Evidence for God from Science

What is your interpretation of Genesis then Ivellious?

Well to be fair I don't really need one, per say, seeing as I'm not a Christian. I think Genesis in general, especially the very beginning with creation and Adam and Eve and all that, is not really that different than other creation stories from history. It served ancient people as a good way to explain how they got there, end of story. Now, later parts of the Bible are probably much more rooted in history, but I have reason to believe that the Genesis creation story is any different than the creation story out of Greek mythology.

Of course, lots of Christians tend to agree with my take on Genesis, more or less.

Thadeyus wrote:

RickD wrote:If Adam is allegorical, and by his comparison to Christ, that means Christ is allegorical too. If Adam symbolizes humanity in some way, maybe Christ is just a symbol too. And sin is just a metaphor, and there's really no need for a savior.

Works quite well for me.

While I am partly 'Tongue in cheek' in reply, there's a measure of honesty within as well.

And there lies the problem with theistic evolutionists that believe Adam wasn't a real person. It can possibly undermine the gospel.
That's why I think we need to be careful in thinking Adam was just a representative, and not a real historical person.

Ivellious wrote:

What is your interpretation of Genesis then Ivellious?

Well to be fair I don't really need one, per say, seeing as I'm not a Christian. I think Genesis in general, especially the very beginning with creation and Adam and Eve and all that, is not really that different than other creation stories from history. It served ancient people as a good way to explain how they got there, end of story. Now, later parts of the Bible are probably much more rooted in history, but I have reason to believe that the Genesis creation story is any different than the creation story out of Greek mythology.

Of course, lots of Christians tend to agree with my take on Genesis, more or less.

Ivellious,

If Adam was not historical, why would Christ be historical? When Christ is compared and contrasted to Adam, how can Adam be symbolic, and Christ be real?
Ivellious, I'm only asking you as a reader, how that makes sense.

RickD wrote:If Adam is allegorical, and by his comparison to Christ, that means Christ is allegorical too. If Adam symbolizes humanity in some way, maybe Christ is just a symbol too. And sin is just a metaphor, and there's really no need for a savior.

Not at all, i can say e.g as the saying goes, you are mad as a hatter. See, the hatter does not have to be real but you are real.

I agree Rick I can't look at the scriptures and say that Adam and Eve were simply allegorical figures, it just doesn't match what the evidence tells me.

No rick, adam could very well be a historical figure, he just can't be the first one, thats all i contend.

Again, if Adam is merely allegorical, it creates some key Scriptural questions/problems:

Note that Scripture speaks of Adam and Eve as real people and that He "named them Man WHEN THEY WERE CREATED." Continuosly, Genesis reveals an Adam who does not have the indications of an allegorical figure. Nor do the events of he and Eve's lives.

Genesis 5 speaks of this allegorical Adam's offspring.

Luke 3's genealogy links Adam to Jesus.

How can Jesus be the Son of Man if his genealogy links him to merely an allegorical/not-real man?

How can Jesus be the "second Adam" if the first was merely allegorical?

How can an allegorical man and his wife fall into sin, pointing the way to ALL men whom will need a Savior?

Why would an allegorical couple need saving - it would be like cartoon characters need saving - as so do we?

Of course, there are other places in the New Testament that refer to Adam as being a real person.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:If Adam is allegorical, and by his comparison to Christ, that means Christ is allegorical too. If Adam symbolizes humanity in some way, maybe Christ is just a symbol too. And sin is just a metaphor, and there's really no need for a savior.

Not at all, i can say e.g as the saying goes, you are mad as a hatter. See, the hatter does not have to be real but you are real.

Ok, I'm not catching on. Please be patient with me. How does Romans 5:12-17 make any sense if Adam wasn't real, but Christ is?
Romans 5:12-17:
12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

If Adam wasn't real, then the transgression wasn't real. If the transgression wasn't real, then there's no need for real redemption. A symbolic Adam makes his sin symbolic. A symbolic transgression throws the whole comparison of Adam and Christ in romans 5, out of whack. It just makes no sense that way. Of course I could just be missing something obvious that you may be able to explain to me.

Neo wrote:
No rick, adam could very well be a historical figure, he just can't be the first one, thats all i contend.

Then this argument isn't pertaining to you. I'm only referring to those TEs who believe Adam wasn't a real, historical person. And your mad hatter comparison makes no sense if you believe Adam was real. Neo, stop trying to confuse me. I confuse myself enough without you adding fuel to the fire.

Ivellious,

If Adam was not historical, why would Christ be historical? When Christ is compared and contrasted to Adam, how can Adam be symbolic, and Christ be real?
Ivellious, I'm only asking you as a reader, how that makes sense.

Easy. Other parts of the Bible have been backed up by non-biblical sources. Other writers and historians and various archaeological evidence support at least the existence of Jesus, Moses, and lots of other aspects of the Bible, outside that initial part about God creating the universe.

Now, whether Jesus was God, then that's all on faith, and that's fine. But as opposed to the Genesis creation, at least most of the New Testament has historical evidence to support the general events happening and people existing. No such evidence exists for Genesis 1:1. And, in fact, genetic evidence seems to fly in the face of the human race only coming from two people and then inbreeding from then on.

And, just as a reader, it does make sense. Genesis is written like a creation myth, in the same style as the ancient Greek, Roman, and Egyptian stories. The rest of the Bible is written as a historical document, by and large.

And I wouldn't say Adam and Eve couldn't be based on real people, either...though, like Neo, I don't see it possible to say that they were the first humans ever.

Actually, on an interesting note, genetic evidence suggests that at one point in the (relatively) recent past, the species homo sapiens went through a critical bottleneck in its population, where there may have only been a few dozen individuals alive. This tiny group gave rise to the rest of humanity today. Honestly, it would actually make a lot of sense if Adam and Eve were based on people in that group or a similar event in history.

Ivellious wrote:

Ivellious,

If Adam was not historical, why would Christ be historical? When Christ is compared and contrasted to Adam, how can Adam be symbolic, and Christ be real?
Ivellious, I'm only asking you as a reader, how that makes sense.

Easy. Other parts of the Bible have been backed up by non-biblical sources. Other writers and historians and various archaeological evidence support at least the existence of Jesus, Moses, and lots of other aspects of the Bible, outside that initial part about God creating the universe.

Now, whether Jesus was God, then that's all on faith, and that's fine. But as opposed to the Genesis creation, at least most of the New Testament has historical evidence to support the general events happening and people existing. No such evidence exists for Genesis 1:1. And, in fact, genetic evidence seems to fly in the face of the human race only coming from two people and then inbreeding from then on.

And, just as a reader, it does make sense. Genesis is written like a creation myth, in the same style as the ancient Greek, Roman, and Egyptian stories. The rest of the Bible is written as a historical document, by and large.

As a reader of the romans 5 passage I posted above, how does that make sense to you if Adam was not real, but Christ is?

Ivellious wrote:And I wouldn't say Adam and Eve couldn't be based on real people, either...though, like Neo, I don't see it possible to say that they were the first humans ever.

Actually, on an interesting note, genetic evidence suggests that at one point in the (relatively) recent past, the species homo sapiens went through a critical bottleneck in its population, where there may have only been a few dozen individuals alive. This tiny group gave rise to the rest of humanity today. Honestly, it would actually make a lot of sense if Adam and Eve were based on people in that group or a similar event in history.

Or maybe eight people who gave birth to the rest of humanity alive today? If you concede a few dozen, is it beyond the scope of reason to you, that it could possibly be as few as eight?

Just aS a side point, it posits a problem back at your position, especially oec, if Adam is real, then so is the creation story, meaning you can't really say adam is real but the story is not really as it reads to being yec, ofcourse its yec then.

RickD wrote:

Ivellious wrote:And I wouldn't say Adam and Eve couldn't be based on real people, either...though, like Neo, I don't see it possible to say that they were the first humans ever.

Actually, on an interesting note, genetic evidence suggests that at one point in the (relatively) recent past, the species homo sapiens went through a critical bottleneck in its population, where there may have only been a few dozen individuals alive. This tiny group gave rise to the rest of humanity today. Honestly, it would actually make a lot of sense if Adam and Eve were based on people in that group or a similar event in history.

Or maybe eight people who gave birth to the rest of humanity alive today? If you concede a few dozen, is it beyond the scope of reason to you, that it could possibly be as few as eight?

That still wouldn't make them the first humans, the point is lost either way.

neo-x wrote:Just aS a side point, it posits a problem back at your position, especially oec, if Adam is real, then so is the creation story, meaning you can't really say adam is real but the story is not really as it reads to being yec, ofcourse its yec then.

Huh? How so? I believe Adam is real, and I believe the creation story is real and literal. And it fits into an OEC/PC worldview.