- Feb 15, 2007
- Reaction score
I think Iconodule's position is consistent with the Fathers believing that Eden, Adam, Eve, etc., were literally real. Just because creation is an image of heavenly reality, doesn't mean that it isn't real.android said:Do you have some cites/references for this? I read a lot in the Fathers (e.g. St. Symeon) that suggest they thought Eden, Adam and Eve, etc. were literally real, although I'd like to find some more support for your POV.Iconodule said:Without disagreeing, I would point out that the Fathers also saw the visible creation itself as an image, a symbol, of heavenly realities... therefore it should not be taken "literally" either.rakovsky said:Likewise, the story of the world's creation is an image. It might have happened that explicit way, or probably a different way that we understand better now. But it was an image of what happened. God made the world in different steps, if not in the explicit way we would read it.
Plus, 2000 years ago, there was no alternative to the Genesis account, for Christians and Jews. Genesis made perfect sense, given the knowledge of the earth and the cosmos that was prevalent back the.