Re: When Did Adam Live?
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 2:10 am
Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
My personal take on "Conclusion 5" is that Adam and Eve were historical people who existed in Mesopotamia somewhere around 5000 to 6000 BC.LittleHamster wrote: As for Adam and Eve, I might add Conclusion 5 to Dave's post - i.e., the story is allegorical or is symbolic of a spiritual event.
DBowling wrote:My personal take on "Conclusion 5" is that Adam and Eve were historical people who existed in Mesopotamia somewhere around 5000 to 6000 BC.LittleHamster wrote: As for Adam and Eve, I might add Conclusion 5 to Dave's post - i.e., the story is allegorical or is symbolic of a spiritual event.
My belief in the historicity of Adam and Eve are based on the following.
1. Jesus and Paul referred to Adam and Eve as historical people.
2. Sumerian and Akkadian legends refer to a person with forms of the name Adam. The legend's have enough similarities to the Biblical account of Adam to indicate some common source, but enough differences to indicate that the Biblical narrative is not directly dependent on the legendary material. This indicates to me that there was a historical Adam behind the Genesis narrative and who was also the basis for later Sumerian myth and legend.
Even though I believe that Adam was a historical person, I also believe he was an archetypal representative for all mankind. And I believe that there is symbolic and spiritual content in the Genesis narrative of the historic Adam.
So I don't necessarily see historicity and archetype/symbolism/spiritualism as mutually exclusive concepts.
In Christ
How do you know that?neo-x wrote:Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.
He knows that because claiming the story to be allegorical would call into question many other parts of the Bible. Review my questions to Littlehamster and you'll see that he was quickly painting himself into a corner. The story is either true or false...take your pick.Audie wrote:How do you know that?neo-x wrote:Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.
By proper examining the structure, the language, the context and with that how the later authors referred back to the story. We can either say the story is completely made up and reject it, or say completely true and accept it but can't say that it was written as allegorical because that makes no sense, and is not supported by various factors. I mean if the author never penned it as an allegory we can not claim today that it somehow is. The author's intent is paramount here.Audie wrote:How do you know that?neo-x wrote:Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.
neo-x wrote:By proper examining the structure, the language, the context and with that how the later authors referred back to the story. We can either say the story is completely made up and reject it, or say completely true and accept it but can't say that it was written as allegorical because that makes no sense, and is not supported by various factors. I mean if the author never penned it as an allegory we can not claim today that it somehow is. The author's intent is paramount here.Audie wrote:How do you know that?neo-x wrote:Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.
Then don't, no one's asking you to. You asked how I knew that and I told you. If you don't have any interest in it why ask the question, only to follow up with your personal preference on the matter?Audie wrote:neo-x wrote:By proper examining the structure, the language, the context and with that how the later authors referred back to the story. We can either say the story is completely made up and reject it, or say completely true and accept it but can't say that it was written as allegorical because that makes no sense, and is not supported by various factors. I mean if the author never penned it as an allegory we can not claim today that it somehow is. The author's intent is paramount here.Audie wrote:How do you know that?neo-x wrote:Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.
Another among the many reasons not to believe in any of it.
What does the Bible say about this? Ge 1:27, and read all of Genesis, chapter 2.DBowling wrote:1. Were Adam and Eve the progenitors of all human beings?
By inference, no. He and his wife were immortal...as we all are even today. The difference is that Adam would never have had to face physical death had he not sinned.DBowling wrote:2. Was Adam mortal before the Fall?
If any were around, they were animals, like dogs & cats & rats, and would have been created on the 5th day. However, all this is silly speculation. The Bible makes no mention of such people-cum-animals.DBowling wrote:3. What was the spiritual state of those humans in the rest of the world prior to the Fall?
These animals, if they existed, would continue to exist until they died. All animals had to die as a result of the Fall, all creation was damned.DBowling wrote:4. What happened to humans in the rest of the world at the time of the Fall?
The original sins by Eve & Adam were a choice they freely made. The only cause of their sin must be their freedom to choose between obeying or disobeying God.DBowling wrote:5. Original Sin
This one's a doozie! ... Is this inherent tendency to sin in humans a result of the Fall or did it predate the Fall possibly as a natural function of human free will and actually contribute to the Fall? ...
yeah, I wished I hadnt posted that. I will get back to this later.neo-x wrote:Then don't, no one's asking you to. You asked how I knew that and I told you. If you don't have any interest in it why ask the question, only to follow up with your personal preference on the matter?Audie wrote:neo-x wrote:By proper examining the structure, the language, the context and with that how the later authors referred back to the story. We can either say the story is completely made up and reject it, or say completely true and accept it but can't say that it was written as allegorical because that makes no sense, and is not supported by various factors. I mean if the author never penned it as an allegory we can not claim today that it somehow is. The author's intent is paramount here.Audie wrote:How do you know that?neo-x wrote:Little hamster, it would be quite problematic to say the story is allegorical. Its not and it was never meant to be.
Another among the many reasons not to believe in any of it.
An atheist once wrote to me on my blog, "I don't hate God, I just believe in the fxxxxx" (sorry mods but this is what I work with mostly and People need to realize that its wrong, I hope in Audie's case she see my point). Really! some atheists feel strongly about God. And one even top that; after he asked me a question and I wrote a 2 page reply addressing the nuances of the question he had asked and providing a detailed answer, he replied with a single line "Who cares, I don't believe in your sky-rat anyway". It annoyed me, because instead of addressing the replies to his questions he himself wanted to know he just wrote a one liner insult and was on his merry way.
So my point, try to discuss the points you ask about rather than tell me what you don't believe, which I already know. It adds nothing to the discussion and I for one would like an intelligent discussion rather than a boring reply which brings nothing to the table.
Genesis 1:27 tells us that that God created mankind in His image on Day 6. The "adam" of Genesis 1 is small 'a' adam denoting mankind in general.Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:What does the Bible say about this? Ge 1:27, and read all of Genesis, chapter 2.DBowling wrote:1. Were Adam and Eve the progenitors of all human beings?
OK... let's see how Genesis uses this type of language just one chapter later to see if Genesis 3:20 is really claiming that Eve was the genetic progenitor of all humans.Jac3510 wrote:Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living. (Gen 3:20)
Yes, Adam and Eve were the direct ancestors of all living people (as far as Genesis is concerned, anyway).