ByFaithAlone

For what I hope is the last time this is a fallacious slippery slope argument. Just because one section of the Bible is allegorical doesn't mean all of it is. If Genesis is intended as an allegorical creation account for various textual, scientific and historical reasons, then it in no way hurts the inerrancy of it or the rest of the Bible. Stop bringing up this argument. It is a very poor one. It isn't a "poor" argument in any sense. It's perfectly valid. You cannot pick and choose what is actually true and what is allegorical in Scripture. Was the Resurrection an actual event, BFA? If you say it was, I can easily say it was simply allegorical and you can't say I'm wrong in any way. I can claim Paul and the other disciples, along with most "early" Christians and scholars understood it to be a "spiritual" Resurrection, and they didn't mean for people to believe it was an actual "physical" event. See how that works? This is fallacious once again. The Gospels are not written in the epic style of Genesis nor do they have indicators of allegory with the exception of the parables. Christ's physical resurrection is specifically mentioned by Paul and the early church so there is no comparison here.

For what I hope is the last time this is a fallacious slippery slope argument. Just because one section of the Bible is allegorical doesn't mean all of it is. If Genesis is intended as an allegorical creation account for various textual, scientific and historical reasons, then it in no way hurts the inerrancy of it or the rest of the Bible. Stop bringing up this argument. It is a very poor one.

Simple, really. 1. Show the internal textual indicators in Genesis 1-11 where the author indicates that the text is allegorical 2. Show the internal textual indicators in Genesis 1-11 where the author indicates what the text is allegorizing. What is the text an allegory about, and where does the author mention that? 3. Show the Old and New Testament corroboration with the author of Genesis that the text is alleorical. The New Testament makes several references to Genesis, Adam and Eve, the Fall of man in the Garden, etc. Show where Jesus, Paul or any other NT writer indicates that the text of Genesis 1-11 was meant to be allegorical. I am not interested in what other people in history thought or think. If the text is allegorical then you should be able to easily meet the requirements of textual arguments, and those three mentioned above in particular. Here are some common ideas that come across in allegory and the epic form particularly: (a) Poetic style - in the original language, Genesis resembles other epic poems such as the Greek Iliad or Odyssey. This idea is affirmed by multiple Jewish and Christian sources from all periods of time (b) The use of archetype - the idea that characters represent or are the symbolic basis for the people we are - Adam and Eve are characters whose actually lives are not mentioned frequently in the Bible. Only major events symbolic to the human race (creation, the Fall, sex, children and death) are mentioned. We know nothing of there personalities in contrast to Christ, Moses, Paul, etc. Instead, Adam and Eve represent humanity in the Fall. and © Symbolic use of objects and animals - the fruit is a prime example of a symbolic object as it represents the temptation away from God. The acceptance of the fruit is man's free action to go against God's will. Another is the snake which even the most literalistic Christians take to be Satan, the tempter who is trying to bring God's people away from him. (d) Allegories often have a central message that they are trying to get across symbolically - in this case that message is the need for a Savior due to humanities fallen state within God's creation. Here is an excellent article by NT Wright exploring some other nuances in these passages: http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Creation_Covenant.htm In regards to what the authors of the Old and New Testament thought about what was written, there is no definitive statement that blatantly says, Adam was literal or Adam was allegorical. However, the authors do indicate that Adam was a representative for man itself (in regards to sin, etc), that the snake in the Garden was the Devil, that the "offspring" of Eve was Christ who crushed Satan's power through the crucifiction and did not literally crush the snakes head. All of these ideas are allegorical in nature and widely held by all Christians. I will once again mention the early church and Jews of that era as I value the opinions of those who lived in the time of Christ as most likely those beliefs closest in line with the Jews of his day. I don't understand why you don't accept this as a valid argument. It seems to me as though you are opposed to the idea of Christian tradition as it is often so closely tied with Catholic or Orthodox theology but that is just my perspective. Could you provide some valid reasons for why a vast majority of early Christians (and in fact most Christians up until the fundamentalist and Awakening movements of the 1700s and 1800s) believed in an allegorical Genesis along with the Jews of that era? Is it all a mass liberal conspiracy again or is there some other reason?

There is no evidence to suggest we all came from one pair of human. There is only one study of note that may lead people to believe that and it is the mitochondrial Eve study. The mitochondrial Eve often talked about on a variety of sites blatantly ignores the facts about mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). To give a brief background, it has been determined that a large amount of Earth's population share genetic DNA (mtDNA) coming from one female ancestor. However, mtDNA is not passed down through the male line so it is in no way proof that we all come from one person but rather that at one point we have been married into this family. Furthermore, there are good reasons for believing that marrying into this family was statistically likely if not guaranteed to happen for several reasons. This "Eve" as scientists call her was around approximately 70,000 years ago (according to various dating techniques) which is also the same time as the coldest ice age known to have occurred after a violent eruption of a volcano in Sumatra. It is estimated that less than 10,000 humans existed in this era almost entirely in Africa where the cold was lightest. "Eve" would have, according to the scientists who completed the study, been a mother who produced a large amount of female children who then were married off into the local population and so on throughout the ice age. With the population relatively compact in terms of area, it would be reasonable and even likely that this would occur. As to the criticism of evolution that you bring up, would you mind sending me a PM because I don't really want to get the conversation off topic as we are discussing the literal Adam and Eve from a more theological and textual criticism perspective. Thanks!

This is a very interesting view of hell. I haven't heard it before. Could you expand more on this?

I'm going to try to respond as fast as possible. Thanks for all the quick responses. Both candice and Omegaman brought up this idea: This is an interesting argument and I actually presented it to this friend of mine in the following manner. (1) Moral agent A commits a crime against moral agent B (2) Moral agent A is locked within space time while moral agent B is not (3) Moral agent A views his crime as finite (4) Moral agent B is outside of space time and thus experiences the crime without end as B is in all times at once (5) Moral agent A would justly deserve a similar timeless punishment for the crime. My friend responded with this idea. A crime is usually judged based on the individual's understanding of what they did. Therefore if moral agent A commits a crime against moral agent B because they were forced to by external factor C we would base the punishment with this taken into consideration. In a similar manner, my friend argues the following. Assume (1)-(4) above (5) Moral agent B recognizes that A is bound by space and time (6) Being bound by space and time is analogous to an external factor C which must be taken into consideration (7) Moral agent B passes judgement on moral agent A (8) Moral agent B has the attribute of being omnibenevolent (9) Moral agent B, recognizing the factor C would give a finite punishment to moral agent A. Thoughts?

I personally do not subscribe to universalism. This was a query posed by a deist friend of mine that I have been wrestling with.

This is actually not the case and is a fallacious argument. I believe God could do all these things. It just doesn't seem to me that Genesis is to be taken literally when it talks about creation for the various reasons I have outlined. However, this does not mean that God's creation is any less wonderful. In fact, I think by viewing Genesis in an allegorical manner I choose to believe in a God far more complex and intelligent than a literalist would ever dare to imagine, a universe far more beautiful and amazing in which God created this universe so precisely, physical constants tuned ever so delicately, such that life and even more than that, intelligent life could come into existence. If you have ever looked at the physics it is astounding that even basic elements exist but due to the nature of physical constants it is possible. God, from an allegorical Genesis perspective fine tuned our universe so that billions of years later we could exist. To me, that is humbling and beautiful and in no way diminishes his power.

I have a question I have been wrestling with and I was wondering people's thoughts on the matter. Hell, commonly understood, is a place of eternal separation from God which is going to be the worst possible experience that anyone can ever hope to achieve. The major philosophical problem I am running into was posed to me by a deist friend of mine who was questioning whether the idea of hell was in some manner an injustice. His argument was as follows in roughly the order of the conversation we had (this is not a logic argument and is not in proper premise-conclusion form - I realize this). (1) God creates human race (2) The human race is finite (3) Through actions of their own (this is assumed as I currently am holding a Molinist position of free will), part of the human race is justly condemned to separation from God. (4) To be just, the punishment must fit the crime (5) Eternal punishment is never a just punishment for a finite crime (6) Even if original sin, the sins of all humanity was taking into consideration, based on (2) we would still require a finite punishment (5) and (6) are particularly intriguing to me and have kept me thinking. I was wondering people's thoughts on the matter. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. As always, I look forward to dialogue. Regards, BFA

Ok so the major points brought up by a number of people. I will address them as best I can as to satisfy your questions. 1. The Bible is the standard of authenticity in regards to the ways in which the Jews and early Christians lived and acted. HisG has brought this point up multiple times and I agree with this statement. However, I am not asking that we place the Bible below the words of man (early Christians and Jews). I am asking us to examine the Bible in the light of what Jesus and people of his time period would have thought. I am asking us to interpret the Bible which most fits with our historical knowledge of what the interpretations were in that era. Like it or not this includes an allegorical Genesis. 2. The allegorical Genesis account is a "liberal" scheme to input allegorical ideas into other parts of the Bible This is a slippery slope argument that fails because Genesis has good reasons to be interpreted as allegorical while other passages do not have such reasons. 3. Christ and the disciples mention Adam. Once again, I agree with this statement However, based on the writings of early Christians and the Jews of this era, it seems to me that the majority of people viewed these statements as allegorical once again. 4. Why should we trust the older Christians and Jews of that day? The simple answer is, these were the people who would (most likely) have held interpretive views very similar to the disciples and even Christ himself. It seems reasonable to me that, if a vast majority of early Christians and Jews held this view as accurate at the time of Christ, Christ probably held similar views. It is of course, not completely set in stone, but it seems reasonable. 5. Scholarship, who cares? This seems to a large amount of the attitude at this point. No one seems to care about the large amount of theological study done by a wide variety of clergy, theologians, philosophers, historians and writing scholars that support the ideas of an allegorical Genesis. I have not heard any counter claims, specifically in regards to why the Jews and Christians of that era would believe in an allegorical Genesis.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the position held by myself and multitudes of other Christians both past and present. As someone who believes Genesis was allegorical, I believe that when Christ talked about Genesis, he was speaking of an allegory and the Jews of the era would have known he was speaking an allegory. I therefore don't reject anything Jesus has said but I feel as though I may understand what Christ said in the context of that era better than literalists. I could be wrong of course but I must look at the evidence and see where it leads. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that what Jesus said about Adam and Eve, Job, Noah and the Flood, etc., was allegorical. None. All you have is a belief that Jesus did not really mean what He said. But, as you are spiritually blind to begin with, it's understandable. "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14) Hmmm... no evidence that Christ viewed Genesis allegorically? How about the earliest Christians and Jews of that era who almost entirely viewed Genesis as allegorical? Josephus, Philo (first two are Jewish) Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine (last four are Christian). Seems reasonable to believe that Christ held similar views of the earliest Christians and Jews of that area. Something to consider is that there are people who claim to be Christian but hold views that are in opposition to what Christ taught and believed , Jesus has even stated that there will be those who claim to be Christ followers and say they cast out demons in Jesus name and Jesus responds by saying 'depart from me you workers of iniquity , i never knew you ' ,they claim to be Christian but by their deeds they have shown they are not . It is not totally reasonable that Christ held similar views of the earliest Christians and Jews of that area., because there are those who have shown otherwise so it would be depending on specifics and to compare what some Christians and Jews of that era believed compared to what Jesus taught, if people are going to split hairs, then we can say that God named Adam and his helpmate Adam and it was the male Adam that named his helpmate/wife Eve but when people speak of Jesus being the second Adam it is in reference to say that the 1st man Adam was of the dust of the earth, the second man is from heaven. The natural and the spiritual. Christ is the first of those who are raised from the dead to eternal life. Because Christ rose from the dead, He is “a life-giving spirit” When believers are resurrected, God will give them immortal glorified eternal bodies suited to eternal life. a scripture that speaks of Christ as the second Adam 1 Corinthians 15 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven Anything is possible so I agree that the early Christians may have been wrong but it seems to me as though it would be more reasonable for them to have opinions or views on Scripture which were similar to Christ. As to Paul’s references to Adam, I fail to see why these references have to be any more literal than Christ’s references. Could they not be allegorical? Your evidence that Jesus viewed Genesis as allegorical is naming a few non-believing Jews and a few early Christians who viewed Genesis the way you do? Seriously? No it doesn't "seem reasonable" at all. You simply stated the beliefs of a few others like yourself. You posted no Biblical evidence whatsoever that Jesus didn't mean exactly what He said. These men that I referenced were the top scholars of their day. They represented Christianity and their writings formed the basis of the Christian creeds. They are regarded as important theologians in Protestantism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The Jews that I mention were also influential scholars of their era and presented the common Jewish view at the time and Christ was a Jew who probably held these common Jewish views. Really? On what basis do you say that his disciples believed Genesis was literal? I see no biblical basis for that. I see no extrabiblical writings that confirm it. On the other hand, I see plenty of extrabiblical early Christian sources and textual criticism that confirms my view. I will get to the rest as soon as possible. Probably this weekend.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that what Jesus said about Adam and Eve, Job, Noah and the Flood, etc., was allegorical. None. All you have is a belief that Jesus did not really mean what He said. But, as you are spiritually blind to begin with, it's understandable. "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14) Hmmm... no evidence that Christ viewed Genesis allegorically? How about the earliest Christians and Jews of that era who almost entirely viewed Genesis as allegorical? Josephus, Philo (first two are Jewish) Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine (last four are Christian). Seems reasonable to believe that Christ held similar views of the earliest Christians and Jews of that area.

Yes I would view this as literal. Why you ask if Genesis is not considered literal? Simply put, the writings about Na'aman and Elijah are not written in the manner of an epic, nor do they have a tradition in Jewish or Christian orthodoxy of being interpreted as allegorical. Genesis however, has a tradition of being interpreted as allegorical by both Jews and Christians and it does have the writing style of an epic poem.

If the Jews and Christians of that era believed in an allegorical Genesis wouldn't it seem reasonable to think the Jesus held a similar view? You keep on saying that Jesus saw Adam as literal without considering the historical precedents of the church or Judaism or how the Jews understood the writing style of Genesis. Again, I would like to see your support of this interpretation.

I base it on context, writing style and historical precedents set by the ancient Jews and Christians.

So I am bringing up reasons for my particular interpretation of scripture, citing historical precedents set by the early church and Jewish writers, scientific ideas of an old earth and textual criticism which shows Genesis to be written in the manner of an epic and you simply repeat your point without backing it up. Perhaps you would like to offer some historical precedents, scientific theories or textual criticism of your own? I agree that we do need to consider the context in which Jesus spoke. We need to realize that Christ was talking to the Jewish people who knew Genesis well and understood the style in which it was written. We need to understand that these people would have understood what Jesus was talking about when he referred to Adam and Genesis. The best way I can think of doing this is by examining early Christian and Jewish thoughts on the interpretation of Genesis, in which case the majority would support my position. Again, I completely agree that Jesus talked about people and events. However, did he intend that all of these people were literal figures or allegorical ones? Wouldn't the early Christians and Jews of that era have a better understanding of what Jesus thought and what the Jews of that era thought then you do now in the 21st century? I would rather rely on their older orthodox (and by orthodox I mean traditional norms or views of religion, not Orthodox as in the denomination) interpretations then a relatively recent literal view that came about as a result of the Great Awakening.

I think D-9 pretty much summed up my position on the issue but speaking of a person, event, etc. does not imply that it is a literal person, event, etc. This is especially true when taking the writing style of Genesis and the historical understanding of the Jewish and early Christians who thought of the early chapters as allegorical in nature. I would once again forward the example of Homer's Odyssey. If I told you that someone had Achilles' strength or Odysseus' cunning, one would not jump to the conclusion that Achilles and Odysseus were real people because the context and writing style of the Odyssey is well known. Similarly, knowing that the ancient church and Jewish people viewed Genesis as allegory, the textual criticism which demonstrates the epic poem nature of Genesis, I think it would be much more reasonable to think that Christ, understanding the culture in which he lived, spoke to the Jews about the allegory of Genesis.

Christ becomes the representative for us in that he will take us from the world of sin given us by Adam (whether Adam be allegorical or not). I don't think this view is particularly different if you believe Adam to be literal or allegorical.

And my marathon of responses continues with my response to HisG: Understand BFA that atheists do this very thing...they pour through history books searching for writings of Biblical events/people....if they do not find it, they rule out the authority and authenticity of the history of the Bible. They put mans word OVER God's. I don't think a Christian should be concerned by comparing and even checking if the Bible is authentic. If ancient sources did not corroborate the testimony of the Bible and physics did not confirm (in my opinion) the existence of an Uncaused Cause which we shall call God and if philosophy did not seem (in my opinion) to impress upon me the nature of God, I doubt I would be a Christian. However, as these things do exist I am a Christian. Calling Genesis an allegory in my opinion is not putting man's word or science over God but understanding what Genesis is saying in a responsible manner taken into account the manner and context in which it was written. I agree that the NT is accurate but I would say that the writings of Tacitus, etc. confirm it. I agree that we should rely on the writings of the apostles who were with Jesus but we must also look at the manner at which they were written and realize how this manner is different then the manner in which Genesis was written.

Mcgyver Part 3: Dear brother, I don't see that this argument can hold water, for is it not written: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. This passage would refer to the truth of God in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior not scientific evidence which is publicized by both Christians and non-Christians alike. And even if it did refer to scientific evidence, what then would we say in regards to the Christian Charles Darwin, founder of Evolutionary Theory or the famous Russian cosmologist and Orthodox Alexander Friedmann (known for the Friedmann equations and Big Bang Theory) or Catholic priest and Belgian physicist Georges Lamaitre (different derivation of the Friedmann equations and Big Bang Theory)? Were they all fooled? By no means can I see a conceivable way in which this is so. I would instead argue that they saw the evidence pointed towards an intricate creation by God - a marvelous universe in which life could evolve. According to the YEC view, these men were led astray by God himself who designed the universe in such a way as to deceive these men into believing it was old. This does not seem reasonable to me from a theological perspective as God would then be committing moral error. Yes mistakes happen in science. I will admit that as much as the next scientist. However, these mistakes allow us to investigate further and help us expand our understanding and should not discourage us from accepting science any more than misinterpretations of the Bible used to encourage racism should discourage us from being Christians. As to the suppression of special creation, I would say that is merely because the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution is overwhelming accepted by Christians and non-Christians in the scientific community and there really isn't any debate over it. Someone could bring the idea up but it is mere speculation from a scientific perspective and Darwinian evolution provides for a much better and concise explanation. As to suppression of Christianity in general, I think outspoken Christians are actually becoming more common in the scientific community especially in the area of physics, mathematics and chemistry. You won't here them arguing for a young earth creationist view but you will see them arguing that the universe as a whole is God's creation using arguments such as the Cosmological, Teleological and Kalaam. Lennox, Polkinghorne, Peacocke, Ellis and many more have presented adamant and well-known affirmations of their faith which has been strengthened by there work in their respective fields (Mathematics, physics, biochemistry and physics for the ones I aforementioned). It has been an absolute joy talking with you and I would note that you are by far the most respectful and probably thoughtful young earth creationist I have ever discussed this topic with. Peace and blessings to you and I hope we can continue our conversation.

Response to Mcgyver Part 2: I don't want to derail this thread (which is about Adam), but I wanted to touch on this, as it directly impacts upon whether the Genesis account is allegorical or not. The following are the problems that I see with theistic evolution: 1. The bible teaches that during the course of creation each organism was created "according to its kind" (NKJV). In other words, a dog doesn't give birth to a moose. But yet evolutionary theory postulates that species evolve into new species through natural selection based upon genetic mutation. (i.e. Birds having a reptile as a common ancestor). Certainly this is not "according to its kind". 2. If theistic evolution is a fact, then at the end of creation when God rested and called everything He had created "good"...Adam and Eve were standing upon a graveyard built on the corpses of untold millions of organisms that had lived and died to finish God's creation. One can not realistically argue evolution without death entering into the equation. Yet the bible teaches that death came through Adam's transgression. Now I understand the argument that says that it was only "spiritual death" that came through Adam, but that is not attested to in the scripture...death is death. Which brings me to: 3. If theistic evolution is factual, then how does it speak to the nature of God? In other words, God looked at all He had created...the perfection of the world and the universe...and called it "good". But yet we are told that death is the greatest enemy, and death is equated as the result of evil through out the scriptures. So then, we are presented with a theological conundrum concerning the very nature of God: Is He in fact good? In response to the first query, I would like to immediately point out that you assume that Genesis is literal in order to support this argument against theistic evolution. Thus you beg the question as you assume Genesis is literal while trying to prove it is literal. This is circular logic. However, with that aside, the fact that animals produce after their own kind would not, in my humble opinion, be a refutation of theistic evolution. For example, we have a reptile R who produces offspring A, B, C and D each of which have genotype differences and perhaps phenotype differences with R. A is more adaptive to the environment in which they live and thus A passes along its genetic code more successfully while B, C and D die off. This happens over many generations until a descendant of A (whom we shall call AA) arrives. AA is almost very different from the original R phenotype (and is thus labeled by scientists as a different species) but nonetheless each animal produced after its own kind albeit with some genetic differences. I do not see how this idea would violate the passage in Genesis in any way. ____________________________________ Moving on to objection 2: Yes, I would argue that the death was spiritual and not literal and I would beg to differ that death did not occur before the fall. Here are a few objections phrased very well by Richard Deem (an Old Earth Creationist) "The idea that no creatures, including plants, died prior to the Fall is the extreme position of a minority of young earth creationists. They claim that only parts of plants are eaten, and, therefore, no plants actually died. Although a number of grazing animals eat only the tops of grass or leaves, leaving the plant alive, there are a number of exceptions. Even grass grazers pull up whole plants (including the roots) on occasion, which results in the death of entire plants. Some animals eat only roots, such as gophers. Once the roots are eaten, the plant quickly dies. Many sea animals eat diatoms and microscopic plants - ingesting and killing entire organisms." Herbivores, omnivores, carnivores all had to eat. This leads to a physical death plain and simple. I simply cannot see how it would not occur without making assumptions that are not scriptural. I would instead argue that it is a spiritual death and separation from God. The idea of spiritual death and isolation from God's life is not unusual in scripture. In fact it is used by Paul in his letters to the Ephesians (2:1, 4:18) and the Colossians (2:13). I think it makes a lot more sense than claiming no death existed before the Fall. ____________________________________ Which brings me to objection three: Spiritual death is bad yes but is a physical death inherently evil? I don't think you would be able to argue this point. Physical death is neither inherently good nor evil from a Christian theological perspective as, from the perspective of the Christian, our essence is our soul, not our physical form. To the Christian, spiritual death should be regarded as the worse thing that could happen, not a physical one.

At long last I am able to fully respond to these posts. Thanks to everyone for their patience and time. I will start by first addressing Mcgyver's points. I would take issue with this statement on several levels. First of all, in regards to the early chapters of Genesis being treated as allegorical, there are plenty of sources in the Jewish and Christian tradition who would disagree with you. Most of the early church (Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Jerome) as well as our earliest Jewish scholars (including the aforementioned Josephus of Alexandria) all concluded that Genesis was not to be taken literally and it would be a woeful mistake to do so. In fact, the idea of literalism in Genesis is a relatively new construct brought about after the Reformation fueled primarily by Protestant evangelicals. Why did they hold to an allegorical view of Genesis? Firstly, the writing style of the earliest chapters of Genesis, as I have mentioned before, is in the style of an epic poem similar to the Odyssey or other narratives of the age. The purpose is not to indicate to the ancient Jews a literal and scientific understanding of how the earth was made but rather to display God's power and demonstrate that by him, our beautiful and ornate surroundings have come into existence. Parallels have also been drawn between Genesis and the Tabernacle (again if you want more on this I would direct you to the work of NT Wright among others). From my perspective, I would say that there are not necessarily referencing a historical character any more than me referencing a character from the Odyssey. It is merely a way to communicate with the Jewish people of the day in terms they will understand. In regards to the idea of the genealogy of Christ, Christ's genealogy is seen by many as a genealogical path of redemption. I would like to quote from the organization BioLogos, a group of Christian scholars dedicated to exploring the possibility of theistic evolution and faith and science in general as they phrase it very well in the article A "Historical" Adam?: "I've puzzled over this question for a long time, and here is an approach I believe might be fruitful: the distinction between "genetics" and "genealogy." The Biblical writers and editors did not know anything about "genetics." When Paul says in Romans 5:12 that "sin entered the world through one man," he is not commenting on the modern science of genetics. He is referring to a genealogical line in the context of ancient uses of genealogies. A good comparison here is the Biblical notion of Abraham as the father of the Jewish people. Hebrews 11:12 says that “from this one man [Abraham], and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore” (emphasis added). (In fact, the word man in the translation does not appear in the Greek. Read literally, the texts says that from "one ... came descendants....") I suspect that most of us would not be surprised to learn that, in the generations between Abraham and the first century, the Jewish gene pool would have become significantly diluted. Even if some of Abraham’s genes remained in the first century Jewish gene pool, because of intermarriage, there would have been a great deal of genetic diversity from people outside of Abraham’s line, including Canaanites, Moabites, and others. Indeed, the Bible itself tells us that the Israelites repeatedly intermarried with surrounding people, often to their great detriment, as when King Solomon catered to the idol-worship of his foreign wives (see 1 Kings 11:1-6). Non-Jews—people who according to scripture itself were not physical heirs of Abraham—were considered by the writer of the Gospel of Matthew to be part of the Abrahamic line of redemption, to the point of being included in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel: Tamar and Rahab, both Canaanite women, and Ruth, a Moabite woman. And Rahab is even mentioned again in the “Hebrews 11 Hall of Fame” (Hebrews 11:31)? So how can the writer of Hebrews suggest that the Jews came from “one" (or "one man") when in the same passage he mentions a Canaanite woman who was not a direct descendant of Abraham? What about the progenitors of the Canaanite and Moabite family lines of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and of many other non-Jews who married into Abraham’s line over the centuries? He goes on to say.... It seems to me potentially very significant for our conversation about Adam that people who were not physically descended from Abraham were included in the Biblical genealogy of redemption that derives from “one man,” Abraham. They were grafted into the Abrahamic line by marriage. Is it likewise possible that the universal genealogical line of “Adam” could include the in-grafting of physical lines of descent outside of Adam’s direct line, with “Adam” still remaining the progenitor with representative responsibility for the resulting mass of humanity? Once again, the Bible itself seems to have no problem with this possibility. The story of the mark of Cain seems to assume that Adam and Eve were not the only humans alive in their times. (See Gen. 4:15). Apparently, Cain’s descendants intermarried with the people Cain eventually encountered. The descendants of Cain’s descendants would all have been descendants of Adam, but they also would have acquired genetic material from other people, just as Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and others infused non-Abrahamic genetic material into the Abrahamic line. What I’m suggesting is scientifically plausible. There is no problem at all in suggesting that every person alive today physically can trace his or her lines of descent—his or her “family tree”—to encompass a single pair in the recent or distant past. The problem arises when we try to suggest that this pair were the only humans alive at the time and that all of our present genes derive only from a single pair. In this or a similar manner I would suggest that Adam does not necessarily have to be literal but is merely the basis for the redemptive line. I will add more to these thoughts tomorrow. Until then, thank you for your patience.

Sorry I haven't responded to this thread in a bit. I will try to respond this weekend after all my exams finish up. Thanks for your patience.

Sounds like relativism to me. If some sections of Scripture are allegorical and some should be taken literally what is the compass by which you seperate the two? Whatever we feel we like in the Bible? Curious. My personal opinion is that we must look at the writing style, historical context and scientific knowledge we have in order to interpret the Bible. It isn't relativism. It is an intelligent and responsible way to read the Bible.

I beg to differ my friend. Although we have no scientific proof for Adam, other events in the Bible, such as the capture of Israel and Judah by the Assyrians, the Persian Empires rise, etc. are corroborated by other ancient sources. As to the character of Christ and the apostles as well as the early church, scholars such as Josephus, Tacitus and several others support the idea that Christ existed and that his followers ardently believed that he had risen from the dead. Both secular (Erhman) and Christian (Wright) sources agree on these details. On the issue of allegory, I think one of the most important things we have to look at is the context and style in which the book or section is written. Taking this into consideration with the explanatory power of theistic evolution and my belief that God would not create something with the intent or knowledge that scientists might mistake his process for another, I take Genesis allegorically. It is not as simple as you want to make it out to be.