Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[Mcgyver]

A couple of things for consideration...a couple of questions here:

1. What (stylistically) defines an epic or poem in the Hebrew accounts from Historical accounts?

I keep seeing the assertion that Genesis is a "poem" or "epic", and am curious as to the evidence to that effect.

2. Theologically speaking, what are the ramifications if Adam is an allegorical composite; and the effect on NT scripture?

Let me substitute the phrase "an allegorical compilation of humanity" for "Adam" in the following scripture to illustrate:

This is the book of the genealogy of "an allegorical compilation of humanity". In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. Gen 5:1

And "an allegorical compilation of humanity" lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of "an allegorical compilation of humanity" were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. So all the days that "an allegorical compilation of humanity" lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. Gen 5:3-5

the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of "an allegorical compilation of humanity", the son of God. Luke 3:38 (Geneology of Christ)

Therefore, just as through one man <"an allegorical compilation of humanity">sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from "an allegorical compilation of humanity" to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of "an allegorical compilation of humanity", who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s <"an allegorical compilation of humanity">offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned <"an allegorical compilation of humanity">. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man’s <"an allegorical compilation of humanity"> offense death reigned through the one <"an allegorical compilation of humanity">, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

Therefore, as through one man’s <"an allegorical compilation of humanity">offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. Romans 5:12-18

For as in "an allegorical compilation of humanity" all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22

And so it is written, “The first man "an allegorical compilation of humanity" became a living being.” The last "an allegorical compilation of humanity" became a life-giving spirit. 1 Corinthians 15:45

For "an allegorical compilation of humanity" was formed first, then Eve. And "an allegorical compilation of humanity" was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 1 Timothy 2:13-14

Now Enoch, the seventh from "an allegorical compilation of humanity", prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints Jude 1:14

Now...if we take the bible as it's own best commentary, is there a remote possibility of a theological problem if Adam is not a real, historical person?

[Guest]

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:13

~

.... The Bible wasn't written for Americans in the 21st century, it was written for Jews several thousand years ago, and for the emerging Christian Church nearly two thousand years ago, each had a very different culture and world understanding than you or I.

You really cannot take the text at your face-value....

Yes

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

Yes I Can

Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way. Psalms 119:128

~

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.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: John 3:16-18(a)

Or Not

but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:18(b-c)-19

Your Choice

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

So Be Wise

When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. Matthew 2:10-11

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[Mcgyver]

Well, there is that long tradition of allegory in Genesis from both Jewish and Christian scholars and clergy, which continues to this day, not to mention that Genesis is a poem. Despite sloughing off the names BFA gave, they are big names either theologically or historically, and it is certainly just a small sample. Jesus needn't have qualified his speech as allegorical in nature if his audience understood the allegorical nature of the references he was making. And who did Jesus preach to, the Jews who had a culture/religious tradition of interpreting Genesis non-literally. And lets not forget that Jesus is famous for talking metaphorically. It has nothing to do with believing what Jesus said on one page and ignoring it on another, as you've suggested in another post, rather it is about understanding what Jesus is saying on both accounts.

The Bible wasn't written for Americans in the 21st century, it was written for Jews several thousand years ago, and for the emerging Christian Church nearly two thousand years ago, each had a very different culture and world understanding than you or I. You really cannot take the text at your face-value, we don't have the cultural background to do so effectively, thus the importance of historical background. Being a "believer" doesn't grant you special knowledge over the text, only the illusion of such knowledge. And a peculiar stubbornness, if I may add from my own personal experiences.

Here's a question, if you don't mind...

If Genesis is an epic poem, do you accept the historicity of Abraham?

For certainly the story of one who is called out of the UR of the Chaldees by an unknown God, who leaves everything for an unknown land with a promise that his descendants would be as numerous as the sands on the sea; who faces all sorts of trials and deliverance on his journey...truly an epic account.

How about Joseph, who goes from slave sold into bondage by his brothers and rises to be second in all of Egypt? That's an epic tale, for sure.

Then of course there is Moses...raised a prince, flees for his life, becomes a shepherd, sees a burning bush, leads his people out of Egypt...(if Joseph is allegory, then why not Moses in Exodus?) that's also an epic tale, is it not?

So...the question arises: What is epic/allegorical/mythological and what is historical; and how do we tell the difference?

[Guest shiloh357]

You are in error in your thinking BFA.

When Jesus spoke of Noah, Jonah and the big fish etc... He spoke of actualities - nothing more, nothing less.

You can try to justify your analysis as much as you want to but Jesus' words stand over your interpretation of it.

What I always find interesting is that literalists seem to think that their view is not an "interpretation", but it is! It is a literal interpretation of the text. Jesus said X, and you have your own specific interpretation of what those words mean while BFA and myself have another, they are both interpretations of the text. A literal interpretation is not a special category of interpretation, even when it's correct..

No, the problem is that you don't understand "interpretation." The "interpretation" is not with the reader, but with the author. The literal intent and meaning is supplied by the author, not the reader. The reader doesn't get to decide which parts of Scripture are allegorical. The Bible does employ allegory, but the Bible always tells us when it is employing allegory AND it tells us what the allegory represents.

What people like you are doing is making interpretation a subjective exercise, when in fact, it is a objective exercise. The text has only ONE interpretation and it is the literal meaning that the author supplies. That is true when you read a newspaper or a cookbook or a fictional novel. You always adjust your understanding to the intent of the author.

What I have noticed is that in order to support a particular agenda, liberals treat interpretation as a subjective exercise when applied to the Bible. People like you are bent on making the Bible say or mean what you want, than relying on the author to communicate what is to be understood.

God is perfectly capable of saying exactly what He means. He doesn't leave it up to you to concoct a meaning from the text.

No offense, but understanding this your assertions carry no weight without backing them up, and I think there is plenty to suggest that the allegorical interpretation is correct

Actually, from a textual standpoint, you have NOTHING to support an allegorical interpretation. For the text to be allegorical, it must have internal indicators, which Genesis 1-11 have exactly zero textual indicators that it intends to be understood allegorically.

Your arguments are based on sloppy theology and long discarded, outdated and archaic higher criticism.

[Guest shiloh357]

D-9: " I think there is plenty to suggest that the allegorical interpretation is correct."

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that what Jesus said about Adam and Eve, Job, Noah and the Flood, etc., was allegorical. None. All you have is a belief that Jesus did not really mean what He said. But, as you are spiritually blind to begin with, it's understandable. "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Hmmm... no evidence that Christ viewed Genesis allegorically? How about the earliest Christians and Jews of that era who almost entirely viewed Genesis as allegorical? Josephus, Philo (first two are Jewish) Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine (last four are Christian). Seems reasonable to believe that Christ held similar views of the earliest Christians and Jews of that area.

BFA, you seem to miss the point that you are making a both historical and textual arguments and appear to be confusing the two. First of all, for this debate, the views of early Christians and Jews is irrelevant. The allegorical argument is a textual argument and can only be supported by textual evidence. The onus is on you to supply the internal textual evidence from Genesis that shows that the author definitately intended to be understood as making an allegory. You need to supply:

1. Any statement or implication from the author that the narratives were fictional/allegorical

2. Any statement from the author indicating what the allegory represents

3. Any corroboration from the New Testament that indicates that any part of Genesis was fictional and/or allegorical.

It doesn't matter what early Christians believe. Christians are not infallible and history is chock full of erroneous things taught by Christians for the last 2,000 years. Sloppy theology is not a modern phenomenon.

The bottom line is that the allegorical argument is simply a weak argument that has no textual credibility whatsoever.

[Guest shiloh357]

OK, for those of you who believe that a least some people in the bible are allegorical and not literal people, how do you discern which is which?

I base it on context, writing style and historical precedents set by the ancient Jews and Christians.

OK, for those of you who believe that a least some people in the bible are allegorical and not literal people, how do you discern which is which?

I base it on context, writing style and historical precedents set by the ancient Jews and Christians.

Which is a completely erroneous basis. Writing style has NOTHING to do with allegory. Poems are not allegories and you are confusing literary devices. Context also has nothing to do with whether a text is allegorical. Context only supplies a line of thought. Thirdly, since this a textual issue, the view of ancient Jews and Christians is irrelevant. That is a not how we arrive at a correct biblical theology.

[Guest]

Here's a question, if you don't mind...

If Genesis is an epic poem, do you accept the historicity of Abraham?

For certainly the story of one who is called out of the UR of the Chaldees by an unknown God, who leaves everything for an unknown land with a promise that his descendants would be as numerous as the sands on the sea; who faces all sorts of trials and deliverance on his journey...truly an epic account.

How about Joseph, who goes from slave sold into bondage by his brothers and rises to be second in all of Egypt? That's an epic tale, for sure.

Then of course there is Moses...raised a prince, flees for his life, becomes a shepherd, sees a burning bush, leads his people out of Egypt...(if Joseph is allegory, then why not Moses in Exodus?) that's also an epic tale, is it not?

So...the question arises: What is epic/allegorical/mythological and what is historical; and how do we tell the difference?

I think it is possible that Abraham is based off a historical figure that was mythologized. I find it irrelevant whether or not Abraham existed, and from what I know Gen. 1-11 is considered largely allegory, and Abraham falls into that portion of Genesis.

Moses is most certainly allegory in my eyes. From what little I know Joseph is most likely allegory as well.

To know what we're reading. I think we have to look at writing style, as well as the history and culture from that time and place, how the immediate audience (or as close as we can get) viewed it which includes the tradition of the early Jewish and Christian scholars of the time, and so forth. If we are wondering about the accuracy of the account in a historical sense then I think we should include any historical information that can shed light on such things, as well as science when appropriate.

I sincerely do not think we should rely on our 21st century intuition to interpret what we read from texts that are thousands of years old, written in a time and culture so far removed from our own. For example, how many of us laugh when we read about Jesus telling us not to point to the speck in our brother's eye when we have a plank in our own?

Dear One

And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. John 5:40

Because You Still Refuse To Believe

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:12-17

You Are Blinded

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

And You Know Not The Risen Christ

Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Romans 8:34

Nor Have You Any Hope Left For Eternal Happiness

And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Jeremiah 18:22

Except, You See Brother I Know A Secret

And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. Mark 10:26-27

Jesus Still Saves

For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. Luke 9:56

~

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

[ByFaithAlone]

So BFA

You believe some of what Jesus says but reject other parts.

There is nothing in His parts of speech when He talks iof Noah, Jonah etc that differs from how He speaks concerning the prophet Elijah, the famine etc so your reasoning is flawed.

Jesus did not use myths to drive a point home. He used real people and real events.

The only time a person believes a myth is when they believe it to be true eg: children and Santa. Santa is not real but a child begs to differ.

You cherry pick Jesus' own words to suit yourself. Dangerous territory.

It will be the Word itself that judges people.

Don't get caught up in intellectual fluff and bluff.

You must not get fooled in truth-less babble. Don't be misled BFA.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the position held by myself and multitudes of other Christians both past and present. As someone who believes Genesis was allegorical, I believe that when Christ talked about Genesis, he was speaking of an allegory and the Jews of the era would have known he was speaking an allegory. I therefore don't reject anything Jesus has said but I feel as though I may understand what Christ said in the context of that era better than literalists. I could be wrong of course but I must look at the evidence and see where it leads.

D-9: " I think there is plenty to suggest that the allegorical interpretation is correct."

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that what Jesus said about Adam and Eve, Job, Noah and the Flood, etc., was allegorical. None. All you have is a belief that Jesus did not really mean what He said. But, as you are spiritually blind to begin with, it's understandable. "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Hmmm... no evidence that Christ viewed Genesis allegorically? How about the earliest Christians and Jews of that era who almost entirely viewed Genesis as allegorical? Josephus, Philo (first two are Jewish) Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine (last four are Christian). Seems reasonable to believe that Christ held similar views of the earliest Christians and Jews of that area.

Something to consider is that there are people who claim to be Christian but hold views that are in opposition to what Christ taught and believed , Jesus has even stated that there will be those who claim to be Christ followers and say they cast out demons in Jesus name and Jesus responds by saying 'depart from me you workers of iniquity , i never knew you ' ,they claim to be Christian but by their deeds they have shown they are not . It is not totally reasonable that Christ held similar views of the earliest Christians and Jews of that area., because there are those who have shown otherwise so it would be depending on specifics and to compare what some Christians and Jews of that era believed compared to what Jesus taught,

if people are going to split hairs, then we can say that God named Adam and his helpmate Adam and it was the male Adam that named his helpmate/wife Eve but when people speak of Jesus being the second Adam it is in reference to say that the 1st man Adam was of the dust of the earth, the second man is from heaven.

The natural and the spiritual. Christ is the first of those who are raised from the dead to eternal life. Because Christ rose from the dead, He is “a life-giving spirit” When believers are resurrected, God will give them immortal glorified eternal bodies suited to eternal life.

a scripture that speaks of Christ as the second Adam

1 Corinthians 15

²⁰ But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

²¹ For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

²² For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

⁴² So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

⁴⁴It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

⁴⁵ And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

⁴⁷ The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven

Anything is possible so I agree that the early Christians may have been wrong but it seems to me as though it would be more reasonable for them to have opinions or views on Scripture which were similar to Christ. As to Paul’s references to Adam, I fail to see why these references have to be any more literal than Christ’s references. Could they not be allegorical?

ByFaithAlone: Hmmm... no evidence that Christ viewed Genesis allegorically? How about the earliest Christians and Jews of that era who almost entirely viewed Genesis as allegorical?

Your evidence that Jesus viewed Genesis as allegorical is naming a few non-believing Jews and a few early Christians who viewed Genesis the way you do?

Seriously?

ByFaithAlone: Seems reasonable to believe that Christ held similar views of the earliest Christians and Jews of that area.

No it doesn't "seem reasonable" at all. You simply stated the beliefs of a few others like yourself. You posted no Biblical evidence whatsoever that Jesus didn't mean exactly what He said.

These men that I referenced were the top scholars of their day. They represented Christianity and their writings formed the basis of the Christian creeds. They are regarded as important theologians in Protestantism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

The Jews that I mention were also influential scholars of their era and presented the common Jewish view at the time and Christ was a Jew who probably held these common Jewish views.

Following on from Tinky's thinking BFA, the disciples, His inner circle, those He taught one on one, obviously believed Jesus' teachings as literal based....

If you can show me otherwise, please do.

Really? On what basis do you say that his disciples believed Genesis was literal? I see no biblical basis for that. I see no extrabiblical writings that confirm it. On the other hand, I see plenty of extrabiblical early Christian sources and textual criticism that confirms my view.

I will get to the rest as soon as possible. Probably this weekend.

[Guest HisG]

"I see no extrabiblical writings that confirm it." BFA says

Do you hold the Bible as THE standard? I wonder.

Scholars of both Christian and non-Christian thought hold the Bible as a very credible source of ancient history. You should know that if you are a layman student of history.

When you read the NT BFA, in its entirety, do you get the sense that the disciples and extended circle of believers wrote in the context that Jesus was literal in what He said ?

Would you say that His disciples were faithful in passing on His message in the way that Jesus taught them?

and.......

Do you believe.....

that Noah existed?.....Jesus said...²⁶ “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.²⁷ People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. (Luke 17:26 - 30)

What about Jonah? ..........Jesus responded saying, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here " (Matthew 12:39-41).

You may say yes these men existed - then I would assume that you also believe these events happened....?

Take note of the bold text from the verses in Matthew ch 12.

[Guest HisG]

BFA says:

Really? On what basis do you say that his disciples believed Genesis was literal?

HisG replied:

How do you read

Romans 5:12-21 .....?

¹² Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

¹³ To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

(Points to remember.....Did Jesus ever mention Moses? Yes. Did Jesus mention Moses in the context of having actually lived? Yes. Does Paul mention Moses in this verse in the same manner? Yes again. Then why would a "generic" Adam be thrown into the mix with a literal Moses?)