I won’t hold you to complete agreement. 
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the history recorded in the Gospels, to whatever extent we accept that history, would have happened whether or not Genesis has a literal interpretation?
Where is that rascal @AllenWitmerMiller when I need him???
You are wrong. No literal sin in a literal garden means no literal need for a literal Savior.
Oh no, please don’t. I’m not sticking around for that.
I’m not aware of any Atheist Evolutionists who entertained any significant hopes of altering PDPrice’s position on anything on this website. He’s a presuppositional apologist, professionally. That is to say
a man who is paid to be hermetically closed-minded.
I could be wrong, but plenty of religious scholars disagree with you. Spiritual sin from a spiritual garden needs a spiritual savior, which is where Jesus comes to the spiritual rescue. Literal rescue from a burning house requires a literal savior, perhaps a fireman.
Would you rather argue theology with an agnostic? 
And if I haven’t been clear, I am not objecting to your belief in a spiritual savior.
It would not be difficult to come up with some story where prior events metaphorically take on the role of a “savior” in facilitating a situation where people were able to escape a burning building. “Saved by the bell” and all that.
I find that literal new batteries in my smoke detector is far more effective than metaphorical new batteries. 
Jesus was and is a literal man who literally died on a literal cross. Yes, he was a spiritual savior. But he was also a literal savior, and literally God in the flesh. He has promised those who accept him literal resurrected bodies like his own.
Weren’t you, the agnostic, the one who brought it up?
Oh he promised. Well then can see no reason for skepticism. How do I join the soul harvest?
I could, hypothetically, completely accept that statement, without any requirement of literal Genesis.
Unnecessary snark. Also, be careful what you ask for!
You would be inconsistent and you would be denying the very things that Jesus himself taught while on earth.
Well it doesn’t pay to closely analyse what I could hypothetically believe.
BUT, I would be no more inconsistent than what is taught by various branches of Christianity. The one truly consistent thread is the Resurrection, not a literal interpretation of Genesis. Here’s an example from fiction. Emphasis is mine:
Tolerance and an end to bigotry are a good message. It doesn’t matter that Harry Potter is a fictional character. My point is, we can find truth and value in the Bible, in the Gospels, and in Jesus, even if some parts are not “literal”.
I think you are just repeating my position. You said why couldn’t he have done something else… and I said because that something else would NOT have been as miraculous.
You agree. We are done.
@swamidass never said that GAE would be a satisfying scenario for ALL Christians… not even for ALL Creationists.
I have no need to convince you that there is a better kind of creationism. The GAE speaks for itself… and for you, it says very little.
I can accept that.
I believe, just as you do, that the Mark 10 and Matthew 19 passages indicate Jesus’ acknowledgement of a literal Adam and Eve. What other passages of the Gospels would you use to argue that Jesus taught a literal garden or original sin? I realize I’m making an assumption (so please forgive me if I am wrong), but I would guess you also are confident that Jesus taught a literal creation week. Where in the Bible would you find support for that?
I don’t know anywhere that Jesus said in the Gospels “day means day”, if that’s what you’re asking. However in the vast majority of cases, talking about a literal creation week means talking about the age of the earth. Jesus did make a statement pertaining to that. He said, “From the beginning of Creation God made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)
That statement is not just about the existence of Adam and Eve, but also the point in time that they lived. “From the beginning of creation”. Not at the very end of a multi-billion year process.
In other words, Jesus did not teach a literal creation week.
Clearly, this could refer to God’s creation of Adam and Eve, which we can see from the GAE model, would not necessarily be at the very beginning of ALL creation.
You are articulating your opinion, @PDPrice. It quite clearly is only your opinion when you make arguments that over-reach, like claiming Jesus taught original sin and a creation week. If I’m wrong here (I don’t think I am), please correct me with actual scripture, rather than manipulating a straightforward question. It would be helpful (and appreciated) to recognize the difference between what can be clearly supported by Scripture and what arguments are your own personal interpretations based on your beliefs.
There are lots of things we don’t have a direct record of Jesus personally teaching. But Jesus affirmed that not one jot or tittle of the Law will pass away until all is fulfilled. Jesus affirmed the inspiration of all Scripture. That would include Exodus 20:11.
No I don’t think that’s clear at all. Jesus said “From the beginning of creation”, not “From the beginning of the creation of mankind.” To suggest the latter would be to eisegete–to add something into the text that is not there. The G.A.E. model fails on many counts, but the biggest one is that it introduces death and suffering prior to the Fall–something the Scriptures are very clear about.
I just don’t get this. Could Jesus not be talking in a way that is familiar to the people in that time and place? Isn’t that the explanation for the mustard seed?
I agree that Jesus affirmed the inspiration of the Old Testament. I agree that this includes Exodus 20:11. However, the Exodus instructions could be symbolic, just as the instructions in Exodus 23:10-11 are symbolic.
Exegesis involves using context. What is the context of the Mark 10 and Matthew 19 comments from Jesus? To me, it is quite clear that Jesus is talking about marriage.
These are commonly known as “differences of opinion”, Paul. One day, we will know, but we will not know in this lifetime.
You do have an agenda: “no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record”. Any science that doesn’t fit the scriptural record has to be garbled - tweaked, manipulated, bent, spindled or mutilated until it fits. Or ignored completely.
That’s your agenda.
I agree with you that the Old Testament is inspired and true and important. I also believe a literal Adam and Eve lived roughly 6000 years ago (give or take) and that they sinned.
I take exception to your idea that sin nature didn’t exist before Adam. First, how did Adam and Eve sin (technically Eve sinned first) if they had no sin nature? That doesn’t make any sense to me. They were created with free will, which by its nature gives them the ability to sin. God wanted creatures that choose to follow him, not creatures forced to follow him.
Sin is not imputed where there is no law (Romans 5). If God hadn’t ever given humans a law or commands of any kind prior to Adam and Eve, there would be no sin even with a sin nature. It wasn’t until eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they were accountable for their sins. Where do we see this “knowledge of good and evil” elsewhere in the Bible? Deuteronomy 1:39 tells us that during the exodus, it was the children with no knowledge of good and evil who would get to enter the promised land - they weren’t held accountable for the sins of the people. Numbers 14:29 clarifies that it was talking about people under age 20. Isaiah 17:15-16 talks about Immanuel being old enough to know to refuse evil and choose good.
Just as Adam sinned, we all sin. There was a literal sin of Adam, and we have literal sins ourselves. We need a literal savior, which is Jesus. Nothing about that has anything to do with the age of the earth (which the Bible does not mention) nor the natural process God used to create the diversity of life (again, not mentioned in the Bible… “Let the earth bring forth…” sounds like a natural process that God has created).
Something to note… argument against your interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is not necessarily argument that Genesis 1-11 isn’t true. While some Christians here may see them as myths, not all do, and you end up creating a false dichotomy, which, frankly, hurts Christians. I know you argue with several atheists on these threads, and that may make you think the dichotomy is true, but it’s not. I take the Bible just as seriously as you do, and yet I come to a different conclusion about science. I think @swamidass does the same.