Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[Jayyycuuup]

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.

 

Believe it or not bary, it makes a world of a difference.

The bible, from what i have come to understand it, is literal as literal gets; using real people for real accounts.

 

As Shiloh has pointed out numerous times, the depiction of Adam and Eve is clearly written as a historical account. Not only does it explain our current nature (sin) but also depicts our ancestry. Placing this as allegorical brings into question many things; the biggest would be sin. 

 

Lets assume that the telling of Adam and Eve was allegorical, how then do you explain our current inherited nature? Of course your evidential claims must be biblical, so in the process of conducting that, please also include what the bible means in the first few chapters explaining Creation.  Also, keep in mind that within Genesis; we see the promised Redeemer (Messiah) , that will come from the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15) Which obviously insist, again, upon a literal approach.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jayyycuuup]

I hope to explain my position a little and explain to you why I have formed such a strong view for seeing the account of Adam and Eve as literal. But before then, I will explain where I think the idealism was brought forth in the first place.

 

We find in the bible, numerous places that an allegorical meaning should be applied. I for one, believe that it is many times misused and not properly accustomed to the featured account itself. For instance, the account of Adam and Eve. Be it allegorical, we would run into many issues that I have briefly described in my post above. (#201)

 

The Apostle Paul emphasizes also on a literal approach concerning Adam and uses a parallel of our current nature.

 

Romans 5:12

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned . . .”

 

We then continue into Romans to find this thought furthered. . . .

 

Romans 5:14

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who has to come." 

 

Here, we understand the aspect of "inherited sin." The last verses of Romans 5, depict the law and how it came about. The allegorical approach raises doubt mainly on the teachings that Paul used describing the redemptive necessity of the Messiah and how the nature was brought forth.

 

This point of interest provides the evidence for what we need, why we are where we are, and the need for a savior. The Genesis account that I briefly described is futuristic, and historic.

 

Adam was the first man created by God and was in a great line of those to typify the Messiah. Adam was a real man who was created to play an integral part in God's eternal plan.

 

Another point of interest is in Genesis 2:22, when God uses a rib (or a side) of Adam to make woman. This typifies the return and purpose of Christ, who like Adam, would have His side pierced for the sake of His bride.

 

As I noted earlier, the Messiah will come from the Seed of the woman that will bruise the head of the serpent. (Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between you (serpent) and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed (Messiah) ; He will bruise your head, and you (serpent) shall bruise His heel.")

 

I can see where you will urge that an allegorical approach supposes the same claims, but in the process of process of providing evidence to the foundation of Christianity as a whole I think you will run into many problems. . . like the ones I explained earlier- sin, sin nature and the overall importance of needing a savior.

 

My question to you is simple, when ministering to someone, and they ask about what sin is and where it came from, do you not reflect upon the same idealism that Paul taught? That through the actions of one man, came death to all. That through the righteousness and justification of one sinless man, came redemption?

 

I would find it quite difficult to minister to someone without this key component.

 

Thoughts?

[Guest shiloh357]

You've offered little in the way of actual arguments here. You state that x can't be done, when clearly it can, and is done.

No, I have not said "x" can't be done.   In fact, I agreed that each claim can and is often evaluated separately.  My point was that such lines of argumentation really don't address the substance of this discussion.  Examining each claim separately doesn't lead an honest scholar to reject any claim the Bible makes.  I have evaluated the claims separately, and frankly it has only strengthened my faith.   Liberal approaches to the text are not honest approaches to the text.  

 

You seem to think there is a problem when I see none.

 

I am demonstrating why you can't see the problem.  That you cannot see the problem doesn't mean the problem isn't there.  Rather it demonstrates the inherent problems with how liberal scholars and unbelievers view the Bible.   I am curious as to why you, as a believer (or so you claim to be)  choose to view the Bible through the eyes of an unbeliever?   Wouldn't you prefer to uphold the integrity of the Bible.   It appears, rather, that you choose to advocate the same arguments that we often get from atheists and others who reject the truth of Scripture.   Are you sure you are a genuine believer and not merely someone who assents to selected portions of the Bible?

 

 

If we are fallen, we are fallen. We're clearly sinful, we're clearly in the need of help, whatever the status of Adam. We're in the need of a Savior, whatever the status of Adam (as an allegorical/metaphorical or historical figure). I don't know what else to say to you about this Shiloh, I am unmoved by your considerations.

 

The problem is that historicity of Jesus' death and resurrection are directly linked to Adam's disobedience.   If Adam never existed and the fall never happened, then why would the Bible present Jesus' death and resurrection as the solution to the problems caused by the fall of man?   Why would Jesus die to rectify a problem that didn't really exist.

 

You keep trying to argue that everything we believe about sin and salvation exist whether or not Adam was real or not, but the Bible doesn't teach that.  The Bible makes a DIRECT link between Adam and Jesus and treats both as literal historical people. That is unmistakable.

 

If the Bible got it wrong in Genesis, if the Bible got it wrong about our creation, if the Bible got it wrong about the existence of Adam and Eve, if the Bible got it wrong about the Fall of man in the Garden, if there was never a real "Tree of Life" or a real, "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,"  if there was never a forbidden fruit to eat of, if the Bible got it wrong about the origin of sin in our world, then  why should the Bible be trusted with regard to anything else?

 

 

If the Bible gets it wrong in so many places in Genesis 1-11, then why would you place any trust in what the Bible has to say about Jesus or salvation???  If the Bible cannot be trusted as a satsifactory, historical explanation for why we need a Savior, if the Bible gets it wrong about the historicity of Adam, Eve, and other things, on what logical grounds do you trust the Bible in terms of salvation??   What if the Bible got it wrong about the resurrection of Jesus?  What if Jesus got it wrong?   How can you trust that what the Bible records about Jesus is actually true?   I mean, if the Bible isn't 100% trustworthy, it isn't trustworthy at all?

 

Do you believe the Bible to be the wholly inspired, inerrant, immutable Word of God?   Do you put 100% trust in the promises of God?   If not,  why are you a Christian?   Why would you trust a book which you consider to be unreliable on so many important areas?

[Mcgyver]

Bary, I'd like to ask a simple question of you, if I may...and it may have already been answered and if so I missed it.

 

Why do you think that Adam (and by extension the Genesis account) is allegorical, when (as it has been pointed out) others to include Jesus present Adam as a historical figure?

[missmuffet]

Adam and Eve is not an allegory.It is a literal part of the Bible.It really happened.

[ByFaithAlone]

Bary, I'd like to ask a simple question of you, if I may...and it may have already been answered and if so I missed it.

 

Why do you think that Adam (and by extension the Genesis account) is allegorical, when (as it has been pointed out) others to include Jesus present Adam as a historical figure?

 

I think in this statement presupposes that Christ (and the people of the day) thought of Adam as a historical figure. If Christ, Paul, etc. thought of Adam as allegorical and this was a common understanding, there would be no need to say "Adam, the allegorical first man" in the passages as it would be assumed. What if contemporary thought is found in the writings of contemporary Philo or early Christians who held to an allegorical interpretation of Genesis?

 

I think the root of the problem with the arguments presented against the allegorical view are as follows.

(1) They assume Christ viewed Adam as literal when contemporary Jews and early Christians hold the allegorical view. 

(2) They assume that literal interpretation is the only consistent way to maintain biblical inerrancy when inerrancy simply means that the Bible exists without error in the original language and manner in which it was written. If a particular passage was written in an allegorical manner it could still be inerrant. 

 

These arguments against the allegorical interpretation assume that Genesis was intended as literal before arguing that Genesis is literal. This is simply fallacious as it begs the question (assumes the conclusion in the premises).

[Willa]

I think you guys are missing the point. Bary thinks like a scientist, which he is. He used scientific, deductive reasoning to come to faith in Christ, accepting Him as a historical figure who died for the sins of the world, and then received Him as his personal Savior and Lord. He stated that it is very hard to use that same line of deductive scientific reasoning to arrive at believing the historic nature of Adam and Eve due to the lack of other historians confirming the occurance as we have with Jesus. He cannot yet see that Jesus' quoting from Genesis makes this a purely historic account, but he difinitely believes that He used it, and that it has theological bearing on the sin of mankind and our need for a Savior. Is that right, Bary?

Now, we have to understand how Bary's mind works. He pretty much approaches life as though it is all a scientific therom that can be proven with scientific equasions. We may think that is unreasonable, but Bary doesn't. So Bary has put Adam and Eve in the category of unable to prove due to insufficient data. That doesn't mean that he doesn't believe it is litteral or that he does. He just doesn't think he has enough data in hand to to prove it using scientific deduction.

To understand a dog, you have to think like a dog.

To understand a woman, you have to think the way women think.

But to understand Bary, you have to think like a scientist.

[missmuffet]

I think you guys are missing the point. Bary thinks like a scientist, which he is. He used scientific, deductive reasoning to come to faith in Christ, accepting Him as a historical figure who died for the sins of the world, and then received Him as his personal Savior and Lord. He stated that it is very hard to use that same line of deductive scientific reasoning to arrive at believing the historic nature of Adam and Eve due to the lack of other historians confirming the occurance as we have with Jesus. He cannot yet see that Jesus' quoting from Genesis makes this a purely historic account, but he difinitely believes that He used it, and that it has theological bearing on the sin of mankind and our need for a Savior. Is that right, Bary?

Now, we have to understand how Bary's mind works. He pretty much approaches life as though it is all a scientific therom that can be proven with scientific equasions. We may think that is unreasonable, but Bary doesn't. So Bary has put Adam and Eve in the category of unable to prove due to insufficient data. That doesn't mean that he doesn't believe it is litteral or that he does. He just doesn't think he has enough data in hand to to prove it using scientific deduction.

To understand a dog, you have to think like a dog.

To understand a woman, you have to think the way women think.

But to understand Bary, you have to think like a scientist.

My brother was a scientist but he sure was not a believer.

[GoldenEagle]

This thread has been cleaned up. Please continue the discussion.

 

God bless,

GE

[ByFaithAlone]

This thread has been cleaned up. Please continue the discussion.

 

God bless,

GE

 

Thanks GE