 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Do YOU believe in an literal Adam and Eve? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/9/2005 9:00 AM (GMT -6) |   |
Meph: said...
What I keep hearing is the following: "Yeah, Paul may have believed in an actual Adam and Eve, even though that may be historically inaccurate. But that doesn't matter because the theology he espouses from his take on Genesis represents the truth of the matter anyway."
Is this, partly, what you are saying?
No. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's Paul's point to proclaim a literal Adam and Eve, et al; the theology of the couple is his point. As I noted, Paul could seem very certain in his language of a literal Adam and Eve, but because the theology birthed from the Genesis account requires it. That he could have entertained the idea, while laying in bed at night, that Adam and Eve weren't literal is highly possible, though I don't think it would have mattered one way or another to him.
Meph: said...
So, does this mean that you hold, like some young-earthers, that carnivorous dinosaurs were contemporaneous with homo sapiens (after the Fall), just placed in a different area by God? What does this "mystery" mean?
I'm not a young-earther anymore. I feel that science has established enough evidence that the earth is old (I don't think God made the universe "look" old), and I don't hold to a literal six-day creation. I do, however, hold to it's theological significance.
I haven't resolved the issue of how creation happend, but I don't think that bounds me to carnivores going around eating mankind as part of the plan of God: "Nice world, God, except for the hungry animals." Though Genesis doesn't answer the questions about the origin of life the way we wish it did, it most certianly answers the theological questions. Those questions, in my opinion, prohibit a world where mankind's life is constantly at stake by carnivores. It is clearly after the Fall when animals and man are at odds with each other. And since serpents don't talk, I would not find that a strong argument against this view.
As I said, I haven't come to a conclusion about how it all went down in real life, but I think the theology binds us to some general truths about the matter.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/9/2005 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
I haven't resolved the issue of how creation happend, but I don't think that bounds me to carnivores going around eating mankind as part of the plan of God: "Nice world, God, except for the hungry animals." Though Genesis doesn't answer the questions about the origin of life the way we wish it did, it most certianly answers the theological questions. Those questions, in my opinion, prohibit a world where mankind's life is constantly at stake by carnivores. It is clearly after the Fall when animals and man are at odds with each other. And since serpents don't talk, I would not find that a strong argument against this view. I'm still chewing on all this. Particular I'm pondering how this all gels out if I posit that before the fall there was some provision in place that is not in place now. Particularly, what if God had commissioned his angels to protect humanity in various regards? What if the angels simply protected the "garden" as a safe haven from all the wild stuff going on outside it? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this position isn't dependant upon whether the creation account is literal or metaphorical. Does this idea hold water?
I'm wondering if this position wouldn't be compatible with those NT scriptures Meph has pointed out. On this view, I'd take it as true that literal physical death entered the world through Adam, but my spin would be that the scope of this statement is limited to humanity. We as humans truly would never experience death if we hadn't sinned; God would have continued to provide all we needed for eternal physical life.
Corey Post Edited (Forum Administrator) : 1/9/2005 11:20:51 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/10/2005 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
I'm still chewing on all this. Particular I'm pondering how this all gels out if I posit that before the fall there was some provision in place that is not in place now. Particularly, what if God had commissioned his angels to protect humanity in various regards? What if the angels simply protected the "garden" as a safe haven from all the wild stuff going on outside it? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this position isn't dependant upon whether the creation account is literal or metaphorical. Does this idea hold water?
I'm wondering if this position wouldn't be compatible with those NT scriptures Meph has pointed out. On this view, I'd take it as true that literal physical death entered the world through Adam, but my spin would be that the scope of this statement is limited to humanity. We as humans truly would never experience death if we hadn't sinned; God would have continued to provide all we needed for eternal physical life.
As far as the general idea...why wouldn't the angels have kept Satan out of the garden...especially after the fall?
But...What would any of this do for this scripture...
Mark 10:1-9
Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them. Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” “What did Moses command you?” he replied. They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,and the two will become one flesh.’ From So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
Here, Jesus is quoting this...
Genesis 2:20-24
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman'
for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Jesus argues that Moses made a concession from the way things were ordained IN THE BEGINNING. If there is no actual Adam and Eve to which this refers, what is the THEOLOGICAL moral being stated here? Why would "at the beginning of creation" mean so much? It would seem to me that the power of this completely GOES AWAY if there is no actual Adam and Eve.
Also, what's the theological moral for 1 Tim 2:13-15?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/10/2005 8:28 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
As far as the general idea...why wouldn't the angels have kept Satan out of the garden...especially after the fall? Thanks for your thoughts. That's a good point. I'll have to think about this some more.
Corey
[Later...]
As far as how Satan got in the garden in the first place, all I can imagine is that something similar to the situation in Job 1:1-12 took place and God gave him access to tempt humanity.
I'm not clear what you have in mind with your second phrase... where's the "especially" come from? I'm not aware of where the scripture speaks about keeping Satan out of the garden after the fall. I guess I'm wondering, what's the point? Humanity's not in there any longer anyway; they're in his domain now.
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/11/2005 7:02:12 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/11/2005 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | |
sparknheart said...Apparently God did not protect Eden until after the fall.
Genesis 3:24 (NRSV)
He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.
As for this verse, I understand that after the fall the angels received new marching orders; instead of their original duty to protect humanity from the wilderness outside, now their commission was to prevent humanity from accessing the tree of life.
Humanity's security credentials were revoked, so to speak, and they were kicked off the base. Either way, the base had guards on duty.
Post Edited (Corey) : 1/11/2005 6:38:09 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/11/2005 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | | Quoting P.T.: "Just as the Israelites and the Judahites would be exiled from the Lord's cities, here Adam is banned from the Garden."
That's interesting to consider as the reason it is placed in the story.
The 1563 HC has an interesting note as to why God was/is merciful in bar-ing/protecting us from eternal life outside of a good relationship with him: "...it puts an end to our sinning."
"We are free not because we can choose, but only when we have chosen well." - Hart | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/11/2005 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | |
Ok, after reading through this ENTIRE thread (whew! y’all really hashed a lot of this out!), I don’t want to ask questions that have already been addressed, I’ll just post some thoughts in smaller snippits.
Cultural eyes...
One of the bigger questions that popped in my head toward the end was this: are we trying to interpret Genesis though our own culture or have we been taught to see it how the original culture that wrote it would have perceived it?
Our American culture is a very “literalist” culture (vs. other cultures that really don’t care as much about detail, ie. the exact “whats”). Posters in this thread had been pointing out holes to prove their point, but did Moses’ culture really care about those holes? Would the presence of those holes make the story less true?
By the way, (being my random self)... I think this is a GREAT emoticon!---> mmmm.. HUNGRY PACMAN!
Post Edited (Violin for God) : 1/12/2005 12:46:50 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/11/2005 1:52 PM (GMT -6) | |
Oral tradition….
When Genesis was written, do we know FOR CERTAIN that the tradition of passing on history up to that point was purely oral, or are we speculating based on lack of documentary evidence available to us in (what year is it now… uhm…. oh yeah) 2005?
Books and writings get destroyed and lost over time. By the time Genesis was written, just by the fact of it being written down, there was already a very strong written system… otherwise, how was Genesis written?...in such an organized fashion also?
Post Edited (Violin for God) : 1/12/2005 12:46:33 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/11/2005 5:47 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/11/2005 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | |
Swede said...Genesis was _edited_ in the times of the Babylonian captivity. That addresses both of Violin for God's posts.
I'm not real up on the Documentary Hypothesis, but I think that pretty much fell by the wayside, didn't it?
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/11/2005 7:19 PM (GMT -6) | | | I Tim 2:13-15, from the ESV.
I Tim 2:13-15, ESV...
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Notably a difficult passage to interpret, but I don't think the heart of it is missed too easily, particularly in view the issue of this thread.
First, the woman is told to remain quiet or silent—submissive—as she learns. Paul's authority in holding this position (whatever the cultural context of the time be) was to refer to Genesis; the creation of the couple and then their fall. The woman was fully deceived and fully fell into tansgression (became a transgressor). Adam, however, was not deceived, and his transgression (Romans 5) is not brought up; it doesn't serve Paul's point: women are to be in a more submissive role at times (viz. when learning, in this instance) to men because their ancestor Eve is held accountable.
Second, if nothing more, this passage declares, perhaps more so than any other, the severity of Eve's transgression; for Paul is burdening woman of his own time with restriction because of Eve's fall. One might contend that the theology of the creation account of Adam and Eve alone wouldn't be strong enough to warrant Paul's argument if the story is not historical. Did Paul, then, believe that there really was a literal Adam and Eve, or is Genesis more than theological authority for Paul's argument? His language, as descriptive elsewhere, suggests he did believe in literal account of the Couple's creation.
If, however, God were only wanting to use this "mythic" account for the purposes of theology, He could have very well done so. It wasn't uncommon at all in ancient cultures to communicate spirituality in this manner; however, holding to this view means we still have an unexplained hamartiology; exactly how did any semblence of the theology of the Fall come into being if it were not through the agency of Adam and Eve's transgression?
If the account is purely myth, Paul is still appealing to the Authority behind the account, Paul apparently feeling that the account of Eve's transgression (theologically) was still valid. Were someone to exclaim to Paul, "Say, what's the deal with using some ancient story to bind women to submission when they're trying to learn?" (Of course, you realize, only a woman would have ever asked this question!) Paul's response is that the woman is portrayed in the story as having not listened in the first place. Had she listened, she would have been at a stronger advantage to deflect the serpent's words. That she didn't listen (apparently the man did but didn't heed what he knew), she is in a league of her own with regard to her transgression. This must be kept in check, even today.
I think this gets to the heart of Paul's use of the Couple's account to support his purpose, but I think something else stands out in what Paul does not say in the text: because Adam is guilty also of transgression, since he was not deceived, he is not the one who displays something inherent of the two that causes Paul to write as he did elsewhere: the woman is the weaker of the vessels. It is the man who is to love his wife (not the wife who is to love her husband) as Christ loves His church. It is the man who is to cherish her and take care of her, treating her with something more than respect because she is the weaker vessel. Without getting into a debate about the male/female thing, this is not a statement of "I'm better than you," but of position in view of how the two are made to function in the this world. These inherencies are to be kept in check: as the woman is to be submissive in certain circumstances, and the man is to be sold out to her as Christ loved the church. I cannot help but feel that Paul has this concept in the back of his mind as he writes. He expressed it elsewhere, so it is nothing new.
Finally, in view of the above, I cannot say that I know for a fact that Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve. As I said, the theology would stand regardless, as well as the natures of man and woman. So, if the creation account is myth, I don't think the moral foundation of I Tim 2 collapses. Theology, if given by God, stands because of just that: it was given by God, and ultimately, this was both Paul's stance and authority.
For the conversation,
Starkman
Post Edited (Starkman) : 1/11/2005 6:22:47 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/12/2005 1:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | Starkman, or anyone else,
so do you think this ought to still be practiced in the church, that women should remain silent, teach nothing, and say nothing? Why or why not? (and be honest, don't worry about offending. You won't.)
Post Edited (Violin for God) : 1/12/2005 12:46:16 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/12/2005 1:41 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...this one...
Wrong answer. Try again. -haha- j/k
Post Edited (Violin for God) : 1/12/2005 12:46:05 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/12/2005 1:43 PM (GMT -6) | |
Swede said...Genesis was _edited_ in the times of the Babylonian captivity. That addresses both of Violin for God's posts.
Hi Swede,
Sorry I missed it. How does that address the actual questions of my posts?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/12/2005 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | V. I won't try to convince you that it addressed the "actual questions" of your post. Obviously what _you_ mean to be central to the post you yourself are clear and pointed on. But what I meant is that in each post there was something _underlying_ for which a recognition of the fact that older portions were edited during the Babylonian captivity can benefit. It's a while now since I read your posts and responded--I wonder whether it will jump out. So, no, its not the "actual questions" but the underlying issues that prompted my post.
Lets see...
V. said...
Cultural eyes...
One of the bigger questions that popped in my head toward the end was this: are we trying to interpret Genesis though our own culture or have we been taught to see it how the original culture that wrote it would have perceived it? I liked that you recognized differences in how text would be read "then" and "now." That parallels that Prophetic and Law books that had editing at various times is interesting reading.
V. said...
By the time Genesis was written, just by the fact of it being written down, there was already a very strong written system… otherwise, how was Genesis written?...in such an organized fashion also? This statement has intentional writing of script ure happening after other script ure exists. That's almost like revisions. So I saw a common notion underlying your post and what I refered to.
Hope that helped.
"We are free not because we can choose, but only when we have chosen well." - Hart Post Edited (Swede) : 1/12/2005 4:06:05 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/12/2005 6:02 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Hi Swede,
Yes, that response did help me to understand a bit more clearly the point you were making. Thanks! I initially thought that your first reply was just being sarcastic and just blowing off what I had to say.
Before I do post anything, I certainly do want to make sure I am clear to myself about the issue I wish to address (if I don't understand myself, how can I expect others to know what I'm trying to get at, y'know?). But I guess those questions I had posted ended up being more rhetorical than actual discussion-openers, though that was unintended... it was partly meant as food for thought, partly to hear if the ideas held water.
As y'all can see, I tend to be skeptical of new ideas, but I definitely give them full consideration. And though I may appear skeptical and (maybe) appear as if I have all my ducks lined up on pseudo-paper, so to speak, often I'm also going through cognitive dissonance and I'm trying to make sense of it to see if I need to make adjustments in my thinking and understanding within my current world-view. Hope that makes sense.
I had no idea about the "editing" that happened during the Babylonian captivity, so that's new info to me. The question that comes to my mind about the "editing" this: I have no problem in accepting that Genesis and the Pentateuch were written based on previous writings available to Moses or whoever at that time (just like how modern-day historians will write their own books, for whatever reason, based on previously written material... some parts of Chronicles is like that, isn't it?...Based on Kings?). For that situation, I'd call it a "retelling" of a story based on previous documents. When someone says "editing" it makes me think of a document where parts have been added and others omitted to make it sound better, but possibly lessening the truth-value of the document. Just wondering, is that what you mean by "editing" or do you mean something else?
Anyways, thanks for your input.
Post Edited (Violin for God) : 1/12/2005 5:17:07 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/12/2005 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | |
Violin for God said...
Starkman, or anyone else,
so do you think this ought to still be practiced in the church, that women should remain silent, teach nothing, and say nothing? Why or why not? (and be honest, don't worry about offending. You won't.)
Not the subject of this thread, but I will say that there is the cultural aspect of this verse that has to be taken in to consideration, and there is the natures of men and women that comes into play. Men and women are, by nature, what they are in church. It doesn't take an authority to tell woman to be this or that. People simply know what they should be...well, most of the time. In other words, men and women do what men and women do in church, Bible study and everywhere else. The only time you have to put a constraint on either of them is if either of them is getting out of control.
I think it's highly possible Paul was simply trying to keep order in the church. It's not the silence that should be emphasied (no, I don't believe God would not want a woman to speak at all in church. Too much scripture elsewhere suggests this isn't the demand); rather, it is order that is at stake.
At any rate, that's my take...
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/12/2005 6:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | Dr. Craig Keener, in his IVP Bible Background Commentary - New Testament, observes that the situation Paul was addressing at Crete was indeed the background for his comments forbidding women from instructing men. However, if that's the case, it would seem unnecessary to say it--who would think otherwise?
Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, in his Complete Word Study New Testament, says that the verse should be rendered, "I do not permit a wife to dictate to her husband. (The Greek word for "wife" is the same as for "woman," and the same holds true in the Greek language for "husband" and "man.") Dr. Zodhiates goes on to point out that the context of the verse, in referring to childbearing, etc., indicates that it is the home and not the assembly of believers that is being referenced here.
One thing that has always kind of intrigued and amused me is that Paul, in arguing from the Genesis account, says the man/husband was not deceived, but the woman/wife was. Wouldn't a person who sinned KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY (as Adam did) be far less trustworthy?
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 1/12/2005 5:58:03 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 109 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:47 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|