Hot answers tagged

24

The accuracy of the chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11 has been greatly debated. People have proposed various means of adjusting the figures to more realistic values, on the assumption that there has been some textual error. (This is partly motivated by differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, suggesting some confusion on the part of ...


21

No. Jesus may not be considered Adam re-incarnate. Yet it's not hard to figure out where somebody might have gotten that idea. This is just a case of not understanding the terminology being used. Somebody got some of the words cross-wired¹ without understanding the concept. In Christianity Jesus is known as the "Second Adam" or "Last Adam" but the naming ...


16

Here's the relevant text: When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ...


16

The sin wasn't in eating the fruit, but in what it represented. It's interesting to examine the exact text of the commandment: 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou ...


16

There was probably no power at all in the fruit. The issue was that God gave them a choice and they chose to disobey Him. And so sin, in this case disobedience, entered the world. I suspect that it could just as easily have been a, "Wet paint, do not touch!" sign.


14

Because God said so :-) I can think of several practical reasons but they are mostly speculation. In order to not let the natural process of decay and corruption mess up the gene pool too much he may have let people live longer early on. See: Is incest a sin? Additionally this would have helped with the minimum number of people needed for a stand-alone ...


12

I didn't get to vote or have any say in my forebears leaving their homelands and emigrating to the United States (or, The New World, as it was then known in Europe); nor did I have any say in whether or not to participate in their bloodline. Yet they represented me when they did it. If we take the Bible to be God's word, and we believe that God cannot lie, ...


10

Adam was charged with a responsibility1 and he had an obligation to fulfill (which included protecting his wife). Yet he did nothing. The account of the fall in the garden includes the detail that he was at Eve's side2 the whole time and failed to fulfill that responsibility. He broke a covenant3. Did Eve sin? Sure. Was Adam ultimately responsible? Yes. ...


10

Genesis 3:6 (NIV) reveals that Adam was with Eve when she took the fruit. 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Adam had the opportunity and authority to stop Eve ...


8

The answer can actually be found in the very next verse: 35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know ...


8

Doctrine and Covenants 107:53-56 53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing. 54 And the Lord appeared ...


8

It may not be clearly represented that God instructed Eve, but it is clear that she knew: 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees ...


7

Paul outlines this a bit in Romans 5 in constrasting the role of Adam as representative vs. Christ as representative (emphasis mine). Romans 5:12-21 12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but ...


7

The Catholic Church (my own Tradition) believes that being made in God's image does not have such a physical reality. This 'image' is more a reflection of His own Nature. The closest physical way we 'image' God is that humans are both Male and Female who come together to generate a Third person. This "The Two Become One" is reflecting the Trinitarian Nature ...


7

In the first place, I'm not sure what sort of "endorsement" you have in mind. There's no indication that I can find that either Pope Julius or any subsequent pope either endorsed or condemned the painting on theological grounds, nor indeed that any pope declared that it had any content which had to be interpreted theologically. As I point out in this answer ...


7

Philo The first-century Jewish theologian Philo may not have been the first Jew to reject the literal historicity of the creation stories, as it is my understanding that educated Alexandrian Jews had long understood the creation accounts to be allegories. According to Jean-Louis Ska (The Book of Genesis, page 20), Philo (prior to Josephus and the Talmud) ...


7

No, Mormons do not believe that. The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's "bare mention" was "without indubitable evidence and authority being given of ...


7

This is an artifact of the translation you are using. There is no verb in the Greek text of the verse. Consider this version: the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. [Luke 3:37-38 NKJV] Notice that the NKJV (like many other ...


6

This idea spawns from a number of statements that Brigham Young purportedly made, both in public and in private. For example, he was recorded as having said something like this in the Journal of Discourses, but the LDS Church does not officially accept any of the Journal of Discourses or cite it for doctrine because of erroneous scribing and other things. ...


6

I Timothy 2:13-15 clarifies that Eve was deceived (the serpent deceived her into thinking she could draw closer to God by gaining knowledge, etc), but Adam knew full well what he was doing was wrong. I Timothy 2:13-15 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. See also II ...


6

There's nothing in scripture that supports the idea of reincarnation, meaning that the soul of a deceased person begins anew in the body of another. Jesus is referred to as a "new Adam" here, which may be what you heard: 1 Corinthians 15:45 The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. Though this is plainly read as an ...


6

'Āḏām comes from the Hebrew 'āḏām, meaning "human being, mankind collectively, cognate with Phoenician 'dm (probably adam), Arabic 'adam human being; further etymology uncertain: perhaps related to 'aḏamāh earth, ground (compare the juxtaposition of 'āḏām and 'aḏamāh in Genesis 2:7, where God forms man out of earth) or to 'aḏom red, ruddy" (OED).


6

Protestants believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, but they do not go along with the Catholic view that Mary herself was without sin. The Bible says nothing about Mary being sinless. The Protestant view is that Jesus was fully human and this came from Mary being his biological mother. Jesus alone was born of a ...


5

The Bible employs animals as descriptions of character, as we do also. In the verse that you allude to, it expressly says "the" Serpent and draws a distinction from the beasts of the field. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree ...


4

Short answer - YES! Long answer - read below :) You will find many science based articles that answer this question at creation.com . I am a recently converted atheist who was unable to reconcile evolution with the bible as a literal account. I believed the evolution account for 40 years. The reason I no longer believe it is because I had an experience ...


4

The "canopy" is an extra-biblical answer, but one generally given by the Institute for Creation Research and Answers In Genesis has to do with the climate pre-flood. During the creation, it was said that the waters above were separated from the waters below, and during the flood, it is said that water came from both places. The implication is that there ...


4

H3br3wHamm3r81's answer is good, but it is maybe too well argued, and I think perhaps s/he is missing the forest for the trees. God told our first parents ". . . for in the day that you eat from [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] you will surely die" (Genesis2:17b). I'll leave the Hebrew-to-English translation job to those who are well-versed ...


4

Perhaps death was not the RESULT of Adam's disobedience, but CERTAIN ("surely die") death was the RESULT. That is, Adam was created mortal. As a mortal, Adam would eventually die. Hence, the availability of the Tree of Life (TOL). That is, unless Adam partook of the TOL which he was free to eat from, he would eventually die. It is clear from scripture ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible