Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[Guest]

Do you know what is absolutely astonishing to me?

Christians who have no problem believing that God could speak an entire universe into existence, but simply can't believe He could part some water, make a man out of dust or a woman out of a rib, flood a single planet in His whole universe, or make a donkey speak....

This is actually not the case and is a fallacious argument.....

.... I believe God could do all these things. It just doesn't seem to me that Genesis is to be taken literally when it talks about creation for the various reasons I have outlined......

..... God, from an allegorical Genesis perspective fine tuned our universe so that billions of years later we could exist. To me, that is humbling and beautiful and in no way diminishes his power....

Power

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

Squared

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. Revelation 20:11

You See???

And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. Revelation 21:5-7

~

Dear One I See The Pagan Evolutionary Mythos

Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.

He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire: And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god. Isaiah 44:15-17

As A Feast Of The Dead

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:12

Offered Up To The Little Children

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

~

This is actually not the case and is a fallacious argument.....

.... I believe God could do all these things. It just doesn't seem to me that Genesis (God) is to be taken literally when it (He) talks about creation for the various reasons I have outlined......

..... God, from an allegorical Genesis (A Biblical) perspective fine tuned our universe so that billions of years (Days) later we could exist. To me, that is humbling and beautiful and in no way diminishes his power....

The Strike-Thru And Quote Insertions Were By Joe

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

To Correct The Anti-Christ Adverts By This Beloved Brother

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 1:16-17

Whose Heart Appears To Be Rejecting The LORD God Almighty, Jesus

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:9-12

And For The Cause Of The Truth Of His Power And Lordship

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:9-12

And To Deflect The Praise And Worship

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 29:16

Of A Different

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

Jesus

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Matthew 24:-25

Away From Worthy Forums

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

You

Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone, Isaiah 44:24 (NASB)

See

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5:20

[Guest shiloh357]

do not think it is arbitrary to look at the cultural-historical context in which the text was written in, as well as early beliefs on the subject to determine the intended interpretation. From what little I know of literature, any great work must be read in the light of historical-cultural context, otherwise it's a shot in the dark. When I had to read Shakespeare in school there was more to learn than just the old-English translations, but the culture. Same when I had to read the Greek epic poems and plays, or even the Anglo-Saxon poem of Beowulf. In history class we went over the Roman story of Romulus and Remus, and we would have simply missed entire motifs and morals without the teacher guiding us through the cultural and historical context in which it was written. When I took Spanish and Latin we learned more than just to translate but the culture too, and our grade reflected that, especially in Latin class. Even going on Netflix to watch old Star Trek episodes, I wouldn't have been aware that the Klingons were figuratively the Russians unless my dad informed me so with a reference to the Cold War - the culture and history behind the text. So I don't think it is arbitrary or less-than scholarly to take those variables into account.

This is not about the historical/cultural context. Your claim that the text is allegorical is not a historical argument; it is a textual argument. None of what you posted above has anything to do with a textual argument. The historical/cultural context of a text only applies to understanding idioms and cultural pecularities. It has NOTHING to do with whether or not a given text is an allegory. You cannot compare Genesis 1-11 to Shakespeare or Star Trek. Those stories are meant to be understood as fiction. You cannot (with any intellectual credibility) apply the same values to the Bible that you apply to Star Trek or other works which are intended to be understood as works of fiction.

I don't think you have to be a believer to be a good Biblical scholar, much to the detest of believers.

It doesn't matter if you think that or not. The fact is that the Bible is God's book and it is best understood by those who are genuine Christians who have accepted Jesus as their Savior and Lord. It is best understood by those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, much to the detest of nonChristians. Many of these same scholars also reject the resurrection of Jesus, which is the very pinnacle and pillar of the Christian faith. It is not about "scholarship;" rather, it is about tearing down the Christian faith and voiding the Bible's authority to reveal the truth about sin.

JEPD has holes etc., but it is still influential in scholarly work and no one outside far-right fundamentalists have regressed back to the one-author Moses theory.

It's not a "far-right" thing. The entire Bible, including Jesus claims that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch and Genesis in particular:

Old Testament: Exodus 17:14; 20:22-23:33; 24:4,7; 34:27, Numbers 32; 33:2, Deut. 31:9, 24-26, Joshua 1:7, 8; 8:31-32; 23:6, I Kings 2:3, II Kings 14:6; 23:25, 1I Chronicles 22:13, II Chronicles 5:10; 23:18; 25:4 30:16; 33:8; 34:14; 35:12, Ezra 3:2; 6:18; 7:6, Nehemiah 1:7,8; 8:1, 14; 10:29, Daniel 19:11, Malachi 4:4.

New Testament: Mark 12:19, Luke 2:22; 5:14; 16:29-31; 20:8; 24:27,44, John 1: 17, 45; 5:45-47; 7:19, 23; 8:5, 9:29, Acts 3:22, 6:1, 13:39; 1:1; 26:22; 28:23, Romans 10:5, I Corinthians 9:9, II Corinthians 3:15, Hebrews 9:19; 10: 28, Rev. 15:3.

The entire Bible including Jesus and Paul affirm Moses as the sole author of the text of Scripture. That is not a theory. It is the direct claim of Scripture.

My understanding is that everyone outside the far-right, which must maintain Moses as the authorship from religious presuppositions, accepts that the Pentateuch was written by multiple people over multiple time periods. It is my understanding that when you subject the Bible to the same literary techniques used on every single other piece of ancient literature, you get multiple authors and all that jazz.

Your "understanding" is wrong. Accepting Moses as the author and rejecting the JEPD is the result of better scholarship and better archeoloical research and discovery. The fact that you admit JEPD as holes in it, but you are still willing to cling to it, shows that you are unable to objective about the issue. You are simply clining to anything that will enable your perverted liberal agenda where the Bible is concerned.

Bible has multiple authors. The Bible was written by 40 different people who spoke three different languages and lived on three separate continents and their lives spanned smoe 1,500 years. That the Bible has multiple human authors is not at issue. The issue is whether or not Genesis is the result of divine inspiration or is it the product of 4 anonymous human authors. The JEPD theory is fronted by liberals because they are trying to pencil Evolution, gay marriage, and other social issues into the Bible. They are trying to muddy the waters concerning what the Bible says about sin. It is an attempt to delegitimize the divine authority of Scriptures.

Given that we are not omniscient, Truth is never known to us 100%, and it is up to us to figure out what is most likely the Truth. As you put it next post, I'm not a believer; I was, not anymore (at least I can't be lukewarm, have that going for me). Sure scholars can be wrong, even the learned consensus, but I still think the learned consensus is an excellent place to turn to with an open mind. From what I've found is that the scholarly/clerical consensus can be summed up as Genesis is non-literal and Moses didn't write the Bible.

Being lukewarm has nothing to do with whether not you are or were a believer. Believers can be hot or cold or lukewarm. You have always been an unbeliever. Anyone can look at your previous posting and the way you have consistently sought to tear down the Bible's authority and see that any claim to have been a believer in the past was not genuine.

Truth is not something that hides inthe corner waiting for us to find it. God's agenda is not served by hiding the truth from us. The problem is that people like you are unable or unwilling to be honest about the truth. Bible scholars not necessarily objective and unbiased people. They have, like everyone else, their own bent where Scripture is concerned. They either believe it or they don't. Your attempt to make an oversimplified and rather naive dichotomy between what you call far-right scholars and the rest of scholarly community only serves to show that you don't know beans about the world of biblical scholarship. You are simply and mindlessly parrotting what they have said and it is very clear that you are not qualified to debate about the Bible because you don't even know what it says.

Like I said in the beginning I think the historical-cultural context is very important in interpretation. I do think if one is well versed in the subject, using cultural-historical references, you could point to the text and explain how the text reveals the allegorical nature.

You are clearly not competent in hermeneutics and you throw around terms like "historical/cultural context" to make yourself sound smart, but you don't have a clue as to how to apply such concepts. Historical cultural context has NOTHING to do with supporting a textual argument. If you are were making an historical arugment, then the historical cultural context might apply in some instances, but not if you are making a textual argument.

I'm sure BFA is much more knowledgeable in this area than I, and if you want an in-depth discussion I suggest taking it up with him. But you have piqued my curiosity, what kind of textual arguments are you looking for?

Simple, really.

1. Show the internal textual indicators in Genesis 1-11 where the author indicates that the text is allegorical

2. Show the internal textual indicators in Genesis 1-11 where the author indicates what the text is allegorizing. What is the text an allegory about, and where does the author mention that?

3. Show the Old and New Testament corroboration with the author of Genesis that the text is alleorical. The New Testament makes several references to Genesis, Adam and Eve, the Fall of man in the Garden, etc. Show where Jesus, Paul or any other NT writer indicates that the text of Genesis 1-11 was meant to be allegorical.

I am not interested in what other people in history thought or think. If the text is allegorical then you should be able to easily meet the requirements of textual arguments, and those three mentioned above in particular.

In addition to what I said last time: There are many professionals that know what they're talking about that have papers and articles explaining the allegorization and addresses the NT references to OT characters and events, I suggest looking those up if you want an in-depth argument.

No, they don't know what they are talking about. You are simply putting your faith in errant men. You can't make a textual argument and neither can any of these scholars. You are nothing but a parrot and you don't know beans about the Bible enough to be qualified to even be in this debate.

You really have no understanding of the other side.

I understand them quite well. The argument made from the other side has always been about destroying the Bible's authority in order to make room for Evolution and homosexuality and a host of other perversions and social sins. That is what all of this really comes down to, when you boil everything down. If the Bible is to be taken literally and God is taken to mean what He says, then Evolution is false and gay marriage isn't a sin. The nonliteral approach seeks to rob God of His authority as man's lawgiver and eternal judge. The nonliteral approach is meant to eradicate the concept of sin.

I'm not making a claim about ultimate truth. Someone made the claim that secular historians turn to the Bible for accurate historical information. I was simply pointing out that it depends on which section of the Bible you're looking at.

But the problem is that with people like you, the Bible's "accuracy" depends on what you have already selected out to be true or untrue. Your approach to the Bible is selective. It is rather conspicuous how the Bible is always inaccurate when it runs up against what you are unprepared to accept. If the Bible is wrong in Genesis 1-11, then why trust its accuracy in any other part?? Genesis 1-11 shows why man needs a redeemer. But if the entire first eleven chapters are fiction or allegorical, then there was no fall in the garden, man has never been in need of redeemer because man was never sinner. The New Testament makes no sense if Genesis 1-11 is nothing but allegory.

And that is the crux of the matter. That is what is behind the attempt to destroy the Bible's authority. It is man's attempt to escape accountability for sin before a holy God.

[ByFaithAlone]

Through the scientific study of DNA markers from all nations of the world, science has definitively proven that all humans came from one female and one male. If this information is not being widely publizied, it is because Satan is hiding it from the general public. However, the study was aired on PBS several years ago in a documentary. The scientist traveled the whole world collecting blood samples and traced each one back showing the exact migration of each human ethnic group back to Mesopotamia and to one female and one male. Additionally, using your logic, how would it be even possible for two beings to "evolve" with the exact DNA sequence necessary to mate? In other words, how could the exact creature separately mutate and mutate and mutate from one prototype into a different prototype and end up matched up enough to mate? Even more unlikely would be that this mutation happened at the same point in prehistory and in the same geological location so that they could even find each other and mate. I find it odd that people have a difficult time believing that Jesus raised people from the dead, Jonah was inside a fish, and the Red Sea parted, but they can believe that life forms mutated at the exact time into male and female forms, found each other, and then on and on until humans came about. Now that really takes faith to believe! (off topic, but I really dislike that I can't format anything while typing. why oh why can't I at least indent a paragraph?) Oh well.

There is no evidence to suggest we all came from one pair of human. There is only one study of note that may lead people to believe that and it is the mitochondrial Eve study. The mitochondrial Eve often talked about on a variety of sites blatantly ignores the facts about mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). To give a brief background, it has been determined that a large amount of Earth's population share genetic DNA (mtDNA) coming from one female ancestor. However, mtDNA is not passed down through the male line so it is in no way proof that we all come from one person but rather that at one point we have been married into this family. Furthermore, there are good reasons for believing that marrying into this family was statistically likely if not guaranteed to happen for several reasons. This "Eve" as scientists call her was around approximately 70,000 years ago (according to various dating techniques) which is also the same time as the coldest ice age known to have occurred after a violent eruption of a volcano in Sumatra. It is estimated that less than 10,000 humans existed in this era almost entirely in Africa where the cold was lightest. "Eve" would have, according to the scientists who completed the study, been a mother who produced a large amount of female children who then were married off into the local population and so on throughout the ice age. With the population relatively compact in terms of area, it would be reasonable and even likely that this would occur.

As to the criticism of evolution that you bring up, would you mind sending me a PM because I don't really want to get the conversation off topic as we are discussing the literal Adam and Eve from a more theological and textual criticism perspective. Thanks!

[ByFaithAlone]

I'm sure BFA is much more knowledgeable in this area than I, and if you want an in-depth discussion I suggest taking it up with him. But you have piqued my curiosity, what kind of textual arguments are you looking for?

Simple, really.

1. Show the internal textual indicators in Genesis 1-11 where the author indicates that the text is allegorical

2. Show the internal textual indicators in Genesis 1-11 where the author indicates what the text is allegorizing. What is the text an allegory about, and where does the author mention that?

3. Show the Old and New Testament corroboration with the author of Genesis that the text is alleorical. The New Testament makes several references to Genesis, Adam and Eve, the Fall of man in the Garden, etc. Show where Jesus, Paul or any other NT writer indicates that the text of Genesis 1-11 was meant to be allegorical.

I am not interested in what other people in history thought or think. If the text is allegorical then you should be able to easily meet the requirements of textual arguments, and those three mentioned above in particular.

Here are some common ideas that come across in allegory and the epic form particularly:

(a) Poetic style - in the original language, Genesis resembles other epic poems such as the Greek Iliad or Odyssey. This idea is affirmed by multiple Jewish and Christian sources from all periods of time

(b) The use of archetype - the idea that characters represent or are the symbolic basis for the people we are - Adam and Eve are characters whose actually lives are not mentioned frequently in the Bible. Only major events symbolic to the human race (creation, the Fall, sex, children and death) are mentioned. We know nothing of there personalities in contrast to Christ, Moses, Paul, etc. Instead, Adam and Eve represent humanity in the Fall. and

© Symbolic use of objects and animals - the fruit is a prime example of a symbolic object as it represents the temptation away from God. The acceptance of the fruit is man's free action to go against God's will. Another is the snake which even the most literalistic Christians take to be Satan, the tempter who is trying to bring God's people away from him.

(d) Allegories often have a central message that they are trying to get across symbolically - in this case that message is the need for a Savior due to humanities fallen state within God's creation.

Here is an excellent article by NT Wright exploring some other nuances in these passages: http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Creation_Covenant.htm

In regards to what the authors of the Old and New Testament thought about what was written, there is no definitive statement that blatantly says, Adam was literal or Adam was allegorical. However, the authors do indicate that Adam was a representative for man itself (in regards to sin, etc), that the snake in the Garden was the Devil, that the "offspring" of Eve was Christ who crushed Satan's power through the crucifiction and did not literally crush the snakes head. All of these ideas are allegorical in nature and widely held by all Christians.

I will once again mention the early church and Jews of that era as I value the opinions of those who lived in the time of Christ as most likely those beliefs closest in line with the Jews of his day. I don't understand why you don't accept this as a valid argument. It seems to me as though you are opposed to the idea of Christian tradition as it is often so closely tied with Catholic or Orthodox theology but that is just my perspective. Could you provide some valid reasons for why a vast majority of early Christians (and in fact most Christians up until the fundamentalist and Awakening movements of the 1700s and 1800s) believed in an allegorical Genesis along with the Jews of that era? Is it all a mass liberal conspiracy again or is there some other reason?

[Tinky]

It's pretty simple. If one can claim that Adam and Eve, the Flood, Jonah and the Great Fish, Satan, etc., are allegorical, then there truly is no stopping point and no reason to believe anything else supernatural in the Bible is true. Why even believe the Resurrection was an actual event? After all, "almighty" science teaches a man who has been dead for three days doesn't rise from the dead.

We may as well throw the Bible in the same heap as any mythological writings.

Either everything in the Bible is true, or it's simply worthless. You can't pick and choose.

[ByFaithAlone]

It's pretty simple. If one can claim that Adam and Eve, the Flood, Jonah and the Great Fish, Satan, etc., are allegorical, then there truly is no stopping point and no reason to believe anything else supernatural in the Bible is true. Why even believe the Resurrection was an actual event? After all, "almighty" science teaches a man who has been dead for three days doesn't rise from the dead.

We may as well throw the Bible in the same heap as any mythological writings.

Either everything in the Bible is true, or it's simply worthless. You can't pick and choose.

For what I hope is the last time this is a fallacious slippery slope argument. Just because one section of the Bible is allegorical doesn't mean all of it is. If Genesis is intended as an allegorical creation account for various textual, scientific and historical reasons, then it in no way hurts the inerrancy of it or the rest of the Bible. Stop bringing up this argument. It is a very poor one.

[Tinky]

D-9: Well, there is that long tradition of allegory in Genesis from both Jewish and Christian scholars and clergy, which continues to this day,

Simply, if those so-called scholars and clergy contradicted the clear statements of Scripture, they were, and are, wrong.

The Bible wasn't written for Americans in the 21st century

Then I guess we need to go into all the churches, gather them up, and toss them in the garbage because you, an unbeliever, says it's not for us today.

Being a "believer" doesn't grant you special knowledge over the text

Wrong again, D-9...

"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Only believers have the indwelling Holy Spirit that guides us in the discernment of Scripture.

[Tinky]

It's pretty simple. If one can claim that Adam and Eve, the Flood, Jonah and the Great Fish, Satan, etc., are allegorical, then there truly is no stopping point and no reason to believe anything else supernatural in the Bible is true. Why even believe the Resurrection was an actual event? After all, "almighty" science teaches a man who has been dead for three days doesn't rise from the dead.

We may as well throw the Bible in the same heap as any mythological writings.

Either everything in the Bible is true, or it's simply worthless. You can't pick and choose.

For what I hope is the last time this is a fallacious slippery slope argument. Just because one section of the Bible is allegorical doesn't mean all of it is. If Genesis is intended as an allegorical creation account for various textual, scientific and historical reasons, then it in no way hurts the inerrancy of it or the rest of the Bible. Stop bringing up this argument. It is a very poor one.

It isn't a "poor" argument in any sense. It's perfectly valid. You cannot pick and choose what is actually true and what is allegorical in Scripture.

Was the Resurrection an actual event, BFA? If you say it was, I can easily say it was simply allegorical and you can't say I'm wrong in any way.

I can claim Paul and the other disciples, along with most "early" Christians and scholars understood it to be a "spiritual" Resurrection, and they didn't mean for people to believe it was an actual "physical" event.

See how that works?

[ByFaithAlone]

It's pretty simple. If one can claim that Adam and Eve, the Flood, Jonah and the Great Fish, Satan, etc., are allegorical, then there truly is no stopping point and no reason to believe anything else supernatural in the Bible is true. Why even believe the Resurrection was an actual event? After all, "almighty" science teaches a man who has been dead for three days doesn't rise from the dead.

We may as well throw the Bible in the same heap as any mythological writings.

Either everything in the Bible is true, or it's simply worthless. You can't pick and choose.

For what I hope is the last time this is a fallacious slippery slope argument. Just because one section of the Bible is allegorical doesn't mean all of it is. If Genesis is intended as an allegorical creation account for various textual, scientific and historical reasons, then it in no way hurts the inerrancy of it or the rest of the Bible. Stop bringing up this argument. It is a very poor one.

It isn't a "poor" argument in any sense. It's perfectly valid. You cannot pick and choose what is actually true and what is allegorical in Scripture.

Was the Resurrection an actual event, BFA? If you say it was, I can easily say it was simply allegorical and you can't say I'm wrong in any way.

I can claim Paul and the other disciples, along with most "early" Christians and scholars understood it to be a "spiritual" Resurrection, and they didn't mean for people to believe it was an actual "physical" event.

See how that works?

This is fallacious once again. The Gospels are not written in the epic style of Genesis nor do they have indicators of allegory with the exception of the parables. Christ's physical resurrection is specifically mentioned by Paul and the early church so there is no comparison here.

[enoob57]

The Gospels teach us the that Genesis is not allegorical By God's Own ways of dealing

with types of people:

Mark 4:11

11 And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the

kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables,

NKJV

Genesis was God giving to His Friend Moses and His chosen people the how, what, where and

why of their origins... because it is specific to His people this truth above on how God operates

with parables and factual events we can only arrive at factual event 'as it is written' ... Love, Steven