Adam then Eve

[BornAgain]

Then what were these two names?

Adam and Eve were first mentioned in:

Genesis 3:20 (KJV)
20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

 

[beardedad]

Bornagain

I was wondering if n2thelight could tell me who he was taking about. Adan and Eve were all I knew.

 

[stovebolts]

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

But to clarify - what I have said is the story of creation as recorded in Genesis is a story - a couple of stories actually.

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

Wow, you put Genesis in the same category as Harry Potter. What next? Shall we now say Genesis is on par with Star Wars too?

If you would like to discuss other Ancient Near Eastern texts, I'd be privileged to discuss them with you.

And where do you get the idea that Jews don't take Genesis literally? First off, please read this article by a prominent Jewish site that represents the vast majority of Judaism.
http://www.chabad.org/library/artic...-Old-is-the-Universe-According-to-Judaism.htm

Would you then say that Noah, Abraham even Joseph were merely fictitious people?

 

[stovebolts]

Bornagain

I was wondering if n2thelight could tell me who he was taking about. Adan and Eve were all I knew.

n2thelight believes in a theology called Serpent Seed Theology that has been forbidden on this site, so I'm thinking he probably can't say much more than what he's stated on the matter without receiving an infraction. I would encourage you not to peruse the matter.

http://www.christianforums.net/announcement.php?f=64&a=6
2.2: No active promotion of other Faiths is allowed:

You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Biblical and historical Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Discussing these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted. This includes Universal Reconciliation, Universal Salvation, Serpent seed, Dual Seed or Two-Seedline doctrine which are only allowed in the 1 on 1 Debate Forum. This is a Christian Forum as the name suggests.

 

[beardedad]

n2thelight believes in a theology called Serpent Seed Theology that has been forbidden on this site, so I'm thinking he probably can't say much more than what he's stated on the matter without receiving an infraction. I would encourage you not to peruse the matter.

http://www.christianforums.net/announcement.php?f=64&a=6
2.2: No active promotion of other Faiths is allowed:



You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Biblical and historical Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Discussing these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted. This includes Universal Reconciliation, Universal Salvation, Serpent seed, Dual Seed or Two-Seedline doctrine which are only allowed in the 1 on 1 Debate Forum. This is a Christian Forum as the name suggests.

Thanks for the info.

 

[jasoncran]

jeff call me. its of utmost importance afterwork if you can. wayseer. submission really? who said abuse was in the picture? not me. i believe that if its willing then its a blessing. i submit to god and my wife unto me and i unto her(yes that is in the nt and its also taught in jewry too) then the marriage will prosper.

 

[BornAgain]

Bornagain

I was wondering if n2thelight could tell me who he was taking about. Adan and Eve were all I knew.

That's a good question for n2the light..... I do not want to speak for him but I think that Adam and Eve were not mentioned in verse 27 which is correct....n2thelight can correct me if I am wrong.

 

[n2thelight]

That's a good question for n2the light..... I do not want to speak for him but I think that Adam and Eve were not mentioned in verse 27 which is correct....n2thelight can correct me if I am wrong.

edit

That would be correct.God did not form Adam until after He rested.....

 

[wayseer]

Wow, you put Genesis in the same category as Harry Potter. What next? Shall we now say Genesis is on par with Star Wars too?

Your'e catching on - they are stories. Harry Potter, Stars Wars along with the creation story are not fact.

If you would like to discuss other Ancient Near Eastern texts, I'd be privileged to discuss them with you.

Have they something to contribute?

And where do you get the idea that Jews don't take Genesis literally? First off, please read this article by a prominent Jewish site that represents the vast majority of Judaism.

This might come as a shock - ready - most Jews are secular. You will inevitably find the few who, like some Christians, believe the story rather than focusing on the revelation.

Would you then say that Noah, Abraham even Joseph were merely fictitious people?

No.

Next question.

 

[reba]

2.1: This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Please read: Statement of Faith

Be respectful of the Scriptures

 

[wayseer]

I'm not sure to whom you are directing your remarks.

But if they are directed at me - I am respectful to the scriptures - I treat them as scripture not scientific fact. I am urging others to treat them with the same respect.

You will note that the Nicene Creed makes not mention of creation.

 

[westtexas]

Harry Potter, Stars Wars along with the creation story are not fact.

Curious as to your thinking. If you dont believe the creation story as a literal story, is it symbolic of something? Or just a fictitional story at the beginning of a book? Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[AirDancer]

I'm not sure to whom you are directing your remarks.

But if they are directed at me - I am respectful to the scriptures - I treat them as scripture not scientific fact. I am urging others to treat them with the same respect.

You will note that the Nicene Creed makes not mention of creation.

And you will note that the Nicene Creed makes no mention of a LOT of what is in Scripture.

 

[wayseer]

Curious as to your thinking. If you dont believe the creation story as a literal story, is it symbolic of something? Or just a fictitional story at the beginning of a book? Thanks for your thoughts.

Westtext - symbolic in one sense but there is a deeper perspective.

It is accepted that the creation 'myth' in the biblical account is somewhat similar to two other 'creation myths' that were circulating at the time - Gilgamesh and Enuma Elish. Admittedly there are significant differences. It was a time, something like 2000 years BC, that humans were struggling with the concept of the 'order' and 'chaos'.

What the the creation myth does is suggest that the known world was one of 'order' as opposed to 'chaos'. The myth is not about 'something' existing instead of 'nothing' as most of us think the creation story is all about. It's about 'order' being bought out of 'chaos' and it is short step from there to envisage a Creator that created 'order' where 'chaos' existed previously.

So the story of creation in Genesis is deeper than what most Christians have been told. If we read it as 'order' out of 'chaos', as does Judaism, rather than 'something' out of 'nothing' - very Western perspective - we get a clearer picture of what is being said.

A good starting point is the Jewish Study Bible. This is a comprehensive study (over 2000 pages) of the Jewish Bible - the Tanakh. And just to make a quote concerning Genesis, 'The theology must be inferred from stories, and the lived relationship with God must take precedence over abstract theology' (P 8).

 

[wayseer]

And you will note that the Nicene Creed makes no mention of a LOT of what is in Scripture.

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.

 

[n2thelight]

wayseer

So the story of creation in Genesis is deeper than what most Christians have been told. If we read it as 'order' out of 'chaos', as does Judaism, rather than 'something' out of 'nothing' - very Western perspective - we get a clearer picture of what is being said.

So why was there chaos.......I understand that it was,but why....also it didn't start out as chaotic....

 

[AirDancer]

Ah, but to delegate Genesis' early chapters as 'story' or 'myth' denies oral traditions that was the norm for centuries.

Gilgamesh and Enuma Elish were epic tales, some of which were taken from the oral traditions.

Just as certain pagan traditions were adopted into the early church, much of the oral traditions were adopted by other peoples for their own purposes.

If the initial chapters are taken as myth, that puts to lie that all Scripture is inspired.

 

[The Unbeliever]

What was wrong with my post????

It may not have been your post.

 

[The Unbeliever]

Ah, but to delegate Genesis' early chapters as 'story' or 'myth' denies oral traditions that was the norm for centuries.

How does it deny the normative authority of oral tradition?

If the initial chapters are taken as myth, that puts to lie that all Scripture is inspired.

Why could God not have inspired myths?

 

[wayseer]

If the initial chapters are taken as myth, that puts to lie that all Scripture is inspired.

Why?

The either/or equation is not appropriate. I accept that things then get difficult - just where does one draw the line? But this 'slippery slope' idea is really a form of laziness.

I was in a similar position twenty odd years ago. But there were some uncomfortable questions that could not be readily resolved just by reading the biblical texts. There was something missing.

So I started study.

But none of this takes precedence over my relationship with the God who reveals him/herself through scripture. In fact, my relationship has deepened. So there is no slippery slope - just a gradual but fulfilling knowledge of something of God.