RE: Adam never met Eve

From: Vandergraaf, Chuck (
Date: Thu Nov 23 2000 - 14:00:20 EST

  • Next message: "Re: Adam never met Eve"


    Thanks for your two Yen. The way the Canadian $ is dropping, a Yen may soon
    equal 1 C$ :-(

    Chuck Vandergraaf wrote (in part):

    Sorry, I feel compelled to through in my two yen (still less than
    two cents).

    << Another point: If the church fathers, who selected the text that now
     constitutes our Bible, were to do so today, with the information that we
     have, would they still select the same books?

    I suspect that this question has been asked many times before.
    It was probably asked first sometime around the birth of the monarchy
    (reign of David). The answer was yes. It was probably asked during
    the reign of Josiah when the book of the law was rediscovered (2K:22,
    2C:34). The answer was yes. It was surely asked upon return from
    the exile. The answer seems to have been yes. Finally, it was asked
    after the death and resurrection of Christ. The answer was yes.

    So would we select the same books today? I think the only reasonable
    answer is yes. The Bible is a document that is intended to instill
    faith and confidence in a God who acts in history, and as Christians
    to reveal the death and resurrection of Christ. Quandaries though
    they many many, this is all we have left to us by those who came
    before, and it is what we should leave to those who come after us:
    untouched by our wishful meddlings.

    I would agree that, in OT-times (and even in the NT-times), the books in the
    Bible would have been included. My argument in favour of the inclusion
    would be that the OT and NT saints understood the context of these books
    better than we apparently do. I'm going back to "Adam's rib." Unless I
    take the creation of Eve literally, the whole procedure makes little sense
    to me, but I'm sure the OT and NT people nodded sagely when they heard or
    read that story. I wonder, though, how our church fathers interpreted this
    (and other) episodes. Keep in mind that we hold that the church fathers were
    guided by the Holy Spirit.

    I'm not suggesting e start cutting the parts out of the Scriptures that we
    don't understand.

     Finally, how does this impact on the Sunday School curriculum? Do we still
     tell the stories about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and let the kids
     find out later that "it wasn't necessarily so," or do we tell them that
     "it's only a story" so that they won't have to face disappointment later

    There is a time and a place for every matter under heaven. The lesson
    of Adam and Eve was probably told when brothers and sisters were
    looking for someone to blame for some mishap in responsiblity.
    Is that the time to say this is only a myth?
    Cain and Able were probably used when there was sibbling rivalries.
    Would that be a time to explain that this is not a true story? But
    when children are older and ask "where they real people?", it's
    right to honest. The best answer is three simple words: "I don't know".
    That's honest.

    Yet, it has been my experience (and I have to go back many decades) that
    these Bible stories were transmitted to us as facts, not as morality tales.
    As to replying, "I don't know," what message are we conveying to kids?

    If we are going to insist on anything, we should insist on the
    Exodus and on Christ because those are the key testaments to
    the faith.

    This comment has placed me back on my ice floe again!

    Chuck (back home again)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 14:08:18 EST