Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[Guest]

My view is that it (as well as the flood and other stories) to be allegorical. I believe that some parts of the bible should be taken literally, some of it allegorical, and some of it within the historical context of which it was written....

Does

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:13-17

Jesus

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

Lie

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:3-4

And What If A Fellow Just Will Not Believe

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Matthew 12:25-37

What Will Be His Judge, Really Beloved What Is His Excuse? That Some Unbeliever Told Him So?

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. John 12:47-48

~

Believe

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

Believe And Be Blessed Beloved

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

Love, Joe

[ByFaithAlone]

ByFaithAlone: I don't care either way if a literal Adam exist I would just claim that it is not theologically necessary.

Not theologically necessary? Really? Then how do you account for sin first entering the world?

The idea of sin does not need to necessarily be based on a first man named Adam surely. The theological stance merely would be that man as a group of hominids (represented by the allegorical figure of Adam) freely chose against God's will thus leading to sin and spiritual death entering the world. This is perpetuated in the manner of original sin. In this way they chose the temptation of the Devil (represented allegorically by a snake in Genesis) over God's desire for them. Does this explain it?

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.

OK, give me your take on the book of Esther then? Including the historical context?

To be honest, I haven't studied Esther in as much detail as I have other books. However, the way in which it is written is not the epic allegorical style of Genesis which means to me that the historical narrative of the Jewish people during the time of the Persian King Xerxes (given the context of the historical time the Jews were under Persian control and other factors this is most likely Xerxes the first). Persecution and division of other faiths was common in ancient empires as a means of quelling dissent so the book of Esther matches historical context. All of these factors indicate to me (writing style, context, etc.) that Esther is historical in nature. Once again, I haven't studied the book in great detail but that would be my idea.

[ByFaithAlone]

From what I've seen, allegory is not so much derived from the way something is presented, as it is from what the reader is willing to accept as truth.

If for example we are willing to see Adam in an allegorical manner, why not extend the same method of scriptural interpretation to Isaiah, or Ezekiel, or Moses for that matter...for the "empirical" evidence of their existence is the same across the board...i.e. none. No autographs, no physical evidence, etc.

Why is it then, that we are willing to accept the historicity of the prophets, and not Adam?

Especially when the bible records them as real, historical persons...in both the Old and New Testaments...

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.

[ByFaithAlone]

My view is that it (as well as the flood and other stories) to be allegorical. I believe that some parts of the bible should be taken literally, some of it allegorical, and some of it within the historical context of which it was written.

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.

[Guest HisG]

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.

So you agree with Jesus when He talked about events as if they were literal - like Noah and his family and the flood - Jonah and the big fish - as well as, satan being a liar from the beginning?

Is there any reason to disbelieve these events happened and the people existed?

And the family tree of Jesus - it mentions not only Jesus and Adam but God too.

Don't know how anyone could argue with that geneaology.

[Mcgyver]

From what I've seen, allegory is not so much derived from the way something is presented, as it is from what the reader is willing to accept as truth.

If for example we are willing to see Adam in an allegorical manner, why not extend the same method of scriptural interpretation to Isaiah, or Ezekiel, or Moses for that matter...for the "empirical" evidence of their existence is the same across the board...i.e. none. No autographs, no physical evidence, etc.

Why is it then, that we are willing to accept the historicity of the prophets, and not Adam?

Especially when the bible records them as real, historical persons...in both the Old and New Testaments...

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.

Well brother, I agree that there are many events and persons in the bible that can be established as historical events/people by outside witness through contemporary writings, archeological evidence, etc.

But that isn't the point. The point that I was making is that there appears to be a different hermenutic being applied when establishing the historicity of Adam vs. the historicity of many of the prophets.

Let me ask this: Why would one take Genesis (and in particular Adam) as allegory when:

1. The story of Adam is presented as history rather than allegory; the vast majority of Jewish scholars accepting the reality of Adam throughout history.

2. Adam is presented as a real, live human being in the geneology of Christ (Luke 3:38)

3. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit testifies to the historicity of Adam 6 times (Rom. 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:22 & 15:45, 1 Tim. 2:13-14).

4. Jude, also writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says: Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints... (Jude 1:14 emphasis mine).

The Gospels and the Epistles certainly write of Adam as a historical person, so then I feel that if we are to apply a consistent hermenutic, we must accept Adam as a historical person and not as an allegorical composite.

[Mcgyver]

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.

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?

Now as far as your statement here:

God would not create something with the intent or knowledge that scientists might mistake his process for another...

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.

My course of study in college (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth) was Anthropology. Even before I became a Christian, it was evident to me that anything which smacked of Special Creation was ruthlessly suppressed. Evidence is skewed to present theory as fact, scientists that propose special creation lose their tenure, and the scientific community as a whole has been to a great extent suborned by the blind acceptance of a mindset that allows for creation without a creator.

I remember back in the early 70's when Amino Acid dating first came out that it was hailed as the replacement for the Carbon 14 method of dating. It was said that Amino Acid dating would be much more accurate, that it would not depend on an (arbitrary) date of equilibrium, that decay rates were observable, yada, yada, yada.

A couple of years later the Amino Acid method of dating was abandoned en toto because no one could get anything to date much earlier than about 30,000 years. **shrug**

Now please understand that I am not questioning your Christianity, intelligence, education, integrity, or anything else...I am just presenting a couple of things that to me seem to be insurmountable obstacles to theistic evolution, and serve to give witness to the historicity of the creation account in Genesis.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Mcgyver

[OakWood]

I don't have a problem with Adam and Eve but I find hard to understand where the 'other' people came from - Cain's wife for example!

[Guest]

.... the way in which it is written is not the epic style of Genesis

~

The Style Of The Genesis Account Is That Of A Classic Laboratory Book

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19

With A Procedure Applied

And God said, Let there be light: Genesis 1:3(a)

And Data Observed

and there was light. Genesis 1:3(b)

And Time Stamped

And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:5(c )

And With The Correct Conclusions Found Throughout The Bible

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

And As For Those Allegorical Meanings

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:1

Those Meanings The Unwary Scape Up And Eat Found Lying Around Outside The Holy Bible

Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:15-16

Well, IMO They Are The Devil's Own Take On God's Plain Truth

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: Genesis 3:4

So Logically The Only Thing Left To Question

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrew 11:6

Is Will One Believe God's Word

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Obey Or Not

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:5-8

~

Believe

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 John 5:11-12

And Be Blessed Beloved

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:13

Love, Joe

[Guest HisG]

I don't have a problem with Adam and Eve but I find hard to understand where the 'other' people came from - Cain's wife for example!

Adam lived over 900 years, so you can imagine how many offspring he had and of course, the offspring would have married each other to start populating the land - as the descendants of Adam expanded in number, family groups would have moved to other areas of land etc etc....