Adam then Eve

[AirDancer]

To state that oral tradition, as handed down thru the generations verbatim, is myth would put lie to that oral tradition. Before written language was established, oral tradition was the norm. Very few of the many selected to learn the oral tradition became successful at complete memorization, word for word.

God could very easily inspire myths, if that was His design. There were and continue to be many people who are gifted fiction writers.

Our Lord used parables to illustrate certain points; however, Scripture - God's Word - is not a 'story tale', a piece of fiction. I know there are those who would argue that statement, but I believe what has been collated to be in the Bible to be truth, from alpha to omega pages.

 

[Yah1]

None - except to those who indulge in fantasy. It's a story. Harry Potter is a story.

Where have I said God is fantasy?

You state that you're a Christian on a Christian forum, and you state that you believe God is real, but yet you mock the Word of God and deny how God's creation started. Next thing you'll say is that the 12 prophets and the pharisees didn't exist. With comments like these, how do you expect anybody to take you seriously?

 

[wayseer]

You state that you're a Christian on a Christian forum, and you state that you believe God is real, but yet you mock the Word of God and deny how God's creation started.

I do not such thing. What I have suggested is that there is a more constructive way to look at the biblical texts rather literally. The Early Church Fathers did not take the texts literally. Will you likewise question their Christianity?

Next thing you'll say is that the 12 prophets and the pharisees didn't exist. With comments like these, how do you expect anybody to take you seriously?

Well, I have said no such thing nor have I indicated as much. Please do not read into my posts your own ideology.

 

[Yah1]

I do not such thing. What I have suggested is that there is a more constructive way to look at the biblical texts rather literally. The Early Church Fathers did not take the texts literally. Will you likewise question their Christianity?

Ok then, what is the more constructive way. Give me an example of what you mean.

 

[wayseer]

To state that oral tradition, as handed down thru the generations verbatim, is myth would put lie to that oral tradition. Before written language was established, oral tradition was the norm. Very few of the many selected to learn the oral tradition became successful at complete memorization, word for word.

Respected scholars spend years studying this stuff and all we do is be guided by their expertise.

God could very easily inspire myths, if that was His design. There were and continue to be many people who are gifted fiction writers.

Of course.

Our Lord used parables to illustrate certain points; however, Scripture - God's Word - is not a 'story tale', a piece of fiction.

Are you suggesting that the parables are fact?

And I have not suggested God's word is a 'story tale' or 'fiction'. What I have suggested is that the authors of the biblical texts used different forms of genre to convey their message.

Jesus did not write anything that we know but he did use parables as a mechanism of communicating truth. The Genesis story is narrative - a story with a message - it's the 'message' that is truth - not the narrative. Much of the psalms are poetry but does this alter their truth value?

I know most churches do not teach the basics of biblical study. This is of concern because those listening form certain ideas which do not lie with the way the texts are revealed.

I know there are those who would argue that statement, but I believe what has been collated to be in the Bible to be truth, from alpha to omega pages.

Truth certainly but it is largely hidden truth. Did not Jesus have to take his disciples away and explain what he really meant?

 

[wayseer]

Ok then, what is the more constructive way. Give me an example of what you mean.

Read post #35.

 

[Yah1]

Read post #35.

#35th Post - Indeed - but that is not its purpose.

The purpose of the Creed is to define what, or who is, a Christian.

A Christian is not defined as to his or her take on the story of creation.

The purpose of the Creed is to define/A Christian is not defined as to his or her take <What does this mean?
I'm confused. What exactly do you think is false in the book of Genesis? Is there a specific scripture(s)?

 

[wayseer]

The purpose of the Creed is to define/A Christian is not defined as to his or her take <What does this mean?
I'm confused.

It means that God's revelation is individual. As long as we agree on the essentials (the Creed) other things perhaps reflect God's work in our lives - the unfolding of love.

What exactly do you think is false in the book of Genesis? Is there a specific scripture(s)?

There is nothing 'false' in Genesis - what is false is demanding that the text say what it does not say. But even if we disagree this does not unmake a Christian.

There is a difference between the words on the page and how they play on the heart. The art is to go beyond the intellect. It's a bit like music which has the power beyond the notes on the page. When those notes are strung together they generate something beyond what is written. And, Yes, it very much depends on interpretation just as one must interpret music.

 

[smaller]

It means that God's revelation is individual. As long as we agree on the essentials (the Creed) other things perhaps reflect God's work in our lives - the unfolding of love.

There is nothing 'false' in Genesis - what is false is demanding that the text say what it does not say. But even if we disagree this does not unmake a Christian.

There is a difference between the words on the page and how they play on the heart. The art is to go beyond the intellect. It's a bit like music which has the power beyond the notes on the page. When those notes are strung together they generate something beyond what is written. And, Yes, it very much depends on interpretation just as one must interpret music.

I appreciate that approach wayseer.

To say Adam didn't exist though does bring some lineage issues as that draws in the potential that Jesus didn't exist either. And that is on the table when one turns Adam into a purely allegorical figure.

s

 

[beardedad]

When you take Adam out of the equation why did Jesus die on the cross. There would have been no purpose. Where did sin come from? There would be alot of questions that would need to be answered.

Originally Posted by wayseer "It means that God's revelation is individual. As long as we agree on the essentials (the Creed) other things perhaps reflect God's work in our lives - the unfolding of love."

God's revelation is not just individual it is about everyone, Adam is the essential.

 

[John 8:32]

Jews don't take the story literally - why should we?

Jews don't take the story of Christ as the Messiah literally either, are you saying why should we?

 

[wayseer]

I appreciate that approach wayseer.

To say Adam didn't exist though does bring some lineage issues as that draws in the potential that Jesus didn't exist either. And that is on the table when one turns Adam into a purely allegorical figure.

Yes, I agree, it becomes difficult.

The Bible did not come to us as a seamless text. There were many authors writing at different periods to different groups of people on particular occasions to address specific issues using different techniques/genres to explain their message. So we have to acknowledge that things don't knit together like a well constructed novel.

Adam exists a a metaphor - on that we can be pretty clear. Jesus existed at a particular point in time - and on that we can be pretty clear. It's out thinking that's at fault - not the text.

 

[wayseer]

Jews don't take the story of Christ as the Messiah literally either, are you saying why should we?

Actually they do - but reject the claim.

 

[wayseer]

When you take Adam out of the equation why did Jesus die on the cross

Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice to end all sacrifices as the previous sacrificial system was not working.

Where did sin come from?

A good question the answer to which we are still struggling to answer.

God's revelation is not just individual it is about everyone, Adam is the essential.

Adam does not get a mention in the Creed - which is essential.

I accept there are lots of questions and often the truth is inconvenient to our own ideas and concepts of how things should be.

 

[smaller]

Yes, I agree, it becomes difficult.

The Bible did not come to us as a seamless text. There were many authors writing at different periods to different groups of people on particular occasions to address specific issues using different techniques/genres to explain their message. So we have to acknowledge that things don't knit together like a well constructed novel.

Adam exists a a metaphor - on that we can be pretty clear. Jesus existed at a particular point in time - and on that we can be pretty clear. It's out thinking that's at fault - not the text.

There are those pesky lineage statements. Adam is in that lineage.

That being said the requirement to see those matters allegorically is beyond question to me.

s

 

[Yah1]

There is a difference between the words on the page and how they play on the heart. The art is to go beyond the intellect. It's a bit like music which has the power beyond the notes on the page. When those notes are strung together they generate something beyond what is written. And, Yes, it very much depends on interpretation just as one must interpret music.

Nicely said but..

There is nothing 'false' in Genesis - what is false is demanding that the text say what it does not say. But even if we disagree this does not unmake a Christian.

When does the text say what it does not say, can you please refer to a scripture or any scripure that has you questioning.
What are we disagreeing with, exactly? Scriptures please! ;)

 

[westtexas]

Adam exists a a metaphor - on that we can be pretty clear. Jesus existed at a particular point in time - and on that we can be pretty clear. It's out thinking that's at fault - not the text.

I agree. The text is clear. Let's get your thoughts on Luke 3:23-38. You agree Jesus existed and believe Adam was a metaphor. So at what point in this lineage do you go from metaphor to literal? None in this lineage except Jesus are listed in the Nicene Creed, which you feel is essential, so all the names in these 15 verses are metaphor except our Lord? If they are what are they metaphorical for? If not, please explain at what point it becomes literal. Thanks

 

[wayseer]

When does the text say what it does not say, can you please refer to a scripture or any scripure that has you questioning.
What are we disagreeing with, exactly? Scriptures please! ;)

I cant' help you there. Jesus said many times - there are those who in listening do not hear and in looking do not see.

 

[wayseer]

I agree. The text is clear. Let's get your thoughts on Luke 3:23-38. You agree Jesus existed and believe Adam was a metaphor. So at what point in this lineage do you go from metaphor to literal? None in this lineage except Jesus are listed in the Nicene Creed, which you feel is essential, so all the names in these 15 verses are metaphor except our Lord? If they are what are they metaphorical for? If not, please explain at what point it becomes literal. Thanks

Compare Luke's account with Matthew. Notice anything?

 

[westtexas]

Compare Luke's account with Matthew. Notice anything?

Sure I do and we can talk about anything in either lineage that you care to converse about. But for now you are dodging the question. At what point does metaphor end and literalism begin? According to the Nicene Creed Matthew list 2 literal names and 15 verses of metaphor. Is that what you want me to notice?