Is the story of Adam & Eve a parable?

[face2face]

I certainly agree that we should not believe everything in the Bible "blindly." The question is whether "God's word" is always to be taken literally (I say No), or whether it can be metaphorical, allegorical, parabolic, etc. (I say Yes). In the latter case it doesn't cease to be "God's word."

Ignoring the evidence of evolution is a perfect example of accepting the Bible "blindly," and I can't do that. Does this view make me a "disbeliever?"

...and we do not have blind faith. God has revealed his signature in everything He has made and all people of the earth are without excude to ignore His handiwork.

And no, it does not make you a disbeliever...as Paul would say certainly not!

F2F

 

[RedFan]

A Khosian and an Aleut walk into a bar in Reykjavik. “Where you from?” asks the Aleut. “Southern Africa,” the Khosian replies. “And you?” “Western Alaska. Seems we’ve each traveled far to get here.”

“Tell me about your ancestors,” says the Aleut. “Oh, I can trace my heritage back 5,000 years," the Khosian replied. "How about you?” “Same,” says the Aleut.

The Icelandic bartender, a Chirstian, chirps in at this point. “You boys are nuts,” he says. “4,400 years ago after the great flood, there were only a few humans alive, in western Asia, and they were your ancestors. All 8 billion people on the planet today descended from three guys named Shem, Ham and Japheth.”

“They caravaned across the Sahara and beat their way through the jungles of Africa to reach my ancestral homeland? How? Why?” asked the Khosian. “They trapsed across Asia and sailed to the North Pacific to reach my ancestral homeland? How? Why?” asked the Aleut.

The bartender was nonplussed. “I had an Aboriginal fellow in here yesterday asking me the same thing, insisting that Shem, Ham and Japheth’s descendants didn’t populate Australia. But I don’t need to explain how or why, because it’s written in the Bible, so it must be true.”

“Then how come none of us look remotely like each other?” the Aleut inquired.

“DNA mutations, environmental factors, whatever – it doesn’t matter,” replied the bartender. “God managed it.”

The visitors looked at each other and then said in unison “Let us buy you a drink!”

 

[Aunty Jane]

In other words, those people came from the couple created on the sixth day outside the garden of Eden. The point is, if they were the siblings of Cain, why does he have to mention them as, 'every one that findeth me shall slay me'?

There were no other people outside the garden….God created “man” (Adʹam) meaning Earthling Man; Mankind; Humankind”.
From the rib of Adam, God created Eve of whom it was said, she had “to become the mother of all who are living”. Everyone living descended from Adam and his wife….all inherited the defect of sin because all will suffer its penalty…death. (Rom 5:12) Jesus’ death reverses the death penalty for us as Adam’s children who inherited his defect of sin.

You are assuming a timeline that the Bible does not promote.

While earlier in regards Abel, Cain did mention that he is his brother specifically. Basically, banished outside the garden, Adam and Eve who were not vagabond, just had Cain and Abel there.

Adam and his wife were expelled from the garden for their disobedience…..the ground was cursed and laboring to eat “bread” was now forced upon them, when all they had to do in the garden was eat the fruits that God lovingly provided for them. He was going to show them that without his blessing, life would be a difficult thing.
We do not know at what age Cain killed his brother, or if Adam and his wife had daughters in the meantime…women were not always mentioned by name as we see with Noah’s wife and his daughter’s in law.

Only Cain a fugitive and a vagabond, went from the presence of the Lord. And dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden, hence from where he found his wife.

“The land of Nod” is not specifically identified except to say that Cain would be a fugitive there…”east of Eden”.
And if there were already daughters, and God had foretold that the man and his wife would “fill the earth” with their children, there is nothing to say that Cain did not take one of them as a wife. It is clear that this was God’s purpose.

When Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, he then begat Seth. And at eight hundred years, Adam then only begat sons and daughters.

No…the Scripture says…..
Gen 5:3-8…
“Adam lived for 130 years and then became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and he named him Seth. 4 After becoming father to Seth, Adam lived for 800 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 5 So all the days of Adam’s life amounted to 930 years, and then he died.”

Adam became father to sons and daughters during the 800 years that he lived. It was God who commanded the humans to procreate. There is room for all kinds of assumptions….

“6 Seth lived for 105 years and then became father to Eʹnosh. 7 After becoming father to Eʹnosh, Seth lived for 807 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 8 So all the days of Seth amounted to 912 years, and then he died.”

“Sons and daughters” were born to him too….

How many children can a man father in hundreds of years?
We simply don’t know….all we have are the genealogies tracing the Messiah back to Adam.

 

[Christian Soldier]

The question of whether we should study evolution or scripture really comes down to where our priorities lie as believers. The Bible makes it clear that studying God's Word is key to understanding His will and how we should live. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, it says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." So, scripture helps us grow spiritually and live a life that pleases God.

At the same time, learning about the natural world—including things like evolution—can reveal the amazing complexity of God's creation. Psalm 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork." This reminds us that nature itself points to God’s greatness, so there’s value in studying it too.

But when it comes to what should take priority, Jesus gives us a clear direction in Matthew 6:33: "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you." The focus should always be on understanding God’s Word and His kingdom. If we choose to study other things, like science, it’s fine as long as it doesn’t take away from seeking God first.

In short, while it’s okay to explore other areas of knowledge, our main focus should always be on studying the scriptures, which are the foundation for our faith and how we live out our relationship with God.

But don't fret @RedFan I have been accused of not quoting Scriptures and anything longer than 2 lines cognitive dissonance sets in.

Remember-studying evolution alongside the Scriptures is crucial but even more important is a life of Christlikeness NOW!

Ingesting knowledge ain't going to save us-it is a personal relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ.
J.

@Hohann, said.
Remember-studying evolution alongside the Scriptures is crucial but even more important is a life of Christlikeness NOW!

The theory of evolution contradicts the story of creation. Both can't be true at thew same time, so one is a lie and the other one is true.
So you must choose to either believe what God said or what Charles Darwin said, one of them is a liar. So choose wisely.

God said He created all things that exist in six days, Darwin said all things created themselves over millions of years. You can't marry the two and pretend they're both true at thew same time.

 

[Johann]

@Hohann, said.
Remember-studying evolution alongside the Scriptures is crucial but even more important is a life of Christlikeness NOW!

The theory of evolution contradicts the story of creation. Both can't be true at thew same time, so one is a lie and the other one is true.
So you must choose to either believe what God said or what Charles Darwin said, one of them is a liar. So choose wisely.

God said He created all things that exist in six days, Darwin said all things created themselves over millions of years. You can't marry the two and pretend they're both true at thew same time.

You won't get a response-sorry.

 

[RedFan]

@Hohann, said.
Remember-studying evolution alongside the Scriptures is crucial but even more important is a life of Christlikeness NOW!

The theory of evolution contradicts the story of creation. Both can't be true at thew same time, so one is a lie and the other one is true.
So you must choose to either believe what God said or what Charles Darwin said, one of them is a liar. So choose wisely.

God said He created all things that exist in six days, Darwin said all things created themselves over millions of years. You can't marry the two and pretend they're both true at thew same time.

If I may - the real issue here is your statement "God said He created all things that exist in six days." With all due respect, God never said that. THE AUTHOR(S) OF GENESIS said that (whoever he or they may be). Inspired? Sure. But don't equate "inspired" with "inerrant." They are not the same thing. The Bible is chock full of human errors.

 

[Johann]

But don't equate "inspired" with "inerrant." They are not the same thing. The Bible is chock full of human errors.

My apologies for given you a reason to think I am agreeing with you-I don't.

While inspiration and inerrancy are distinct theological terms, they are closely related within the context of scripture. According to 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (Greek: theopneustos, meaning "God-breathed"), indicating that the Bible’s origin is divine, not human. From a biblical perspective, inspiration implies that God guided the human authors to write His truth without error in the original manuscripts.

The concept of inerrancy teaches that the Bible, in its original writings, is without error or contradiction. Psalm 19:7 says, "The law of the Lord is perfect," and Proverbs 30:5 affirms, "Every word of God is pure." These verses brings attention to the FACT-- the Bible's reliability and trustworthiness.

Though translations or copies might contain minor textual variations due to human transmission, this does not undermine the inerrancy of the original text. Therefore, "inspired" and "inerrant" work together to affirm the Bible's divine authority and accuracy, with inerrancy applying specifically to its original form as given by God.

Furthermore @RedFan -

The Bible speaks of theopneustos (θεόπνευστος), which means "God-breathed" in 2 Timothy 3:16. This indicates that all scripture originates directly from God, conveying His divine will. Additionally, the Bible reveals the character and mind of God, as seen in passages like Isaiah 55:8-9, where God declares that His thoughts and ways are higher than ours. However, the term "opsis" (sight) is not directly associated with this concept in biblical texts. Instead, scripture emphasizes that God’s word is a revelation of His truth and wisdom, not necessarily tied to the concept of "seeing" but more about hearing, receiving, and obeying His word.

J.

 

[Christian Soldier]

You won't get a response-sorry.

It's OK, to admit that your wrong. At least you've learned something, so it's not a total loss on your part

 

[Christian Soldier]

If I may - the real issue here is your statement "God said He created all things that exist in six days." With all due respect, God never said that. THE AUTHOR(S) OF GENESIS said that (whoever he or they may be). Inspired? Sure. But don't equate "inspired" with "inerrant." They are not the same thing. The Bible is chock full of human errors.

OK, so you don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God, you're not alone in your unbelief, all non Christians share your opinion. My Muslim friends all agree with you, but no born again Christian would ever agree with your opinion, because it's Antichrist.

God commands His people, to live by every Word which proceeds from His mouth. Gods Word is inspired, inerrant and infallible. If you deny this truth, then you don't believe in the God of the Bible, because every word in the bible is Gods Word from cover to cover.

Your claim makes God sound weak and incapable of communication with His people, but us true believers know that God is not weak or incapable of communication with His people. His Word is foolishness to unbelievers, and that's OK, because the gift of truth has not been given to everyone. Us true born again Christians are a very small minority, the vast majority of mankind is heading for the lake of fire.

The funny thing with you guys who don't believe that the bible is Gods Word, but you never ever find a single error or contradiction, you just imagine they exist, but the sad truth is they only exist in you mind.

 

[Brakelite]

Jesus came in the flesh to pay back what Adam lost for all his offspring…..he paid the exact price demanded to fulfill God’s law……a perfect, sinless human life, so that his descendants could be reconciled to God (alienated by sin) and finally have the opportunity to live as God first purposed for the human race……everlasting life in paradise on earth.

Normally, I would be reluctant to pull someone up on a matter outside of the original topic, however, this is important as there are many people reading this. Your take on the redemptive process as offered above is the Catholic view, but not the Christian biblical view.
The "exact price" as you put it, was not a perfect life... it was aperfect death. Sure, He lived a sinless life, and that was essential to the plan of salvation, but the price of our redemption... the ransom price... was death.

 

[Brakelite]

If I may - the real issue here is your statement "God said He created all things that exist in six days." With all due respect, God never said that. THE AUTHOR(S) OF GENESIS said that (whoever he or they may be). Inspired? Sure. But don't equate "inspired" with "inerrant." They are not the same thing. The Bible is chock full of human errors.

Actually, God did say that, even wrote it down personally.
“8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. ”
Exodus 20:8-11 KJV

 

[Brakelite]

 

[TheHC]

Hey, RedFan, hope you’re doing well….

folks often lived a long time before procreating.

They didn’t have to get old before procreating.
For instance, prior to the Flood, we’re only given the line to Noah. IOW, those fathers had other children. And nowhere does the account say that Enosh, Kenan, Ma·haʹla·le·el, Ja’red, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, or Noah, were firstborn.
It was the male line to Noah, which was important.

Same after the Flood: the line to Abraham was the important thing.
Also with regard to Ar·pachʹshad, Ca·iʹnan, Sheʹlah, Eʹber, Peʹleg, Reʹu, Seʹrug, Na’hor, Te’rah, or Abraham, none of these were said to be firstborn. In fact, Abraham wasn’t.

You believe a Mongolian and a Bantu could have had a common ancestor in a matter of a mere 100 generations. I'm not seeing it.

I’m curious…”100 generations”?
How do you arrive at that? Most people begin having children at around 25, or younger. That’s 4 to a century.
The Masoretic text has the Flood @ around 2370 BCE. That’s over 43 centuries ago. If generations are 4 to a century, that is 176 generations.

(The Septuagint extends the post-Flood lifespans longer, which pushes the Flood even further back in time, about another 500 years?)

Why couldn’t Noah’s sons have different skin tones, themselves?
Recently, there have been siblings born, with the same parents, who were of different colors. Even today.

Take care.

 

[TheHC]

The theory of evolution contradicts the story of creation.

Which theory? CD (common descent) evolution, the concept proposing we all have a common ancestor, a “LUCA”?
That one, yes It sure does contradict!

But the empirical evidence, what they’ve observed so far, like with MRSA, Darwin’s finches, the LTEE by Lenski, or the Drosophila experiments… none of those are contrary to Scripture.

They all stay within their “kinds”.
Taxonomically speaking, within their Families (probably.) That does seem to be the limit of evolutionary processes.

 

[face2face]

Normally, I would be reluctant to pull someone up on a matter outside of the original topic, however, this is important as there are many people reading this. Your take on the redemptive process as offered above is the Catholic view, but not the Christian biblical view.
The "exact price" as you put it, was not a perfect life... it was aperfect death.

It was actually both if you think about it.

The perfect sinless life is a lamb without spot or blemish, and the perfect death, was one in obedience to his Father. Jesus allowed God to crucify the flesh and its passions spiritually everyday, and then physically on the pole.

Sure, He lived a sinless life, and that was essential to the plan of salvation, but the price of our redemption... the ransom price... was death.

Again, I see what you are saying and I still think you need to appreciate it was a life poured daily (like Paul saying I die daily) which resulted in the physical death.

In fact we should not try to separate the life, death, resurrection and ascension for without any of these there is no redemption.

His entrance through the Heavens for the first time was on this basis:

he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. Hebrews 9:12

Because he secured redemption for himself we now have redemption. We are raised in his death and his resurrection.

There can be no other way.

So you are right Brakelite, but we can't take away from his daily victories over sins flesh (Romans 8:1-3)

F2F

 

[RedFan]

OK, so you don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God

Not the direct words of God. God didn't dictate the Bible word for word. If He had, there would be no errors in it. Yet there are.

 

[RedFan]

Actually, God did say that, even wrote it down personally.
“8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. ”
Exodus 20:8-11 KJV

Fair point, if the author of Exodus 20, who said that God wrote these words on stone tablets, got the story right. So it is the credibility of the author of Exodus that is at stake now.

 

[RedFan]

you never ever find a single error or contradiction, you just imagine they exist, but the sad truth is they only exist in you mind.

Where to start . . . how about with the gospels?

Matthew 23:35 confuses two Zechariahs, the prophet Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1) and another who was the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20-22).

Mark 2:26 quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time.

Luke 3:31 traces Jesus' geneology through David's son Nathan. Matthew 1:6 traces it through David's son Solomon.

John 13:1, John 18:28, John 19:14 all say the Last Supper was eaten the day before Passover. The Synoptics say it was eaten ON Passover (Mark 14:12, Mark 14:16-17, Matthew 26:17, Matthew 26:19-20, Luke 22:7–9, Luke 22:13-14).

Matthew 8:5-13 says the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person. Luke 7:2-10 says he sent an intermediary.

Matthew 8:28 says there were two demoniacs whose demons were sent into a herd of swine. Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 say there was only one.

Mark 9:1-2 says the transfiguration was six days after the promise of Jesus that “some standing here will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” Luke 9:28 says it was eight days later.

Matthew 28:9 says Jesus allowed Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection. John 20:17 says he told her not to.

Let me know when you need a break.

 

[RedFan]

I’m curious…”100 generations”?
How do you arrive at that? Most people begin having children at around 25, or younger. That’s 4 to a century.
The Masoretic text has the Flood @ around 2370 BCE. That’s over 43 centuries ago. If generations are 4 to a century, that is 176 generations.

Yes. I picked 100 to roundly average in the advanced age of many OT sires when procreating.

But Bantus and Mongolians were around at the time of Christ. That would be 100 generations even if we gave them 25 years apiece.

 

[MatthewG]

Moses is who I consider to have wrote Genesis.

Was it a parable? I don’t believe so. Did it take faith to believe the first line. Yes. I believe it was a place here on earth at one point in time but removed, but I could be wrong.