Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[Jayyycuuup]

ByFaithAlone

For example, the Prophets represent Jesus as a Lamb or the Chief Cornerstone and David calls God a shepherd that guides him. We understand these not in a literal sense but in a metaphorical one. This does not mean the passages are unimportant. In fact, they are critical to the understanding of who our Savior and God is. Similarly, in the Genesis account, I take the 6-day creation story as allegorical for God's actually method of creation. I agree with you completely that God created the heavens and the earth. We may disagree on the method by which he created however.

Thank you for that clarification, I understand that completely.

For perhaps a majority of people in the Bible this is true. However, given the writing style of Genesis (similar to Mesopotamian epics), it would seem to me that Genesis was not intended as literal. Adam is possibly literal (once again, it matters little to me either way). The Gospels are written in an entirely different manner and the Resurrection of Christ seems to be supported by other historians from the same time period. NT Wright, an author I mention frequently is highly regarded and explains this well. You might also want to check out biologos - an organization of christian scholars who also support this idea and have written numerous articles on it.

I wouldn't say the "majority" I would say ALL of the bible characters are in fact real people. The only logic I can draw from this view point, is someone was baffled when someone asked for documented proof of the existence of individuals in the bible, and to me this lead to the term "allegorical" which provides a "way out" of providing a foundation for the claims. The bible in fact is poetic in a sense- but to think it is all based on non legitimate characters is fallacious and contradicting to what the bible teaches. As Tinky said- if one tittle is out of line, then the bible is not inerrant. The bible presents these people as being REAL, LIVING, and DYING people, so we have to take it as such.

Where did he say that they were actual people? He mentioned them, but I could just as easily mention Achilles or Hercules. Your argument is simply a slippery slope argument with no justification.

My justification is taking God at His word- rather then coming up with a fictitious claim to provide something "substantial" to something that could be presented with a simple "I do not know." All through the bible we come to find out that through the fall of mankind (Adam and Eve) came the sin of mankind, this relation is something I presented earlier, and was brought forth in scripture in relation to that of Adam and Christ. But lets take a look at the verses in full.

Romans 5:12-21 "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Now the relation, if allegorical, would have to be in totality, an allegorical implication. . .would it not? If Adam and Jesus are presented together in the same line of reasoning, then why would it appear that Adam was not a real, living, and breathing being?

Applying methodical-imaginative to scripture in and of itself is a slippery slope to be on. Like I said, they neither compliment nor mix, so the line of reasoning for the claims of these being simply "allegorical" is still yet to be presented.

God bless you Brother!!

Love to you in Him!

[Guest]

Sometime I Just Stand In Amazement

And Ask "How Within His Holy Book Can A Good Fellow Find One Word Of Fiction?"

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

[35] Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Luke 3:23-38

[Guest HisG]

Where did he say that they were actual people? He mentioned them, but I could just as easily mention Achilles or Hercules.

I know you replied to Tinky but you caught my attention.

My 1st question to you is - Why did Jesus mention them?

AND......

(a) in what context?

Can you expand on what you mean please?

2nd question.....

What do you make of the genealogy of Jesus? (Luke 3 v 38)

Luke 3:38

New International Version (NIV)

38

the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

[ByFaithAlone]

For perhaps a majority of people in the Bible this is true. However, given the writing style of Genesis (similar to Mesopotamian epics), it would seem to me that Genesis was not intended as literal. Adam is possibly literal (once again, it matters little to me either way). The Gospels are written in an entirely different manner and the Resurrection of Christ seems to be supported by other historians from the same time period. NT Wright, an author I mention frequently is highly regarded and explains this well. You might also want to check out biologos - an organization of christian scholars who also support this idea and have written numerous articles on it.

I wouldn't say the "majority" I would say ALL of the bible characters are in fact real people. The only logic I can draw from this view point, is someone was baffled when someone asked for documented proof of the existence of individuals in the bible, and to me this lead to the term "allegorical" which provides a "way out" of providing a foundation for the claims. The bible in fact is poetic in a sense- but to think it is all based on non legitimate characters is fallacious and contradicting to what the bible teaches. As Tinky said- if one tittle is out of line, then the bible is not inerrant. The bible presents these people as being REAL, LIVING, and DYING people, so we have to take it as such.

I think I have a problem with your definition of inerrant. I don't see a problem with allegory effecting the truth of the Bible. If I consider the manner in which it was written, the people to whom it was written and the purpose for which it is written, I see no reason why the Genesis account must be taken any more literally than the prophets when they say a Lamb will come to take away our sins. Obviously they don't mean a literal lamb. From the writing, context, purpose of the writing and numerous other factors we can clearly see this. Why should Genesis be any different?

I would also like to note that the idea of this literal creation 6-day account has risen significantly with the rise of evangelical fundamentalism. The ancient church including famous theologians St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas almost universally held to a allegorical interpretation of Genesis (with St. Basil being the one notable exception).

Where did he say that they were actual people? He mentioned them, but I could just as easily mention Achilles or Hercules. Your argument is simply a slippery slope argument with no justification.

My justification is taking God at His word- rather then coming up with a fictitious claim to provide something "substantial" to something that could be presented with a simple "I do not know." All through the bible we come to find out that through the fall of mankind (Adam and Eve) came the sin of mankind, this relation is something I presented earlier, and was brought forth in scripture in relation to that of Adam and Christ. But lets take a look at the verses in full.

Romans 5:12-21

Taking God at his Word in my opinion would be to understand the context in which it was given and the way in which it was written. If you accept the idea presented by many scholars of the Old Testament that Genesis is written in this epic narrative style then taking God at his Word would be understanding Genesis in a non-literal manner and not vice-verca. Looking at the verses, I see no reason to discount the scholars arguments as Paul's writings do not make it clear in the slightest that Adam was actually a real person but merely mention him as the representative by which mankind fell into sin. He could have existed or he could have not existed but the main point, as exists in Genesis is that man needs a Savior which is Paul's main point writing in Romans as well. Therefore, I will stick with the Old Testament scholarship I have read.

Once again, just to mention this I would like to say that I don't care either way if a literal Adam exist I would just claim that it is not theologically necessary.

[OneLight]

Sure. For example, I believe that the early chapters of Genesis (the creation account) is allegorical for various reasons based on the early world's understanding of science and creation, the writing style which many people have characterized in the poetic/epic style (for more on this look up NT Wright's analysis of Genesis). In other books (such as Psalms) allegory is more clearly seen as it is even more poetic than Genesis (think of the creation in Genesis as the Odyssey type epic poem while Psalms is more of what we would think of as a poem or song such as a sonnet). Other books (such as Matthew) do not have this feel.

In terms of context, I think there are a variety of issues - Jewish purity laws, the location and dress of worshipers, etc. all of which are viewed in light of the historical context in which they were created to keep the Jewish people safe from the idolatrous influence of other nations.

Thank you. How do you see this pertaining to the 6 day creation event that is mentioned?

Simply put, for various reasons I see the Genesis creation account to be allegorical like many other scholars (again I would refer you to NT Wright's work on the subject). The context and manner in which it was written seems to make it a figurative account of creation from my perspective.

You will need to excuse me for not researching what other men say. I believe we should follow scripture. God plainly tells us from one 24 hour day to the next, what He did. He also outlines the area where the garden was. There is nothing in this that even hints to me that it is an allegory. I suggest that due to man not being to wrap their mind around His creation, nor agreeing to their science, that they stamp is as a story and not reality. This places man above scripture in this case.

Joe also mentioned the linage of Jesus right down to Adam.

[bestrfcplayer]

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.

[Tinky]

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?

[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?

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?

[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...

[GoldenEagle]

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.