Is the story of Adam & Eve a parable?

[RedFan]

The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis is not presented as a parable but rather as a historical account within the biblical narrative. Parables are short stories used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, often found in the teachings of Jesus (e.g., Matthew 13). The Genesis account of Adam and Eve, including their creation, fall, and the consequences of sin, is foundational in explaining humanity's origins and relationship with God (Genesis 2–3). The New Testament references this account as literal (e.g., Romans 5:12-19, 1 Corinthians 15:22).

As to Paul's references to the A&E creation story, see my Post #94 above.

 

[Johann]

The A&E story is not part of "the gospel" that Paul received through the revelation of Jesus Christ. It was part of the accepted Jewish lore of the times in which Paul was born, got instructed (both in Tarsus and at Gamaliel's feet in Jerusalem), and believed to be true before Paul ever heard the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Your statement raises a thought-provoking perspective, but it's not entirely aligned with Paul's view of Scripture. The story of Adam and Eve, though part of Jewish tradition, is foundational to Paul’s theology. In Romans 5:12-19, Paul directly links Adam's sin with the need for Christ’s redemption, presenting Adam as a historical figure whose actions have theological consequences for humanity. Paul views Christ as the "second Adam" who reverses the effects of the fall. Therefore, the Adam and Eve narrative is indeed part of the theological framework Paul uses to explain the gospel.

--and anything that does not align with the Pauline epistles I reject.

Shalom.
J.

 

[face2face]

Let’s tackle these one at a time…..

1) ”The forsaking of their own covering - exposing their shame! Repentance etc”
There was not one word of repentance said in response to their sin. They knew what God said and they knew that in their perfect state, they had no sin nature to excuse what they chose to do in defiance of the explicit command of their Sovereign. God’s justice is pure, not altered by sentiment or crocodile tears. His mercy on occasion was extended to those who truly repented…..Adam and his wife did not repent and there was no basis to forgive them. The penalty was applied in God’s due time.

You must then believe God forcibly removed their covering and forcibly clothed them. This is totally inconsistent with the manner in which God deals with sin. You know this and I know that you know this which makes you entire response insincere.

2) “The learning of sacrifice and the covering of their sin (in type) Leviticus 17”
The law applied from the time it was given to Israel after their release from Egypt. Adam and his wife had no such law….the only law they knew was the one negative command concerning the TKGE. It caused them no hardship, but represented God’s right to set limits to the freedom of choice he gave them.

There was no sacrifice offered by Adam or his wife because there was no sacrifice that could be offered …..perfect beings do not make mistakes…they make deliberate choices. Imperfect humans make errors in judgment because of the sin that invades their nature….Christ died for them, not the parents who plunged them into this life through no fault on their part.

Who mentioned anything about a Law? This is a diversion in your own mind which causes you to ignore Abels offerings and your inablitity to deal with animal slain and the skin provided as a covering.

You can't run from this Jane - again, your avoidence in being unable to speak to the record is senseless. You would harm your own understanding by denying God's Divine principles.

right now you are unable to speak a single word about how God deals with sin upon the very first moment it enters his creation.

This discussion is evidence of the extent a person who has integrity will go to defend wrong doctrine, when the lessons are staring at you, glaring at you.

3) “The teaching of how God deals with sin and A&E teaching of this to their children”
It has to be acknowledged that the only righteous person in existence was the second son born to them. He was the first one mentioned to offer a sacrifice to God…his jealous brother killed him because of his own unrighteousness. So A&E were not wonderful parents, were they? Out of four existing individuals only one was righteous and he was killed because of it. How did God deal with Cain at a time when humans were in short supply, and the earth was to be populated with their children?

Wow, the plan of God allowed for the seed of the Serpent (carnal thinking) and the ENMITY which would be revealed against the seed of the woman. Cain and Abel is the first manifestation of that enmity which as you would know would eventually be revealed due to sin.

Esau v Jacob
Ishmael v Isaac
And so on...
I'm Confused though...you state no Law but now you acknowledge Abels offering of an animal and its fat

Hmmm - maybe you should think about that some more!

4) “The worship before the Lord by the whole family! (Cain & Abel)”
Well, this one made me smile. What worship are we talking about? Abel was the only one in the “family” who actually loved his God enough to worship in in truth….the only one who offered to God the very best that he had…Cain’s offering was not on the same level which is why God pulled him up over his attitude.

It's good hear that you acknowledge both children worship and offered - this is important as you know the body has both sincere and insincere believers.

I'm enjoying how you are stating the truth via the facts you present, but explain them away so as to not get too close to the truth.

That's making me smile!

5) “The Blessing of a son in Seth, Eve's understanding and Gods purpose - she names him "appointed"
The genealogy of humankind had to come from Seth, as we see in Luke’s account…(ch 4)

37 son of Me·thuʹse·lah,
son of Eʹnoch,
son of Jaʹred,
son of Ma·haʹla·le·el,
son of Ca·iʹnan,
38 son of Eʹnosh,
son of Seth,
son of Adam,
son of God.”

The third son of Adam and Eve was born when Adam was 130 years old. Eve named him Seth because, as she said, “God has appointed another seed in place of Abel, because Cain killed him.” Seth may not have been the third child of Adam and Eve. According to Genesis 5:4, Adam had “sons and daughters,” some daughters (unnamed) may have been born before Seth. Seth is worthy of note because Noah, and through him the present-day race of mankind, descended from him, not from the murderous Cain.

Nothing in here really Jane, just fluff.

6) “The naming of Eve (purpose) - God blesses Eve and she acknowledges it as a blessing Gen 4:25-26”
As noted above, God’s purpose could only be carried out if the earth was populated as he instructed. From among these ones God would choose those with a complete heart to serve his interests here on earth so that his Messiah would arrive on time and in the correct lineage so that he had all the identification he needed to present himself as Messiah.

Nothing here also - no acknowledgement of the name, Eve's understanding of His purpose and how God "granted" her a blessing of a new son.

Overall, its a cold heartless response really.

So here is what you have said:

- Jehovah God did not deal with the sin of A&E in any meaningful way (no lessons can be learnt from it!)
- Jehovah God did not teach them to kill an animal and takes its skin for a covering (shedding of blood principle)
- Jehovah God did not institute animal offerings with A&E though you acknowledge Abel did so
- Jehovah God did not show Adam how "life" would be provided through a sacrifice after he named Eve "Life"
- Jehocah God did not bless Eve with a replacement son in Seth who named him "appointed by God"

Where your understanding falls over and its the chink in your armour is your understanding of Abel and his love and care for the things of God. Instead of focusing in on the positive aspect of A&E's parenting you judged them becuase of Cain.

That was enough for me to see you are not a Jehovah's Witness.

It's also clear you don't have a teaching God as nothing in your response reveals a God who instructs (that's significant wouldn't you say Jane?)

F2F

 

[face2face]

I think the secular scientists should be able to answer the simple questions of an infant child, but the sad reality is they don't have any answers to anything at all. All they have to offer are impossible theories.

Paul didn't sell his soul to win friends & influence people, he was sensitive towards religious people and those who were steeped in cultural traditions but he never compromised on the truth of the gospel. He never accepted the theory of Evolution or the Big Bang theory, or anything else which undermined any bible doctrine.

Secular Scientists have never given me any reason to respect them, they are no wiser than a street sweeper.

All good Christian it's clear you don't understand.

 

[RedFan]

I think the secular scientists should be able to answer the simple questions of an infant child, but the sad reality is they don't have any answers to anything at all. All they have to offer are impossible theories.

Paul didn't sell his soul to win friends & influence people, he was sensitive towards religious people and those who were steeped in cultural traditions but he never compromised on the truth of the gospel. He never accepted the theory of Evolution or the Big Bang theory, or anything else which undermined any bible doctrine.

Secular Scientists have never given me any reason to respect them, they are no wiser than a street sweeper.

Why do you reject science? Many of its conclusions are just plain compelling.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Why do you reject science? Many of its conclusions are just plain compelling.

I don't reject science because God created science, so I don't reject God the Scientist. I reject Pseudo Science.

Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history.

To help us understand that science has practical limits, it is useful to divide science into two different areas: operational science and historical (origins) science. Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites.

Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation. Recognizing that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science.
Because no one was there to witness the past (except God), we must interpret it based on a set of starting assumptions. Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence; they just interpret it within a different framework. Evolution denies the role of God in the universe, and creation accepts His eyewitness account—the Bible—as the foundation for arriving at a correct understanding of the universe.

 

[face2face]

Let’s tackle these one at a time…..

1) ”The forsaking of their own covering - exposing their shame! Repentance etc”
There was not one word of repentance said in response to their sin.

The reason you can't see it, isn't because it's not there, you just don't understand the principles God uses when dealing with sin.

(I must remind you of your need to have everything spelled out clearly - wisdom is hidden!)

Proverbs 28:13 He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, But he who confesses and forsakes them will find compassion

Question for Jane: Do you think your Jehovah God would leave them "in" their sins? Do you truly believe that about your God?

The Hebrew participles provide the subject matter in this contrast. On the one hand is the person who covers over (מְכַסֶּה, mékhasseh) his sins. This means refusing to acknowledge them in confession, and perhaps rationalizing them away. On the other hand there is the one who both “confesses” (מוֹדֶה, modeh) and “forsakes” (עֹזֵב, ’ozev) the sin (and covering). To “9confess” sins means to acknowledge them, to say the same thing about them that God does. NET Notes

Proverbs 28:13 The one covering over his transgressions will not succeed,+But whoever confesses and abandons them will be shown mercy. NWT

Did A&E forsake their coverings? Answer is yes
Did Jehovah God provide a covering for them? Answer is yes

Does this align with the principles of Proverbs 28:13 - Absolutely

Lets do a short study on A&E making for themselves their own coverings which Proverbs 28:13 is dealing with.

A&E manufactured a covering of their own devising; they attempted to hide their sin by their own means, and in the absence of sacrifice. They had yet to learn the lesson, that "without shedding of blood there is no remission (of sin)" As per Heb. 9:22; Matt. 26:28. Those aprons did not hide their sin from God, as Job remarked in Job 31:33

Have I ever tried to cover over my transgressions, like other men,By hiding my error in the pocket of my garment? NWT

Where do you think the original teaching of Proverbs 28:13 & Job 31:33 came from?

If you answered Genesis 3 you would be correct.

Wisdom is found in the hiddens things of Yahweh, and if you stick around, you can learn much more!

F2F

 

[face2face]

Let’s tackle these one at a time…..

1) ”The forsaking of their own covering - exposing their shame! Repentance etc”
They knew what God said and they knew that in their perfect state,

Very good - not sure where you get this idea they were perfect?

The first man is from the earth and made of dust; 1 Corith 15:47

Question for Jane: Who told you a man made from dust is perfect? A&E had an pure conscience yes, but perfect would be far from how God viewed them.

that no flesh should glory before God. 1 Corith 1:29 still applies of A&E Jane!

Do you think A&E in their flesh nature could ascend the Heaven and behold God's glory? Surely not! I've seen you write posts on the truth of this subject.

Flesh and Blood made from Dust with a clear conscience = very good but not perfect

they had no sin nature to excuse what they chose to do in defiance of the explicit command of their Sovereign.

sin nature is merely flesh and blood nature with the propensity to sin - if you say they didn't have a nature which could sin then you are in error becuase they sinned.

God’s justice is pure, not altered by sentiment or crocodile tears.

LOL - Come on Jane do you honestly believe the divine principles God is teaching you is out of sentiment? Maybe you don't understand sin and How God must deal with it righteously. That does not mean leaving the first pair without hope! It's the Hope God is wanting to convey to them in their time of need. I think we both can see where the issue is our this discussion and its not in Genesis 3 but in a man-made teaching you have taken to heart.

His mercy on occasion was extended to those who truly repented…..Adam and his wife did not repent and there was no basis to forgive them. The penalty was applied in God’s due time.

If I asked you why Adam named his wife Eve - how would you answer? If I asked you what prompted Adam to name her Life?

Adam had heard something, hadnt he?

Adam proclaimed his confidence in the promise of Gen 3:15. It was, as it were, his statement of faith. He evidently recognised the significance of all that had been said, and comprehending the typical import of what had taken place in Eden, he named his wife in a way that spake of the hope of life through the Redeemer that would come through her.

@Aunty Jane you will never be able to explain Adams response away or discredit it in any way shape of form. His confidence in naming her Eve, or "Life" was a direct result of her hearing the Covenant of Promise.

After Adam named Eve what did God do?

ADAM does this "The man named his wife Eve (LIFE), because she was the mother of all the living" Ge 3:20.

GOD does this "The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them" Ge 3:21.

Question for Jane:

On what basis would Eve gain "LIFE?" What did God show them & do to them that offered hope to A&E?

What is required to gain "life"?

Do I need to bring your attention to the promise of a redeemer?

The Lord Jesus, as the Lamb of God to provide a covering for the sin of the world as per John 1:29, is a provision of Yahweh. He was "a body prepared" (Heb. 10:5), a stone engraved by the Divine Craftsman ( Zech. 3:9), one who though of our nature, was begotten not of the will of the flesh, but of God, and whose glory of character is traceable to his Divine begettal (John 1:14).

I am amazed you have not been revealed the promise of Christ who would crush the head of the serpent (sin) and in himself suffer a temporary bruise to his heal (3 days in the tomb)

I could repsond to all your words like this but in reality if you can't hear the Word so plainly shown you, there is little point showing you more.

Yahweh hides His wisdom and provides it those He knows, and we are instructed to pass it on to those who will treasure it.

You should prayerfully revisit Gen 3 and start to ask the right type of questions and God Willing you will be given the answers

F2F

 

[TheHC]

I'm not attacking Paul. What Paul said doesn't upset me at all. I'm simply challenging your ridiculous hypothesis that everything he wrote was from Jesus, and not from other sources.

Sometimes Paul quotes other writers. Obviously those words aren't from Jesus!

Well, we have Matthew 19:4-6.
Jesus was directly speaking about Adam & Eve, quoting from Genesis.

 

[TheHC]

That descent is tough for me to believe. The present day human race is too biologically and racially diverse to descend from Noah in the time allotted by the Torah.

We have no idea of the capabilities of near-perfect DNA.

To claim it’s “too” anything, is to imply we know more about genetic science than we really do.

There is so much more to learn!

Why does the Bible state Adam & the subsequent generations descending from him — up to nine generations afterward — living into their 900’s? How is that possible?

Someday, we’ll find out.

 

[RedFan]

We have no idea of the capabilities of near-perfect DNA.

To claim it’s “too” anything, is to imply we know more about genetic science than we really do.

There is so much more to learn!

Why does the Bible state Adam & the subsequent generations descending from him — up to nine generations afterward — living into their 900’s? How is that possible?

Someday, we’ll find out.

I can't agree with Gen. 9:18-19 and Gen. 10:32 that all of the races on the planet are descended from Noah’s sons. We can trace their progeny's migration to the regions mentioned in Gen. 10. You want to go beyond those Biblically identified regions and say they migrated everywhere on the planet! If you are correct, the indigenous peoples of India and the Far East, sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, the Americas, Polynesia and northern Europe are not “indigenous” at all. They are descendants of Shem, Ham or Japheth, and just sort of made their way to those areas eventually – all since the year of the flood (supposedly around 2400 B.C.). Tell me how they pulled that one off!

Even if they could have traversed oceans and deserts and mountains to populate areas throughout the world, there weren’t enough generations for autosomal DNA mutations to manifest, especially because – if Genesis is to be believed – folks often lived a long time before procreating. For instance, Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born (Gen. 21:5). 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.

And neither are they. In the Far East and many other locales there are traditions and even records of ancestry going back beyond the supposed year of the flood (the Xia dynasty in China, for example), not to mention archeological records proving that the areas were populated before Shem, Ham or Japheth could have dispatched a son their way.

 

[Hobie]

Is Adam & Eve an allegory for the beginning of all men and women? Is it possible that God placed humans throughout the world and that the story of the garden is a parable? Are we supposed to believe that white, black, Indian & Asians all evolved from just two humans, Adam & Eve?

Well, you have a choice, either the Bible is true or its just a fairy tale. You have to decide..

 

[face2face]

I can't agree with Gen. 9:18-19 and Gen. 10:32 that all of the races on the planet are descended from Noah’s sons. We can trace their progeny's migration to the regions mentioned in Gen. 10. You want to go beyond those Biblically identified regions and say they migrated everywhere on the planet! If you are correct, the indigenous peoples of India and the Far East, sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, the Americas, Polynesia and northern Europe are not “indigenous” at all. They are descendants of Shem, Ham or Japheth, and just sort of made their way to those areas eventually – all since the year of the flood (supposedly around 2400 B.C.). Tell me how they pulled that one off!

Even if they could have traversed oceans and deserts and mountains to populate areas throughout the world, there weren’t enough generations for autosomal DNA mutations to manifest, especially because – if Genesis is to be believed – folks often lived a long time before procreating. For instance, Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born (Gen. 21:5). 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.

And neither are they. In the Far East and many other locales there are traditions and even records of ancestry going back beyond the supposed year of the flood (the Xia dynasty in China, for example), not to mention archeological records proving that the areas were populated before Shem, Ham or Japheth could have dispatched a son their way.

RedFan, have you consider the timing of the writing of Genesis 1-11? I've considered it to be written during the time of the exile to counter the Babylonian creation story of Enuma Elish. The Jews in exile required their own creation story. It's odd there is no references to Gen 1-11 in the Torah books, only when you get the minor prophets you start to see that section referenced.

F2F

 

[RedFan]

RedFan, have you consider the timing of the writing of Genesis 1-11? I've considered it to be written during the time of the exile to counter the Babylonian creation story of Enuma Elish. The Jews in exile required their own creation story. It's odd there is no references to Gen 1-11 in the Torah books, only when you get the minor prophets you start to see that section referenced.

F2F

I've seen various dates given for the writing of Genesis 1-11, and I haven't made up my mind (although I'm pretty sure Moses didn't write it despite the understandable tradition that he did). An exile period writing is certainly plausible.

 

[Aunty Jane]

That descent is tough for me to believe. The present day human race is too biologically and racially diverse to descend from Noah in the time allotted by the Torah.

The gene pool is an amazing thing…..don’t underestimate its potential for diversity and scope…..we are all one race after all….the human race. Science has basically confirmed that there was a biological Adam and Eve.
Adaptation even within our own ”kind” shows that we too can alter our appearance, hair and skin color just by successive generations of where we live...and who has the dominant features.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I can't agree with Gen. 9:18-19 and Gen. 10:32 that all of the races on the planet are descended from Noah’s sons.

You have that choice. If God is the Almighty, then who are we mere mortals to question him regarding his clear statements, especially when no details are provided as to how he accomplishes his will.
That’s the difference between “faith” and “belief”.

“Belief” is generally based on what is seen and evidential……”faith” OTOH is based on what is not seen and for which there is no solid (or scientific) evidence. When you compare what science teaches as fact (evolution) which has no solid evidence of any sort, with what the Bible teaches about creation, you come to realize that both are taken on “faith” because neither can be confirmed by material evidence, or relied upon by the interpretation of that evidence. Either God is the Creator…or he is not….and creation itself (including the myriad life forms here on this planet) are all just one huge series of impossible coincidences.

and say they migrated everywhere on the planet! If you are correct, the indigenous peoples of India and the Far East, sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, the Americas, Polynesia and northern Europe are not “indigenous” at all. They are descendants of Shem, Ham or Japheth, and just sort of made their way to those areas eventually – all since the year of the flood (supposedly around 2400 B.C.). Tell me how they pulled that one off!

Again, this is taken on faith. If the Bible is God’s word, then we can believe everything it says, but not blindly. If there are factors that resulted in these migrations that are not stated, can we really reject them outright and still call ourselves “believers”? When do we become “disbelievers”?

Scientists will reject the YEC notion of a young earth, because of the fact that many species of living things became extinct long before humans were created…..but the Bible itself does not support a young earth. The creative “days” used in Genesis are not necessarily literal “days” as the word in Hebrew can mean an indefinite period of time. We use the term ourselves when we refer to our grandfather’s “day”.

The word can mean an era of great length. So the earth itself can be billions of years old, and the creative days too can be millions of years in length….all we know is that humans were the last of Jehovah’s creation….we are the most recent arrivals….at the conclusion of the 6th “day”.

if Genesis is to be believed – folks often lived a long time before procreating. For instance, Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born (Gen. 21:5).

The Bible tells us that before the flood, humans lived for hundreds of years and if they had children in those hundreds of years, that would result in a lot of procreation. Noah apparently had no children before he was instructed to build the ark (the Bible doesn’t say why)…..but he was 500 years old at the time….he then produced three sons who then in time, took three wives. One man could never have accomplished what God had commissioned him to do, so he provided helpers in the project. This demonstrates that the construction of the ark took a very long time with materials sourced from the surrounding area by hand, and starting from the ground up, to build something the likes and scale of which had never been seen before.

There is every likelihood that it had never rained before the flood, as it says in Gen 2:5-6…..where there is a general history recapping the creation account in Gen 1 (though not in chronological order).

”No bush of the field was yet on the earth and no vegetation of the field had begun sprouting, because Jehovah God had not made it rain on the earth and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist would go up from the earth, and it watered the entire surface of the ground.”

So, Noah was warning them about something that had never happened before….water falling from the sky. It may have seemed like he was a nutter.
It also speaks of a water canopy surrounding the earth, where there is a division between the waters on the earth and above it (Gen 1:6-7) which was suspended there “by the word of God” or perhaps in a way that science today would deem to be impossible. Peter speaks about this body of water that God used in flooding the earth.

2 Peter 3:5-6…
”For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water.”

The climate change that resulted from this removal of the water canopy, would have been immediate. The earth would have gone from an overall temperate climate, to what we today experience as the extremes of the seasons. The polar ice caps, being magnetic may have been the means to draw the flood waters up to the caps and freeze them, suspending the water there to this day. Don’t the climate scientists fear global warming may cause the polar caps to melt, flooding the earth once again?

I never underestimate what the Bible says about anything, because God is the inventor of what science studies….and he can do whatever he pleases with his own creation to bring about his stated purpose.

The Bible states what we “need” to know…...rather than all we “want” to know.

 

[face2face]

I've seen various dates given for the writing of Genesis 1-11, and I haven't made up my mind (although I'm pretty sure Moses didn't write it despite the understandable tradition that he did). An exile period writing is certainly plausible.

I've searched the Torah for back references to Gen 1-11 and knowing the importance of Genesis 3 which we are finding elsewhere in the Forum its an interesting question. Who and when was it written. Possibly Daniel could have written it. I'm sure we will find out at some point in time.

 

[Fred J]

Thanks. And from where or from whom did those other people come?

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'?

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.

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.

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

 

[RedFan]

If the Bible is God’s word, then we can believe everything it says, but not blindly. If there are factors that resulted in these migrations that are not stated, can we really reject them outright and still call ourselves “believers”? When do we become “disbelievers”?

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?"

 

[Johann]

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?"

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.