Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[marvalusxoxo]

tinky ... lol the problem lies at the beginning of your first statement when you say: " the recent series on the history channel". my question to you now would be. Why would you even pay attention to any comment a worldly channel has to say about divine truth or the word of God... remember is worldly wisdom and they can not discern divine truth nor understand it because it is foolishness to them. The word of God is without error and is the only truth. May honor and power and might be Yours forever and ever heavenly Father... amen.

[enoob57]

here here, cheers...score

[Guest shiloh357]

Eve is not repeating anything god told her, as she is yet to be created. She is not repeating anything Adam told her either [you are adding to your god's word's] as Eve clearly states "god did say". The only time the command is set out in the words Eve uses in Genesis 3: 2-3 is when Adam is the only one existing. The command is only given to Adam, as Adam is the only one who exists.

 

And it is reasonable and logical to assume that Adam would have passed on to Eve what God told him.  I am not adding anything to the Bible.  Eve is simply repeating what Adam said that God told Him.   Honestly, you are trying manufacture a problem that doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

The fictional writer/Eve also adds the words Genesis 3: 3 "and you must not touch it". This is not given in Genesis 2: 16-17.

 

 

So what??  Adam had probably put a "fence" around what God told Him.  To ensure that the fruit not be eaten, he probably told her not to even touch it.  That doesn't really matter, though.   You are making an issue out of a nonissue.

 

 

 

 

Adam is not responsible, as Eve already knows from god she must not eat of the tree, Hence, Genesis 3: 2-3. But Eve cannot know this as she is not given this command as she hasn't been created yet, when the command is given, Genesis 2: 16-17

 

 

 

 

 

If Eve knows the law given to her by god as she states in Genesis 3: 2-3 then it is Eve who sinned first [sin entered the world through one woman].  But then she cannot know the law as she never existed to hear it in the first place.

 

Biblically speaking, Adam was Eve's covering.  What that means is that Adam would have been able to intercede for Eve when she sinned and God would have forgiven her.  It is kind of like the role of the priest before that role had been codified in Scripture.   But instead of going to God on Eve's behalf and interceding for her, as he should have Adam, in full knowledge of his disobedience, ate the fruit and it was his actions that ended bringing sin into the world. 

 

You are not biblically literate and as such, are not competent to to tell us anything about the Bible.  You don't know or understand the Bible or the spiritual principles contained in it and are really not in any position to instruct us or lecture us on what the Bible says and I will not receive the drivel you presenting here.

 

[chill861]

"And it is reasonable and logical to assume that Adam would have passed on to Eve what God told him.  I am not adding anything to the Bible.  Eve is simply repeating what Adam said that God told Him.   Honestly, you are trying manufacture a problem that doesn't exist."

 

 

Eve is not repeating anything Adam told her. Again, you are adding something that is not even there. Eve states, "god did say".  Their is NO communication between Adam and Eve. The fictional writer/Eve also adds the words Genesis 3: 3 "and you must not touch it, or you will die". This is not present in Genesis 2: 16-17 when the command is given to Adam. Nor is it stated to Eve that the tree is called tree of knowledge of good and evil [Genesis 3:3] as she never refers to it as that.

 

"So what??  Adam had probably put a "fence" around what God told Him.  To ensure that the fruit not be eaten, he probably told her not to even touch it.  That doesn't really matter, though.   You are making an issue out of a nonissue."

 

The only one assuming things throughout is you. 1. She is not told by Adam in the first place. 2.  Adam was not commanded by god that death would result even by merely touching the fruit. It is the fictional writer/Eve that adds EVEN if the fruit is touched she will die.

 

"Biblically speaking, Adam was Eve's covering.  What that means is that Adam would have been able to intercede for Eve when she sinned and God would have forgiven her.  It is kind of like the role of the priest before that role had been codified in Scripture.   But instead of going to God on Eve's behalf and interceding for her, as he should have Adam, in full knowledge of his disobedience, ate the fruit and it was his actions that ended bringing sin into the world."

 

 

Pure nonsense. Adam does not need to cover for Eve, as she is *fully* aware she is not to eat of the fruit. They BOTH know, do not eat. But then Eve cannot know in the first place about anything, as she had never been created yet when the command is given.

 

 

They are BOTH also unaware of any tree giving them life/making them live forever.

 

 

"... for Eve when she sinned"

 

You have already admitted Eve sinned first. Eve sinned with knowledge of do not eat, thus she sinned first.

They never fell to death. They were already mortals in the first place, hence they needed food to sustain themselves Genesis 1: 29-30, Genesis 2: 9

Edited June 6, 2013 by chill861

[Guest shiloh357]

Eve is not repeating anything Adam told her. Again, you are adding something that is not even there. Eve states, "god did say".  Their is NO communication between Adam and Eve. The fictional writer/Eve also adds the words Genesis 3: 3 "and you must not touch it, or you will die". This is not present in Genesis 2: 16-17 when the command is given to Adam. Nor is it stated to Eve that the tree is called tree of knowledge of good and evil [Genesis 3:3] as she never refers to it as that.

 

Of course she is repeating what Adam told her.  That is how she knew.   Just because the Bible doesn't spell that out doesn't mean we cannot surmise what happened.  At least an intelligent thinking person would understand that.   Evidently, it is problem for you.

 

Eve wasn't present  when God told Adam, but that doesn't mean that Adam didn't tell her later on after Eve had arrived in the picture.  Honestly, you are so hell bent on discreding the story, you are willing to descend to the most ridiculous and unreasonablly absurd kind of reasoning.  

 

 

The only one assuming things throughout is you. 1. She is not told by Adam in the first place. 2.  Adam was not commanded by god that death would result even by merely touching the fruit. It is the fictional writer/Eve that adds EVEN if the fruit is touched she will die.

 

 

 

 

 Wrong again...  You ASSUME she was not told by Adam.  Just because that conversation was not recorded for us to read about, doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Actually, it is very possible that Adam added the "fence" around the commandment as a means of preventing a disobedience to the commandment.  

 

 

 

Pure nonsense. Adam does not need to cover for Eve, as she is *fully* aware she is not to eat of the fruit. They BOTH know, do not eat. But then Eve cannot know in the first place about anything, as she had never been created yet when the command is given.

 

 

 

 

The fact is having a redemptive covering is a major theme in Scripture.  Adam would have served as her covering.  Adam could have interceded for Eve to God and that would have taken care of the problem.  Unfortunately, it is a concept that you understand or are even equipped to understand.

 

 

    

 

They are BOTH also unaware of any tree giving them life/making them live forever.

  

 

 

 

That is yet another wrong assumption on your part.

  

  

 

  

[Guest shiloh357]

Okay, so I have two questions. The first is that a while ago I met an evangelical Christian (uber conservative, YEC, whole 9 yards) who was going around campus asking people if they wanted to study the Bible, I had nothing going on so I accepted. One thing we went over was Genesis 1-3, she asked me about my thoughts on what Eve said in Gen. 3:3, so I said she relayed God's command to stay away from the fruit as it was forbidden. But then she exclaimed that I had it all wrong, that Eve twisted the Word of God by saying that you can't "touch it" when in-fact that statement was not given by God, only that they were not to eat of the fruit, and that Eve's first mistake was incorrectly stating or twisting God's words. Needless to say I have never heard of that idea before or since, and was wondering if you have ever heard of that reasoning before and your take on it? 

 

 

I think all we are dealing with here is a "fence" rule that is intended to aid in keeping the commandment.   It isn't "twisting" God's commandment.  I think the lady you were speaking with over stated it.   

 

chill88   makes an unwarranted leap in logic that since Eve was not around when the initial commandment was given, but demonstrates a knowledge of the commandment that it means the story is badly written fiction. 

 

 

Second, though scripture speaks of "one man" bringing sin upon the world, I always thought that it was a short-hand or poetic way for saying "Adam and Eve", possibly an artifact of the Patriarchal society they had similar to how we use "man" to mean "people" of both genders in the right context. Eve took the first bite, enticed Adam to do the same, and they shared the first sin together. With the "Adam bringing sin to the world" to not be read in a super technical way, as it was Adam and Eve. That's what I always thought anyway, was I wrong? 

 

 

Paul makes it clear that through ONE man, Adam sin came into the world.  That is plan statement and it is not mystical or ambiguous.   He juxtaposes the disobedience of Adam with the obedience of Jesus as the "Last Adam."   Jesus' obedience to death on the cross redeemed man from the curse that Adam brought on to man.   The death of Jesus is treated just as historically as the fall of Adam.

 

[Guest]

 

Whether or not the fall of Adam was historical doesn't negate the resurrection of Jesus being historical.....

 

~

 

The Truth Of Adam's Fall From Grace

 

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Timothy 2:14

 

Affirms The Need For The Salvation Of His Creator The LORD Jesus Christ Of The Bible

 

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 15:20-23

 

Unless That Is, One Will

 

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

 

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:2-4

 

Follow Another

 

But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

 

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2 Timothy 3:13-15

 

Christ

 

~

 

Believe

 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

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

 

Love, Joe

[Guest]

Well no, because either way....

 

~

 

I

 

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 Genesis 3:1(a-c)

 

Understand

 

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

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Guest shiloh357]

Whether or not the fall of Adam was historical doesn't negate the resurrection of Jesus being historical. You can build the latter case independent, completely, of the Genesis account if you wanted to, by looking at the independent sources that make up the NT and pericope by pericope evaluating them based on historical criteria. The bare historicity of these two events isn't strongly correlated. The source material in Genesis can be given the same independent treatment that the claims in the NT are. The reason I bring this up is because this is how I came to believe in the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus- by looking at the relevant facts and attempting to assess their historicity. I don't see hwy the same thing couldn't be done, independently, in principle for the fall of Adam (though it will be much trickier given how long ago that was). Now it happened that once I accepted the historicity of the resurrection and gave it some reflection and looked at some of the things Jesus taught I gave the rest of the Bible some authority, because Jesus did the OT, and the NT is about Jesus, the death and the resurrection etc. But I haven't found that that stance forces me to take a literal view of the fall of Adam (though it may be literal, I'm not against that-- obviously at some point things need to become historical!). Everything could still work even if Adam and Eve were metaphorical for all of humanity, and talking about how we have fallen away from God.

 

 

That is absolutely false.   It doesn't work that way.   The Bible is a system of both progressive and interlocking revelation.   Every thing is built  upon and linked to everything else.

 

The New Testament, for example, in Rom. 5:12-21  ties the resurrection  of Jesus to the fall of Adam.   it treats the fall of Adam as being just as historical as the death and resurrection of Jesus.  Jesus' obedience reverses the curse that came upon mankind because of the disobedience of Adam.   The Bible makes it clear that sin came into the world through the disobedience of Adam.  Are  we then to say that the Bible is wrong or that the Bible doesn't have the authority to tell us where sin came  from?

 

The historicity of the account of Adam's fall is absoutely necessary to explain the need for redemption.  If Adam didn't fall, then where did sin come from?   Libeal theologians don't think that question needs to be answered.   They are content to believe that sin just exists and simply brush aside any serious consideration of how the Bible explains where sin comes from and why man is accountable to God for it.

 

Liberal theologians argue that as long as one believes in Jesus and accept Him, that it doesn't really matter what one thinks about the historicity of Adam and Eve.  The problem is that in Matt. 19 Jesus treats Adam and Eve as literal histoical persons.   So if one rejects the hisotoricity of Adam and Eve, they must also reject Jesus' authority as well in order to internally consistent.  The problem is that if Jesus got it wrong in Matt 19, then on what grounds do we trust Him as a perfect and sinless Savior?   If He was wrong about Adam and Eve, what else was He wrong about???

 

Genesis 1-11 is intricately linked to Jesus and His work on the cross and subsequent resurrection.   In fact, it is Jesus' resurrection that is the vindication of what is claimed in Genesis.  The two are not independent.   Genesis 1-11 establishes Jesus as our Sovereign Creator, Righteous Redeemer and Eternal Judge.  It presents Jesus as the one to whom we will one day be accountable to.

 

The world seeks to diminish the sin problelm by eliminating those parts of Scripture that reveal a God to whom we owe our existence, who we need as a Redeemer and to whom we are accountable to for our sins. 

[Guest shiloh357]

If you are approaching the Bible as an unbeliever, or for the first time, it's what it appears to be on the surface. A collection of writings of various genres by many different authors over a long time period. In that case, each writing in it can be evaluated separately-- each claim can be evaluated separately. It absolutely works.

Yes, each claim can be evaluated separately, but that is beside the point.  The issue is the authority of the Bible to tell us what sin is.  If there was no fall, then perhaps what we call sin, isn't.  What liberal theologians want to do is to disconnect the New Testament from the Old Testament and act as if the claims of the New Testmaent stand independently from the Old.  That demonstrates that liberals don't really understand the Bible.  

 

The New Testament is written out of Old Testament knowledge. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament nearly 300 times.  The New Testament relies on Old Testament knowledge and serves as furhter illumination on fthe Old.   Adam is mentioned several times in the New Testament several times and in every case, he presented as a real, historical person.

 

 

 

The historicity of the resurrection of Jesus doesn't rely on the historicity of every other single claim in the Bible (some obviously yes such as Israel existed, but not every one no).

The resurrection is the vindication of the accuracy of the historicity of the Bible.   If Jesus is not raised, then nothing else in the Bible matters. If Jesus IS raised, then nothing but that matters.

 

The resurrection is the lynch pin of the Christian faith.  It is singular pillar on which all of the claims of the Christian faith rests.  If Jesus is not raised, then Christianity is a myth.   I did not say that the rescurrection depends on the historiicy of every other single claim in the Bible.   The death of Jesus makes no sense if the fall of the garden didn't happen.  The Bible links both events in Romans 5.   The Bible couches our redemption in the claim that Adam disobeyed God and Jesus obedience reverses the curse set in motion by Adam.   Whether you like it or not, the Bible treats Adam and Eve as real people.  and the fall in the Garden of Eden was a real event.

 

 

 

Sin exists whether or not a literal Adam fell by eating the fruit of the tree.

That is not what the Bible says.  The Bible gives us an exact explanation for the existence of sin.   Are you seriously going to argue that the Bible's explanation can be dismissed???

 

 

 

It may be that the narrative is communicating with us just that fact- we don't live in Paradise, we are separated from God, because of sin. Either way we need redemption.  And since that is what directly affects me, and it's hard to see how the literal existing of Adam changes anything for me,

It changes everything if Adam didn't really exist.   If Adam didn't exist, if the fall didn't happen, the Bible doesn't have the authority to define "sin."   The way the Bible handles sin is directly connected to its claim about sin's origin.   The book of Genesis presents God as the judge of mankind.   It presents sin as a violation of His justice and it presents a God who operates from a perfect system of divine justice that requires sin to be punished.  That is first presented in Genesis 3.   The right of God as Creator to also be our Eternal Judge is first established in the narrative of Genesis 3.  But if the fall never happened, then God's right to define and judge sin later in Scripture has no solid basis.

 

 

 

 

I don't worry about it. Jesus referring to Adam has the same effect it's a reference to a literal man, or it's a reference to a story with a profound truth, either way he communicates the same message. Once again I fail to be concerned.

 

The Bible doesn't give you the option of treating Adam as anything but historical.  That is the only way he is presented.   If you choose to believe the Bible, that is something you will need to comes to grip with.  The Bible isn't a smorgasboard where you can pick and choose according to your taste.  The Bible is an all or nothing thing.  It is the immutable, inerrant and wholly inspired Word of God.  That is how the Bible presents itself to us.  

 

 

Liberal theologians view interpretation as a subjective exercise where the meaning of the text is determined by the reader.   Those who are more competent and educated in hermeneutics understand that interpretation is based on the author and the object the author has in view.  Interpretation seeks to lead out the meaning the author intends to communicate rather than the highly unreliable and flawed attempt used by more liberal, less competent handlers of Scripture.