I overheard someone today saying that Genesis 3 can’t be literal because trees didn’t exist back then. “Trees,” he said, “are a relatively recent development on this planet. They only evolved 50,000 years ago.” I wasn’t aware that 50,000 years ago was relatively recent. Nor did I realize that the Bible placed the story of Adam and Eve further back than 50,000 years ago; silly me, I thought if you added up all the genealogies and historical clues you found that the Bible sets that story only about 6,000 years ago. But I guess I got schooled today.
I’m amazed how stupid people are. Why would anyone buy a moronic idea that trees evolved 50,000 years ago? Ignore the question of the age of the earth for a moment. Let’s pretend the earth really is 50 kajillion trillion million floptillian years old. And let’s assume that the evolution fairy-tale is true too. Even with those two lies granted, how would scientists know when trees evolved? What’s the evidence? This guy was mocking his mother for believing in the story of Adam and Eve, saying he was amazed how stupid she is, but the joke’s on him, because he sounds like an idiot.
Now, I may be a bit paradoxical on this myself because I believe in the literal creation story and the literal creation of an Adam and Eve, but not in the literal fall narrative. I take the talking snake to be a clue that this is an allegory about obeying God or suffering the consequences. That’s actually a position that was a long time in the making, and I’m not going to get into how I came to that conclusion. But suffice* it to say, taking that part of the story to be allegory due to the talking snake and the mystical fruit is not completely absurd like saying “Trees didn’t exist then.” If you don’t believe that trees existed then, then I don’t believe that your brain exists now.
Now the theory that Paul’s epistles are the first Christian documents, predating the gospels, is akin to believing that trees didn’t exist back then. You’re telling me that Paul was the first Christian writer, yet he has such an uphill battle against a pre-existing doctrine that is contrary to his faith alonism? A doctrine clearly taught in Matthew. But nah, Matthew didn’t exist yet. Paul is fighting phantoms, not real people, not pre-existing documents. Give me a break. I guess papyrus didn’t exist prior to Paul, right? Lol.
[* Also Jesus doesn’t base theology on the “fall” narrative. And if death didn’t exist and we were all immortal like people who take the “fall” literally think would be the case if there had been no “fall,” we’d all be stacked on top of each other living in each others’ feces by now. Only way around that would be an ever-expanding earth, and the earth doesn’t work like that, although heaven might. Its obvious then that death isn’t really something imposed for the “fall” but something that God always intended to be part of the world. Wait…wasn’t there a guy in antiquity who said basically this (even if Adam hadn’t eaten the fruit he would have died), and got in trouble for it…oh yeah, Pelagius. Or was it actually Coeletius who said it, and Pelagius just gets blamed for it? Actually, I think that’s it.]