This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


adameve

The Case for Adam and Eve

According to author and Covenant Theological Seminary professor C. John Collins, “We need a real Adam and Eve if we are to make sense of the Bible and of life.” In his recent book, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care, Collins sees the Adam and Eve narrative as the “worldview story” of the people of God. He illustrates how that story presupposes a real first couple, and how modern life brings us to the same conclusion. This isn’t just the tale of two people, Collins says; it is fundamentally the story that explains who we are, how we got this way, and what hope we have for any relief. ByFaith Editor Richard Doster asked Collins why the truth about Adam and Eve is so important.

Why do we need this book right now? What’s the problem this book solves?

This book began as an invited paper: I was asked to present the case for an actual, historical Adam and Eve at the headwaters of the human race — in other words, the traditional Christian view of our origins. Of course that means that people have come to doubt the tradition — to doubt whether it corresponds to the facts of our origins, or even whether its factuality is important. What leads to such doubts? Of course, different people will be moved by different considerations; but generally speaking there are three factors that are currently leading people to doubt that Adam and Eve were real people at the headwaters of the human race — or at least to doubt that it matters one way or the other.

First, there is the fact that the themes in Genesis parallel themes we find in stories from other ancient Near Eastern cultures; this leads some theologians to conclude that Genesis is just as “mythical” in its intentions and meanings as these other stories are.

Continue reading at byfaithonline.com
 
Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

If you find a comment offensive, please flag it as inappropriate by hovering over the down arrow to the right of that comment and clicking on the "Flag as inappropriate" text. Once a comment receives three "flags," it will be hidden from further view.

  • msjallen

    The Bible is absolute truth and should be believed. Omnipotent God will not allow His Word to be lost or come to us incorrectly. God’s own complete and coherent message to man was recorded in perfect accuracy in the original languages of scripture: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The very words carrying Divine Authorship.
    Gal 1:12 For I (Paul) neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
    Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.
    2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy (Biblical knowledge) was ever made by an act of human will (design, purpose), but men were carried along by the Holy Spirit who spoke from God.

    • daves

      They should have at least used a picture depicting Adam and Eve as black since the earliest humanoids found were in Africa.

      • DanMK

        If they were black they would have been more emotional than cerebral and would still be in the jungle. Enough of this Drawinist claptrap.

      • keyboardshark

        Humanoids? Adam and Eve were not humanoids, they were fully human.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          They were not real people. It is impossible for them to have been real people.

          • keyboardshark

            And your proof that it is impossible for them to have been real people is…?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            That two people cannot provide the genetic diversity needed for a species to survive.

          • keyboardshark

            Says who? Maybe two modern-day people, who have lost much of the original genetic material that God created mankind with, or which has become corrupted from generations of genetic decline, would not have sufficient genetic diversity, but not Adam and Eve. They were created with all the genetic material the human race would ever need.

  • Victor Barney

    Very good msjallen, but do REMEMBER that "HEBREW" is the ONLY SPIRITUALLY INSPIRED SCRIPT(Zeph. 3:9, Acts 26:14, 1 Cor. 4:6)! Just saying…i.e. how to PROVE ALL THINGS as written!

    • cyoder

      I have read the scriptures you cite. They say no such thing.

    • KnowTheTruthToday

      Because the inspired script (as you call it) guaranteed that the word would be around forever.

      Psalms 12:6-7
      6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
      7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

  • Chris

    What a pile of steaming BS. DNA shows that we were not descended from an Adam and Eve. Some people are partially Denisovans. There are no fossils to support this stupid notion.

    Please stop lying to your children.

    • cyoder

      The existence of Denisovans, if true (only a couple small bone fragments have been found), is irrelevant to the existence of Adam and Eve.

      • Chris P

        Hey – Denisovan DNA still exists. Where are the bone fragments of Adam and Steve?

        Please explain why it is irrelevant. Are you a genetics expert?

    • KnowTheTruthToday

      Many of us do not believe we descended from animals, but there is evidence that we are headed in that direction. You may not have the support you want, but that doesn't change the truth.

    • keyboardshark

      Chris says: "DNA shows that we were not descended from an Adam and Eve"

      Even secular scientists refer to Mitochondrial Eve:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

      Denisovans? Sounds like another wild goose chase by evolutionists, just like Piltdown Man (a fraud) and Nebraska Man (a pig's tooth).

  • Victor Barney

    Then you do not either believe or understand the set-apart Hebrew inspired Scriptures as written. I advise that you join the Roman Catholic Church and follow the advice of their own church advisor in 1520AD, Petrus Galatinus, and worship "Zeus" as he advised Pope Leo the 10th in honor of the highest deity of Greece. Of coarse, you also could and probably do already follow our school systems Karl Marx ideology, right? Just saying…

    • Despeville

      Romanism is a church of utter apostasy and heresy. She cursed the Gospel officially at trent.
      Read:

      There are, of course, individuals who are both Roman Catholics and Christians. You can be a Christian and yet be a Roman Catholic. My whole object is to try to show that such people are Christians in spite of the system to which they belong, and not because of it. But let us be clear about this; it is possible to be an individual Christian in the Roman Catholic Church. I am not considering individuals, nor am I considering the matter mainly from the political standpoint. I do not mean for a moment by that that the political aspect is not important. I have just been giving evidence to show that it can be tremendously important. We know the record of the history of this institution, we know what happens politically, we know its claim to be a political power, and therefore even from that aspect it is important. But I am not concerned about that now. That is the business of Christian laymen, it seems to me, and Christian statesmen. I am concerned rather with the spiritual aspect, because that is the thing which the apostle Paul puts before our minds."

      LINK: http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=lloy

    • Kalev

      The Roman Catholic Church is the ancient Babylonian worship system, the Harlot of Revelation.

  • Steve03

    Do we also have to believe in the historicity of the talking snake? In how God had sons who mated with human women?

    • DanMK

      How about the talking donkey and the rocks that would cry out .I suggest you get with the program that God is not limited to to physical dimensions.

      • Steve03

        I noticed you skipped the part about the sons of God having sex with women. Too hard for you?
        As for the rest, has God changed? Or perhaps died? Snakes and donkeys no longer talk, and the stones remained silent, even by the Biblical account.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Are you sexually frustrated too?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humpty, you are perversely fixated on male genitalia and the sex lives of men.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            No "dod" delusionist… You were the one writing about "sharp gonads"… Now you want to spin it the other way just as the rest of your lies. Have you seen any "dods" lately?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Actually that was Joe. Not that you have ever reported anything factual on here.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Nope, sad liar. It is hard for you to keep up with your own rumblings and foolishness. Joe said to you: "It is hard for you to kick against the goads" and you made out of it in your "mastery English" not goads which you did not even know what that is but "gonads" :)

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I did assume he mispelled that word. And you are right, I was not aware of the word goads. Since when does using English correctly require that one be aware of every word available? But it does not change the fact that I only was responding to Joe, not bringing it up on my own, which is what you have been saying.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "Actually that was Joe."
            ~Dixon

            VERSUS:

            " I only was responding to Joe"

            :) Consistency is an abused orphan banished from the world and mindset of atheists as evidenced above…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            That was Joe vs I was only responding to Joe is saying the exact same thing Humpty. How much have you been drinking tonite?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            " saying the exact same thing"

            Goofy liar, "goads" mentioned by Joe are not exact same thing as "gonads" mumbled by you. Not only you are stupid but also incredibly stupid liar.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Actually that was Joe."
            ~Dixon

            VERSUS:

            " I only was responding to Joe

            is the same thing thing Humpty Dumpty.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Only in your mushed brain Schizo and the matter is with what you were responding and not if you were responding. Go play those dumb games in your circles.

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Jeff, get the facts straight. Nothing was spelled incorrectly. I was merely utilizing a figure of speech found in Acts chapter 9. Verse 5. Go read for yourself. I thought that you knew the Bible. Of course the only thing you know is blabbing–incoherently and generally without thought.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            :)

          • Joe Anzilotti

            Thanks for setting Jeff straight on things (yet again) Despe. One of these days he will get it–perhaps after repeated contact with goads.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Yes, goads contact as much as he wants gonads contact.

          • Dionesius3

            Hey Des, Jeff doesn't have a dictionary, let's start a fund and purchase one for him so he won't make that mistake again. He had never heard of Goads, maybe he should read something written before 1980 don't you think?
            Ha Ha ha, never heard of goads, I think I read that in the third grade for the first time and looked it up in a Webster's dictionary.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I call BS on that statement.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "I think I read that in the third grade for the first time and looked it up in a Webster's dictionary."

            That is because you had a decent education. Dixon did not and we all suffer for it…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            And you are lying about that as well.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I caught you red handed numb-nut and now you are trying to weasel out of it. It would be actually fun to see you doing it but you are so nauseating dumb that watching you lying like this is actually revolting

            "Actually that was Joe."
            ~Dixon

            VERSUS:

            " I only was responding to Joe"

            "goads"

            VERSUS

            "gonads"

            You are a serial dumbo on a run Dod-xon.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "I will get revenge and pay them back at the time their foot slips;
            for the day of their disaster is near,
            and the impending judgment is rushing upon them!”
            ~ Deuteronomy 32:35

            Dod-xon,

            Do yourself a favor and listen: http://youtu.be/TtHijgqceXo

        • keyboardshark

          @ Steve 03: The verse you refer to is Genesis 6:4:

          "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

          The 'sons of God' are simply believers, not some angelic race or superhuman creatures:

          "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"
          John 1:12

          • Steve03

            The Old Testament never uses "sons of God" to refer to humans: Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7. It was Jesus — the Word made flesh — who made it possible for humans to become the "sons of God." So the "sons of God" in Genesis are obviously NOT "simply believers." They must be divine beings; note that Satan is one of them in Job.

          • keyboardshark

            @Steve03:

            Where in Job does it say that these "sons of God" are something other than human? Just because they appear with Satan does not mean they "must be divine beings". We are not told where this meeting in Job took place. Now, if it did occur in heaven, then the sons of God would most assuredly be believers who had died.

            "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."
            I John 3:2

            You also make a distinction between Old and New Testament, as if they are entirely separate, but they are not. Both are an integral part of the Bible, and harmonize with each other. We cannot isolate the Old Testament and draw conclusions from it without first comparing what the NT says as well.

            You are correct that "It was Jesus — the Word made flesh — who made it possible for humans to become the "sons of God." But since Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth (Rev. 13:8), the OT believers were saved by the blood of Christ just as much as the NT believers.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I thought there was only one son of god.

          • keyboardshark

            Jeff says: "I thought there was only one son of god."

            There is only one Son of God, Jesus Christ, but there are many sons of God, the believers:

            "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not."
            I John 3:1

          • Steve03

            It's crystal clear tthat Job considers the Satan and the "sons of God" to be member of the heavenly court, just as the author of Genesis did. In Job the Satan isn't God's enemy but his eyes and ears on earth, a member of his court. And if the "sons of God" are not supernatural beings, how could they have sung at the creation?
            You've fallen into what Daniel Wallace calls the "trap of modernity": "To be frank, the quest for certainty often overshadows the quest for truth in conservative theological circles. And that’s a temptation we need to resist. It is fundamentally the temptation of modernism. And to our shame, all too often evangelicals have been more concerned to protect our presuppositions than to pursue truth at all costs."

          • keyboardshark

            "Heavenly court"? Where did you get that from? Certainly not the Bible. That phrase does not appear anywhere in the Bible. http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=heave

            The only thing I can find resembling a 'heavenly court' is in Revelation 20, and it is a Judge, Jury and Executioner of One:

            " 11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

            12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

            15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

            As far as the "trap of modernity", we can easily avoid that by sticking strictly with the Bible and ignoring all the skeptics and pseudo-scientists that would try to lead us astray. This eliminates those pesky presuppositions and allows us to pursue truth at all costs. We cannot trust the writings of fallible man, but we can absolutely trust the Word of the infallible, omnipotent, eternal Creator of the universe, the God of the Bible.

          • Dionesius3

            Keyboard, sometimes the simplest answer is not enough for some people to believe. There are a lot of mythical creatures that people believe the Scriptures talk about as well. And I have had little luck in convincing them otherwise. It may just be a waste of time. But a fun discussion none the less.

          • keyboardshark

            @Dionesius3

            Yes, mythical creatures that are so mysterious that we cannot even find a verse that says they are mythical creatures. Too much science fiction and reading between the lines, I'm afraid.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Then why does it mention giants in the earth?

          • keyboardshark

            Jeff says: "Then why does it mention giants in the earth?"

            Because it was NY Giants fans who wrote the Bible, of course. No, but seriously, giants are simply unusually tall persons:

            "And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
            Numbers 13:33

            "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man."
            Deuteronomy 3:11

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Where does any of this make mention to them being tall people? It specifically refers to them being something different, you know, giants.

          • keyboardshark

            Jeff says: "Where does any of this make mention to them being tall people?"

            "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man."
            Deuteronomy 3:11

            A cubit is about 18 inches, so nine cubits would be about 162 inches, or 13.5 feet. Why would someone of ordinary height need a 13.5 foot long bed?
            http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/biblecus/bib

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I am aware that giants are taller than people, that is why they were called giants. Which was my point, that you seemed to completely miss. The giants were not just tall people, but something other than people.

          • keyboardshark

            But where does it say anywhere that they were something other than people? It simply says that Og was the king of Bashan. There would be no reason for us to understand it to mean anything other than a human being. The use of the word "giants" does not automatically convey that they were other than human.

            Also consider that we have another account of a very tall person in the Bible, but in this case it does not directly refer to him as a giant:

            "And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span."
            I Samuel 17:4

            Six cubits and a span would be about 117 inches, or 9.75 feet tall. Later on, it refers to some of his sons, saying that they were sons of "the giant". It does not mention Goliath by name, but we can assume it refers to him by the mention of Gath in both passages:

            "These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants."
            2 Samuel 21:22

            The sons are also mentioned in verses 16, 18, and 20 plus I Chronicles 20.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Just what are the "sons of God" if not supernatural beings?

          • keyboardshark

            The phrase "sons of God" is mentioned 11 times in the Bible, and all the New Testament references (John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Romans 8:19, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:1, and
            1 John 3:2) are clearly speaking about the believers. For example:

            "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
            John 1:12

            "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
            Romans 8:14

            The Old Testament references, Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 do not define who the sons of God are. For example:

            "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
            Genesis 6:4

            It states what they did ("came in unto the daughters of men") but not who they were or where they came from. Ditto for Job 1:6:

            "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them."

            The only OT verse that offers a somewhat confusing clue is Job 38:7. To get the context, let's start with verse 1 and end at verse 10:

            "1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

            2Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

            3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

            4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

            5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

            6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

            7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

            8Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

            9When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

            10And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,"

            It sounds as though these "sons of God" were present when the earth was created, if we assume the rhetorical questions posed by God to Job about creation continue to refer to the actual time of creation when they "shouted for joy".

            But if we look at the preceding phrase in the same verse, "When the morning stars sang together", we know that stars do not literally sing, so this would be evidence that this verse could be figurative or spiritual.

            Look at verse 9: "When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,"

            Clearly figurative language. A cloud is not a garment, and darkness is not a swaddlingband, So we would have to be very careful with verse 7 to try to interpret something into it to the effect that the "Sons of God" were some supernatural beings, when we look at the verse in its immediate context.

            Weighing in the verses that DO specify who the Sons of God are in the NT (believers), we would have to say the preponderance of the evidence indicates that "Sons of God" are not supernatural beings, but rather saved human beings. The OT verses are too vague to draw any conclusions from, so we would have to go with the much clearer NT verses upon which to base our conclusion.

          • Dionesius3

            Keyboard, that is really funny. I will have to remember the line "because NY Giants fans wrote…" that is the funniest line I have ever read in a discussion of the issue. I guess it is a symptom of the education systems failure that people so easily believe the fantastic rather than the reasonable answer. And a lack of reading in the older manuscripts. For example this line from A dictionary of natural science published in about 1830, " One can scarcely find a man among them (the Ethopians)that is not 7ft. in height, and many who are nearer 8ft." Now was a foot only 8in. In the 1830's or were they observing exactly what they said. And if they were what does this teach us about Natural selection? It seems to me that the Ethopians of today have shrunk, quite a bit in relation to where they once were.

          • keyboardshark

            Also consider the pygmies, who are often under 4 feet tall as adults. It just goes to show that there can be a wide range of heights of humans over the course of history. We would not be likely to find anyone as tall as Goliath today, probably because the gene pool has been diluted by intermarriage among people groups over the years.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            4-8 is an option. But if they are actually 15 feet tall, I would say it falls outside of that option.

          • keyboardshark

            I would agree that the modern range of heights falls approximately between 4-8 feet, but we do not know that taller heights would not have been possible in the distant past. There may have been an unusually tall group of people who lived fairly isolated in a certain area, but when they began to intermarry with persons of normal height, the gene pool would have been diluted and the 9 foot or greater heights became rarer and rarer, until we have the present-day range.

            It certainly seems possible since the Bible specifically mentions the measured height of certain tall individuals, like Goliath, or the length of their bed (Og). Perhaps Gath, the area where Goliath came from, was one of those areas with a group of unusually tall people.

    • KnowTheTruthToday

      What do you believe – that we descended from pond scum, or that a big bang happened and all this just happened – or just what do you believe?

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        That everything that occurred is random chance.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          That is why you are a "dod" delusionist… Insane really that is what that is. A severe schizophrenia Schizo. I am sorry for what has happened to you.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I could not care less what you consider important

  • aceituna

    The whole article has much of interest. One thing mentiones was that since other early nations and tribes have creation myths that Genesis is just one of these myths. Is it possible that Genesis is the most ancient and correct rendering and that the other myths were the Genesis story passed down orally and probably changed and distorted as time went on?
    Another was that life has always been a life and death struggle. In Genesis when God finished creation on the sixth day He looked at it and said "it was good". It was not a place of death and struggle. Later prophecies tell of a time when the lion lay down with the lamb and the asp would not sting. That was what God saw when He planted the garden of Eden and put Adam there. Scientists today even say that the human body is so made and programed that it should be able to live forever. Yet today there are organisms that can destroy the human body (death).

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Who are these "scientists" who state the human body should be able to live forever?

    • Steve03

      Actually the Genesis 1 (1:1-2:4a) creation story — the seven day one — is written as a rebuttal or maybe even a parody of the Babylonia Creation myth. The Babylonian myth (the Enuma Elish) was recited annaully in Babylon, and the exiles would have become all too familiar with it during the Captivity. There are at least six other — and different — creation accounts in the Bible: Genesis 2:4b-24, Proverbs 8:22-31, Psalm 104, John 1:1-14, Mark 10:2-9, and Isaiah 51:9-10. The Isaiah passage seems to be a fragment of a "combat myth" in which God battles a monster, as Marduk fights with Tiamat in the Enuma Elish. That last account is also referred to in Psalms 74:12-17 and 89:10, Job 9:13 and 38:1-18, and Revelation 12:7-9.

      • keyboardshark

        You have been reading too much fiction, Steve03. There are not different creation accounts in the Bible, nor is the Genesis account written as a rebuttal. Utter nonsense.

  • aceituna

    What happened to a perfect world and man? Enter the devil in the form of a serpent with temptations. Man was deceived and that deception brought an end to the "good world" that God had created. Ever since that time the world hs been "devolving" continually getting worse and worse because "sin" affected the whole creation. That is what has brought us to the sorry state we are in today. God made a way out for us so that we can again live in a world as He first created it – He promised a new heaven and earth! If the beginning were really like what the "evolutionist" paints for us there would have been no reason for Jesus to come and be our Savior. We would be worth nothing and on our way to oblivian. The world would be completely chaotic and we would be without hope.

    • Kalev

      The "Man" was deceived because he loved the woman more than he loved his Creator – God.

      • Eric

        Paul states that it was the woman who was deceived, not the man (2 Cor. 11:3). Adam didn't love Eve more than God, he loved himself more than God, which is evidenced by his willingness to throw both God and Eve under the bus in Genesis 3:12. This is why it can be said that Adam sinned, and that Eve was merely deceived. Adam elevated himself above God AND his neighbor (Eve).

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Indeed and ditto.

        • Evermyrtle

          If he was not deceived, he deliberatly disobeyed GOD, which was worse than being deceived.

          • Eric

            Sinned=deliberate disobedience. The responsibility was placed on Adam, not on Eve or the serpent.

  • paulc

    Ah yes. It is far more important to quibble about Biblical minutia than to concentrate on our personal relationship to God through His Son Jesus, the Christ.

    • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

      I would like you to show me one verse about this "relationship"… I mean is you and Jesus go for ice ream or something? All I read in the Word and see is REPENT, BELIEVE and trust righteousness of Christ who is The Lord of Glory and not a date.

  • Chris P

    So many fairy tales – when are you guys going to grow up and present some real data.

    • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

      If this is a fairy tale you must be that smelly ogre.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        That must make you the talking donkey, Humpty.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Did you say that to your Dad and son too… No wonder you are a miser.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            They are not as pathetic as you, Humpty.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            hahahhahaa

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Yes, laughing is all you have available.

    • KnowTheTruthToday

      You are right about the fairy tales – I am glad that you are beginning to recognize that so that you will stop spreading them.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        It is your group that keeps spreading the fables of the bible, Notruthtoday.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Tell thar to your Daddy.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I have. Have you told your children they are pathetic lost creatures?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Why would I Dod-xon?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            That might be true. Why would you tell your children they are destined for hell?

  • Evermyrtle

    Heathen?YOU are calling someone else heathen? Go take at what you will see in the mirrow>

    • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

      What is mirrow?

      • Steve03

        A baby ghoti.