Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[Guest]

 Fellowship?

 

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14

 

~

 

..... I think the root of the problem with the arguments presented against the allegorical view are as follows.....They assume Christ viewed Adam as literal when contemporary Jews and early Christians hold the allegorical view.....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....

 

Do You Really Have Non-Pagan Scriptures Showing Early Believers Thought Adam Was Just Some Symbol?

 

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Luke 3:23-38

 

Rather Than A Real Man And The Father Of All Mankind Except Jesus?

 

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 15:20-22

 

And You Somehow Take This Position Because It's Scientific?

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

 

Dear One Are You Mixing The God Mocking?

 

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)

 

Evolution Myths Into The Truth?

 

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

 

Is That The Real Root?

 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

 

Of Your Crisis Of Faith?

 

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

 

~

 

Believe

 

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 Be Blessed Beloved

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

Love, Joe

[ayin jade]

Thank you Eagle.

[Guest shiloh357]

I'll just say this at the outset. If you want to have this exchange with me I'm not interested in defending whether or not I'm a believer. That's not what I posted about and that is not what I want to discuss here. The moderators of the forum seem to think I am. If you are unable to stop with such rhetoric we might as well stop now.

 

 

I didn't question whether or not you are believer.  I qiuestioned why you, as a believer are defending a position usually advocated by unbelievers.  My question pertains the internal inconsistency in the view that we can disconnect Genesis from the rest of the Bible and the historical account of Genesis doesn't have to be true in order to believe in Jesus.  I was pointing out that if the Bible can' get it right at the outset, how can you as a believer, put any trust in what it  says about salvation?  

 

I would like to see an explanation for the selective approach in which parts of the Bible are true and other parts can be discarded without affecting the integrity of the rest of the Scripture.  I would also like to know what the process is for determining which parts of the Bible you see as true and which parts are basically expendable.

 

 

As to the rest, I've already addressed all this before. It is possible to come to believe that Jesus lived, was crucified and was raised on the third day without knowing what to make of the Bible as a whole and having doubts about how to take different writings in the Bible. Aside from that, you can think the Bible is inspired and true without thinking that Adam and Eve was a historically factual story. I have attempted to communicate to you what it may be telling us without it being factually true (but still true in the most important sense anyway).

 

But the Bible bases the spiritual truths in communicates in historical and geogrpahical fact.  The historical, geogrpaphical, cultural aspects of the Bible cannont be divorced from the truths the .Bible presents because those things are used by God in His Scriptures as vehicles for commicating his truth.

 

God uses the parts of the Bible you seem to think are not as important as means to make himself known to men.   If the Bible can be trusted in terms of what is says about Genesis, why can't the Bible be trusted in other areas?    And if the Bible may not reliable in other areas, on what basis do you accept it's total reliability in what it says about Jesus?  Either the Bible is completely reliable or it is not reliable at all.  

 

The Bible doesn't give you the option of picking and choosing which parts to accept and which parts you want to reject.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

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).

 

  The first problem here is that you accusing us of making "assumptions."   Our arguments against the allegorical view are not based on assumptions.  If anything it is the allegorical view that is running with assumptions and not with any part of the biblical text.   In fact, the allegorical argument cannot be made from Scripiture, which is why when people like you post on this stuff, you cannot appeal to the Bible itself to make arguments about your view of the Bible.  Here are some questions for you, BFA:

 

1.  If Adam was a non-literal allegorical figures then why does Luke include Adam in Jesus' geneaology?   (Luke 3:38)

 

2. Following are all of the references to Adam and Eve in the NT.   Please indicate in which passage there is an intended allegorical meaning and also demonstrate from these passages how the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were not literal, historical characters.   (Luk 3:38  Rom 5:14  1Co 15:22  1Co 15:45 II Cor. 11:3, 1Ti 2:13  1Tim 2:14  Jud 1:14)  I would like to see which of these verses support the allegorical assumption made by you.

 

3.  What other people after Paul believed regarding the historicity of Adam is useless argument.  Biblical interpretation is based on engaging the text, not based on regurgitating what this or that person believed.   So I am asking you to engage the text of Genesis and please provide from the text of Gen. 1-3 all of the internal textual indicators including indicators from the original Hebrew that would lead a thoughtful reader to conclude that the story is not meant to be understood as a literal historical account.

 

In other words show me from the text of Genesis where the author is saying, "hey, don't take me literally, view this as a fictional, non-literal, allegorical account."   Your claims must be rooted in the text of Scripture, as that is where the authority for making either literal or allegorical claims are being made.

 

there would be no need to say "Adam, the allegorical first man" in the passages as it would be assumed.

 

Paul uses allegory and says so in Gal. 4 when he speaks of Hagar and Sarah.   Why would Paul's reference to Adam be assumed as allegorical?   You are assuming that EVERYONE viewed it that way, but the truth is that you are overstating that claim.   You can point to few selected sources that view it as allegorical, but that is bu no means an indicator that everyone saw it that way.   The allegorical view is not a majority opinion.

 

 

Why, If the story of Adam was allegorical and the fall of man never really happened and had nothing to do with origin of sin, would the Bible waste time tying the death of Jesus to a fictional story.  Why does Paul spend half a chapter telling us that Jesus' death on the cross was meant to rectify Adam's disobedience, if such disobedience never happened.  Paul makes it VERY clear in Romans 5:12-21 that Jesus is reversing the curse that came upon mankind because of Adam's disobedience.   He says in I Cor. 15 that in Adam all die but in Christ all are made alive.  Why make such a juxtapostiional claim if  isn't really true.  How can Adam be the federal head of humanity in the Bible if Adam never existed? 

 

Honestly, your allegorical position has no real intellectual merit.  It is only pushed by liberal scholars who have an agenda to push Evolution and Homosexuality on the church trying to make both appear to be acceptable when in fact both stand in direct opposition to the Bible  if one accepts the Bible as written.   This allegorical approach is a just a back door attempt to corruptinig the church and bringing a disgusting, unnatural, and abominable lifestyle into the church.

[Guest shiloh357]

 Here is a thread I started that addresses the real theological problems with the allegorical approach to Genesis being advocated by BFA and others.    I demonstrate the doctrines in Genesis 1-11 that depend on those chapters being understood as real historical accounts of events that really happened and people who really did exist. 

[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).

 

  The first problem here is that you accusing us of making "assumptions."   Our arguments against the allegorical view are not based on assumptions.  If anything it is the allegorical view that is running with assumptions and not with any part of the biblical text.   In fact, the allegorical argument cannot be made from Scripiture, which is why when people like you post on this stuff, you cannot appeal to the Bible itself to make arguments about your view of the Bible.  Here are some questions for you, BFA:

 

1.  If Adam was a non-literal allegorical figures then why does Luke include Adam in Jesus' geneaology?   (Luke 3:38)

 

2. Following are all of the references to Adam and Eve in the NT.   Please indicate in which passage there is an intended allegorical meaning and also demonstrate from these passages how the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were not literal, historical characters.   (Luk 3:38  Rom 5:14  1Co 15:22  1Co 15:45 II Cor. 11:3, 1Ti 2:13  1Tim 2:14  Jud 1:14)  I would like to see which of these verses support the allegorical assumption made by you.

 

3.  What other people after Paul believed regarding the historicity of Adam is useless argument.  Biblical interpretation is based on engaging the text, not based on regurgitating what this or that person believed.   So I am asking you to engage the text of Genesis and please provide from the text of Gen. 1-3 all of the internal textual indicators including indicators from the original Hebrew that would lead a thoughtful reader to conclude that the story is not meant to be understood as a literal historical account.

 

In other words show me from the text of Genesis where the author is saying, "hey, don't take me literally, view this as a fictional, non-literal, allegorical account."   Your claims must be rooted in the text of Scripture, as that is where the authority for making either literal or allegorical claims are being made.

 

there would be no need to say "Adam, the allegorical first man" in the passages as it would be assumed.

 

Paul uses allegory and says so in Gal. 4 when he speaks of Hagar and Sarah.   Why would Paul's reference to Adam be assumed as allegorical?   You are assuming that EVERYONE viewed it that way, but the truth is that you are overstating that claim.   You can point to few selected sources that view it as allegorical, but that is bu no means an indicator that everyone saw it that way.   The allegorical view is not a majority opinion.

 

 

Why, If the story of Adam was allegorical and the fall of man never really happened and had nothing to do with origin of sin, would the Bible waste time tying the death of Jesus to a fictional story.  Why does Paul spend half a chapter telling us that Jesus' death on the cross was meant to rectify Adam's disobedience, if such disobedience never happened.  Paul makes it VERY clear in Romans 5:12-21 that Jesus is reversing the curse that came upon mankind because of Adam's disobedience.   He says in I Cor. 15 that in Adam all die but in Christ all are made alive.  Why make such a juxtapostiional claim if  isn't really true.  How can Adam be the federal head of humanity in the Bible if Adam never existed? 

 

In regards to the issues of assumption, the assumption you are making is a literalistic interpretation of the text. You assume that Christ, Paul, the apostles and the writers of the Bible believed in a literalistic interpretation of the text with no reasons or historical precedent.

 

In regards to your questions leveled against the allegorical view:    

 

1. I have already answered the issues regarding genealogy and I will do it again. Note the differences between the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke, names omitted, etc. Why is this? At the very least telescoping most be involved in which case Adam could be anywhere along the path of history. However, I think a more reasonable explanation is that these people were all propagators of sin and also important to the Hebrew idea of covenant with God. This propagation of sin and also covenant of God would be true of Adam, whether or not he was believed to be allegorical in the day. The entire point of the genealogy, is to show that the representative for man in the Second Adam (Christ) has come to pay for sin.

 

2. In regards to the passages you mention, I am not going to go through them all to prove them all allegorical. Why you ask? Simply because all of them simply mention Adam, neither as a historical figure nor as an allegorical one and it would be fallacious to make that assumption as neither of us can prove using those particular passages either allegory or literalism. The verses that support an allegorical interpretation are the first few chapters of Genesis, the language and writing style in which they were written and the historical, orthodox (traditional) approach to interpreting these passages. I would contend that if all these fall into place and support the allegorical view it would be very much unreasonable and illogical to think that the New Testament authors held to a different view when so many of the early church and Jews of the day held a completely distinct view. 

 

3. In regards to question 3, I provided you an answer to this specifically regarding the language of the text, other allegorical instances not disputed (such as the snake being Satan), the writing style, etc. in post 125. You simply said these weren't enough ignoring my arguments without warrant based on your own personal bias towards what the text has to say.   

 

So that makes 2 out of the 3 questions I have been asked before and answered.

 

In regards to Galations 4, Paul was referring to a section of Genesis not written in nearly the poetic style of the early chapters of Genesis and characters which have never to my knowledge (from a historical view) been treated as allegorical so of course he specified. However, linking that to Adam is a weak argument and a strawman as Adam is found in the poetic early chapters of Genesis and from a historical view he was treated as allegorical. Your attempt to link the two fails as they do not share enough in common with regards to historic interpretation. 

 

In regards to Adam being allegorical and the Fall you mistake the position of the allegorical interpreter. We still believe that humanity is Fallen so after you say, "Why, If the story of Adam was allegorical and the fall of man never really happened and had nothing to do with origin of sin" you have already lost me and are not talking about my position. 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, your allegorical position has no real intellectual merit.  It is only pushed by liberal scholars who have an agenda to push Evolution and Homosexuality on the church trying to make both appear to be acceptable when in fact both stand in direct opposition to the Bible  if one accepts the Bible as written.   This allegorical approach is a just a back door attempt to corruptinig the church and bringing a disgusting, unnatural, and abominable lifestyle into the church.

 

 

 

This last statement angers me the most.

 

In regards to intellectual merit I have provided the following:

1. My textual criticism of the text

2. The textual criticism of Jews that were contemporaries of Christ 

3. The textual criticism of the early Christian church

4. The textual criticism of modern scholars ranging from the liberal Marcus Borg to the conservative NT Wright 

 

I have answered every question you have put to me regarding allegorical interpretations and problems that you see with it in the most respectful way I can. At every turn I am greeted by the phrase (more or less), "that isn't good enough." This constant answer is not based on reason but rather an a priori assumption that literalism is the only correct method of interpretation. That is not intellectual. It is stubbornness and fallacious argumentation. 

 

In regards to liberal scholarship I would like to address a few issues. First of all, how in the world do you somehow always manage to drag homosexuality into this? I mean, I am somewhat in awe of you on this issue. Whenever the water gets choppy threatening to wreck your literalism boat, you say that somehow it will bring about the end of all conservative Christianity holds dear and that the very Bible itself will be reduced to a big Jesus Loves You Hallmark card. How do you make this leap in logic? Returning to the issue of liberal scholarship, I am unsure how you classify NT Wright as liberal when he defends your views on marriage, is one of the most adamant supporter of historic miracles and the Resurrection. Not to mention the numerous members of the early church. 

 

In regards to accepting the Bible as written, I agree. However, you are assuming that the Bible in this case Genesis, is written in a literalistic manner when historical interpretation and textual criticism, from my perspective, are against you. If the early chapters of Genesis are intended in an allegorical manner, then accepting the Bible in the way it is written would entail believing in an allegorical understanding of the text. 

 

And the issue regarding the corruption of the church. If the church was corrupted by allegorical interpretation, then your Bible is corrupt as are your creeds. The very men who formed the canon with the guidance of the Spirit and who wrote the Nicene Creed provided the basic doctrine for the Church also held to the allegorical view. If you think these men are corrupt, then the very basis of your faith is also corrupt. Those who hold an allegorical view would never seek to corrupt the church. We merely seek a historical and traditional understanding of what Genesis meant.  

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

I'll just say this at the outset. If you want to have this exchange with me I'm not interested in defending whether or not I'm a believer. That's not what I posted about and that is not what I want to discuss here. The moderators of the forum seem to think I am. If you are unable to stop with such rhetoric we might as well stop now.

 

 

I didn't question whether or not you are believer.  I qiuestioned why you, as a believer are defending a position usually advocated by unbelievers.  My question pertains the internal inconsistency in the view that we can disconnect Genesis from the rest of the Bible and the historical account of Genesis doesn't have to be true in order to believe in Jesus.  I was pointing out that if the Bible can' get it right at the outset, how can you as a believer, put any trust in what it  says about salvation?  

 

I would like to see an explanation for the selective approach in which parts of the Bible are true and other parts can be discarded without affecting the integrity of the rest of the Scripture.  I would also like to know what the process is for determining which parts of the Bible you see as true and which parts are basically expendable.

 

 

As to the rest, I've already addressed all this before. It is possible to come to believe that Jesus lived, was crucified and was raised on the third day without knowing what to make of the Bible as a whole and having doubts about how to take different writings in the Bible. Aside from that, you can think the Bible is inspired and true without thinking that Adam and Eve was a historically factual story. I have attempted to communicate to you what it may be telling us without it being factually true (but still true in the most important sense anyway).

 

But the Bible bases the spiritual truths in communicates in historical and geogrpahical fact.  The historical, geogrpaphical, cultural aspects of the Bible cannont be divorced from the truths the .Bible presents because those things are used by God in His Scriptures as vehicles for commicating his truth.

 

God uses the parts of the Bible you seem to think are not as important as means to make himself known to men.   If the Bible can be trusted in terms of what is says about Genesis, why can't the Bible be trusted in other areas?    And if the Bible may not reliable in other areas, on what basis do you accept it's total reliability in what it says about Jesus?  Either the Bible is completely reliable or it is not reliable at all.  

 

The Bible doesn't give you the option of picking and choosing which parts to accept and which parts you want to reject.

 

 

I have no idea why you assert this. The Bible is, on the surface of it, a disparate collection of writings over centuries, multiple authors, multiple genres. It is entirely possible (and here I am merely repeating myself over again) to approach it like this, approach each historical claim *separately*, evaluate it separately, based on objective historiographical criteria. Even if you go from that position to a position thinking the Bible as a whole is inspired in some important sense (as I do) doesn't negate this first fact about the Bible. It doesn't negate the fact that you can still run this sort of analysis on historical claims in it. Hence when looking at the Genesis creation account, I can (and do) believe it is inspired, and therefore communicating truths to us, without simultaneously thinking it is historically factually accurate. You have yet to come up with a reason that this a problem. Salvation can be trusted because you can establish the historicity of Jesus' life, death and subsequent resurrection.

 

Barry, If you recall I agreed with you about being able to examine the claims the Bible makes separately and objectively. 

 

The problem here is that the text of Genesis doesn't give you the option of claiming that it is not historically accurate, that it is not a historical account.  To argue that we can take the text to be something other than how it presents itself is not an objective approach.  To argue that the text is merely an (inspired) allegory when there is nothing in the text to suggest it is an allegory amounts to the reader assigning values to the text instead of allowing the author to speak for himself.

 

When we claim that it is inspired, we are talking about it being inspired by an all-knowing God who doesn't make errors, whoh doesn't get his facts wrong.  We are talking about perfect God who never says or inspires others to say things that are not true or are factually inaccurate.   So if you are going to stand for the Bible as inspired, you need to come to grips with that part of the doctrine of inspiration.   We believe the Bible to be inspired by God and therefore the character of the inspired text is that it is inerrant and immutable. 

 

If the Bible can't be trusted to be factually accurate in Genesis then it raises doubts about the rest of the Bible, including what the Bible says about salvation.   You keep presenting the notion that Genesis and the Gospels are disconnected, but they are not.   In fact, Genesis shows us why salvation is necessary and why man needs a Savior.  The NT makes a direct connection between Genesis and Salvation.   The resurrectionn of Jesus is the vindication of the claims made in Genesis.

 

The Bible is a system of progressive revelation and interlocking doctrines and so you cannot discard the parts you don't choose to believe without doing immeasurable damage to the rest of the Scriptures.  The doctrines of Scripture are inter-dependent.  Things like the doctrine of inspiration, the doctrines concerning the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, salvation, sin, redemption and other things are directly connected to each other.   The doctrines that find their origin in Genesis are all throughout the rest of the Bible and the NT even makes references to that. 

 

So while we can examine the individual claims separately, we cannot separate them from each other and choose to accept this doctrine while discarding another.  There is an essential unity of the Bible.  It is one book and its claims are rooted in historical and geographic fact.

[Guest shiloh357]

In regards to the issues of assumption, the assumption you are making is a literalistic interpretation of the text. You assume that Christ, Paul, the apostles and the writers of the Bible believed in a literalistic interpretation of the text with no reasons or historical precedent.

 

 

 

I don’t need a historical precedent for that.  The purpose of interpretation is to ascertain the meaning the author has supplied in the text.  This requires engaging the text in an objective manner.   Interpretation is always “literal.”   We want to know what the text means and what the author was wanting to communicate.  The author supplies the “literal” meaning of the text.  Otherwise, what’s the point???   The manner of Paul’s writing in Romans 5:12-21 indicate that Paul believed the Adam was a literal, historical person.  There is NOTHING in the text of that passage to indicate that Paul saw Adam as anything other than a literal person.   This is also true of Matt. 19 where Jesus treats Adam and Eve as literal, historical people when talking to the Pharisees about marriage.

 

 

 

1. I have already answered the issues regarding genealogy and I will do it again. Note the differences between the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke, names omitted, etc. Why is this? At the very least telescoping most be involved in which case Adam could be anywhere along the path of history. However, I think a more reasonable explanation is that these people were all propagators of sin and also important to the Hebrew idea of covenant with God. This propagation of sin and also covenant of God would be true of Adam, whether or not he was believed to be allegorical in the day. The entire point of the genealogy, is to show that the representative for man in the Second Adam (Christ) has come to pay for sin.

 

 

No, that is not the purpose of the genealogy.  Genealogies were for the purpose of establishing property rights. 

 

Telescoping in Matthew’s genealogy doesn’t mean that Adam could be anywhere on the pat of history.   Matthew’s purpose was to show how Jesus could be qualified to be the Messiah to sit on David’s throne even though he traces Joseph’s ancestral line back through Jeconiah.  Joseph was David’s descendent through Jeconiah from whom no one of his line would sit on the throne of David.  Mary was a descendent of David through Nathan and thus could have a son qualified to sit on David’s throne.  Luke’s genealogy doesn’t telescope and goes all the way back to Adam.   That Adam is included in the genealogy of Jesus demonstrates that he is not an allegorical figure but a real, historical person.  That should be self-evident.  That alone torpedoes this allegorical nonsense.

 

 

 

In regards to the passages you mention, I am not going to go through them all to prove them all allegorical. Why you ask? Simply because all of them simply mention Adam, neither as a historical figure nor as an allegorical one and it would be fallacious to make that assumption as neither of us can prove using those particular passages either allegory or literalism.

 

 

Actually those passages ALL treat Adam as a historical person, not as an allegorical figure.  The only legitimate interpretation IS the literal interpretation.  All interpretation is literal no matter if you are talking about the Bible, the newspaper, a cookbook, a historical novel.   To act as if those passages do not treat Adam and Eve as literal people is nothing short of intellectual suicide on your part.

 

.

The verses that support an allegorical interpretation are the first few chapters of Genesis, the language and writing style in which they were written and the historical, orthodox (traditional) approach to interpreting these passages. I would contend that if all these fall into place and support the allegorical view it would be very much unreasonable and illogical to think that the New Testament authors held to a different view when so many of the early church and Jews of the day held a completely distinct view. 

 

 

 

None of that has anything to do with an allegorical interpretation.  By the way, “allegory” is not an interpretative method.  You are really confusing terms.  Allegory is most often used to teach a lesson, (as in Gal. 4)  It is not meant to be a means of deducing the meaning of a given text.

 

There is no such thing as an “allegorical” style of writing.  Honestly, where do come up with this stuff???   I can be poetic, I can make a statement of prose and not be allegorical at all. 

 

There are NO textual indicators whatsoever in the first chapter of Genesis that allegory is being applied by the author.  The Bible indicates when allegory is employed elsewhere, but no indicators are given in this text, so your argument really doesn’t hold water.

 

In regards to question 3, I provided you an answer to this specifically regarding the language of the text, other allegorical instances not disputed (such as the snake being Satan), the writing style, etc. in post 125. You simply said these weren't enough ignoring my arguments without warrant based on your own personal bias towards what the text has to say.   

 

 

 

Yes and none of those are textual responses on your part.  I asked for actual textual indicators.  You provide me with answers that assume an allegorical approach to the text and the views of  so-called “scholars” and never really engaged the question I asked.  The truth is that you can’t really offer up anything from the text that tells us that the author wants us to see this as an allegory.

 

In addition, you cannot provide one shred of NT corroboration that tells us that the NT writers didn’t take Adam as a literal person.  You are assigning that value to them with no real textual evidence to support your claims.  Your argument is void.

 

 

In regards to Galations 4, Paul was referring to a section of Genesis not written in nearly the poetic style of the early chapters of Genesis and characters which have never to my knowledge (from a historical view) been treated as allegorical so of course he specified. However, linking that to Adam is a weak argument and a strawman as Adam is found in the poetic early chapters of Genesis and from a historical view he was treated as allegorical. Your attempt to link the two fails as they do not share enough in common with regards to historic interpretation. 

 

 

That misses the point.  The point is that when the Bible DOES use allegory, it uses it for didactic purposes.  In addition, the Bible tells us when allegory is being employed.   Paul doesn’t use allegory to deny the historicity of Hagar and Sarah.  He is not using allegory to claim that they were not real people and the events that surrounded them didn’t really happen.

 

The difference here is that Paul uses allegory correctly.  You are trying to use allegory to supplant the historicity of Genesis 1-3 and in doing so you are misusing allegory.  You are using allegory as an interpretative method, which is not what it is designed to be or do.   It is an excellent teaching tool, but it is not a reliable means of interpretation.

 

By the way, if Genesis 1-3 is allegorical, who gets to determine what it is allegorical of?  Who’s “interpretation” has the final say on what it is allegorical of??   Why is one guy’s allegorical “interpretation”  any less valid than a scholar’s allegorical “interpretation?”  It is a highly subjective and thus unreliable approach to the Bible.

 

In regards to Adam being allegorical and the Fall you mistake the position of the allegorical interpreter. We still believe that humanity is Fallen so after you say, "Why, If the story of Adam was allegorical and the fall of man never really happened and had nothing to do with origin of sin" you have already lost me and are not talking about my position. 

 

 

 

Yes, I understand that you still believe humanity to be fallen.  My question would be, why is the Bible’s explanation of fall unsatisfactory for you?   Why the need to introduce the text as allegorical and why is the notion of it being historically factual such a problem for you?

 

If the story of Adam was merely allegorical then we are forced to accept the fallen nature of man, the presence of sin, the need for redemption in a vacuum.  We simply accept those things as true with no real reason to accept them.   It comes from the fallacy that you can separate redemption from Genesis 1-3.  The literal death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is precipitated and made necessary by the literal fall of Adam in the Garden.  That is what the Bible says to an honest and objective reader.

 

 

This last statement angers me the most.

 

In regards to intellectual merit I have provided the following:

1. My textual criticism of the text

2. The textual criticism of Jews that were contemporaries of Christ 

3. The textual criticism of the early Christian church

4. The textual criticism of modern scholars ranging from the liberal Marcus Borg to the conservative NT Wright 

 

 

None of which are actual textual evidence of the nature requested.  You supplied what others think, or thought, but your answer didn’t really engage the text at all.  You can’t engage the text, because you know that the text doesn’t really provide us with anything cliaming that is an allegorical account.  Nor does any other text of the NT.   So you have to pretend that quoting Borg and Wright and claiming that some Jews and Christians viewed the text as allegorical counts as “textual criticism.”  That is a really sorry line of argumentation.

 

 

I have answered every question you have put to me regarding allegorical interpretations and problems that you see with it in the most respectful way I can. At every turn I am greeted by the phrase (more or less), "that isn't good enough." This constant answer is not based on reason but rather an a priori assumption that literalism is the only correct method of interpretation. That is not intellectual. It is stubbornness and fallacious argumentation. 

 

Literalism IS the only correct method of interpretation.  Literalism means that I treat a text in the manner in which the author presents it.  It means that my examination of the text must always keep in mind the object the author has in view.  I want to know what the author meant, what the author wants me to take away from his writings.   That is the purpose of interpretation.  

 

If I am reading the newspaper, and it says there was a fire on Elm Street and three people were killed in the fire, what is the meaning of the text?  It means what the author meant it to say.   I am not free to plug in something else.   I am not free to supply more than what the author meant to say.  That is true of any text, whether it is a novel on MLK JR., the Queen of England or George Washington.   I interpret those things literally according to the information supplied by the author.

 

The same holds true for the Bible.  I take the Bible literally, not at face value.   I am not a wooden literalist.  I am a literary literalist.  That means that I treat a parable like a parable, a proverb like a proverb and an historical narrative like an historical narrative.  I don’t treat the text outside of how it is presented and I keep my “interpretation” in line with what the author is trying say.

 

Interpretation, by default is ALWAYS literal, otherwise there is no point in writing or saying anything at all.  If everyone is free to take what is written or said and make it mean what they want, the art of writing serves no purpose.   But evidently, those rules go out the window when the Bible comes into play.

 

 

In regards to liberal scholarship I would like to address a few issues. First of all, how in the world do you somehow always manage to drag homosexuality into this? I mean, I am somewhat in awe of you on this issue. Whenever the water gets choppy threatening to wreck your literalism boat, you say that somehow it will bring about the end of all conservative Christianity holds dear and that the very Bible itself will be reduced to a big Jesus Loves You Hallmark card. How do you make this leap in logic?

Every person I have met that shares this nonsensical “allegorical” or “metaphorical” approach to Genesis has consistently:

 

·        Denied Genesis as a factual account and thus promotes Evolution

·        Shows favor and acceptance to the homosexual lifestyle and rejects the Bible’s authority to define such a lifestyle as sin.

·        Rejects the inspiration of Scripture.

 

And yes, those types of things do spell the doom of Christianity if the church becomes universally corrupt enough to support any of them. 

 

 

In regards to accepting the Bible as written, I agree. However, you are assuming that the Bible in this case Genesis, is written in a literalistic manner when historical interpretation and textual criticism, from my perspective, are against you. If the early chapters of Genesis are intended in an allegorical manner, then accepting the Bible in the way it is written would entail believing in an allegorical understanding of the text. 

 

 

Historical and textual criticsm from your perpsective is rather laughable, to be honest.  The text is clearly written in a literalistic form to an honest and objective reader.  The problem is that there are elements in the church that understand that the Bible as written can’t accommodate sin and cannot accommodate a view that supplants God as Creator.  Enter the allegorical approach as a means of making room for sin and supplanting the authority of the Bible to define sin and the authority of God to judge sin and hold man accountable.  

 

 

And the issue regarding the corruption of the church. If the church was corrupted by allegorical interpretation, then your Bible is corrupt as are your creeds. The very men who formed the canon with the guidance of the Spirit and who wrote the Nicene Creed provided the basic doctrine for the Church also held to the allegorical view. If you think these men are corrupt, then the very basis of your faith is also corrupt. Those who hold an allegorical view would never seek to corrupt the church. We merely seek a historical and traditional understanding of what Genesis meant.  

 

 

The early was very corrupt.  I am not a fan of the early fathers.  Many of them were virulent racists and anti-Semites.   They allegorized everything God said about Israel to apply to the Church in order to supplant the Jews as God’s chosen people and to provide a theological justifcation for 1,700 years of church sponsored persecution of the Jews.  Allegorization didn’t work too well for the Jews.

 

You seem to put a lot of weight on extra-biblical writings.  You put a lot of faith in fallible men.  That is where we differ.  I believe the Bible and my trust is in Scripture and I believe it as written, because I believe God.

 

My faith does not rest on them but on the pure Word of God.  The Bible is foundation of my faith, not creeds.  My faith is built on Scripture and Scripture treats the fall of man in Genesis as a literal and historical event.   Others seek to subvert the Word of God to accommodate their corrupt and false doctrines. 

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

It has nothing to do with saying what parts of the Bible are true and which parts are expendable; taking a non-literal approach is not the same thing as "can't get it right" or "not important" or "pick and chose". It is common for people to use fiction to speak to a greater truth. Even though you don't believe this is the case here, I'm surprised that you don't recognize this by equating fiction with 'not true' in this instance. Continuing in that line of thought will only put you passe with theistic evolutionists and you will never be able to speak to the heart of the matter for them. 

 

The non-literal approach is based on the assumption that what is recorded in Genesis 1-11 is not history, did not happen and is purely fictional (parabolic, allegorical, metaphorical).  Most who accept the notion  are of the opinion that we cannot rely on Genesis as factual historical account.  Ergo,  the Bible didn’t get history right.

 

It is not using fiction to speak to greater truth.  That is pure nonsense.  The Bible holds itself as THE truth.   Everything it says is true.  It is not pointing to a greater truth, but it claims to be truth.

 

Believe it or not, just like you, theistic evolutionists perceive Genesis to be true. However what makes Genesis true and important is going to differ. My point is that saying the equivalent of 'why don't you believe the Bible/Genesis?' is not going to get you anywhere as it starts with a false premise of what the TE believes. 

 

No, theistic Evolutionists don’t hold that Genesis is true.  Most hold to the allegorical approach to the text that supplants the historicity of the text.  That’s the only way they can make evolution fit.  Besides they are not even honest about evolution, so it is not surprising that they cannnot be honest about what the Bible says.

 

 

As you probably know it is not uncommon for people to use genealogies to say so and so is descended from some great person, and even gods, obviously with a figurative point to be made about said person.

But ancient Jewish genealogies were not for that purpsoe.  In ancinet Israel, genealogical records were for the purpose of establishing property rights.  You needed an accurage genealogical record to prove that you were the rightful owner of your land or you could be dispossessed from it and end up homeless.  Not only that but they were, until the temple burnt down, proof of tribal lineage. 

 

 

My point is that when you look at ancient genealogies they are not always meant to be historically accurate in the modern sense, and we should not always assume that they are supposed to be. 

 

Yeah, you are talking about ancient genealogies from the pagan world and I am not.  Genealogies for the purpose of establishig property rights and tribal lineage REQUIRES hsitorical accuracy even in our our modern sense.

 

I also don't find it convincing when you propose that unless the author explicitly states that it is non-literal that we must read it as a factually historical account. That just doesn't make any sense to me. 

 

The author supplies the meaning of the text.  Interpretaton of any given text is always literal, by default.   Interpretation is always done in the light of the object the author has in view.  If the author uses metaphpors or other figurative devices, we are to ascertain the literal meaning behind those devices.  The default interpretation is always literal unless the author indicates he is speaking in a non-literal fashion. You, as the reader do have the right to discard the literal meaning supplied by the author in favor of some meaning that you wish to supply to the text.   Non-literalists are trying to make the Bible say what they want it to say, rather than allowing the author to speak.

 

As for Adam and Eve, one common interpretation is that they represent human nature; Adam and Eve is all of us in which we are all tempted to sin and fall short the glory of God, with the only chance of redemption being through Christ, who clothes us as the second Adam. When I was a believer I thought this explanation was most likely the correct one. I dabbled into Adam being reminiscent of our ancient ancestor who first sinned, but it didn't really speak to me, and like Barry I found it unimportant as I knew (at the time) that regardless we are obviously in a sinful world now. 

 

Yeah, the Bible never seems  to be good enough for anyone.  If the Bible says it, it is wrong and another meaning needs to be found that is more palatable and acceptable, right?   That is not intperetation; it is an attempt to revise the Bible.   It is just the act of fallen man trying to avoid accountability before a holy God who, according to Genesis 3 has the right as Creator to hold us accountable for our sin.  Anything to avoid having to be accountable for sin.  That is the problem with liberal approaches to the Bible.  They water down the sin problem and try to de-literalize it so that they don’t have to think about the day when they will stand before God and give an account for their sin.

 

[ByFaithAlone]

 

In regards to the issues of assumption, the assumption you are making is a literalistic interpretation of the text. You assume that Christ, Paul, the apostles and the writers of the Bible believed in a literalistic interpretation of the text with no reasons or historical precedent.

 

 

 

I don’t need a historical precedent for that.  The purpose of interpretation is to ascertain the meaning the author has supplied in the text.  This requires engaging the text in an objective manner.   Interpretation is always “literal.”   We want to know what the text means and what the author was wanting to communicate.  The author supplies the “literal” meaning of the text.  Otherwise, what’s the point???   The manner of Paul’s writing in Romans 5:12-21 indicate that Paul believed the Adam was a literal, historical person.  There is NOTHING in the text of that passage to indicate that Paul saw Adam as anything other than a literal person.   This is also true of Matt. 19 where Jesus treats Adam and Eve as literal, historical people when talking to the Pharisees about marriage.

 

 

 

You say interpretation is always "literal" and in this lies the basic flaw of your position. Interpretation, even biblical interpretation is not always literal. Is Jesus a literal lamb, bright morning star, root of a tree named Jesse? No of course not. These passages are not taken literally but metaphorically representative of Christ's nature. Interpretation is based on the writing of the text. If the text is written in the nature of a prophecy we will interpret to account for it. If the text is written in the nature of a letter to an early church we account for this too. However, most evangelical fundamentalists seem to have a very difficult time applying this principal to Genesis which appears to be written in the poetic style of an epic poem. 

 

And thus the rest of the argument that you make falls. You claim that Paul and Matthew believed Adam as literal and historical not on the basis that you find anything in the text that indicates that but rather due to an a priori assumption that Genesis is intended in a literal manner without providing evidence for that opinion either. You are simply begging the question. That is, you assume Genesis to be literal before arguing that Genesis is in fact literal. Meanwhile, the allegorical interpretation is supported by writing style, science and contemporaries of Christ and the apostles.  

 

 

 

 

1. I have already answered the issues regarding genealogy and I will do it again. Note the differences between the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke, names omitted, etc. Why is this? At the very least telescoping most be involved in which case Adam could be anywhere along the path of history. However, I think a more reasonable explanation is that these people were all propagators of sin and also important to the Hebrew idea of covenant with God. This propagation of sin and also covenant of God would be true of Adam, whether or not he was believed to be allegorical in the day. The entire point of the genealogy, is to show that the representative for man in the Second Adam (Christ) has come to pay for sin.

 

 

No, that is not the purpose of the genealogy.  Genealogies were for the purpose of establishing property rights. 

 

Telescoping in Matthew’s genealogy doesn’t mean that Adam could be anywhere on the pat of history.   Matthew’s purpose was to show how Jesus could be qualified to be the Messiah to sit on David’s throne even though he traces Joseph’s ancestral line back through Jeconiah.  Joseph was David’s descendent through Jeconiah from whom no one of his line would sit on the throne of David.  Mary was a descendent of David through Nathan and thus could have a son qualified to sit on David’s throne.  Luke’s genealogy doesn’t telescope and goes all the way back to Adam.   That Adam is included in the genealogy of Jesus demonstrates that he is not an allegorical figure but a real, historical person.  That should be self-evident.  That alone torpedoes this allegorical nonsense.

 

You somehow manage to ignore the plain differences and apparent contradictions that exist between the accounts of the genealogy of Matthew and Luke. This does not make sense if both accounts are as you claim completely literal. One of them has to be wrong in terms of a purely historical account of Christ's genealogy. Or perhaps a more fitting explanation is that the genealogies are intended to show the sinful generations that have come before Christ, noting important figures of history of note within the Jewish faith which shows the need for a Savior and reminds the Jewish people of the covenant God gave there ancestors. 

 

 

 

 

In regards to the passages you mention, I am not going to go through them all to prove them all allegorical. Why you ask? Simply because all of them simply mention Adam, neither as a historical figure nor as an allegorical one and it would be fallacious to make that assumption as neither of us can prove using those particular passages either allegory or literalism.

 

 

Actually those passages ALL treat Adam as a historical person, not as an allegorical figure.  The only legitimate interpretation IS the literal interpretation.  All interpretation is literal no matter if you are talking about the Bible, the newspaper, a cookbook, a historical novel.   To act as if those passages do not treat Adam and Eve as literal people is nothing short of intellectual suicide on your part.

 

 

See my response above to the fallacious argument you present here, once again an a priori assumption that does not take into account the genre or writing style. 

 

 

 

 

The verses that support an allegorical interpretation are the first few chapters of Genesis, the language and writing style in which they were written and the historical, orthodox (traditional) approach to interpreting these passages. I would contend that if all these fall into place and support the allegorical view it would be very much unreasonable and illogical to think that the New Testament authors held to a different view when so many of the early church and Jews of the day held a completely distinct view. 

 

 

 

None of that has anything to do with an allegorical interpretation.  By the way, “allegory” is not an interpretative method.  You are really confusing terms.  Allegory is most often used to teach a lesson, (as in Gal. 4)  It is not meant to be a means of deducing the meaning of a given text.

 

There is no such thing as an “allegorical” style of writing.  Honestly, where do come up with this stuff???   I can be poetic, I can make a statement of prose and not be allegorical at all. 

 

There are NO textual indicators whatsoever in the first chapter of Genesis that allegory is being applied by the author.  The Bible indicates when allegory is employed elsewhere, but no indicators are given in this text, so your argument really doesn’t hold water.

 

Language and writing style have a lot to do with whether or not a text should be taken as allegorical. If it is poetic in nature rather than historical, as I contend the early chapters of Genesis are (written in an epic poem style), then it is more reasonable to believe the allegorical view. Textual indicators such as metaphors and symbols used within the text such as the snake for Satan something widely agreed on by most if not all Christians were provided to you before but you provided no counterargumentation but merely say they don't hold water for no reason then your own a priori assumptions. 

 

 

 

 

In regards to question 3, I provided you an answer to this specifically regarding the language of the text, other allegorical instances not disputed (such as the snake being Satan), the writing style, etc. in post 125. You simply said these weren't enough ignoring my arguments without warrant based on your own personal bias towards what the text has to say.   

 

 

 

Yes and none of those are textual responses on your part.  I asked for actual textual indicators.  You provide me with answers that assume an allegorical approach to the text and the views of  so-called “scholars” and never really engaged the question I asked.  The truth is that you can’t really offer up anything from the text that tells us that the author wants us to see this as an allegory.

 

In addition, you cannot provide one shred of NT corroboration that tells us that the NT writers didn’t take Adam as a literal person.  You are assigning that value to them with no real textual evidence to support your claims.  Your argument is void.

 

So internal notes of symbols, metaphors, etc do not count as textual indicators in your book? Nor the poetic language of the original language? 

 

If the NT authors already regarded the text as allegorical then there would be no need for them to spell it out. This is why I provide contemporaries of the early apostles and church, the earlier ones taught by the apostles themselves or Jews of the era who provided the common Jewish understanding of Genesis. It would be highly illogical and unreasonable to believe that the apostles and in turn Christ himself did not hold the allegorical view when the people that they taught clearly did and wrote extensively on.