Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[ByFaithAlone]

I agree with Steven in that we must try to investigate the Scriptures thoroughly when deciding if it is in some parts literal and in other parts allegorical. That is why I noted that various scholars have also supported the allegorical Genesis creation view for various poetic/epic type narratives that occur within the book.

I would think not. I could reference something (such as pride) as a fault of Achilles just as easily as I could reference a figurative Adam as a representation of original sin. However, with all that being said, it is equally possible that a literal Adam existed but, as I say, I don't see it as a necessity.

Which other parts of scripture would you consider as unnecessary?

A historical Christ must be necessary for example. The historic early church. Both of these things also have reasonable support from scientists and historians I might add.

Let me repeat myself.

Please tell me which parts of scripture you consider unnecessary?

My apologies. I misread your previous statement. I do not regard any Scripture as unnecessary. All of it is necessary and true. However, the light in which we read Scripture must change with the historical context in which it is written.

Can you explain what is meant in bold to me?

Sure. For example, I believe that the early chapters of Genesis (the creation account) is allegorical for various reasons based on the early world's understanding of science and creation, the writing style which many people have characterized in the poetic/epic style (for more on this look up NT Wright's analysis of Genesis). In other books (such as Psalms) allegory is more clearly seen as it is even more poetic than Genesis (think of the creation in Genesis as the Odyssey type epic poem while Psalms is more of what we would think of as a poem or song such as a sonnet). Other books (such as Matthew) do not have this feel.

In terms of context, I think there are a variety of issues - Jewish purity laws, the location and dress of worshipers, etc. all of which are viewed in light of the historical context in which they were created to keep the Jewish people safe from the idolatrous influence of other nations.

[OneLight]

I agree with Steven in that we must try to investigate the Scriptures thoroughly when deciding if it is in some parts literal and in other parts allegorical. That is why I noted that various scholars have also supported the allegorical Genesis creation view for various poetic/epic type narratives that occur within the book.

I would think not. I could reference something (such as pride) as a fault of Achilles just as easily as I could reference a figurative Adam as a representation of original sin. However, with all that being said, it is equally possible that a literal Adam existed but, as I say, I don't see it as a necessity.

Which other parts of scripture would you consider as unnecessary?

A historical Christ must be necessary for example. The historic early church. Both of these things also have reasonable support from scientists and historians I might add.

Let me repeat myself.

Please tell me which parts of scripture you consider unnecessary?

My apologies. I misread your previous statement. I do not regard any Scripture as unnecessary. All of it is necessary and true. However, the light in which we read Scripture must change with the historical context in which it is written.

Can you explain what is meant in bold to me?

Sure. For example, I believe that the early chapters of Genesis (the creation account) is allegorical for various reasons based on the early world's understanding of science and creation, the writing style which many people have characterized in the poetic/epic style (for more on this look up NT Wright's analysis of Genesis). In other books (such as Psalms) allegory is more clearly seen as it is even more poetic than Genesis (think of the creation in Genesis as the Odyssey type epic poem while Psalms is more of what we would think of as a poem or song such as a sonnet). Other books (such as Matthew) do not have this feel.

In terms of context, I think there are a variety of issues - Jewish purity laws, the location and dress of worshipers, etc. all of which are viewed in light of the historical context in which they were created to keep the Jewish people safe from the idolatrous influence of other nations.

Thank you. How do you see this pertaining to the 6 day creation event that is mentioned?

[Jayyycuuup]

Well this is my first time back in a bit and I was just talking about this in church. Therefore, I am going to throw in my two cents. As I am a theistic evolutionist, I would consider Genesis to be in some parts at least, allegorical for various scholarly reasons formulated by many Christians. The creation account is one such moment. As to the literal Adam and Eve, I would say it is difficult to know. There are two major questions that often arise if Adam and Eve are considered allegorical. The first is, does the doctrine of original sin still hold if Adam and Eve are allegorical? Secondly, why does it appear that Jesus and Paul referred to them in a literal sense? To the first question, I see no real philosophical or theological problem. Original sin could still exist as a result of the earliest humans represented by Adam and Eve just as easily as if there was a literal Adam and Eve which were the first homo sapiens. On the second issue, I think it is a mistake to claim Jesus claims Adam to be literal. Adam is certainly referenced but does that make him any more real than a character such as Achilles in the Odyssey? I would think not. I could reference something (such as pride) as a fault of Achilles just as easily as I could reference a figurative Adam as a representation of original sin. However, with all that being said, it is equally possible that a literal Adam existed but, as I say, I don't see it as a necessity.

Well this is my first time back in a bit and I was just talking about this in church. Therefore, I am going to throw in my two cents. As I am a theistic evolutionist, I would consider Genesis to be in some parts at least, allegorical for various scholarly reasons formulated by many Christians. The creation account is one such moment.

Therefore you do not believe the bible is inerrant? "Formulated" by many Christians seems rather presumptuous and fallacious. If the bible is not complete in word- then the described words are by merely men- and not that of lead by the Holy Spirit. Leaving us with the conclusion that there is inevitably room for interpretation. . .which in terms leads down a road that contradicts the book itself. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "ALL scripture is breathed out by God useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." As for the creation account- I do agree with you, there are many hidden things that are rather poetic. . . But in fullness- and by the leading of the Holy Spirit are these things uncovered

As to the literal Adam and Eve, I would say it is difficult to know. There are two major questions that often arise if Adam and Eve are considered allegorical. The first is, does the doctrine of original sin still hold if Adam and Eve are allegorical? Secondly, why does it appear that Jesus and Paul referred to them in a literal sense? To the first question, I see no real philosophical or theological problem. Original sin could still exist as a result of the earliest humans represented by Adam and Eve just as easily as if there was a literal Adam and Eve which were the first homo sapiens.

I see numerous flaws as to this, especially in the sense that you said, that they were taken literal by both Jesus and others.

And how about this verse? Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" The only way to have this work in favor is completely dodging what Paul is saying- and twisting what is said. Something also to consider, is that if the account of Adam and Eve is completely allegorical, then the "sin nature" really not what we make it out to be, which again contradicts what Romans 5:12 says. So the point in saying there is not philosophical or theological problem stands as long as scripture is set aside.

On the second issue, I think it is a mistake to claim Jesus claims Adam to be literal. Adam is certainly referenced but does that make him any more real than a character such as Achilles in the Odyssey? I would think not. I could reference something (such as pride) as a fault of Achilles just as easily as I could reference a figurative Adam as a representation of original sin. However, with all that being said, it is equally possible that a literal Adam existed but, as I say, I don't see it as a necessity.

I am interested in how you perceive this?

Scripture and your thoughts would and will be great.

God bless you! Love to you in Him!

[enoob57]

Yikes!!! I've been misunderstood!.... who would of thunk it...

ByFaithAlone,

The hermeneutics of Genesis leads only to a literal translation... 24 hr. 7 day evaluation. God calls us to

to reason Isa 1:18 with Him in His Word and seeing how this account was rendered by God to Moses the

account then is one of reiteration of fact not allegory due to the intent of God to His Friend Moses Ex 33:11...

you don't answer a friends question in allegory and hidden meaning as God has described this about

Himself here Matt 13:10-16.

This is also a hermeneutic whereby you let Scripture teach or define Scripture! As this leads to the

reasoning error of science:

Science is uniquely confused in that it requires changes in order to answer for what is here yet

rigidly demands no change to the laws that are in place today... making the world itself the god of non

changing law... The Son came and said simply His Father can literally do anything all things are at His

Will and desired outcome.

Mark 14:36

36 And He said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me;

nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will."

NKJV

This literally is the open ended unbounded nature of limitlessness of 'THE' infinite God The only One of His Kind...

Isa 46:9-10

9 Remember the former things of old,

For I am God, and there is no other;

I am God, and there is none like Me,

10 Declaring the end from the beginning,

And from ancient times things that are not yet done,

Saying, 'My counsel shall stand,

And I will do all My pleasure,'

NKJV

As the Son raised the dead, made food out of nothing, walked on water, entered rooms with everything

locked, rose himself into the air toward heaven out of sight etc. demonstrating this truth- God and His Will

is not bound by the laws he has set forth here- moreover they are at His every beckon and desire to change

become new at the moment God so wills! Now trying to subjugate God to His own creative laws is suicide

to the understanding God has already given to us about Himself though His Word!

This is why I see the literal interpretation as it fits the hermeneutical principle of a Friend telling a friend how

He did it to start with...and why scientific laws does not have to fit the actual build! But this is hinged totally upon

what God has taught me of Himself within His Word! Love, Steven

[ByFaithAlone]

Sure. For example, I believe that the early chapters of Genesis (the creation account) is allegorical for various reasons based on the early world's understanding of science and creation, the writing style which many people have characterized in the poetic/epic style (for more on this look up NT Wright's analysis of Genesis). In other books (such as Psalms) allegory is more clearly seen as it is even more poetic than Genesis (think of the creation in Genesis as the Odyssey type epic poem while Psalms is more of what we would think of as a poem or song such as a sonnet). Other books (such as Matthew) do not have this feel.

In terms of context, I think there are a variety of issues - Jewish purity laws, the location and dress of worshipers, etc. all of which are viewed in light of the historical context in which they were created to keep the Jewish people safe from the idolatrous influence of other nations.

Thank you. How do you see this pertaining to the 6 day creation event that is mentioned?

Simply put, for various reasons I see the Genesis creation account to be allegorical like many other scholars (again I would refer you to NT Wright's work on the subject). The context and manner in which it was written seems to make it a figurative account of creation from my perspective.

[ByFaithAlone]

Well this is my first time back in a bit and I was just talking about this in church. Therefore, I am going to throw in my two cents. As I am a theistic evolutionist, I would consider Genesis to be in some parts at least, allegorical for various scholarly reasons formulated by many Christians. The creation account is one such moment. As to the literal Adam and Eve, I would say it is difficult to know. There are two major questions that often arise if Adam and Eve are considered allegorical. The first is, does the doctrine of original sin still hold if Adam and Eve are allegorical? Secondly, why does it appear that Jesus and Paul referred to them in a literal sense? To the first question, I see no real philosophical or theological problem. Original sin could still exist as a result of the earliest humans represented by Adam and Eve just as easily as if there was a literal Adam and Eve which were the first homo sapiens. On the second issue, I think it is a mistake to claim Jesus claims Adam to be literal. Adam is certainly referenced but does that make him any more real than a character such as Achilles in the Odyssey? I would think not. I could reference something (such as pride) as a fault of Achilles just as easily as I could reference a figurative Adam as a representation of original sin. However, with all that being said, it is equally possible that a literal Adam existed but, as I say, I don't see it as a necessity.

Therefore you do not believe the bible is inerrant? "Formulated" by many Christians seems rather presumptuous and fallacious. If the bible is not complete in word- then the described words are by merely men- and not that of lead by the Holy Spirit. Leaving us with the conclusion that there is inevitably room for interpretation. . .which in terms leads down a road that contradicts the book itself. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "ALL scripture is breathed out by God useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." As for the creation account- I do agree with you, there are many hidden things that are rather poetic. . . But in fullness- and by the leading of the Holy Spirit are these things uncovered

How does what I say mean that I do not believe the Bible to be (by the guidance of the Spirit) inerrant in its original form? I claim it to be non-literal just as Psalms is non-literal or the Prophets are non-literal. This does not make them in error so why should Genesis be in error if it is considered allegorical.

As to the literal Adam and Eve, I would say it is difficult to know. There are two major questions that often arise if Adam and Eve are considered allegorical. The first is, does the doctrine of original sin still hold if Adam and Eve are allegorical? Secondly, why does it appear that Jesus and Paul referred to them in a literal sense? To the first question, I see no real philosophical or theological problem. Original sin could still exist as a result of the earliest humans represented by Adam and Eve just as easily as if there was a literal Adam and Eve which were the first homo sapiens.

I see numerous flaws as to this, especially in the sense that you said, that they were taken literal by both Jesus and others.

And how about this verse? Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" The only way to have this work in favor is completely dodging what Paul is saying- and twisting what is said. Something also to consider, is that if the account of Adam and Eve is completely allegorical, then the "sin nature" really not what we make it out to be, which again contradicts what Romans 5:12 says. So the point in saying there is not philosophical or theological problem stands as long as scripture is set aside.

On the second issue, I think it is a mistake to claim Jesus claims Adam to be literal. Adam is certainly referenced but does that make him any more real than a character such as Achilles in the Odyssey? I would think not. I could reference something (such as pride) as a fault of Achilles just as easily as I could reference a figurative Adam as a representation of original sin. However, with all that being said, it is equally possible that a literal Adam existed but, as I say, I don't see it as a necessity.

I am interested in how you perceive this?

Scripture and your thoughts would and will be great.

God bless you! Love to you in Him!

I personally lean neither way on the existence of a literal Adam. I merely would claim that it is possible for Adam to be an allegorical Adam to exist and for people to still be able to reference him. As I mentioned I can reference literary characters that serve as an allegory for an actual thing. An example, which I mentioned would be Achilles. Another would be Aslan from the Chronicles of Narnia. I could go on if you want but I think you get my point. Just because Christ alludes to someone does not make them real any more than myself alluding to Achilles. That being said, a literal Adam could exist and nothing would be wrong with that from an evolutionary perspective either.

[Jayyycuuup]

ByFaithAlone

How does what I say mean that I do not believe the Bible to be (by the guidance of the Spirit) inerrant in its original form? I claim it to be non-literal just as Psalms is non-literal or the Prophets are non-literal. This does not make them in error so why should Genesis be in error if it is considered allegorical.

I must have misinterpreted what you said, my apologies.

What do you mean by the Prophets being non literal? Along with that, the Psalms?

As for Genesis- there is no room for interpretation when God says He did x,y,z. If He says He created the Heavens and the Earth, He did!

I personally lean neither way on the existence of a literal Adam. I merely would claim that it is possible for Adam to be an allegorical Adam to exist and for people to still be able to reference him. As I mentioned I can reference literary characters that serve as an allegory for an actual thing. An example, which I mentioned would be Achilles. Another would be Aslan from the Chronicles of Narnia. I could go on if you want but I think you get my point. Just because Christ alludes to someone does not make them real any more than myself alluding to Achilles. That being said, a literal Adam could exist and nothing would be wrong with that from an evolutionary perspective either.

I don't see what purpose that would serve- the people depicted in the bible REALLY lived and REALLY died. These expressions through man to man- makes the stories not only more life like but even more so relateable To me, that would be like making the same towards Jesus Christ- did not really happen but is a nice thought. . .also shows the Love of God. . .but the bible makes it clear Jesus REALLY lived, REALLY died, and REALLY was resurrected. So an allegory in this instance- seems fallacious.

As for Greek mythology and the likes: your applying imaginative thinking and biblical truths, which in my opinion its like trying to mix water and oil. They neither compliment nor enhance the other.

Your closing statement is interesting though, makes me wonder why you believe the story is allegorical, especially in the instance that it does not violate any "rule" or "science."

[Tinky]

Jesus stated Adam and Eve were actual people. If they weren't, Jesus was either wrong or a liar. If either is true, you may as well throw the entire Bible into the trash heap of history.

[ByFaithAlone]

How does what I say mean that I do not believe the Bible to be (by the guidance of the Spirit) inerrant in its original form? I claim it to be non-literal just as Psalms is non-literal or the Prophets are non-literal. This does not make them in error so why should Genesis be in error if it is considered allegorical.

I must have misinterpreted what you said, my apologies.

What do you mean by the Prophets being non literal? Along with that, the Psalms?

As for Genesis- there is no room for interpretation when God says He did x,y,z. If He says He created the Heavens and the Earth, He did!

For example, the Prophets represent Jesus as a Lamb or the Chief Cornerstone and David calls God a shepherd that guides him. We understand these not in a literal sense but in a metaphorical one. This does not mean the passages are unimportant. In fact, they are critical to the understanding of who our Savior and God is. Similarly, in the Genesis account, I take the 6-day creation story as allegorical for God's actually method of creation. I agree with you completely that God created the heavens and the earth. We may disagree on the method by which he created however.

I personally lean neither way on the existence of a literal Adam. I merely would claim that it is possible for Adam to be an allegorical Adam to exist and for people to still be able to reference him. As I mentioned I can reference literary characters that serve as an allegory for an actual thing. An example, which I mentioned would be Achilles. Another would be Aslan from the Chronicles of Narnia. I could go on if you want but I think you get my point. Just because Christ alludes to someone does not make them real any more than myself alluding to Achilles. That being said, a literal Adam could exist and nothing would be wrong with that from an evolutionary perspective either.

I don't see what purpose that would serve- the people depicted in the bible REALLY lived and REALLY died. These expressions through man to man- makes the stories not only more life like but even more so relateable To me, that would be like making the same towards Jesus Christ- did not really happen but is a nice thought. . .also shows the Love of God. . .but the bible makes it clear Jesus REALLY lived, REALLY died, and REALLY was resurrected. So an allegory in this instance- seems fallacious.

As for Greek mythology and the likes: your applying imaginative thinking and biblical truths, which in my opinion its like trying to mix water and oil. They neither compliment nor enhance the other.

Your closing statement is interesting though, makes me wonder why you believe the story is allegorical, especially in the instance that it does not violate any "rule" or "science."

For perhaps a majority of people in the Bible this is true. However, given the writing style of Genesis (similar to Mesopotamian epics), it would seem to me that Genesis was not intended as literal. Adam is possibly literal (once again, it matters little to me either way). The Gospels are written in an entirely different manner and the Resurrection of Christ seems to be supported by other historians from the same time period. NT Wright, an author I mention frequently is highly regarded and explains this well. You might also want to check out biologos - an organization of christian scholars who also support this idea and have written numerous articles on it.

Jesus stated Adam and Eve were actual people. If they weren't, Jesus was either wrong or a liar. If either is true, you may as well throw the entire Bible into the trash heap of history.

Where did he say that they were actual people? He mentioned them, but I could just as easily mention Achilles or Hercules. Your argument is simply a slippery slope argument with no justification.

[Guest]

God

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:3

Speaks

And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, Deuteronomy 32:10

Through Moses

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 1:26-28

And His Name Is Emmanuel

~

Jesus stated Adam and Eve were actual people. If they weren't, Jesus was either wrong or a liar. If either is true, you may as well throw the entire Bible into the trash heap of history.

Where did he say that they were actual people? He mentioned them, but I could just as easily mention Achilles or Hercules. Your argument is simply a slippery slope argument with no justification.

Calling God's Time-Stamped Creation Log

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

A Symbolic Fictional (An Allegory)

Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(c )

Is Indeed A Slippery Slope

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

Into Perdition

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6