Jim Parker
Member
Basing conclusions on what is not said is an argument from silence. It is pure speculation.
It would be just as valid to conclude that space aliens put other people on the earth. There's no mention of that either.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Adam and Eve 'amongst' the first humans?
- Thread starter FallenSoldier
- Start date
It would be just as valid to conclude that space aliens put other people on the earth. There's no mention of that either.
Hierophant
Member
Biblical literalism is a plague. I don't believe Adam and Eve necessarily existed but rather that their stories serve to illustrate what I take as the essential point of Genesis: that Man is created in the image of God.
Jim Parker
Member
I hope you've got your armor on. (INCOMING!!!)
And you've identified yourself as "one of them derned KATH-kicks"! (You'll need to dig in.)
Welcome, brother!
Man was also created to "tend God's garden" and to be fruitful and multiply and fill the whole earth.
And mankind was created to be priests of God who offer to God "Thine own from thine own in behalf of all and for all." (From the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom)
Blessings!
iakov the fool
DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
Hierophant
Member
I hope you've got your armor on. (INCOMING!!!)
And you've identified yourself as "one of them derned KATH-kicks"! (You'll need to dig in.)
Welcome, brother!
Man was also created to "tend God's garden" and to be fruitful and multiply and fill the whole earth.
And mankind was created to be priests of God who offer to God "Thine own from thine own in behalf of all and for all." (From the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom).
Not a Roman Catholic, but yes
And yes, those points are true; but IMO Genesis' essential point is to convey that we are created in the image of God.
It's true that there may not have been a man actually named Adam or a woman actually names Eve, but there most certainly existed a first man and a first woman. (created by God).
If this is not true, then we would have to turn to evolution as the answer.
I do agree with your understanding of Genesis stating that we are made in the image of God.
I also believe Genesis teaches us how sin entered into man and nature and the universe in general.
Wondering
Hierophant
Member
Why is that a bad thing?
jasonc
Member
morals are from whom? the laws of nature of by the Maker?
It would be a bad thing to believe in evolution because it is not a Christian concept.
Let me say that God could have created us in any way He would see fit. But if we're to believe that the bible is the Word of God, then what does it mean that God created the first man and the first woman?
You either believe God created the first humans, or you believe in evolution.
Is there a middle ground? I think not.
Wondering
Hierophant
Member
I do not take the entire canon of Scripture as literal, historical truth. I understand much of it, especially the Book of Genesis, to be allegorical or poetic; but that doesn't impair the essential truths which they convey.
Wondering, I believe that humans are a product of theistic evolution; and are especially distinct from animals due to the fact that humans possess a 'divine spark', I.e. their immortal souls.
Wondering, I believe that humans are a product of theistic evolution; and are especially distinct from animals due to the fact that humans possess a 'divine spark', I.e. their immortal souls.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hierophant
Member
Christ is the centre of my faith, my encounter with Him in the Eucharist the reason I am a seminarian. Just because I don't take Genesis as literal truth doesn't mean I discount the literal reality of Christ as a Son of God.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not going to argue with you. As I said, God could have created man in any way He pleased to.
I don't see any scientific evidence for evolution. We discussed this in the Science Forum some time ago.
I understand that you do not take the bible literally. I do not find that one must take the bible literally to be in tune with God.
God is a big God and I don't like to put Him in a box. Each one of us must understand Him in his own way. Also, as one grows with God he does come to understand things in different ways.
Personally, I cannot believe in evolution. It seems (I say "seems" because the facts are forever changing - something that does not happen with the Word of God) that a woman had been found (in Africa, I believe) that was probably the mother of all humans, or the First Human. There is also no missing link between older human forms and the present form of man.
I also find it difficult to believe that one form of life could change into another. Why is this not happening now? Each species remains as he was made initially. IOW, I don't see monkeys evolving. I do believe in evolution within a species.
So, yes, getting back to the O.P. I do believe that there was a first man and a first woman and that God breathed the breath of life in them.
Genesis 2:7
Wondering
Since you posted your affiliation in your signature line, I'd like to ask you the following.
Your church is listed as protestant because you do not adhere to Papal authority.
However, in doctrine it is considered Catholic (in theology and practices).
This is very confusing. Would you care to elaborate? (by PM if you prefer, or not at all if you prefer, of course!)
Wondering
jasonc
Member
the parents of eve where they human?
abide
Member
Explain Exodus 6. 20
King James Bible
And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.
Moses' father was married to his aunt. Moses' mother was both his great aunt and his mother.
(This does not make sense either...or does it
Hierophant
Member
I belong to the National Apostolic Catholic Church, a small ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Old Catholic clergy and laity. Old Catholicism stems from the First Vatican Council, which famously defined the doctrine of papal infallibility, and the rejection of that doctrine by the See of Utrecht in the Netherlands. We hold to the Vincentian Canon ("Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus].") as the basis of our faith, and are basically Catholics who reject Petrine supremacy and other novel Roman Catholic doctrines. Old Catholicism in the United States is heavily liberal, and the NACC follows in that mold; accepting gay marriage, married priests, etc.
While I jurisdictionally belong to the NACC, and liturgically I am an Old Catholic (using Arnold Harris Mathews' 1909 Old Catholic Missal), in faith I am more of a Liberal Catholic. Liberal Catholicism originated in the United Kingdom in the 1800s, descended from Old Catholicism, and has it's own distinctive English-language liturgy and -- appropriately enough -- is very, very liberal and mystical; and is influenced by the theosophical system of belief. To quote the Liberal Catholic Church's Statement of Principles and Summary of Doctrine regarding Scripture, since it is pertinent to my views regarding Genesis:
The Liberal Catholic Church teaches that the scriptures are not verbally or uniformly inspired, but only in a general sense. It considers that they contain much that is divinely inspired; also that with things literally true are mingled others that may be, as Origen taught, allegorically and spiritually understood.
Jim Parker
Member
I assumed that "National Apostolic Catholic Church" and the Icon of Edward the Confessor might be Anglican/Church of England in some manner. Since this forum is predominately Protestant, a lot of people here stick us (I'm Eastern Orthodox) into the same pigeon hole: "KATH-lick."Not a Roman Catholic, but yes
And yes, those points are true; but IMO Genesis' essential point is to convey that we are created in the image of God.
jim (AKA: iakov the fool)
Jim Parker
Member
That seems to be contradictory. That which was believed everywhere and at all times would certainly not include homosexual marriage but certainly would include married priests. (Male priest married to female wives)
If by "mysticism" you are referring to the teachings of the Theosophical Society, which was founded in New York City in 1875, that would also be in direct conflict with "that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus]."
There certainly was no "theosophy" in the first century Church when the same, uniform teachings were spread from the Atlantic coast of Gaul to the Malabar coast of India.
iakov the fool
JohnDB
Member
Adam is a title...not a tag.
And yes it was a person because we have a genealogical record.
Most of the names in the Old Testament are Titles as well. Pharaoh was at least 3 different people in Exodus but always referred to as Pharaoh.
Thanks John.
I always understood that Adam was not the actual name of a person,but a representation. He was the first created man as Eve was the first created woman and mother of all future men.
If I remember correctly, it's a play on words, Adam coming from the color red as dirt in that area was red.
Wondering
jasonc
Member
Edom aka esau.but most jews I know or listen to will not say Adam isn't a person with a name and character .