Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't think I'm being dishonest, whether Genesis is literal or allegorical doesn't change my belief at all; the Bible carries no weight with my belief.

You are either being dishonest or you have non comeptency when it comes to the rules that govern literary analysis. You are apply the wrong concepts to the wrong issue.

happen to think it is allegorical because that's what I understand scholarship to go for,

Yes, I get that. The problem is that you are simply accepting what alleged "scholars" say, uncritically and you refuse to really address the textual issues raised. All you can do parrot what someone esle says. I, on the other hand can provide literary evidence for my textual arguments. I can provide textual evidence for a textual argument and have done so, repeatedly. You can't. What's worse, you are relying on a scholarly view that you admit is is unreliable. That is nothing more than intellectual suicide.

I don't think archaeology science supports a literal interpretation for many stories to such a degree I don't see how the writers thought it was historically accurate, plus reading it myself gives me the feeling that it is not meant to be taken literally.

What I said is that archeology supports the historical (and cultural) claims as well as the geographrical claims the Bible makes. Archeology cannot "prove" the Bible, but it provides extremely weighty evidence in the Bible's defense of accuracy and as such gives credibility to a literal reading of the text. What you feel is worthless in this argument and will not be addressed.

For example what happens if we never ate from the tree? There is no death, and God tells us to be fruitful and multiply, that might work out for a few years, but what happens in a million years, a billion, or trillion, eventually we will run out of space, we would become a gigantic organic mass surrounding the Earth growing as mountains all the way up into space and beyond.

Irrelevent. This is about whether the author in Genesis intended to be understood allegorically or not.

The story itself just sets us up to sin, we don't understand sin (our eyes are not yet open), we are in paradise, everything is perfect, and God decides to put a death-giving tree in the middle of the Garden with good looking fruit that can easily seduce us. And for whatever reason God decides to make a talking snake that tempts us into sinning, all while God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. God clearly sets us up to eat of the fruit and live in sin, only to have the vast majority of people on Earth end up in Hell. If you say the snake is really Satan, why on Earth would Satan go against God who Satan knows is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent? Satan knows that God has the power to stop him infinity times over without fail, Satan knows God is everywhere and knows all, God knows Satan's plans and actions as Satan comes up with them, and really even before Satan knows what he plans to do, and has the power to stop Satan as easily as you or I can lift up a finger. Either Satan is a complete and total moron, or Satan is severely mentally ill, and why on Earth would God allow Satan into paradise? For me a literal interpretation makes absolutely no sense, unless we are dealing with an incompetent or evil God.

There is no set up at all. God knows we will sin, and even before the foundation of the earth, He already had a plan of redemption in place. I am not going to spar theologially with you because you are not spiritually equipped to understand the plan of God even if it is explained to you. People like you tend to criticize whatever God does; sort of a "cursed if you do, and cursed if you don't" scenario. You would find fault with God no matter what avenue He takes, so debating theology with you is collossal waste of time.

Your appreciation of empirical evidence really shows, and perhaps that's a crux of the issue here. I like to confirm things with empirical evidence when possible, for you empirical evidence is ultimately irrelevant or worse.

I have a good appreciation for empirical evidence. My point is that I have no appreciation for the way you ignore the evidence the Bible does present as if no evidence in favor of the Bible's claims exists while hypocritically claiming to seek evidence. You will only entertain evidence that supports your position. I am not threatened by any evidnece you present. From your position, the Bible is wrong by default and you refuse to entertain in evidence in its favor. So, you needn't pretend that you are all that concerned about "evidence." You are not interested in arriviing at the truth. You are highly selective when it comes to any evidence you are willing to entertain.

If something is allegorical, how do you find out what it allegorizes? If it is subjective, can you even use the text to support allegory in any case at all, even if it is meant to be allegory?

The Bible does use allegory. But the Bible always indicates when allegory is employed. In I Corinthians, Paul uses allegory when he says that the Children of Israel were baptized into Moses in the Red Sea. He allegorizes the rock from which water flowed. He allegorizes the rock as Christ. Paul uses allegory again in Galatians 4 when he refers to Hagar as Mt. Sinai.

When ever allegory is used in the Bible the author indicates it as such in the text AND he tells you what the allegory means who or what is being allegorized. In Genesis 1-11 there are no textual indicators of allegory. No attempt by the author to tell us what the sun is an allegory of. Nothing about allegory appears anywhere in those eleven chapters. Again, you have no textual evidence to support your argument, but I have plenty to support mine.

If Genesis 1 is layered with meaning, allegorizing the Sun and Moon to be various pagan deities which ultimately become powerless as God created them, thus making the various pagan cultures around the ancient Hebrews worshiping the creation rather than the creator etc etc etc, what kind of textual hints would you look for and expect to find?

What makes you say Genesis 1 is layered with meaning? You admit that don't know much about the Bible, so where do you find the knowledge or authority to make such a claim?

I don't think the geocentricism in the Bible is a misnomer, I do think the writers of the Bible believed in a geocentric universe. Many Christians today don't like to admit it and do mental gymnastics to avoid that conclusion because, well, it is clearly wrong. If I wanted to destroy Biblical authority, I can assure you I would have a much easier time accepting it as literal. Genesis as a literal piece of work indicates the world and universe to be 6,016 years old, which goes against everything in modern academics from every branch of natural science to archaeology.

None of that is material to this debate. The point is that scholarship has been wrong in the past. Geocentricism was the view held by secular scientists and scholars long before the church held a geocentric view. The church adopted the science of geocentricism that was prevelent to that day and the scientists and scholars were wrong. There is precedent for not holding to the view that science is infallible and that if science says "a,b,c," we are required to accept it without question.

[Guest shiloh357]

Noah's global flood is an absolute nightmare to reconcile with basic common sense, let alone with serious science. The tower of Babble goes against the entire field of linguistics. There is no archaeological evidence to support Moses and his Exodus. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not supported as real people as described in the Bible in mainstream history and archaeology. And so on.

Not so. There is an incredible body of archeology that supports the events that occured in the Exodus. Perhaps you haven't been exposed to it, or perhaps you are not wiliing to be honest about the existence of the evidence, but it is there.

If I wanted to destroy Biblical authority, I would be giddy to accept the Bible as literal, there would be no greater ally, seriously. Any talk of allegory would undermine my greatest assets to debunk the Bible, which is primarily physical evidence. You see, you really have no clue about the mind of "liberals", allegory is not meant to destroy the Bible but to save it. It also happens to have an old scholarly tradition, and a quick overview of the history, culture, oral traditions, and the like speak to non-literal interpretations in the sense these stories are not meant to be read as historical documents as we would understand a historical document to be in the 21st century.

That is a weak argument. You and other liberals have set allegory over and against the story of Adam and Eve being actual history and this happened in many debates on this board when it comes to issues like Evolution. In fact BFA adimitted that his Theistic Evolutionary views are rooted in a nonliteral approach to Genesis 1. Even staunch evolutionists admit that the Bible, as written is completely crosswise with the TOE. The Bible MUST be demythologized and allegorized so that it doesn't stand as a rival to the TOE. That's what has been going on for years on this board.

Every time liberals run up against something in the Bible that they don't agree with, their response is to revise the Bible, to re-interpret it, to find some kind of theological gymnastics that will allow them to continue down the path of unbelief and errant theology and sinful social values. Allegory is meant to diminish the authority of Scripture.

You see, if liberals can destroy the authority of the Bible where creation is concerned, they will have a reason to question the Bible's authority in what it says about their sin. That is the heart of it all.

The basic view of Genesis, specifically the creation story, as allegorical and not meant to teach us scientific history, is a significant view in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox sects. The official Catholic doctrine more or less states that Genesis is meant to teach us spiritual truths within the framework of the Hebrews ancient cosmology, and to take away from the text a historical or scientific view is foreign to the intentions of the Bible. Pope John Paul II aptly paraphrased Galileo's statement that the Bible doesn't teach how the Heavens are made, but how one goes to Heaven. Everyone outside fundie land sees this.

Genesis 1-3 is not a scientific account of creation and mankind. It is a theological account. Genesis definitely has spiritual truths to teach us, but that is not the same as being allegorical. Allegory is where one thing stands for something else. The theological truths Genesis 1-3 teaches us are:

1. There is a God and He is the only God

2. God is our Creator

3. God by right of being our Creator is also our Redeemer and Judge.

4. Sin finds it's origin in Adam's disobedience

5. The world is under a curse as result of sin

The reason that science and the account in Genesis do not mesh is because Genesis doesn't purport to be a book of science and doesn't give us a scientific account of creation. Therefore, it is ridiculous to criticize the Bible on scientific grounds when the Bible didn't make scientific claims in the first place.

The Bible doesn't tell us how the heavens were made. It doesn't give us the nuts and bolts as to how it was done. But that doens't lend in credibilty to an allegorical approach to it. But what we believe about Genesis definitely affects our views of Jesus and the authority of the Bible. In fact, many of the scholars you hold up who don't believe in Genesis also do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, which is the lynch pin of Christianity. Everything stands or falls on resurrection of Jesus. Jesus' resurrection is the vindication of all that the OT teaches.

Someone once said, "If Jesus is not risen, nothing else matters. If Jesus is risen, nothing but that matters." Yet many scholars who hold to JEPD and the allegorical approach, reject the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. So you can't separate out what one believes about Jesus from what one believes about Genesis.

I don't need to cling on to any interpretation, I'm not emotionally or theologically invested in what the Bible has to say, that ship has sailed. Sure there are holes in JEPD, but I'm not saying I hold on to JEPD as the absolute truth either.

Yet you have leaned on it pretty heavily as THE scholarly view. In fact you have clung to JEPD strongly in other threads as well. Only now are you willing to admit it has some problems.

From what I understand the holes in JEPD do not revolve around the idea that multiple authors wrote the Pentateuch.

The holes that have appeared have come from modern archeology that the originators of JEPD back in the days of Julius Wellhausen were not privy to. The holes around JEPD surround the fact that no evidence in favor of the theory have ever surfaced, but we have found references to YHVH and Elohim in extrabiblical ancient writings which are in the wrong periods for JEPD to be correct.

Wellhausen reasoned that since the Bible uses Elohim in some verses and YHVH in other verses, that it must mean that there were two different authors of Genesis and thus two creation accounts, two accounts of Noah and the Ark and so on. What has been discovered in recent years is that YVHV and Elohim were being used interchangeably by the same author. YHVH is the name used when God relates to man. To the rest of the created order, He is Elohim. YHVH is His Name. Elohim refers to His being or essence. YHVH is more personable and Elohim is less personable.

As for the references to Moses as the author, perhaps the Bible is just wrong, thus the importance of outside confirmation.

That's what I mean. According to you, the Bible is wrong by default, no matter how many times it claims that Moses is the author. Every person, every chapter and verse is wrong because... well, because it's the Bible and since you reject the Bible, the Bible is wrong by default and thus any claim or evidence presented by the Bible is summarily brushed aside. You needn't pretend you are interested in evidence, because you aren't, unless it's evidence that you think discredits the Bible.

Anyone can write anything, just because it is in a book or your preferred Holy Book, doesn't mean it should be immune to criticism (at least in my view). Again, I think we are dealing with me wanting outside confirmation, and you feeling that outside confirmation is stupid and irrelevant.

1. But you are not even willing to deal with the biblical evidence/claims, so criticism isn't even being applied. Your "criticism" amounts to: "It's the Bible, so it has to be wrong."

2. There is plenty of outside confirmation, but you have alreay demonstrated that you are unwilling to accept any evidence, even archeologically that supports the Bible's claims whatsoever. So for you to demand what you are already set to reject were it presented is a hollow criticism on your part. I don't think there is any amount of evidence you are willing to accept. No amount of evidence or proof will satisfy those who are unwilling to be convinced.

We have a deep seated philosophical split on the nature of how we should come to knowledge I think, at least on this topic.

You are not interested in any knowledge that stands in favor of the Bible. I do think there is a deep divide in my knowledge of literary analysis and your demonstrated ignorance of such.

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't think it is some conspiracy or academic pride, I truly think these scholars view Mosaic authorship as untenable based on the evidence.

It is academic pride. They can't defend JEPD, the theory is failing, but they can't bring themselves to admit they were wrong about Mosaic scholarship. Scholars are no intellectual robots. They have emotional investment in their work and to have to admit that they were wrong makes their life's work obsolete and that is really embarrassing in the academic world. When you have been writing books, have contributed hundreds of articles to journals and have made a career out of your opinions and have been in exalted positions in the ivory towers of academia, having to admit that your theories were wrong is not something that comes easily. I have been a student and have seen the effects of academic pride and how scholars will fight tooth and nail to protect their pride and their theories. That is one hill they will plant their flag and die for. So it is not surprising to me that JEPD scholars are willing to commit intellectual suicide in order to protect their image in the academic community.

I think you put way too much weight on Biblical verses when it comes to academics. Just because it is the tradition and someone says it, doesn't mean it is true. Again we come back to the importance of outside confirmation, which you see as stupid, and I think most academics hold to a different view of outside confirmation.

That is just baloney. I believe the Bible because the Bible has been demonstrated to be impeccibly accurate in matters of history and geography and even politics. Not only that but the Bible has a plethora fulfilled prophecy that can be verified historically.

It is a far-right idea in the sense that no one outside fundie land is working on Mosaic authorship.

That again, is just ridiculous and untrue. You can continue to make unfounded overgeneralized comments, but it doesn't help your credibility.

I don't know the names, it's a bunch of different models without any central consensus. As you know it is more than names, it includes double stories, inconsistencies and contradictions. I know you don't accept any of this, and there are tons of apologetics centered around this, but again everyone outside fundamentalist sects sees these things.

Of course, you don't know the names. But you know they exist, but you cannot name even one. I have seen liberal theological "apologetics" and all of it is a joke. A giant theological trainwreck. I have never encountered any liberal apologetics that I can't destroy.

Yes a literal Genesis flies in the face of evolution, yet literally every field of modern science flies in the face of a literal Genesis. It would be much easier to debunk the Bible on the basis that it is literal rather than allegorical.

Interpreting Genesis literally flies in the face of Evolution because:

1. Evolution defies a personal Creator, as evolution is held to be an impersonal process and not tied to any intelligent impetus

2. The creation account is supernatural, but evolution denies any supernatural catalyst.

3. Natural selection is unplanned having no guide or purpose.

4. The creation account is revealed as having purpose, having been planned and sustained by an all knowing, all powerful God who sustains the universe down to the last molecule.

Taking the Bible literally would mean that, from the perspective of those who cherish science and empirical evidence, that the Bible is completely useless as it would be the musings of a bunch of bronze-age shepherds who didn't understand anything about the world they lived in.

That may be how they would view it, but they would be wrong.

There is much in the Bible that goes agaisnt the cultural mileu of the ancient near east. The Bible while being a book that is definintely flavored by the ancient near eastern world also stands in start distinction to many of what were the general conventions of the time period. There values and teachings in the Bible that ancient near eastern culture had no point of reference for and much of what is written in the Bible would not have existed had it simply been written by "bronze age shepherds."

As I said before, it depends on which section of the Bible you're in; some of the Bible is used for academic purposes, and a lot of it isn't.

That is beside the point. The point is that the Bible has demonstrated a fair amount of reliability in several areas and that being the case, it is unlikely that authors who went to such pains to be accurate down to the details suddenly take leaven of their sense and make up nonsense. That is simply not intuitive to what we observe. Besides, what do you know about what scholars do or dont do? You can't even tell me what they believe.

So if Adam never existed, Hitler isn't a sinner? I'm just trying to understand your position. If Adam never existed than homosexuals are not sinners? Or is Adam the historical explanation of why there are sinners now?

Again the Bible ties the origin of sin to Adam's disobedience and it treats Adam's disobedience in the garden with same degree of historicity as it does the death of Jesus on the cross. Both are treated as literal historical events. Jesus is called the "last Adam" because Jesus came redeem man from the curse that hangs over the corporate head of humanity (Ga. 3:13) But if Adam never fell, if sin didn't originate in the Garden then there was no fall of man and nothing for Jesus to redeem us from. I don't see how that is so hard to understand.

Let's say that the entire creation story never happened and is just allegory or polemic against foreign gods. The whole thing about eating forbidden fruit never really happened and Evolution and natural selection are the true explainantion for our existence and the world we know and live in today. There is no spirit no soul no divine Creator/judge that we have to be accountable to for sin because sin doesn't exist in an evolutionary model. We are just hairy bags of chemicals and molecules.

If we are just a collection of molecules then we should not be asking questions about what is right and wrong. If we are merely physical beings that came about through natural selection and there is no sin, there is no moral ground to condemn Hitler, or Osama Ben Ladin or any other criminal. in the same way there is no praise for those who do good things like Mother Theresa. If evolution is the explanation and not God, then there is no objective standard of right and wrong. You are simply an animal and have no right to demand justice if someone robs you or commits some other crime.

The Bible provides an objective standard of right and wrong and defines sin as any act, word, or thought that falls short of God's revealed character. Sin is rebellion against God and man in his rebellion looks for ways to explain God away or diminish His authority in the world.

Liberal attempts to circumvent the Bible's authority by relegating history to allegory, adopting theories that try to erase God as the author of the Bible, rejecting the Bible's own claims about it's self, attempting to deny God's existence by deny Him as Creator, and so on are all proof of the historicity of the Genesis account, because all of those things are the product of sin. They are man's attempt to rebel against God and denigrate faith in God as uneducated and rejection of God's word as scholarly and intelligent. All of that demonstrates the existence of sin and demonstrates that sin not only exists in history, but has an historical origin; an origin we find in the Bible.

[Tinky]

D-9: For example what happens if we never ate from the tree? There is no death, and God tells us to be fruitful and multiply, that might work out for a few years, but what happens in a million years, a billion, or trillion, eventually we will run out of space, we would become a gigantic organic mass surrounding the Earth growing as mountains all the way up into space and beyond.

Have you ever thought that God, at some point, would stop reproduction when the population reached the numbers He desired? Or that He could simply expand the size of the Earth?

God created the entire Universe simply by speaking it into existence. Population control wouldn't be any cause of concern for Him.

[Guest shiloh357]

One thing to keep in mind is that the topography of the earth was quite different than it is now. We tend to think that everything we know today is the same as it has always been. The earth probably contained far more dry land than we have today. Even nonbelieving scientists are aware that large parts of the ocean floor were once above water. So over population would never have been a problem. The earth was created by an all-knowing God who sees the big picture and the earth He created is designed to support all of the life that would ever live upon it.

Think about this: The nation of Israel is about 8,000 square miles, which is pretty small and it houses nearly 6 million Jews, nearly 3 million arabs and other ethnicities as well.

The entire world population would fit inside in the borders of Florida. The world's population were 10 times the size it is now, overcrowding would not be a problem due to vast amounts of unsettled land that could be irrigated made hospitable. We are in no danger of over population today, but we refuse to use all of the resources that are available to us.

When the Jews purchased the land from Turkish land owners in the early 20th century, in what is now Israel, the land was worthless swamp and desert. They irrigated the land and dried up the swamps and made the deserts and swamps into fertile farmland. We can do the same the world over.

Over population would never have been a problem to an all-knowing, all-powerful God.

[ByFaithAlone]

Sorry to everyone that I haven't responded to you all for a bit. I will be responding soon. Thank you for your patience.

[RedMomma]

WOW!!!!!This is what I call homework,LOL shiloh you never to amaze me I am learning so much just from reading these kind of posts like you I dont think Adam was allogory he was real or otherwise he wouldnt be the first Adam just my opinon now i dont know much so please folks dont come and get me ok but please continue this very interesting topic and God bless you all

[Guest HisG]

'ByFaithAlone'

Talking about about scoffers in the Last Days -

2 Peter 3 v 5/6: " But wanting so much to be right about this, they overlook the fact that it was by God's Word that long ago there were heavens, and there was land which arose out of the water and existed between waters, and that by means of these things the world of that time was flooded with water and destroyed."

v 17:: "But you, dear friends, since you know this in advance, guard yourselves; so that you will not be led away by the errors of the wicked and fall from your own secure position."

It brings to mind.....

Luke 6:46-49

The Wise and Foolish Builders

⁴⁶ “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? ⁴⁷ As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. ⁴⁸ They are like a man

building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. ⁴⁹ But the one who hears my words

and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”

[Guest]

.... Everyone thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, except for some Greek guy that no one cared about, even in Greece. And I don't think the Biblical authors were any different, they too thought the Sun went around the Earth and such is expressed in the Bible. Science doesn't claim infallibility, you just have to understand the language being used....

Pagan (Godless) Propaganda

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. Job 26:7

(Think Brother, Think)

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: Isaiah 40:22

Before It's Too

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

Late

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. 1 John 2:15-17

~

Believe

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 Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[Guest]

So He Said

And I will render unto Babylon and to all the inhabitants of Chaldea all their evil that they have done in Zion in your sight, saith the LORD.

Behold, I am against thee, O destroying mountain, saith the LORD, which destroyest all the earth: and I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and roll thee down from the rocks, and will make thee a burnt mountain.

And they shall not take of thee a stone for a corner, nor a stone for foundations; but thou shalt be desolate for ever, saith the LORD. Jeremiah 51:-24-26

And So He Will

And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. Revelation 18:2-5

~

.... I was making a hypothetical, but

I have heard that Genesis 1 has its origins in the Babylonian exile, where the Babylonians worship the Sun etc,

and Genesis 1 was used to demonstrate the superiority of God over that of the Babylonian deities. I don't know as much as you, but I can still read what others have to say, and I used to read about such matters when the topic was of more interest to me....

It May Interest You To Know That The Genesis Originated

And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, Deuteronomy 34:10

Straight From The Mouth

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? John 6:67-68

Of The Creator

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

Think Brother, Think

Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. John 6:67-68

~

Believe

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:11-15

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe