Hats Off wrote:What in the first three chapters of Genesis do we not need to understand Christ and His work? Can we truly understand the need for the "foundation.. that is Jesus Christ" if we don't understand that man fell while in the garden?
I'm not a scientist or a theologian. But I feel that the account of the fall of man as told in Genesis is necessary in order to understand the sacrifice of Jesus. The New Testament ties it together, talking about the first Adam [the Adam of Genesis] and the second Adam [Jesus]. Both came to earth in the same condition, sinless but with the potential to sin. Because the first Adam sinned, the second Adam needed to face the same temptation but remain sinless in order to qualify for our redemption.
If you cancel the validity of the fall of man, you cancel the need for Christ, and the whole New Testament becomes a facade and a farce. I can go along with stretching the chronology somewhat, because there is biblical precedent for that [skipping generations in genealogy listings, etc], but that will only go so far. MJ Brunk used to tell us that he feels that putting creation back to about 8,000 BC is about the limits that you can stretch the Bible.
I would tend to agree with that. I can't necessarily prove that, and I think people like answers in Genesis shoot themselves in the foot by trying. Finally there are things that man can't prove and needs to accept by faith. It depends on what you feel you can accept by faith and what you feel you need to take man's viewpoint on.
That's my take on it. I'm willing to give and take a bit on the chronology end of it, but I won't budge on the necessity of believing in the fall of man. You destroy the whole plan of salvation when you drop that.