I’m sure you consider your own motives 100% pure.
I concur, @Christy
All I ask from our good brother is to explain how the events are NOT LITERAL and, at the same time, THE SOURCE/EXPLANATION OF HUMAN SIN.
My own working scenario is that Genesis is symbolically saying that all nature comes short of the supernatural glory of God.
1 Like
Not at all. That’s why we need Christ. 
If eating a piece of fruit is not the literal even that triggered The Fall, what was the literal event?
Hi Jay
How about a quote from Shakespeare:
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”
You are undoubtedly comfortable with John 14:6: 'No one comes to the Father except through me." I am not. I’d rather believe that author garbled Jesus’ actual saying, which was more like John 6:44; 'No one comes to me unless the Father calls him." Quite a big difference.
I accept the Bible as a valuable guide but not inerrant, especially since it was written in a different language with a different mindset than mine of today. If we are open to His word, I think he communicates with us directly in our lives today. As I reported in “The Miracle of the Panel Truck”, he 'spoke" to my agnostic colleague, Prof. Eric Lien, and the message directly contradicted your belief that “all they ever do is sin”. If you can’t find the “Truck Story”, I will email it to you PDF.
Al Leo
1 Like
It is a very dangerous thing to put personal subjective experience over the inerrant objective Word of God.
Again, did you read my OP? It was entirely a historically literal event. That’s what I argued for.
Yes, I read your OP … AND I read your article that you wrote, where you said this:
“So if Genesis 1:1-2:3 was not intended to be taken as a literal history of the events surrounding the creation of the universe, what was it intended to be? I believe the author’s intention to have been polemic, meaning that the ancient writer wrote this creation account in response to other ancient near eastern creation accounts. He wrote it as a corrective, demonstrating to his audience the falsehoods of the other polytheistic creation accounts.”
So… right in the middle of the story, the writer goes from NOT-LITERAL to LITERAL?
Ah, I see what you mean.
No, as many have noted, Genesis is a compilation of several earlier stories. Moses acted as compiler. It is very likely that Genesis 1:1-2:3 was not written by the same person who wrote 2:4ff. Several factors indicate this, especially the fact that the covenant name (YHWH) is used from 2:4 onward but nowhere used in 1:1-2:3. That’s why many have noted that Genesis 2:4ff is a separate creation account from 1:1-2:3.
Actually the bigwigs have told us that Moses didn’t write Genesis.
1 Like
@AdCaelumEo You’ve already decided to basically throw out literal interpretation of Genesis 1 or two completely. So I find it hard to understand why you are still trying to hold on to a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve.
It is my personal opinion that the problems with interpretation tend to arise whenever someone tries to put God in a box. A lot of times people have good intentions but it happens nonetheless. For example, suppose that God’s creation would require God to interfere with the natural order is putting God in a box. God created the natural order so why would God need to interfere with it in order to create. The creation is Complete from the beginning.
Science we have evidence of a world that was never without carnivores. We have a fallen world that appears to have been fallen from the very beginning. How is this possible? Trying to play around with the image of God is dangerous. If having the image of God is not an innately human thing, then who is to say that all humans alive today bear the image of God. You can see the racial avenues that might lead down.
But since God is outside of time, we had to consider that the effects of the fall did not need to be linear in time. In other words the fall itself is built into the creation of the world before it even happens. There is a central Christian doctrine which already embraces this idea: Christ’s death on the cross atones for all sin, both in the past and in the future. At some point in the past there was undoubtedly a first human who undoubtably committed the first Sin. Which of course was something that God knew was going to happen.
From God’s perspective he is creating the world and dining with us in paradise at the same time. We see time is linear but there are no limits on God’s perception of time. They doesn’t need to be a historical fall before which everything was perfect In order for there to have been a fall which shaped the nature of the world we live in.
@aleo some discussion on this topic on sin and the idea of non-Christians doing good works. The answer here is that our good works are filthy rags before God. God is not concerned with righting the wrongs of this world. He’s not concerned with fairness and equality of life. He’s not concerned with healing sickness. That is not to say that he never heal sickness or punishes the wicked in this life, but those things don’t even register as significant from an eternal perspective unless they point people to God and his desire for our eternal life and relationship with him. For some of you, who have rejected the idea of hell (separation from God) are going to find it hard to understand that. But you don’t have an eternal perspective of any sort. You are assuming that you have ownership over your life and that you have some sort of right before God. No, you are created for a purpose and if you do not fulfill that purpose then you are cut off from the vine and thrown into the fire.
Jamie, if this really is a true expression of Christian theology, I could never be a Christian. In my opinion the worldview that develops from it is pitiful, but if it appeals to you and leads you to live a purposeful life, I am happy for you. One thing is certain: God must love variety, in humans as well as in beetles (as J. B. S. Haldane remarked).
Al Leo
That’s one thing that should have been brought over from Judaism. Part of mitzvah.
Edited. I’m replying to you on the other thread.
From Isaiah.
@pacificmaelstrom In the future, could you please quote what specifically you are replying to if it isn’t going to post directly under it. Since replies aren’t nested, it makes it hard to follow the thread of conversation if you have to go back and try to figure out the context. To quote someone, you just select the text you want to pull into your post from the other person’s post and click on the ‘quote selected’ option that appears. 
Thanks, I hadn’t figured that out!
1 Like
@pacificmaelstrom
Jamie, you assume an awful lot–you even assume what I am assuming. You may be surprised to learn that I feel sure that I do have an eternal perspective–perhaps not with as much confidence as you have (I assume!) I am 90+ yrs. old, and so it won’t be long before I find out what awaits me ‘in eternity’. I am not frightened by the prospect–more like curious. As a 19 yr. old infantry man I had that attitude–and came within seconds of finding out. I still don’t know for sure that I have fulfilled that purpose in the 70 additional years the Good Lord has granted me, but I do not fear being “cut off from the vine and thrown into the fire”. God bless.
Al Leo
Jamie:
…our good works are filthy rags before God
Me:
That’s one thing that should have been brought over from Judaism. Part of mitzvah.
Interpretations vary. Mitzvah remains a core component of Judaism. One doesn’t do good works (as God commands) to be saved, which may be related to self-righteousness. One does good works because that is what God wants. Faith and works are commingled in Judaism. Catholicism has a concept of good works as well.
Evangelicalism has a concept of good works too. Some people just ignore it. The Bible is pretty clear we are saved by grace through faith, but we will be judged according to our works.
Michael Bird in Evangelical Theology. (Loc 6733)