanovite]

So sex outside marriage is legit? Because these two were not married.

3:8 Come with me from Lebanon, my bride,
come with me from Lebanon.

You mean 4:8? That verse is passed the wedding at the end of chapter 3, after she gets out of her bed and searches for her lover in the night, finds him, clings to him, and brings him to the chamber where she was conceived, and tells the chorus of women not to awaken love until it's ready, for obvious reasons.

Sex before marriage. There is good reason why this book was universally read as allegory from the beginning of the Common Era till historical criticism began. How do you square the highly erotic language that is clearly lust in the heart of two people before marriage?