That doesn't mean they are not two stories merged into one. I saw that when I was young and learned more about it with formal study as an adult.
I hate to sound like Jen Psaki - but let's "circle back" to this.
Do you actually comprehend what you respond to?
You were the one who claimed that Genesis recorded "two different stories" and then later claimed that multiple versions were "molded into one".
So - does Genesis record "
two different [Creation] stories" or does it record a single Creation story that had been "molded into
one?"
This isn't that difficult of a question.
I said that there were probably a number of oral traditions for this creation story and TWO were fused into the first two chapters of Genesis.
So - again - are you claiming that there is only one Creation story recorded in Genesis or two?
I see a single Creation story described in Genesis 1 and a different Creation story described in Genesis 2.
I don't see any "molding" or "fusion" - but two separate Creation stories - because they are describing two separate Creation events.
You see the same thing in parts of the story of Noah and the flood.
Perhaps you do - but I don't.
I am not argue against the validity of the Fall.
I didn't claim that you did.
I claimed that you were arguing against "the validity of the Fall
recorded in Genesis."
You are arguing against the Genesis account of the Fall - claiming that it is mere allegory.
I understand that you claim to believe that Man is fallen - but you have yet to offer any explanation for how that is so.
All I have been doing here is pointing that out. You have no explanation. What you claim makes no sense.
You understand that the term "Fall of Man" implies that Man had to have been placed in a "non-Fallen" condition
before said Fall?
Otherwise - it would not have been possible for them to "fall".
Meaning - God would have had to first create Man in an "elevated" condition - before the Fall.
The story of Adam and Eve claims that Man was first created in an "elevated" condition - and they chose to Fall.
It makes more sense than the - nothing - you have been offering.
Can try and keep this honest or are you really that obtuse?
Really? You asked me this immediately after you claimed I said something that I never did?
How about you try and keep this honest?
Chapters 1 and 2 are two different stories of creation.
Agreed - yet that still has nothing to do with the Fall of Man - which is the topic of our conversation.
The Fall was recorded in Chapter 3 - and there is only the one story of that.
You can flip flop like a fish on the beach, but you are not going to hit water by claiming they are not.
Wow - again with the dishonesty.
Did I not claim in Post #478,
"However - I believe that the first two Creative chapters can be explained as not "two versions" - but as a spiritual organization first and a physical formation second."
I do not believe that Chapters 1 and 2 are "two versions" of the same event - but rather accounts of two separate and distinct events.
You were the one you erroneously claimed in Post #471 that there were "two different versions of oral tradition" after I asked you to explain the
Fall (not the Creation).
You made a mistake and when I corrected you - explaining that you were referring to the Creation and not the Fall - you erected this strawman - based on lies.
I
never claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 were two versions of the same story - but rather two different stories for two different Creations - and you erroneously claimed that there were two versions of the Fall.
You did. You were yammering about how you know that Genesis is a literal retelling of actual events and but my reading things as allegory is not valid.
Without going back and rereading everything - I'm pretty sure I didn't.
What I have been saying from the beginning is that if you can explain away the story of Adam and Eve as mere allegory - then you can explain away the story of the Lord Jesus Christ.
And I have maintained that His story of offering us a literal Redemption and Salvation would make no sense without a literal Fall.
And I have asked you - a few times - how you explain the Fall of Man without the story of Adam and Eve (the only explanation offered in the Bible) - and you erect strawmen to burn.
Don't get me wrong - I do believe that Adam and Eve were real people - but I haven't used that as a basis for my arguments here.
My arguments have been that what you claim makes no sense and you offer no explanation.
I would agree, but I have never said that there wasn't. My only claim is that Genesis should be viewed as allegory. Have you ever heard of a straw man argument. You seem to have a natural talent for them.
You have claimed that the only explanation for the Fall of Man is fictional - while offering no alternatives or reasons to reject it as mere allegory.
You have also claimed that you believe in a literal Fall of Man - without any explanation on how Man Fell outside the story of Adam and Eve.
I am not erecting strawmen - I am exposing holes in your logic that you cannot explain and asking questions that you are running away from.
The fact that He is real.
Yet - how can you make this claim when there is no evidence that He ever existed?
Why do I need evidence to believe that Adam and Eve were real people - but you don't need any evidence to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was a real person?
Also - isn't belief without evidence the definition of faith?
This is an issue I take with a lot of Christians - because they believe things simply because they have been told to believe them - without really thinking about it.
You have been told that Adam and Eve were fictional characters but that the Lord Jesus Christ was real - so you don't require evidence for either of those claims to believe them.
Why not try to look at it from the opposite viewpoint.
What if I was a person who believed that Adam and Eve were real people - but I didn't believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was real?
Yeah - I believe that the Adam and Eve story explained a literal Fall of Man - and I also believe that God has offered us a literal Redemption through the Sacrifice of His Son - but I don't believe that the Son - the Lord Jesus Christ - was a literal person.
His story is a mere allegory. Just a work of fiction. Adam and Eve were real - but the Lord Jesus Christ wasn't.
But - I still believe that God has offered us Redemption through His Son (who actually doesn't exist) - but that's okay - because fictional people are just as valuable as real people - am I right?
You see how that would make no sense?
This is what you are offering.
That doesn't support your claim that viewing things as allegory makes them mere.
Sure it does - they were "mere" parables - not accountings of real people who existed or events that literally happened.
I didn't claim it was presented as a parable. I reference parables to rebut your claim about allegory diminishing the value.
Of course a person being real or fictional affects their value.
How could you possibly believe otherwise?
I have a view. I have not trouble.
You got lots of troubles here friend. Lots.
Except with those that claim knowledge they cannot share and likely don't possess.
That's the pot calling the kettle black.
I have asked you repeatedly to explain the Fall of Man outside of the story of Adam and Eve - and you gave me nothing.
You are the one claiming to have knowledge that you are not willing to share - because you don't have it.
You were just told that Adam and Eve were fictional - and you believed it - no need for an explanation.
I never said I didn't. You are making a straw man argument again. If you are a Christian, you would try to keep your comments on the up and up.
You are rejecting the only Biblical explanation for the Fall of Man - based on nothing - and offering nothing in its place.
And when it comes to strawmen - you got the one about two versions of the Creation, the one about you lying about something I said, the one about you using your "two versions" argument of the Creation against the story of the Fall - which made no sense - and the one about parables and fictional people having the same worth as actual events and real people?
That's a lot of strawmen.
Yes - I believe that Adam and Eve were real people - but that hasn't been my argument.
My argument has been that your beliefs make no sense and you offer no reason for anyone to agree with them.