Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[ByFaithAlone]

Well this is my first time back in a bit and I was just talking about this in church. Therefore, I am going to throw in my two cents. As I am a theistic evolutionist, I would consider Genesis to be in some parts at least, allegorical for various scholarly reasons formulated by many Christians. The creation account is one such moment. As to the literal Adam and Eve, I would say it is difficult to know. There are two major questions that often arise if Adam and Eve are considered allegorical. The first is, does the doctrine of original sin still hold if Adam and Eve are allegorical? Secondly, why does it appear that Jesus and Paul referred to them in a literal sense? To the first question, I see no real philosophical or theological problem. Original sin could still exist as a result of the earliest humans represented by Adam and Eve just as easily as if there was a literal Adam and Eve which were the first homo sapiens. On the second issue, I think it is a mistake to claim Jesus claims Adam to be literal. Adam is certainly referenced but does that make him any more real than a character such as Achilles in the Odyssey? I would think not. I could reference something (such as pride) as a fault of Achilles just as easily as I could reference a figurative Adam as a representation of original sin. However, with all that being said, it is equally possible that a literal Adam existed but, as I say, I don't see it as a necessity.

[enoob57]

Well this is my first time back in a bit and I was just talking about this in church. Therefore, I am going to throw in my two cents. As I am a theistic evolutionist, I would consider Genesis to be in some parts at least, allegorical for various scholarly reasons formulated by many Christians. The creation account is one such moment. As to the literal Adam and Eve, I would say it is difficult to know. There are two major questions that often arise if Adam and Eve are considered allegorical. The first is, does the doctrine of original sin still hold if Adam and Eve are allegorical? Secondly, why does it appear that Jesus and Paul referred to them in a literal sense? To the first question, I see no real philosophical or theological problem. Original sin could still exist as a result of the earliest humans represented by Adam and Eve just as easily as if there was a literal Adam and Eve which were the first homo sapiens. On the second issue, I think it is a mistake to claim Jesus claims Adam to be literal. Adam is certainly referenced but does that make him any more real than a character such as Achilles in the Odyssey? I would think not. I could reference something (such as pride) as a fault of Achilles just as easily as I could reference a figurative Adam as a representation of original sin. However, with all that being said, it is equally possible that a literal Adam existed but, as I say, I don't see it as a necessity.

The real problem lies in the carving out of the hermeneutic and picking and choosing by intellect what is or is not factual in a rewritten bible .... a book now belonging to whom? Love, Steven

[Fez]

I would think not. I could reference something (such as pride) as a fault of Achilles just as easily as I could reference a figurative Adam as a representation of original sin. However, with all that being said, it is equally possible that a literal Adam existed but, as I say, I don't see it as a necessity.

Which other parts of scripture would you consider as unnecessary?

[ByFaithAlone]

I agree with Steven in that we must try to investigate the Scriptures thoroughly when deciding if it is in some parts literal and in other parts allegorical. That is why I noted that various scholars have also supported the allegorical Genesis creation view for various poetic/epic type narratives that occur within the book.

I would think not. I could reference something (such as pride) as a fault of Achilles just as easily as I could reference a figurative Adam as a representation of original sin. However, with all that being said, it is equally possible that a literal Adam existed but, as I say, I don't see it as a necessity.

Which other parts of scripture would you consider as unnecessary?

A historical Christ must be necessary for example. The historic early church. Both of these things also have reasonable support from scientists and historians I might add.

[gdemoss]

Science is interpreted in light of scripture not the other way around. The carnal mind is enmity against God and the end of interpreting scripture through carnal knowledge is eternal death.

[Fez]

I agree with Steven in that we must try to investigate the Scriptures thoroughly when deciding if it is in some parts literal and in other parts allegorical. That is why I noted that various scholars have also supported the allegorical Genesis creation view for various poetic/epic type narratives that occur within the book.

I would think not. I could reference something (such as pride) as a fault of Achilles just as easily as I could reference a figurative Adam as a representation of original sin. However, with all that being said, it is equally possible that a literal Adam existed but, as I say, I don't see it as a necessity.

Which other parts of scripture would you consider as unnecessary?

A historical Christ must be necessary for example. The historic early church. Both of these things also have reasonable support from scientists and historians I might add.

Let me repeat myself.

Please tell me which parts of scripture you consider unnecessary?

[Guest]

.... A historical Christ must be necessary for example. The historic early church. Both of these things also have reasonable support from scientists and historians I might add.

Necessary

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 1 Corinthians 15:12-19

Truth

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

And The Liars

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 1 John 2:22-26

[ByFaithAlone]

I agree with Steven in that we must try to investigate the Scriptures thoroughly when deciding if it is in some parts literal and in other parts allegorical. That is why I noted that various scholars have also supported the allegorical Genesis creation view for various poetic/epic type narratives that occur within the book.

I would think not. I could reference something (such as pride) as a fault of Achilles just as easily as I could reference a figurative Adam as a representation of original sin. However, with all that being said, it is equally possible that a literal Adam existed but, as I say, I don't see it as a necessity.

Which other parts of scripture would you consider as unnecessary?

A historical Christ must be necessary for example. The historic early church. Both of these things also have reasonable support from scientists and historians I might add.

Let me repeat myself.

Please tell me which parts of scripture you consider unnecessary?

My apologies. I misread your previous statement. I do not regard any Scripture as unnecessary. All of it is necessary and true. However, the light in which we read Scripture must change with the historical context in which it is written.

[ByFaithAlone]

Science is interpreted in light of scripture not the other way around. The carnal mind is enmity against God and the end of interpreting scripture through carnal knowledge is eternal death.

Interesting view but I would respectfully disagree with this view. Science and scripture should be used jointly along with other methods of truth seeking (history, philosophy, etc.) to understand the world in which we live. For me, it was science and philosophy that brought me back to Christ in combination with what I knew of scripture.

[OneLight]

I agree with Steven in that we must try to investigate the Scriptures thoroughly when deciding if it is in some parts literal and in other parts allegorical. That is why I noted that various scholars have also supported the allegorical Genesis creation view for various poetic/epic type narratives that occur within the book.

I would think not. I could reference something (such as pride) as a fault of Achilles just as easily as I could reference a figurative Adam as a representation of original sin. However, with all that being said, it is equally possible that a literal Adam existed but, as I say, I don't see it as a necessity.

Which other parts of scripture would you consider as unnecessary?

A historical Christ must be necessary for example. The historic early church. Both of these things also have reasonable support from scientists and historians I might add.

Let me repeat myself.

Please tell me which parts of scripture you consider unnecessary?

My apologies. I misread your previous statement. I do not regard any Scripture as unnecessary. All of it is necessary and true. However, the light in which we read Scripture must change with the historical context in which it is written.

Can you explain what is meant in bold to me?