Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[Guest shiloh357]

The author may have a particular interpretation in mind, perhaps one and only interpretation in mind, the "correct" interpretation if you will. But interpretation is with the reader, it is the reader that interprets what he/she reads, whether or not that interpretation is correct is obviously up for discussion.

The act of interpretation lies with the reader, but the only the author supplies the interpretation that the reader is to take from the text. If you hold to particular interpretation of Genesis that claims that Genesis 1-11 is a set of allegories, or parables, you have the responsibility to show the textual indicators that demonstrate such. You MUST demonstrate that your allegorical approach to the text is what was intended by the author. if you cannot supply such evidence from the text, the default understanding of the text of Genesis 1-11 is that of a historical narrative and nothing else. You do not have the right to arbitrarily apply any value you want to the text.

My point is that while a metaphorical interpretation of the text is an interpretation, a literal reading of the text is also an interpretation in the same sense ("literal" in the sense that common people understand the word (i.e. "her eyes are like radiant suns" means her eyes are beautiful in a metaphorical interpretation, the literal interpretation being her eyes are giant balls of gas undergoing nuclear fusion pushing out tons of electromagnetic radiation), not what I understand your meaning of "literal" to be).

As usual you are confusing "literal" with face value. A face value approach would apply a wooden meaning to the text, thus claiming that her eyes are giant balls of gas. The literal meaning is understood found behind the metaphor. Her eyes being beautiful is the literal meaning/interpretation. And by the way, there is no such thing as a metaphorical interpretation. A metaphor is a literary device that points to the literal interpretation. All interpretation is literal. The point behind interpretation is to understand the author, not to arbitrarily assign the reader's values to the text. Why read something if you are not interested in what the author means? The true act of interpretation always approaches the text with the object the author has in mind. Otherwise, interpretation is a waste of time.

A responsible reader understands that. Jesus said, "I am the door of the sheepgate." A face value approach would picture Jesus as a piece of wood with hinges. The literalist looks at that statement and understands that Jesus is making a cultural idiomatic reference to the shepherding profession and simply means that Jesus is the way to enter the sheephold, i.e. the place of security safety of salvation. You are demonstrabably ignorant of how literary devices work given your above response. What you and other liberals are doing are trying to apply figurativism arbitrarily to the parts of the Bible that run contrary to what you are willing to accept. That is not interpretation. It is an attempt at revisionism meant to accomodate your slopply theology.

From what I understand most scholars and clergy disagree with you.

No, you are in the dark. Your liberal approach was popularized from the 19th to mid 20th century. The problem is that recent archeology has rendered your views and the views ot liberal scholars you mention invalid and obsolete. Archeology has debunked the JEPD theory given that extra biblical references to Elohim and YHVH have been discovered to exist in the wrong eras thus discrediting JEPD and higher criticsm. The truth is that "most" scholars do not support your view. Most European scholars maybe, but the are a minority and most are not genuine Christians anyway. There are many scholars of the Bible who don't believe a word of it. Not every scholar of the Bible is a Christian. There is a form of Christianity that does not have Christ in it. Most of the liberal European scholars belong to that. If that is what you are basis your understanding the Bible on, you are really out in left field.

Most scholars and clergy see contradictions if it is a literal account, they see a writing style indicative of myth (myth in the academic sense of the word) and allegory, and they see a long tradition from the culture that wrote the texts as treating them non-literally. As far as I know this isn't an archaic rendition of scholarly belief, but a modern one.

Yeah "most liberal scholars and clergy" try to manufacture contradictions. There are no contradictions. What we have are incompetent men and women who possess a liberal agenda to tear down the Bible's authority in order to make room for things like gay marriage, evolution, and other liberal agenas. They promote feminism and the ordination of gays to the ministry. They need to win over the Christian community to their lurid, disgusting views, and so they prey on the biblical illiterates (like you) in order to win more people to their point of view.

Truth is not determined by who believes something or why. Truth stands independent of what scholars believe. Scholars are not infallible and have been wrong in the past many times. You are forsaking the word of infallible God for the views of little, fallible men and women.

The problem inherent in your responses is the complete lack of a textual argument. The text doesn't support your claims, so you have to claim that scholars believe what you believe. You have to make every other argument you can except the ONLY argument you must make for your position to be true. You can't make a textual argument because there is nothing in the text that indicates a metaphorical, alleogorical or parabolic understanding the text. The absence of textual evidence from you proves that your view is completely wrong and nothing else you say to defend your position means anything matters. The textual argument requires textual evidence to back it up.

[Guest shiloh357]

I've seen it more than once before the idea that "allegory" means "not true" or "false" or "not from God", and that is a misrepresentation and misses the point completely of the allegorical interpretation. Making a dichotomy of believing the Word literally = true vs. viewing it allegory = false, will get you absolutely nowhere with believers that take an allegorical approach as their understanding is very different from that dichotomy

But it is people like you who set the allegorical approach over and against the literal approach. The allegorical approach has been used to reject the idea that Adam and Eve were real people in history.

What's more is that the allegorial approach is purely arbitrary and it appears you mean for that approach to simply be accepted uncritically without any texutual evidence to support that view. Up to this point, you cannot really defend the allegorical approach from a textual perspective even though you are making a textual arugment. You need to show where the text indicates that allegory is being used and what the text is intending to allegorize. What does the text say about what the object of the allegorization is, if it is indeed allegorical? Where is the New Testament corroboration that the Adam and Eve were not real people in history?

.

It isn't about determining which portions of scripture is God-breathed and which parts aren't, it is about understanding scripture to the fullest extent possible.

No, that is not what is behind the allegory argument. This is not about understanding the Bible. It is about liberals who are desprately trying to make evolution, homosexuality and other sinful lifestyles acceptable. The nonliteral approach is always used to justify and excuse the Bible either clearly says is sinful, or to muddy the waters where the authority of the Bible is concerned in order to make room evolutionary views.

As for the Bible being used by historians and archaeologists from both religious and secular schools of thought, yes and no. It depends on which section of the Bible you're in. If you're talking about Adam, Noah, or Moses, really no historian outside the faith thinks that those stories actually happened, and many historians that belong to the faith don't think that those stories happened either. To say that the Bible in its entirety is used by secular historians to determine historical events is blatantly false. Most of the stories mentioned in this thread are among the stories that secular historians don't accept as historical fact.

That has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually true. That is not how we arrive at truth. You put men above Scripture and if there is any contradiction with what scholars say and what the Bible says, you always default to them. The Bible must a pretty pointless book because you can't accept anything in it without first checking to see what scholars say. To you the Bible is true only where scholars say it is true. You don't rely on the Holy Spirit to guide you into truth. Yet you pretend that on some level you are believer, when that is demonstrably false.

[Guest HisG]

You missed the point altogether D9 -

For a Christian believer, the Bible is THE standard when it comes to verification of Biblical antiquity - not verification of the Bible via other writings.

That is my point to BFA.

As a Christian, we don't need other sources to confirm Bible history - other sources support Biblical history as does archeology but the Bible confirms it.

BFA - I'm sure you get the point now.

By the way D9-

Since you are classed as a non-believer I am not sure what your true intentions for being on this thread is. Your arguments against the authenticity of Genesis will fall flat with Believers who allow the Holy Spirit to guide them to deeper, fuller understanding.

If it is to plant seeds of doubt into BFA's head, I recommend that you stop.

I go back to you now BFA,

I can relate to your position in a way because I remember when I heard that some Christians didn't believe in the Creation account in Genesis. They regarded it as a fairytale and any intelligent person would dismiss it. I was shocked and pretty confused,

being a new Christian - but what I did, was to see what Jesus Himself said about the Genesis account and how He taught it to others. Can I rely on what Jesus says is true? Or do I lay my trust in the laps of people with egos to nurse in the mainly secular

scholarly field. I had to let down my guard and confusion and decide that I will trust what Jesus says above man. If I am willing to accept His gift of Salvation, then I am willing to accept that what He says is what He means and not the spin that man puts on His

intentions.

John 12 v 48: "He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him: the *word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

* " The word that I have spoken"....some or all?..........food for thought.

[Guest HisG]

BFA,

I wonder how much credibility your mother would have, if she told you the story of the "boy who cried wolf" but used your Grandfather, uncle or sibling - in place of the boy, in order to teach you not to lie....I know for a fact if I did that to my sons, used real

people that they knew of and placed them in untrue situations, for the sake of teaching them a lesson, it wouldn't work.

I know this style of teaching would not hold water at a school.

[ByFaithAlone]

Ok so the major points brought up by a number of people. I will address them as best I can as to satisfy your questions.

1. The Bible is the standard of authenticity in regards to the ways in which the Jews and early Christians lived and acted.

HisG has brought this point up multiple times and I agree with this statement. However, I am not asking that we place the Bible below the words of man (early Christians and Jews). I am asking us to examine the Bible in the light of what Jesus and people of his time period would have thought. I am asking us to interpret the Bible which most fits with our historical knowledge of what the interpretations were in that era. Like it or not this includes an allegorical Genesis.

2. The allegorical Genesis account is a "liberal" scheme to input allegorical ideas into other parts of the Bible

This is a slippery slope argument that fails because Genesis has good reasons to be interpreted as allegorical while other passages do not have such reasons.

3. Christ and the disciples mention Adam.

Once again, I agree with this statement However, based on the writings of early Christians and the Jews of this era, it seems to me that the majority of people viewed these statements as allegorical once again.

4. Why should we trust the older Christians and Jews of that day?

The simple answer is, these were the people who would (most likely) have held interpretive views very similar to the disciples and even Christ himself. It seems reasonable to me that, if a vast majority of early Christians and Jews held this view as accurate at the time of Christ, Christ probably held similar views. It is of course, not completely set in stone, but it seems reasonable.

5. Scholarship, who cares?

This seems to a large amount of the attitude at this point. No one seems to care about the large amount of theological study done by a wide variety of clergy, theologians, philosophers, historians and writing scholars that support the ideas of an allegorical Genesis. I have not heard any counter claims, specifically in regards to why the Jews and Christians of that era would believe in an allegorical Genesis.

[Guest]

Who's Kidding Who, Understand God?

Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:6-9

Without Treasuring His Word?

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

Huh....

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

~

.... It isn't about determining which portions of scripture is God-breathed and which parts aren't, it is about understanding scripture to the fullest extent possible.....

.... As for the Bible being used by historians and archaeologists from.... religious schools of thought, yes and no. It depends on which section of the Bible you're in. If you're talking about Adam, Noah, or Moses.... many historians that belong to the faith don't think that those stories happened either.....

To say that the Bible in its entirety is used by secular historians to determine historical events is blatantly false....

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV)

Secular Un-Biblical Historians

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 2 Timothy 3:1-6

Ungodly Historians

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 2 Timothy 3:7-9

What A

Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight. Proverbs 12:22

Shame

The righteous is more excellent than his neighbour: but the way of the wicked seduceth them. Proverbs 12:26

~

Believers Understand

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

Even The Wise Archaeologists Too

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2 Peter 3:5-6

All Those Pagans Even Those "Educated"

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:7

Bible Deniers Are So Sunk

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

[40] Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Acts 10:34-44

~

Believe In The Christ Of The Bible

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 1:10-12

And Be Blessed

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22

Beloved

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:25-29

Love, Joe

[Tinky]

Do you know what is absolutely astonishing to me?

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

[ByFaithAlone]

Do you know what is absolutely astonishing to me?

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

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

However, this does not mean that God's creation is any less wonderful. In fact, I think by viewing Genesis in an allegorical manner I choose to believe in a God far more complex and intelligent than a literalist would ever dare to imagine, a universe far more beautiful and amazing in which God created this universe so precisely, physical constants tuned ever so delicately, such that life and even more than that, intelligent life could come into existence. If you have ever looked at the physics it is astounding that even basic elements exist but due to the nature of physical constants it is possible. God, from an allegorical Genesis perspective fine tuned our universe so that billions of years later we could exist. To me, that is humbling and beautiful and in no way diminishes his power.

[Tinky]

If you have ever looked at the physics it is astounding that even basic elements exist but due to the nature of physical constants it is possible. God, from an allegorical Genesis perspective fine tuned our universe so that billions of years later we could exist. To me, that is humbling and beautiful and in no way diminishes his power.

If God did do it that way, He could have easily stated such in the Bible. Stop trying to negate God's clear Word by cramming man's idea of billions of years into Scripture.

[janiebeth]

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