Raf

To think that the existence of Adam and Eve as historical figures is more certain than the existence of George Washington takes a level of denial of reality, history and scholarship that I am not prepared to contend with. Adam and Eve are fictional characters. George Washington is attested to by multiple independent sources. You are not worthy to participate in this conversation if you don't see the difference.

I think I would concede Paul. It's not reflected in his writings, but it can reasonably be deduced by his education.

Oh for Pete's sake. Like I said, you can't reason with some people.

The writers of the Bible knew the Earth was round. There is little to no evidence that they knew it was spherical.

TLC, "It's spiritual history" WTF does that mean? Did it actually happen or not? This weaseling of words is what makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with some people. It "spiriitually" happened. Wha? "History presented from a spiritual perspective." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN REAL LIFE? "Evidence of an otherwise invisible spiritual reality." Do you realize that NOTHING is untrue if you look at it this way? Nothing! Yertle the Turtle is now a true story. Green Eggs and Ham is a true story. Because you're erased the meaning of "true" by adding so many qualifiers as to render the original word meaningless. There's a word for that: Obfuscation. For some reason, you find the prospect that Adam and Eve never existed and Genesis 1-3 is a work of total fiction SO THREATENING that the only way you can address it is by hiding the word fiction behind a meaningless "spiritual history." You're free to do that all you'd like, but it does not address the topic of this thread, which addresses a literal interpretation of Genesis, as you well know by now.

Luke traced it back to Adam. I have no idea what "data" he used, except that some of it can be deduced from Kings and Chronicles. Whether those are reliable is a matter for another time/thread. I don't recall Jesus speaking of his genealogy.

1. Most people in Columbus' day knew the world was not flat. 2. Yertle the Turtle actually says "fiction" on the binding. In the copy of Insomnia, by Stephen King, on my desk right now, there's a page that has a lot of teeny tiny type on it. Copyright date. Publisher's address. Credits for other people's work cited in the novel. And this gem of a paragraph: "Publisher's note: This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents are either the products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events or locales is entirely coincidental." 3. You see the same disclaimer in most works of fiction and in most fictional movies. 4. Nonetheless, it was never taken literally by anyone and if it were, then an analysis showing why it could not possibly be literally true would be warranted. Arguing against such an analysis by saying it wasn't MEANT to be taken literally when it was written does not change the fact that it was taken literally by others at a later time. I don't think one can reasonably argue that Paul and the writer of the gospel of Luke didn't believe that Adam was a real person in history. They clearly did. A significant piece of Paul's theology hinges on it. How Augustine handles that complication is something I have yet to explore, to be honest (thank you for the EXCELLENT link). I do know that Catholics in general have been comfortable for decades at least with "Adam and Eve never happened" AND "Jesus' death was a sacrifice that atones for original sin." I suppose their reconciliation of those two ideas, which contradict each other on the surface, can be found in the writings of their most prestigious philosophers. Or, maybe not. WIll be interesting to explore.

WordWolf: Let us assume I was mistaken about the fate of GSC and, assuming you are back in action: it's your move!

No longer certain about the fate of GSC, I will continue on the assumption GSC will continue: I don't see where there's room for "Genesis 1-3 is a misunderstood section of scripture." The only misunderstanding is that it presents itself as history, was accepted for the longest time as history, is still presented as history in certain circles (see The Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter), and is bullsh#t, from the standpoint of what actually happened in history. This thread is looking at assertions as though they are assertions of fact and history. It is not looking at assertions as allegories to teach lessons. And honestly, i think we've far passed the point where arguments about the nature of Genesis are becoming disingenuous.You can excuse any historical inaccuracy in the Bible if you are willing to adopt some kind of expansive "but does the Bible actually say this happened" interpretation. Everyone was perfectly happy assuming it happened until it was challenged. Paul speaks of Adam as though Adam were a historical figure of tremendous consequence. To come along 2,000 years later and say Paul didn't mean that, Genesis didn't mean that literally, strikes me as desperate ret-conning of It Is Written. Show me in the Bible where they say this is just a story and not history, and you may have a point. But when the writer of Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam, I don't think he's shoving a "figuratively speaking" in there.

The button is still up. That's the best I can answer at this time. Still waiting to hear again from Paw.

Bart Ehrman, the famed agnostic, agrees with your interpretation. So you're in good company as far as I'm concerned. I don't think the original Christians believed in a fiery hell of eternal torment.

I'm gratified that you are very proud of you. I would be too.

If you do say so yourself.

This is more a suspicion than an observation, so take it with a grain of salt. I think part of the problem in discussions about "critical thinking" is a lack of agreement on what "critical" means. It sounds to me like one person is using it to mean "searching for and finding fault," while another is using it to mean "examining the argument and determining whether its logical bases are flawed. Someone who is engaged in critical thinking is NOT looking to find flaws or fault. He's not being cynical. If you're not engaged in critical thinking, you can be suckered into anything. If you are engaged in cynical thinking, you won't believe the truth even when is is staring you in the face. Anyway, just a thought.

if anyone has a cheaper, better way to do this, by all means secure a domain name and start it up. Maybe Paw will sell this domain to you. I ran, for a very short time, a parallel site. it was a nightmare, with only a tiny fraction of GSC's membership. But hey all means, if you can do it better, cheaper and are willing to deal with the hassles, go for it!

The correct answer is Seinfeld.. Grease Spot Cafe will cease operations at the end of November. This is my last post on this thread. It's been a pleasure.

it appears gsc will be shutting down at the end of November. As such, I will cease and desist from this and all other discussions. It has been an honor.

That is, of course, your prerogative, Paw. Let us know what you decide.

It counts as amusing.

How I Met Your Friends.

Four years after starting this thread, I thought it might be handy for me to re-read the opening post, to make sure I was living up to my own original intent. Some formatting is added here for emphasis in future references. I would say if I made a blunder here, it was in saying I'll try to have an eye for what it meant to those living at the time Genesis was first written. That is because in order for me to do that, we would have to come to an agreement as to when Genesis was first written. Based on certain anachronisms and political references (the existence, for example, of kingdoms that did not exist until well after the character of Moses would have been dead, a lot of scholars believe Genesis was written by multiple writers as late as the Babylonian exile. If that is true, it would lend lots of credence to the notion that none of this was originally intended to be taken literally. That doesn't change the fact that it most certainly was taken literally, and for a very long time. In fact, I think Paul took Genesis literally, and I think the gospel message about Christ depends on it. Without a literal Adam, after all, how do we account for an original fall? What did Christ's sacrifice accomplish? It obviously didn't undo what Adam did if there was no Adam. Now, smarter people than I have reconciled this matter for themselves. They do believe in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ without believing the Adam and Eve story actually took place. A matter for another thread, and I only bring it up to examine the question of why this all matters: who cares if Genesis is literally true or allegorically true or metaphorically true? Well, lots of people, actually. If you're not one of those people, FINE. The PFAL definition of God-breathed (I would have been more accurate to say PFAL's criteria for characteristics of the God-breathed word) contends that if there is an error or contradiction, then it "all falls apart" and is not God-breathed. That's not to say PFAL is right. It's just our only common frame of reference. So, are there really errors? Yes. Are there really contradictions? Yes. What about plot holes? Well, if they're glaring enough, a plot hole would fall in the category of an error. For example, if Genesis is talking about Satan and not a literal snake, then why does God punish snakes? Technically, Genesis does not say a word about the serpent being a spiritual being. It talks about a snake. We get that it was Satan from extrapolating later scriptures. Revelation calls Satan "that old serpent." No, it does not say he was present at Eden, but the word choice seems intentional. So why did God punish snakes? That's why I listed it. Why didn't God talk to Abel when he talked to literally everyone else mentioned in the Bible to that point? ["Because" is not an answer. "Why would he?" is not an answer. It's an evasion. He would talk to Abel to save Abel's life. That's a blasted good reason right there]. My point: I think we need a place for plot holes when discussing errors. I guess.

Thanks, IA. I think what's interesting about "ok, it was never meant to be taken literally" are the implications. If Genesis was not meant to be taken literally, why did the writers of Matthew and Luke seek to trace Jesus' lineage to Abraham (a fictional character) and Adam (a fictional character)? Personally, I believe the notion that it was never meant to be taken as literally true is a retcon... But I would yield to the historian on that point. A lot of people thought it was literally true for a long time, until the fact of their literal untruth became undeniable. Then they became true in a whole other sense... true without being historical. Tall tales, meant to impart a lesson, not o teach about what really happened. Fine. What's the lesson? Because some of these lessons are pretty ... what's the word... not smart. In my opinion.

Do you have a point? I have made it very clear why this thread exists and what viewpoint it addresses. The existence of other viewpoints does not invalidate the purpose of this thread. They exist independently. If you don't think this is "the right tactic" (the right tactic for what?) then GTFO of this conversation. This thread is for people interested in this subject. Clearly you are not, and that is ok.

The best ones give a clue to the characters.

Perhaps. Again, if we're going to discuss this as interpreting what the writers of a fictional story meant to convey, then "actual errors" is pointless because no one is asserting that the story actually happened. It's a whole different conversations. This thread implicitly addresses the position that these events are asserted to have actually happened as described. There's NOTHING wrong with looking at everything from a literary point of view. It's just not the point of this thread. The moment the reader says "this story is just that: a story that never took place in real life," then we're not in any fundamental disagreement about that.