Evidence for God from Science

Different view on the story of Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve,symbolize humans like you and me.
We were innocent ,we lived in paradise in the garden of Eden,and the relationship between god and humans was stable.
We saw everything through the eyes of truth,and we loved everything.
Than there was the tree of knowledge... God warned us not to go near it or we'd probably die.
But as curious little creatures we went to the tree anyways,the tree of knowledge had a snake and the snake was a fallen angel who only said lies.
Since we were innocent,we listened to the snake,and we thought he spoke the truth. We put our trust in the snake's lies,when we ate the apple we ate all the lies that came with the knowledge. Since we consumed the lie,we believe it. Than the seeds of lies went in our minds and made a tree of lies in our minds.
The tree will have knowledge of good and evil,to know what is wrong or right,what is beautiful and what is ugly. We basically have our own personal belief system and we begin to judge,and we close our spiritual loving eyes.

This is different perspective on the story I read before,that I honestly agree with. Do you feel that this view on the story of Adam and Eve holds any possible truth?

I guess it's the belief that it's wrong to be naked and the lie that one should feel ashamed to be naked.
Maybe the entire story was symbolic for how we transfer beliefs and lies to one another,and when we believe that "knowledge" we use it to judge others.
When we constantly lie or have any biased belief,we don't see the truth anymore and those lies or beliefs cause us to justify hurting another. So that's why there is no heaven on earth anymore. Almost as if we have our own tree of knowledge in our heads,and we spread our own apples out,and if a person chooses to consume the apple of beliefs,the apple seeds will plant themselves in that mind... At least that's how I interpreted the perspective.

Hmmm . . .

• Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, he son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, he son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:23-37, NIV)

Now, I can't help but notice that Jesus is not symbolic. On the other end, God is not symbolic. In the middle, guys like Abraham and David aren't symbolic. Why should I think that Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, etc. were? If Adam was, then who is the first non-symbolic/real person? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Noah was the first real person (I'm assuming you wouldn't take him to be just a symbol of humanity, but instead a real person). Let's say that his father, then, Lamech--according to Luke here--was the last symbolic one. What does that mean, that Noah has a symbolic father? If the text states that Noah's father was Lamech, but in fact, his father was not Lamech, but some other unnamed person, then is the text not wrong? What would Lamech be symbolic of? We can press those questions all the way back to Adam. If Seth is real, how can his "symbolic" father be "Adam?" And if Adam is symbolic, then why is God on the other end as a real person?

In short, the whole thing reads very much like a normal geneology. Unless you can give me good reason to believe, based on the text of Genesis and here in Luke, that there is a clear division between symbolic people and literal people and also explain how that change works in the middle of a literal geneology, I have to hold to the traditional--literal--understanding of Genesis 1-3.

Lullaby wrote:I guess it's the belief that it's wrong to be naked and the lie that one should feel ashamed to be naked.
Maybe the entire story was symbolic for how we transfer beliefs and lies to one another,and when we believe that "knowledge" we use it to judge others.
When we constantly lie or have any biased belief,we don't see the truth anymore and those lies or beliefs cause us to justify hurting another. So that's why there is no heaven on earth anymore. Almost as if we have our own tree of knowledge in our heads,and we spread our own apples out,and if a person chooses to consume the apple of beliefs,the apple seeds will plant themselves in that mind... At least that's how I interpreted the perspective.

No, the story isn't symbolic....however, I think there is also that problem with understanding how sin came to be. It wasn't anything in the fruit specifically, rather the fact that we DISOBEYED GOd. In C.S.Lewis's book Perelandra, Lewis creates a similar environment with an unfallen couple and the edict was nothing to do with the fruit, but with an island...they couldn't be on the island during a specific time....
It was our rebellion that changed us, not the fruit....it was our act of eating not what we were eating. Essentialy we were declaring ourselves God and declaring that we were not loyal to HIm and rejected HIm.

Jac3510 wrote:Hmmm . . .

• Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, he son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, he son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:23-37, NIV)

Now, I can't help but notice that Jesus is not symbolic. On the other end, God is not symbolic.

Now don't you think you're drawing too much from one passage?

K wrote:Now don't you think you're drawing too much from one passage?

I see the snake, as I also see the devil, as a symbol of evil. Adam and Eve committed the original sin. God gave them everything but they wanted to know more than they should have, and for that mistake, started sin.

Adam and Eve aren't symbolic, but their situation is SO similar to situations we face all the time, every day. Do you follow the serpent or God?

Harry12345 wrote:Adam and Eve aren't symbolic, but their situation is SO similar to situations we face all the time, every day. Do you follow the serpent or God?

I don't believe they are symbolic either but respect some smart Christians that do (example: Francis Collins). I once was unknowingly deceived by the devil but have followed God for over 20 years since then. As hard as things are, I have no doubt they would be much worse without God. Well... without God... I wouldn't be here.