Bible from God but not Adam not Literal?

brokethechain

I hear some people believe that the Bible is from God but because of science and archeology know that there was no global flood and that the first humans go much further back than 6,000 years. How do you (they) reconcile the geneologies (in Number/Matthew/Luke)?

Cold Steel

You raise some interesting points.

First, I believe in Adam, because if there was no Adam there would be no need for Christ. No Adam, no disobedience, and no disobedience then no fall. If no fall, there's no need for an atonement.

As far as the flood, keep in mind that it was comparatively very brief and was considered to be a baptism of the Earth. When Jesus returns to the Earth, he will cleanse the world with a baptism of fire. Man cannot see God and remain in the flesh unless they have the protection of the Holy Spirit, and those who are alive at his coming will need that protection. Thus, it will be a baptism of the Holy Spirit. Add to this that many world cultures have legends of a great flood. Some historians assume that since the Babylonians have the oldest account, that the biblical account must have come from the Babylonians. But that's an assumption. If the Bible is true, then the Babylonian version is a distorted account of Noah. But as far as we know, no Hebrew accounts were passed on. Moses tells the story, and he almost certainly received it by revelation from God, and we frankly don't know a lot about it. But the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Olmecs and Mayans, and other North and South American cultures, as well as far eastern cultures all have their versions of the flood story. Something BIG had to have happened.

Kojack57

Yes I agree, something big had to happen within a thousand mile radius. Everything else is just conjecture.

Kojack

prologos

or: read posted satire on "Obama wants to get Curiosity secret right away"

Londo111

Cults and fundamentalists believe in Bible inerrancy. This thought is not universal among mainline Christians.

I believe in theistic evolution. I haven’t yet settled into a full belief about Adam. I tend to view Adam=Man=Humanity. It may well be as Origen said: Humanity fell in Heaven before Time and the universe was created as a result of the Fall for their spiritual development in order to be reconciled again.

As some have pointed out, perhaps in the story where Adam and Eve are given animal skins, it was the case of spirits being given organic bodies.

The Fall is echoed not only in the creation stories, but stories from other cultures as well. Therefore, perhaps on a spiritual level, it contains a truth that resonates with us.

Now…in regard the Flood story. Even if one was to take this literally, I don’t think it is a given that the Flood was Global. At least, it does not have to be read that way. I strongly suspect the Flood was regional, not global. A Mesopotamian flood, around 3500 BC.

I like this Essay on the Flood that is found at Commentary Press:

http://www.commentarypress.net/cpn-essays/English/6E9A71B2-FAF2-47F9-9F75-097C7517839E.html

brokethechain

So this means that those who claim to be christian/believe in Christ don't necessarily believe that there are no mistakes in the bible? But how do they know what portions can be trusted and which ones are from man?

cofty

First, I believe in Adam, because if there was no Adam there would be no need for Christ. No Adam, no disobedience, and no disobedience then no fall. If no fall, there's no need for an atonement.

Cold steel - There was no perfection and no fall. Humans evolved from a common ancestor with all other living things through a process of evolution over millions and millions of years.

There was also no global flood.

Whatever religious beliefs a person decides to adopt they need to accommodate this fact. There is nothing to be gained by ignoring reality.

Jeffro

First, I believe in Adam, because if there was no Adam there would be no need for Christ.

Ah... the 'believer' approach to logic. Realising that the 'Christ' story requires the fanciful 'Adam' story, rational people would simply conclude that the 'Christ' story was made up as well.

tec

So this means that those who claim to be christian/believe in Christ don't necessarily believe that there are no mistakes in the bible? But how do they know what portions can be trusted and which ones are from man?

Well, you can do a couple of tests on your own.

First - Christ is the Truth and the Image and the Word of God. God said to listen to His Son. So nothing that contradicts Him (the Truth) can BE the truth. That being said, sometimes there is no contradiction except in our (mis)understanding.

Second - Love... test what is written against love. (if you don't know what love should be like, then I would suggest looking to Christ... or to the description Paul gave about love... or to the golden rule - which rule needs no scripture to understand it) God does not do something outside of love. So it is also a good test.

Third - Reason through what the various witnesses and writers had to say, and determine what things they all agreed upon. (to me, I see that they all agreed upon love, upon forgiveness, and of course upon Christ - from the gospels TO Christ, that is) Discuss this with others, but don't let others' opinions overtake your own reasoning. Then go from there.

Fourth - The Spirit (Christ) is alive and does speak. Spirit to spirit. So ask for ears to hear; and eyes to see. Once we can move past the scriptures and go to HIM (as he said to do, go to Him for life; you will need no man to teach you because the Spirit will teach and guide you into all things)

This last one takes faith. Many people speak of faith like it is easy... it is not so easy to exercise faith though. But one can also ask for faith so as to hear and to undersand, if one wishes to do so.

Peace to you,

tammy

brokethechain

@Tammy, but how do you know that the Christ story hasn't been embellished? How do you know he wasn't just a charismatic guy who ended up with a few followers and who then ended up having all the miracles imagined (sort of like the story of an illeterate Muhammed having a vision from an angel and writing the Koran, or Joseph Smith being visited by the angel Gabriel and writing the Book of Mormons)?

Bible from God but not Adam not Literal?

Share this