LA writes:
Why must the Fall be literal?
Faith then writes:
So that the redemption would be literal, so that there is a real human condition from which we are to be literally really redeemed. Otherwise "redemption" loses its meaning.
There is a real human condition from which we are to be literally really redeemed. It's called our selfish nature.
I don't see how you make the logical connection you do here. Please explain more clearly why the fact that we literally sin means that there must have literally been a guy that literally brought that sin into the world.
Also, what part of Christ's sacrifice is less effective if the Fall is not literal history?
Faith writes:
POint is he (Adam) wouldn't have died at all if he hadn't eaten the fruit and death is the reason for Jesus' sacrifice so that way it all hangs together. Of course if you want to deny any part of Christian theology then it doesn't hang together, it just falls into a heap of meaningless nothing.
I thought the sacrifice of Christ was to cover our sins and thus reconcile us with God the Father. That way we could be in heaven instead of Hell.
Which part of Christian theology am I denying by not taking the Fall literally as it is described in Genesis? Do all or the majority of Christian denominations ascribe to this part that I am denying?
Faith writes:
This (God saying Adam would die the day he ate of the tree) has been discussed to death elsewhere. The spirit died that day and actually so did the body begin to die but the death of the entire body did not occur for another 900 years or so.
I already said it meant the spirit died. You say that physical death was brought into the world that day but God didn't mean that Adam would physically die that day. How do we know what God meant? What part of Genesis states that Adam was physically immortal before he ate the fruit?
Why metaphorize what is better understood as literal? It simply reduces the impact. It has a lot less meaning if He died for a mere metaphor of a Fall, and to be the second Adam based on a mere metaphor of a first Adam as opposed to a reality.
It is not better understood as literal. A number of questions arise. These are off topic so don't respond to them unless answering them supports your position on reading the Bible "literally".
1. If Adam had never seen death, what meaning did God's proclaimation that Adam would die if he ate the fruit, have for Adam?
2. If death was not part of the world, what did Adam eat that would not die if you ate it? Tapeworms?
3. If Adam didn't know good from evil, how could he know his disobeying God was the wrong thing to do?
To name a few.
LA writes:
Where does Christ ever say it was literal or historical fact?
Faith writes:
Many things are not said but are logical inferences from other parts of the Bible or in context.
Suppose I am not very familiar with the Bible. Could you string together those logical inferences for me? I'd like to see how this all fits together. Verses with explanations on how they tie into the whole conclusion you have drawn should be enough. I may want to ask follow-on questions, though.