Understanding Adam and Eve and the Fall

[@grantbartley483]

It seems to me that modern 'cultural contextual' theologians like Walton and Richter are shedding more light on the Genesis texts than has been spread on them since the birth of the church - which is pretty amazing now I think about it. Worth a hallelujah, let alone a like.

[@rolanddavis4905]

😅😅😅😅😅

[@stevelenores5637]

I've been searching for someone like Dr. Michael Heiser who passed away in February 2023. I think I finally found one with Professor Walton. "Seek and ye shall find." I sought and finally found. Promise made, promise kept.

[@garyreid8787]

I too have found Dr Walton who seems like a breath of fresh air. I learned a great deal fro Dr Eisner as well about the supernatural. Other individuals who have meant a great deal to me are David Bentley Hart of Notre Dame and Don Preston of Oklahoma. Dr Preston provides a formidable understanding of the Biblical prophecy of the Old Testament and the Gospels.

[@tylergray6553]

Man, me too. I was just thinking this the other day. Now gotta find the next Chuck Missler

[@briankregg6329]

Heiser was a pagan polytheist and a false teacher

[@geogarces]

Walton reject teh supernatural worldview fyi i like Walton tho good stuff

[@geogarces]

@@stevelenores5637 Good points there. I remember Heiser responding to Walton. MH seemed upset by Walton's approach to the supernatural. kzbin.info/www/bejne/enmWhZydYrxrbLM

[@George-ie1si]

I am what the world would call a simple man, with little in the way of formal education. I have believed in the bible as the preserved word of God, after I trusted in Jesus Christ, after I trusted in Him that He died for my sins, and that I have (by God) His righteousness imputed to me. I believe this because I read it in the the word of God and I can understand this. I have read the bible from cover to cover over 20 times, and I conclude that I know very little about what it teaches. I have been taught by other men (denominations) who also know very little of what it teaches. I am now quite comfortable about this, because our heavenly Father watches us doing our best to love Him, and please Him in all that we do.

[@davidverlaney7764]

Just ask God for wisdom and listen to the Holy Spirit. the Holy Spirit explains scriptures pertaining to your personal relationship with him. We know one part we see in part and everybody who thinks they know everything is kind of goofy at this point.

[@d.torrent1822]

Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible by John Walton is a great book to read to grasp these issues.

[@daniellebrouillette8135]

What a wonderful way to turn over theology that is established in my mind. It makes other parts of the Bible make more sense. Thanks so much. Your series in Job made me search out other lectures that Dr. Walton has produced.

[@philipbuckley759]

this one goes off the charts, on a number of levels, and one is evolution...

[@wretch1]

By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Genesis 3:19. This verse kinda refutes Walton's premise.

[@tinyjim123]

He addresses this at around 13:14

[@gail2122]

Genesis 2:7 The time came when the Lord God formed a man's body FROM the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life. And man became a living person.

[@grantgooch5834]

You clearly didn't watch the video since Walton demonstrated that "from" doesn't appear in the Hebrew; it is inserted into the English text by the translators in an attempt to clarify the text. Of the 47 times Old Testament authors used עָפָ֣ר (the dust), only in Genesis 2:7 is it translated as "from dust." In every other occurrence it is simply "the dust," "dust," or "earth."

[@deedavis1950]

Thank you for a very insightful teaching.

[@scottmccln]

Don't place the cart before the horse, the archetype before the event. And to the rest I say: Don't be so upfront sure that the event(s) didn't happen. Investigate further.

[@pedrorodriguez464]

These are interesting perspectives and interpretations from Dr. Walton's Framework of Interpretive Lens. ... I am wondering what other biblical scholars and theologians support these perspectives/interpretations or similar teachings?? (2/6/23)

[@wretch1]

My thoughts exactly

[@js1423]

Dr. Walton looks sharp with his tie!

[@nikokapanen82]

God has been clear to me that both Biblical Genesis and scientific Big Bang and Evolution are correct but I do not understand how to unite them together in a meaningful way and I think nobody can. Yet John Walton's approach is very interesting. He might be right at least partially.

[@deepcosmiclove]

The reason nobody can is because the Big Bang never happened. New species and new organs by means of natural selection and genetic mutation has never been observed nor ever demonstrated; it has never happened. That's why you can't reconcile atheistic ideas like Materialism whose god is Satan with Genesis.

[@huntrichardson]

So I need to be an expert in interpreting hieroglyphics and cuneiform to understand what the Hebrew of Bereshit (Genesis) means. And be familiar with Jewish (and possibly Greek) culture when the Septuagint was written, to have complete cultural context. No?

[@thebigbus1]

Apparently you have to just trust the experts to explain to you what the authors of Scripture meant. Of course, we kinda need a standard against which to measure said “experts’” claims. Hmmm….conundrum

[@DDFergy1]

I am very impressed with your knowledge in understanding the text. I am just listening and I found your presentation of Hebrew for "Adam, the dust of the ground." very good in conveying the meaning in Hebrew. Here are some other comments on your talk. Written Hebrew was established by the time of Moses. But Hebrew as a language was much older. It would be at least the language of the family of Terah. Possibly the common language in Ur at the time of Terah's exodus from Ur. But I agree that Adam's name likely was not Adam. Though in New Guinea mythology similar to the story of Cain and Abel use the name of Cain for the character of Cain. And the cannibals could have been living there for forty thousand years, maybe longer. It is said that the indigenous in Australia have been there for at least 60000 years, when they look at archeology in Australia. So the time of their migration could be a possible time of their myth. Now the myth they have is sufficiently different in presentation than the biblical narrative of Cain to not be considered a copy of the Biblical from missionaries. And it supports their traditional way of life and world view, which is quite different from the Biblical view.

[@wretch1]

The premise that scripture isn't written to us is preposterous. Scripture is for ALL believers through all times. Or is Walton the only person who has been enlightened?.

[@wretch1]

Can anyone point me to just one theologian since the first century that thought this about Genesis?!. That is, that Adam was not literally the first human being created?. If not, are we to believe that everyone has gotten it wrong and we all need to learn ancient Hebrew, ancient cultural thinking and ancient Greek before we can even read the bible? I ask this: if God didn't send down anything that the ancient people could not understand, why has God left us with a book that we cannot understand without rigorous understanding and knowledge. If that's the case, then no; it wasn't written for us. What if, the eternal word of God is understood by all generations, regardless of their scientific knowledge? Too many questions are raised through this way of thinking, and questions ultimately lead to doubt and doubt to loss of faith. Be careful brothers and sisters, less you go down a rabbit hole with this. Trust the Lord, that He has guided the church fathers in truth and has not deceived us all until this man came along.

[@blusheep2]

Literal readings of Genesis 1 are a rather new phenomenon. Many early church fathers didn't take the story to be literal. It is just a fact that the ancients had their own set of idioms and forms of communication. Shucks, we don't have the same as those in Indonesia. They would look at the Bible slightly different then us. The idea isn't to call eveything allegorical or an idiom. Its only when we have reason to believe it is that we make this claim. There is no room for Sacred Cows with Bible interpretation. The Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit inspired writers that wrote thousands of years ago and they didn't write to our generation. They wrote to their generation. That matters.

[@George-ie1si]

​@@blusheep2But God did speak to us Gentiles through the apostle Paul, who in Eph 1:13 Paul said your gospel.

[@blusheep2]

@@George-ie1si Paul was still talking to Gentiles in the first century. Not to Gentiles in 2023.

[@georgemooyman7155]

​@blusheep2 That at that time ye WERE without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: BUT NOW in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off ARE made nigh by the blood of Christ. We were, but now, are, by the blood of Christ. Can you show me a verse that we Gentiles are still without hope?

[@blusheep2]

@@georgemooyman7155 I never said the Gentiles were without hope. I spoke to the proper interpretation of scripture in light of the ancient context. So what are you really asking?

[@concrete3030]

Not a science story but you can't ignore that they tended garden without physical fatigue... and then after the fall there is sweat from the brow... there is physical fatigue.. their biology changed.. you may claim they stop eating from the tree, but nowhere does it say that

[@marshallbrooksjr7666]

I can see now that John Walton doesn't believe the bible. He said that he could say with certainty that the names Adam and Eve were not the names that they called each other, but the Bible said that Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. And the bible says that God gave Adam his name, not some people that lived after they lived.

[@joshuatrott193]

When was Genesis written? Thousands of years later. Walton doesn't say they weren't actual people, he's just pointing to deeper symbology. Both can be true

[@marshallbrooksjr7666]

@@joshuatrott193 I didn't say that Walton said that they weren't actual people. I said that he said that the names Adam and Eve weren't the names that they called each other, but the bible clearly says that Adam called his wife's name Eve. So that means that either Walton is wrong or the bible is wrong. I choose to believe the bible

[@aaronowen4425]

In the last days there will be a great falling away.... I have come to the conclusion that a big part of this will be in part from the theological "educated" community. I have noticed a common theme among their ranks as being basically "the average person is too stupid to know what the bible REALLY says you need 3 years of Hebrew, 5 years of Greek, 8 years of middle eastern history and whatever else they deem necessary as far as credentials to be able to understand the bible and if you don't have them then you have no idea what you are talking about. If you take anything in the bible literally or believe when God said he created man on the 6th day and then goes to define that as an evening and the morning that you need to realize that wasn't a literal day but an undetermined amount of time. It's ironic that the one thing that is never mentioned needed to understand the scriptures is the Holy Spirit. It almost seems like that a large amount of the educated elite care more about making the Bible line up with what science says instead of letting God be true and every man a liar. Kind of reminds me of the story in Genesis 3:1 "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 of the garden?" where the serpent says YEA HATH GOD SAID...? Calling question about did God really mean what He said all the way back from the beginning.

[@irontaylor9992]

no one in ancient times knows what archatype means

[@budyharianto8229]

Terminology of architype of identity (not biology), its self is a modern way of thingking right?? Ancient near east people does not have that kind of category in their thingking, right?... Are we modern people just circling and chopping around the text with our "theology" way of thingking??.. 🤔

[@budyharianto8229]

@Sarah Hodgins ... Within that kind of lost,..can we somehow measure how much (far) we lost the original interpretation..?.. If it is said: That kind of text off course "for" us too, but not 'to" us... Is there any measurement between that "to" and "for" ??

[@mybuckhead]

What about the fall of Angels in the Book of Enoch. Also, when was Satan cast down to earth.

[@briankregg6329]

Angels don't fall from heaven

[@emanuellasker3650]

You're not going to talk about Adam and Eve as real people? And nothing of their names came through intact? What do you think were the most likely elements of Adam's original language? If Adam and Eve were archetypes only, how shall we derive specifics? And if we cannot derive specifics, how shall we apprehend detail? And without detail how shall we know the mysteries? What do you think was the approach to interpretation by Moses? Why would he gravitate to this approach? Is there relation between that approach and The Mystery of The Light? Would the God desire to link The First Mystery to the conquest of Canaan? Why? Does the God think like a man groping in darkness, or does He have a plan? Is He logical? Artistic? Sometimes poetic? If He is Lord of all, does He speak to Hebrews only? Or does He speak to Man's Reason? Therefore, the primary wavelength between us is Faith and Rigor, not culture.

[@albertogamboa9824]

of course Adam and Eve were not the first Humans--BUT THE FIRST LIVING SOULS

[@lmhayes60]

When Adam called Eve "The mother of all living" Do you mean the mother of all living souls ? That is an interesting opinion.

[@Floridacoastwriter]

Walton's dubious presuppositions undermine biblical authority and his desperate desire to be a clever, creative scholar has brought into question his worldview. His "Lost" books have proven to be 'lost' in many more ways than one.

[@JK-tr2mt]

Darwinian model does not exclude God? I think this professor is stretching some things with his non-material interpretations. I think he is trying to leave open a path for faith and science without each competing against the other.

[@williamfigueroa4630]

The source from he speaks of must be tested!

[@kentrtrimoredjo9861]

The real spiritual meaning of it what God told adam and eva about the snake in the garden of eden,is about the beastworshippers and do human sacriface to be rich and it curse of it, moses to king farao,farao was a beast worschipper the crocodile and do human babies sacriface to be rich,prince of egypt( moses dream scene).hope you guys understand the real spiritual meaning,is about the beastworshipper and the ones that do human sacriface God talk about,you do not understand the spirits world.

[@charlesurdy-barnes413]

This is only garbage to those who want to hold onto the traditional literal interpretations. The problem with the traditional literal methods that it has two many contradictions and is ridiculously free of logic when you read it. There are just too many things that don't make sense when you read it the literal way

[@bayreuth79]

When you say “traditional literal interpretations” what do you mean by “traditional”? If you go back to the early Church Fathers you will discover that they did not read Genesis literally. Origen even went so far as to say that one would have to be a “simpleton” (his word) to read Genesis literally and he was writing in the 3rd Century! Augustine discussed the literal meaning but to read “ad litteram” for Augustine meant to read what was there in the page but he didn’t mean to take it literally (i e there really was a talking serpent). Literal interpretations of Genesis are actually early modern fundamentalist readings of scripture, not traditional ones.

[@aaronowen4425]

@@bayreuth79 " Augustine discussed the literal meaning but to read “ad litteram” for Augustine meant to read what was there in the page but he didn’t mean to take it literally (i e there really was a talking serpent). Literal interpretations of Genesis are actually early modern fundamentalist readings of scripture, not traditional ones." forgive me if I am misunderstanding you but am I correct in taking it that that the culture didn't believe the talking serpent was literal? This kind of confuses me because while not cannon the book of Jubilees goes into detail about how EVERY animal spoke with the same tongue until the fall of man that when God provided the skins for Adam and Eve and sent them from the Garden that God closed the mouths of all the animals. It would seem to me this would indicate that the general belief of the time period was that the serpent did actually talk?

[@philipbuckley759]

Adam, according to the text, was created, not born....er....thanx....next..

[@dr.deverylejones1306]

Most Prof need a better understanding of GOD His Word & us Mankind Adam/Eve fall is about in Genesis 1 to make this quick & easy to understand I will try better. We know "GOD said He created us Mankind IN His Own Image" with Freewill & GOD gave to the 1st mankind Adam with Eve "ALL Freewill Power & Authority OVER Earth & OVER all Freewill Power & Authority over all Mankind to come. So Adam has the Freewill Power & Authority for can choose GOD His Word on Earth with Mankind or Satan on Earth with Man. For know this was all done in THE GARDEN OF EDEN for when Adam with Eve disobeyed what GOD commanded Them NOT to do eat of the Tree of Knowledge this meant Adam picked Satan. This meant ADAM (LEGALLY) gave ALL HIS Freewill Power & Authority over Earth & over all Mankind freewill to come to SATAN. FOR MEANS All Mankind from Adam & Eve were going to Hell with No choice. SO GOD "So LOVE the world/us Mankind GOD gave & sent His Word was also God" Jesus to go be Flesh for was a Man on Earth who was also God for had to physical die & go to Hell to pay for Sins of Mankind. Now a Man through His Word JESUS can accept Him as your LORD & SAVOIR to be SAVED & go to Heaven. THIS IS THE BOOK OF ALL KNOWLEDGE by Dr. Deveryle Jones on Amazon/Walmart books.

[@truthgiver8286]

would be better named the Fairy tale Institute it's copied from the Sumerians Epic of Creation it is practically a photo copy. We even have the Sumerian God Ninh Hursag making the first humans from clay.

[@DDFergy1]

I agree that Science does not exclude God. In truth, because God is the God of Order we can use Science to understand Nature. But some of the premises presented as scientific such as Darwin's Evolution were created to exclude God from the process and to form the idea that the Universe creates. I am not disclaiming Darwin's theory of natural selection, which was scientifically valid for the time though much too simple. I think as Christians we should not just roll over and not question every unobserved theory as fact, just because an "authority" says so.

[@beefsupreme4671]

This is false teaching. The Bible is clear that God created in six literal days, only about 6000 years ago. The question is will you believe God who said that all the creatures reproduce after their kind or will you believe sinful and ignorant man.

[@philipbuckley759]

until I get a better understanding, I will call this one another false teacher.....note.....if the plain sense, makes sense, dont seek any other sense...

[@blusheep2]

This is not good methodology because what is "plain sense" text to you is not necessarily for them. You are importing your own modern "plain sense" into the story. This doesn't mean that they didn't speak plainly most of the time. It means that when we have reason to believe that the text isn't a literal "plain sense" text we shouldn't rely on our modern context to decide but rather the ancient ones. Here is an example. Samuel is grafted into the Levitical genealogy even though he was an Ephraimite. It was an honorary position. This shows that genealogies in the ancient world wouldn't conform to our modern precise understanding of a genealogy. We see this again in Matthew. He leaves out names and makes three sets of 14 generations. Then of course there is the story itself. Japheth(SP?) gives the number of years for the Exodus but he got two things wrong in the correspondence, so why would we expect the third thing to be accurate. He got the name of their god wrong and he got it wrong that they hadn't been trying to take back the land.