Does Everyone Here Take The Adam And Eve Story Literally?

[BeauJangles]

2 hours ago, joebloggs said:

The question is who believes the story of adam and eve is literal and who believes its figurative. I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum believes in the bible.

I think by now you have your answer on this topic. 

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

Any portion of the Bible is doubted than one cannot say they believe in the Bible...

This is also our belief by majority. Anything to the otherwise is simply 'cherry-picking' the gospel. Not profitable, and not wise. Doing so is dangerous doctrine. I'll simply step aside during the next electric storm. 

And = 

[joebloggs]

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

Genesis 2:7 (KJV) [7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
 

Any portion of the Bible is doubted than one cannot say they believe in the Bible...

Yes that's part of the story right there we are discussing. So when it sais God formed a man from dust and breathed life into his nostrils.  I dont think that's literally what happened. I dont think God literally made a flesh and blood body out of literal dust from the ground and then inhaled and exhaled life into that lifeless body. I think it's a figurative story that communicates truths to us in a way we can understand. 

There are large portions of the bible that are not literal, it doesnt make the lessons within any less valuable or true.

[enoob57]

27 minutes ago, joebloggs said:

Yes that's part of the story right there we are discussing. So when it sais God formed a man from dust and breathed life into his nostrils.  I dont think that's literally what happened.

Who designed written communication?

28 minutes ago, joebloggs said:

dont think God literally made a flesh and blood body out of literal dust from the ground and then inhaled and exhaled life into that lifeless body

From where do you get the authority to say this?

28 minutes ago, joebloggs said:

There are large portions of the bible that are not literal, it doesnt make the lessons within any less valuable or true.

How do you determine this?

[joebloggs]

2 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

To follow that thought I would have to believe that Jesus bloodline came from an imaginary figure. And that Jesus went through all of His suffering due to an imaginary figure.

Your belief is not even logical reasoning.

Jesus didn't live or die figuratively, so how could Adam be figurative?

It makes no sense.

So for me the story of Adam and Eve teaches us lots of valuable lessons. One of which is mankinds sinful nature. It is that sinful nature that Jesus chose to give his life. The story of Adam and Eve also for me teaches us that we can choose to overcome our sinful nature by obeying Gods plan for the way in which we live.

And as for his blood line you just replace the word Adam with mankinds first ancestors. Although I dont see anything wrong with saying we all descend from Adam. The name for me represents some valuable lessons about our nature and where we come from.

[joebloggs]

14 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

Who designed written communication?

From where do you get the authority to say this?

How do you determine this?

Thanks for your enquiries, in answer to your questions.

1 the earliest written form I believe was cuniform but dont quote me on that I'm not an expert on the subject. 

2 your question is where do I get the authority to say that I think the creation story of our bible is figurative? Straight from God. I use my God given brain to think and free will to make sense of the world. 

3 how do I determine that large portions of the bible are figurative and not literal? I think when you read the bible through its pretty obvious in most cases. Some are more controversial like the section the OP is asking about. I think its pretty obvious the songs are not literal, I think its obvious the parables told throughout are not literal, I think it's obvious the psalms in a lot of cases are told as teachings and are not necessarily literal. I think the oldest portions of the bible way way back are most likely figurative stories,  although I might be wrong. I think prophesies , in particular the book of revelations may be open to some interpretation but I dont have particularly strong convictions on that particular book.

[joebloggs]

Just now, maryjayne said:

What bits of the Bible do you consider to be literal?

I consider the vast majority of the old testament to be literal historic events. The new testament again I consider literal, again I'm not sure how to take the prophecies at the end there. The bits here and there I consider figurative I just outlined you can just say the rest of the bible I consider literal.

And yes I agree it's easy to spot most of the bits that are figurative bit I think there are some parts of the old testament that are also likely figurative. It doesnt lessen the value of the truth contained within for me personally. 

I have to add I have complete respect for others who believe this story literal. For me personally though I just dont think so, and that's what the original question by the poster here was about. He used this safe space to ask if there were others like him in the Christian world that didnt think it likely the creation story in our bibles was literal and I am saying no there are others. Not so many on this forum though it would appear.

[Justin Adams]

Someone is not listening. The line of Yeshua was constantly at risk - the adversaries did NOT want this line to be pure or even exist. See Gen 6 and Deut 32 and Psalm 82 to get an inkling of this major work He was performing. 

There is so much in the scriptures that speak of God's adversaries and His eventual win over them. The apostles says, "had they but known, they never would have killed the king of Glory". Yahweh has a wonderful plan and it does not entail fables and silly ideas. It is real just as His Supernatural is real. 

[enoob57]

3 hours ago, joebloggs said:

1 the earliest written form I believe was cuniform but dont quote me on that I'm not an expert on the subject.

Well I have retrained my thoughts to be Scripture formed and by that I mean God’s Word is the only form I can rely upon as literal truth; unless Scripture allows me to accept another genre applicable but this must be with diligent study... as to The Word we know by John The Word (Logos) ‘IS’ reference to The Lord Jesus and is preexistent as eternity past...

John 1:1-3 (KJV) [1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

cuneiform is believed to be the oldest but according to God The Word has existed eternally in The Son.

3 hours ago, joebloggs said:

2 your question is where do I get the authority to say that I think the creation story of our bible is figurative? Straight from God. I use my God given brain to think and free will to make sense of the world. 

So not being there you look to your inner self for answers? Just to be up front with you I don’t place any trust in anything created but only in God’s Word as a foundation of all thought... thus the historical presentation written down by Moses given to him by God -Who was the only one there- is firmly placed upon God Himself by The Word....

3 hours ago, joebloggs said:

3 how do I determine that large portions of the bible are figurative and not literal? I think when you read the bible through its pretty obvious in most cases. Some are more controversial like the section the OP is asking about. I think its pretty obvious the songs are not literal, I think its obvious the parables told throughout are not literal, I think it's obvious the psalms in a lot of cases are told as teachings and are not necessarily literal. I think the oldest portions of the bible way way back are most likely figurative stories,  although I might be wrong. I think prophesies , in particular the book of revelations may be open to some interpretation but I dont have particularly strong convictions on that particular book.

This seems to be subjective based approach based on individual thought... I prefer in a grammatical, historical, cultural approach then take it literally through verse, chapter, book, testament, testaments context. It is a great deal of work but God gives me promises in this approach

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) [15] Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The why:
2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV) [15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

[joebloggs]

12 hours ago, enoob57 said:

Well I have retrained my thoughts to be Scripture formed and by that I mean God’s Word is the only form I can rely upon as literal truth; unless Scripture allows me to accept another genre applicable but this must be with diligent study... as to The Word we know by John The Word (Logos) ‘IS’ reference to The Lord Jesus and is preexistent as eternity past...

John 1:1-3 (KJV) [1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

cuneiform is believed to be the oldest but according to God The Word has existed eternally in The Son.

So not being there you look to your inner self for answers? Just to be up front with you I don’t place any trust in anything created but only in God’s Word as a foundation of all thought... thus the historical presentation written down by Moses given to him by God -Who was the only one there- is firmly placed upon God Himself by The Word....

This seems to be subjective based approach based on individual thought... I prefer in a grammatical, historical, cultural approach then take it literally through verse, chapter, book, testament, testaments context. It is a great deal of work but God gives me promises in this approach

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) [15] Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The why:
2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV) [15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I think the way in which you form your thoughts and communicate in general discussion is so very different and alien to me that we cant have a fruitful conversation.

I wish you well though.

[BeauJangles]

16 hours ago, joebloggs said:

I consider the vast majority of the old testament to be literal historic events. The new testament again I consider literal, again I'm not sure how to take the prophecies at the end there. The bits here and there I consider figurative I just outlined you can just say the rest of the bible I consider literal.

And yes I agree it's easy to spot most of the bits that are figurative bit I think there are some parts of the old testament that are also likely figurative. It doesnt lessen the value of the truth contained within for me personally. 

I have to add I have complete respect for others who believe this story literal. For me personally though I just dont think so, and that's what the original question by the poster here was about. He used this safe space to ask if there were others like him in the Christian world that didnt think it likely the creation story in our bibles was literal and I am saying no there are others. Not so many on this forum though it would appear.

Honest, open, and somewhat interesting, but not tremendously so. Just a question, due to my disdain for endless rhetoric, and haven't really followed you enough to know. Have you ever accepted Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord? Your posts don't seem indicative of a true Christian believer. Thanks if you care to respond.