What events in the Bible did not actually occur?

[King Dan of Great the 1st]

I believe in the stories as true events but i think there is some sayings that could mean anything.

 

[humble soul]

The Adam and Steve story . No I don't think that occurred either

 

[Serving Zion]

I haven't read enough of Paul to answer your question.

I think I have given you ample opportunity to do that, and it therefore isn't a valid excuse to avoid the question. For the power of thrice I will give it to you again:

In Romans 5:17(NASB), Paul says "through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned".

I want to show you two things there that I have underlined:

1. one man
2. spread to all

It seems to me that if you are paying attention to what is being said rather than deflecting the conversation, you will have to acknowledge that what Paul says can not fit with what your theologian has said:

(at 3m 49s): So you could have just one couple that turns away from God but that we're all then descended from, or it could be the early human community as a whole turned away from God and we're all descended from them. Those are two ways that have been proposed to try to square [...] Original Sin with the idea of polygenism.

See there I have underlined two expressions to compare them to the two above.

1. the early human community as a whole turned away from God
2. we're all descended from them

First I need to make it clear that what Mr. Jimmy Akin is talking about is a view of the doctrine of Original Sin and he is not saying words that accurately reflect what the scriptures say. That comes about as a result of people who take second-hand knowledge from pulpits and peers instead of reading what the scriptures say with an open mind.

I want to show you those differences:

1. Mr. Akin has said that the Original Sin was the "turning away from God", whereas Paul says it is "sin":
   1. J. Akin: "the early human community as a whole turned away from God"
   2. Paul: "through one man sin entered into the world"

It is important to recognise that Mr. Akin has paraphrased the expression of "sin having entered into the world" because if he were to use that expression word-for-word, it clearly would not fit with the idea that "through mankind as a community, sin entered into the world". It wouldn't fit because it would oppose the statement that Paul said next: "death spread to all because all sinned". Now, I know you are pretty attention-focused when it comes to words, so I want to help you avoid the trap of thinking that Paul might be saying that because all sinned, then Akin must be justified to say that mankind as a community turned away from God, because to do that you would need to turn your eye away from the statement that Paul just said: "through one man sin entered the world". For your reference, you can see the same being said in other places:

• Romans 5:14: Adam is the one who disobeyed the command, even though others have sinned in a different way than he did.
• Romans 5:15: It is because of the trespass of the one man that many died.
• Romans 5:18: through the one offence, condemnation came upon all mankind.

The second difference is this:

2. J. Akin implies that the condemnation comes upon all mankind because of the genealogical descent, which is part of the doctrine of Inherited Sin (distinct from Original Sin), but Paul says that death "spread" to all men.

Inherited sin teaches that babies are born in a fallen state by nature as a result of what Adam's sin did to the physiological seed of him. Such views are used by the superstitious to justify beliefs of ancestral curses, and by nature are fundamentally opposed to the precept of justice: that a person cannot be found guilty for a crime they have not committed. The doctrine of Inherited Sin makes out that God punishes the yet-to-be-born on account of the sin that someone else has committed.

You will notice that Mr. Akin has included that view in both theories.

So it is because of those two fundamental problems that I encourage you to look to the scriptures for yourself, because it is not going to work when you come to give answers as to why you chose to believe things that are contrary to the scriptures if you have been shown that the one you are following is contradicting the scriptures.

Paul gave a frightening illustration of such a predicament when he spoke of the different materials that people use to build up the faith of others, in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15(TLV):

each one’s work will become clear. For the Day will show it, because it is to be revealed by fire; and the fire itself will test each one’s work—what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss—he himself will be saved, but as through fire.

Paul made it very clear that the salvation of each person depends upon their faith being solid, and when you are building your faith upon the teachings of someone who has been taught the doctrines of 2,000 years of confusion and collaboration, you are not really in control of the power of your faith. It isn't a warning to Mr. Akin though, because I haven't seen that he would be unable to defend his position, but it is you who I am concerned for because on the day it doesn't really matter what anyone else has told you, it only matters what you have decided to cling to.

 

[humble soul]

I think I have given you ample opportunity to do that, and it therefore isn't a valid excuse to avoid the question. For the power of thrice I will give it to you again:

In Romans 5:17(NASB), Paul says "through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned".

I want to show you two things there that I have underlined:

1. one man
2. spread to all

It seems to me that if you are paying attention to what is being said rather than deflecting the conversation, you will have to acknowledge that what Paul says can not fit with what your theologian has said:



See there I have underlined two expressions to compare them to the two above.

1. the early human community as a whole turned away from God
2. we're all descended from them

First I need to make it clear that what Mr. Jimmy Akin is talking about is a view of the doctrine of Original Sin and he is not saying words that accurately reflect what the scriptures say. That comes about as a result of people who take second-hand knowledge from pulpits and peers instead of reading what the scriptures say with an open mind.

I want to show you those differences:

1. Mr. Akin has said that the Original Sin was the "turning away from God", whereas Paul says it is "sin":
   1. J. Akin: "the early human community as a whole turned away from God"
   2. Paul: "through one man sin entered into the world"

It is important to recognise that Mr. Akin has paraphrased the expression of "sin having entered into the world" because if he were to use that expression word-for-word, it clearly would not fit with the idea that "through mankind as a community, sin entered into the world". It wouldn't fit because it would oppose the statement that Paul said next: "death spread to all because all sinned". Now, I know you are pretty attention-focused when it comes to words, so I want to help you avoid the trap of thinking that Paul might be saying that because all sinned, then Akin must be justified to say that mankind as a community turned away from God, because to do that you would need to turn your eye away from the statement that Paul just said: "through one man sin entered the world". For your reference, you can see the same being said in other places:

• Romans 5:14: Adam is the one who disobeyed the command, even though others have sinned in a different way than he did.
• Romans 5:15: It is because of the trespass of the one man that many died.
• Romans 5:18: through the one offence, condemnation came upon all mankind.

The second difference is this:

2. J. Akin implies that the condemnation comes upon all mankind because of the genealogical descent, which is part of the doctrine of Inherited Sin (distinct from Original Sin), but Paul says that death "spread" to all men.

Inherited sin teaches that babies are born in a fallen state by nature as a result of what Adam's sin did to the physiological seed of him. Such views are used by the superstitious to justify beliefs of ancestral curses, and by nature are fundamentally opposed to the precept of justice: that a person cannot be found guilty for a crime they have not committed. The doctrine of Inherited Sin makes out that God punishes the yet-to-be-born on account of the sin that someone else has committed.

You will notice that Mr. Akin has included that view in both theories.

So it is because of those two fundamental problems that I encourage you to look to the scriptures for yourself, because it is not going to work when you come to give answers as to why you chose to believe things that are contrary to the scriptures if you have been shown that the one you are following is contradicting the scriptures.

Paul gave a frightening illustration of such a predicament when he spoke of the different materials that people use to build up the faith of others, in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15(TLV):

each one’s work will become clear. For the Day will show it, because it is to be revealed by fire; and the fire itself will test each one’s work—what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss—he himself will be saved, but as through fire.

Paul made it very clear that the salvation of each person depends upon their faith being solid, and when you are building your faith upon the teachings of someone who has been taught the doctrines of 2,000 years of confusion and collaboration, you are not really in control of the power of your faith. It isn't a warning to Mr. Akin though, because I haven't seen that he would be unable to defend his position, but it is you who I am concerned for because on the day it doesn't really matter what anyone else has told you, it only matters what you have decided to cling to.

Interesting mmm......look if you want to score some awesome point over me because of what st. Paul said proving that Adam was a real human being, go ahead.
As I said I am not a scripture scholar nor do I treat the Bible as final authority, not to mention interpretation which tend to vary.
So if you want to claim victory go ahead. I won't be changing my view any time soon. Sorry to disappoint. I know you were just starting to relish this .

 

[Serving Zion]

look if you want to score some awesome point over me because of what st. Paul said proving that Adam was a real human being, go ahead.

Well it sounds like you've seen what I was showing you, so that's good and I am satisfied with that. Thanks for letting me know!

As I said I am not a scripture scholar

It's ok to not be a bible scholar, because even Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to the ones who are like little children and by saying that, He was convicting those who thought themselves to be higher in knowledge than they were (Matthew 18:4).

nor do I treat the Bible as final authority,

It has it's place though as being that which binds even the highest authority until all things have been accomplished (Matthew 5:17-20).

not to mention interpretation which tend to vary.

There's a reason for that. The New Testament writers have given plenty to think about if you are interested.

So if you want to claim victory go ahead. I won't be changing my view any time soon. Sorry to disappoint. I know you were just starting to relish this .

It sounds like you have thought that I am like some other warring factionist you have known, but I'm not. I would call it my victory if I could bring you into the certainty of faith so that you profess to know that which no-one has taught you: (1 John 2:27).

 

[humble soul]

In a few words, Catholics are free to believe in the literal truth of the six-day Creation or not, as they choose. For those who don’t, Adam and Eve can be seen as the first true humans who evolved from apes. But the Church takes care not to hold any official doctrine at all on this subject.

On Catholic websites such as CAF (Catholic Answers Forums, which closed down at the end of last year) you always get a certain number of “young earth creationists” who insist very loudly that it’s all the plain truth, every word of it, and to prove it, they quote Matt 24:37, where Jesus says, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” In this verse — they say — Jesus is proclaiming the literal truth of the Flood narrative in Genesis. However, those posters don’t have the weight of Church teaching behind them. It’s just something that has caught their imagination.

 

[ezrider]

In Romans 5:17(NASB), Paul says "through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned".

I want to show you two things there that I have underlined:

1. one man
2. spread to all

You are Adam. You took the knowledge of the law, the knowledge of sin and death, and you spread it to all man kind, as you sit and judge everyone his neighbor by the knowledge of the law, because all have sinned. You are you own original sin when you come to the knowledge of the law; the knowledge of good and evil. Certainly is much easier to spread the knowledge of death than is to display the grace that comes with life.

 

[Quantrill]

This is what I believe and therefore have faith.


I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen.

But if Adam did not exist, who is the one person Christ died for? A substitute can only substitute for one. Correct?

Quantrill

 

[Serving Zion]

You are Adam. You took the knowledge of the law, the knowledge of sin and death, and you spread it to all man kind, as you sit and judge everyone his neighbor by the knowledge of the law, because all have sinned. You are you own original sin when you come to the knowledge of the law; the knowledge of good and evil. Certainly is much easier to spread the knowledge of death than is to display the grace that comes with life.

I know there is value in the consideration of that view, but it doesn't negate the fact that sin was already in the world before I arrived here, and that the scriptures say plainly that there was a time when sin was not in the world - until Adam let it in. So my sin is the result of my having been formed in the image of the world, and that world having been corrupted by the sinful ways that Adam passed on to it. You can't really say that sin originated with me though, hence we use the expression "Original Sin" to describe the origin of sin in the world.

 

[humble soul]

The problem with the support for a literal reading on Genesis using Paul is that Paul talks about Adam, sin coming into the world through one man. But, that means Paul didn't know his Genesis very well or didn't take it literally because the Genesis account is clear - it wasn't Adam, it was through Eve that sin entered the world. How do you support a literal reading from someone who got it wrong?

 

[Serving Zion]

The problem with the support for a literal reading on Genesis using Paul is that Paul talks about Adam, sin coming into the world through one man. But, that means Paul didn't know his Genesis very well or didn't take it literally because the Genesis account is clear - it wasn't Adam, it was through Eve that sin entered the world. How do you support a literal reading from someone who got it wrong?

I don't think you could really safely assume that Paul didn't know that Eve took the fruit and gave to her adam who was with her. There has to be something else a bit deeper in his theology. It is a good question!

 

[Edward]

I don't think you could really safely assume that Paul didn't know that Eve took the fruit and gave to her adam who was with her. There has to be something else a bit deeper in his theology. It is a good question!

I think that passage is pretty clear. Eve was deceived, so she did it in ignorance. Adam was the man and so had the responsibility and accountability and in fact ate of the fruit in full knowledge that he was commanded not to.

So sin entered the world through one man, Adam. Paul was right.

Personally, and I'm in no way being dogmatic, but I think that Adam decided to knowingly sin and go ahead and eat of the fruit that his Wife had ate of...out of love for his Wife so she would not be left alone in punishment. So he stood beside his Wife, as one. I think that makes sense. And of course Adam loved Eve, she was his Wife. And she was crafted by the very hand of God...so you know that she had to be extremely beautiful. He probably couldn't help but love her and feared for her so he ate the fruit too. For her sake. But the man had the accountability put on him moreso than the woman who was deceived.

 

[Serving Zion]

I think that passage is pretty clear. Eve was deceived, so she did it in ignorance. Adam was the man and so had the responsibility and accountability and in fact ate of the fruit in full knowledge that he was commanded not to.

So sin entered the world through one man, Adam. Paul was right.

Personally, and I'm in no way being dogmatic, but I think that Adam decided to knowingly sin and go ahead and eat of the fruit that his Wife had ate of...out of love for his Wife so she would not be left alone in punishment. So he stood beside his Wife, as one. I think that makes sense. And of course Adam loved Eve, she was his Wife. And she was crafted by the very hand of God...so you know that she had to be extremely beautiful. He probably couldn't help but love her and feared for her so he ate the fruit too. For her sake. But the man had the accountability put on him moreso than the woman who was deceived.

It seems pretty consistent with the way I see it, and your explanation is good. Only it's this part that you said:

"He probably couldn't help but love her and feared for her so he ate the fruit too."

Of course it isn't written as to why Adam chose to go with his woman, so we can only speculate. But in saying that, there is some truth we can rely on: as the fact is that he would have known that he was being tempted to disobey God, so it is clear that his decision was to reject God.

I think it is reasonable to assume too that, as you have implied, he had seen a change in her and he knew that she had fallen from grace. So in that decision, he was choosing to follow her into the falling from grace - whereas that isn't something that Eve did because she had seen that the fruit would make her wise.

So the sin of Adam is not like the sin of Eve, because of the factor of culpability - and we know that culpability is vital in securing the right to condemn in justice (Romans 5:14). Judgement can't really go too hard on someone who thought they were doing good!

That's what makes Eve's sin much more forgivable than Adam's, and that is why Eve was cursed to only bear the brunt of her own sin while the ground (ie the place in which the man's food would grow) was cursed on account of Adam. I think that putting the curse of the ground in context of ezrider's idea in post #67 can help to explain how sin entered into the world through Adam.

Of course, if Adam had known the power of God that can resurrect and redeem the sinner, he might not have feared for Eve but may have rather waited until he had a chance to ask God for help. In saying that, there is also no reason to think that Adam already didn't know the power of God and perhaps chose to follow Eve in order to have what she was sharing with him. It may have tempted him more when he saw that she hadn't died from the fruit - but who knows? On the other hand, the sin in a person is abominable to the one who is without sin, so he must have been able to see that she had become an abomination, and yet he chose to go with her - why?

As you suggested, he had loved her - she was the "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" to him! In knowing how the human is willing to die for that which he loves, I'd say that sin probably got the power over him through his fear of being cut off from her rather than the fear for what would happen to her (because "love covers a multitude of sin" - and yet, he didn't have all of the theology that we have today - he was naive and pure).

 

[Serving Zion]

There's also a view that suggests Adam was much more wise than Eve, because he had been with God for a while before Eve was made.

Remember that God said "it is not good for the adam to be alone. I will make a helper for him" - and so Eve was made as a match for him (obviously full grown - not as a baby), and yet she hadn't grown up with him, she had suddenly appeared.

So we might safely assume that she was very naive and childlike in her knowledge. Adam would therefore have been responsible for teaching her the things that a grown-up is meant to teach to those who are growing up.

In that picture, we can see of Genesis 3:6 that it appears they were together, and the tree was right there in the midst of the garden with them, and Eve had been tempted by the nachash (while Adam apparently knew nothing of it) and the next thing you know, she's eating of the forbidden fruit and offering it to him.

It's probably a bit like a grown up seeing a little child playing with something dangerous, let's say for example a little child is playing with a knife, and the child holds it out to the grown-up so he can play too - what's the reasonable response for a grown-up? "Oh no that's ouchy! ta the knife because we don't want the ouchy, ok?" and so the child learns right from wrong because the grown up is teaching her.

But Adam didn't correct Eve when he was in the upper position with that responsibility - he went under her wrongness instead.

It's all quite speculative though because we know the nachash had worked in order to deceive Eve, but we don't know whether Eve worked at all in order to deceive Adam or why he allowed her to lead him there, only that "she gave of the fruit to her adam who was with her, and he also ate of it).

It sure is a lot to think about!

 

[Tessa]

I once heard a pastor say that perhaps sd Adam knew that Eve would die he couldn't bear thethpigght of being without her and maybe didn't have enough faith to believe that God could create him another Eve.
I wonder why they hid from God. They said it was because they were naked. Did they not know that God can see everything and already knew what they had done?

 

[Quantrill]

I once heard a pastor say that perhaps sd Adam knew that Eve would die he couldn't bear thethpigght of being without her and maybe didn't have enough faith to believe that God could create him another Eve.
I wonder why they hid from God. They said it was because they were naked. Did they not know that God can see everything and already knew what they had done?

I am of the opinion that when Eve fell, the affects of the fall upon her were evident to Adam. In other words, not only did he know she disobeyed God, but he saw the affects of death in her already.

Eve was singularly in the most dangerous position a person could ever be. She was fallen. But her head, Adam, was not. The human race was not yet fallen. Adam legally could have turned to God and said 'this woman has disobeyed you and she wants me to disobey you. But I won't. Make me another woman.' Then Eve would be lost forever.

The problem: Adam loved Eve. He didn't want another woman. He wanted that one. And remember, Adam knew God. And he knew that if he fell with Eve, that God was going to get him back. And whatever it took to get Adam back, would get Eve back also.

Some may disagree with that, but that is exactly what happened. And isn't Adam a figure of Christ Who is to come? (Rom. 5:14) And didn't Christ take on a fallen condition to deliver His bride the Church? I believe so.

Quantrill

 

[Serving Zion]

I once heard a pastor say that perhaps sd Adam knew that Eve would die he couldn't bear thethpigght of being without her and maybe didn't have enough faith to believe that God could create him another Eve.
I wonder why they hid from God. They said it was because they were naked. Did they not know that God can see everything and already knew what they had done?

The word for naked means to have uncovered or exposed that which was private. It isn't so much that they knew they were naked that went wrong, but the fact that their nakedness was now a cause for shame. In fact I'd even say that if they had no cause for shame they wouldn't have known that they were naked. We can see that God asked them that question: "who told you that you are naked?" - and realising that they didn't have an answer for that question, He asked "did you eat from the tree that I told you to not eat from?" - which means to show that their nakedness is the very fact that God could see what they were ashamed of: they were ashamed for having eaten the forbidden fruit!

Of course there is a carnal aspect to the story too, because the scriptures teach spiritual truths to people in a fallen world. It is similar in fact to the innocence that a child has when they don't know why they are getting in trouble as compared to the guilt of a child who is lying because he knows he will be in trouble. The lies are a way of covering up their nakedness that is only needed because their nakedness is a cause of shame.

 

[Serving Zion]

Adam legally could have turned to God and said 'this woman has disobeyed you and she wants me to disobey you. But I won't. Make me another woman.

Do you think he might have rather asked God to heal her instead? .. assuming that you think it is possible, why do you suppose he didn't do that instead?

 

[Quantrill]

Do you think he might have rather asked God to heal her instead? .. assuming that you think it is possible, why do you suppose he didn't do that instead?

Perhaps the Son could have rather asked the Father to heal His bride instead. I wonder why He didn't.

The sentence was already pronounced. Death.

Quantrill

 

[Serving Zion]

Perhaps the Son could have rather asked the Father to heal His bride instead.

Are you referring to Matthew 26:39 so as to suggest that if He had not have drank of that cup, His people could not have been healed?