Yes and Amen. The Bible is a complex collection of documents written to a diverse group of people, who lived a long time ago, who often thought very differently to us, and had many values that we might not naturally share. I think we run into all sorts of problems when try to make the Bible answer 21st Century western questions or impose contemporary values on it.
2 Likes
Well, applying it to current questions and life is the point of reading it isn’t it? I think what you really mean is that we have to take those things into consideration, and read it in its cultural and historical context. I certainly agree with you there, which is why the literal approach loses relevance when applied to modern life.
1 Like
Yes, my apologies that is what I meant. Thanks for pushing back and seeking clarification, @jpm . Imprecision is the enemy of effective communication!
I find a non-literal Adam and Eve plausible for a couple of reasons.
First Adam just means human in Hebrew. If you read the Genesis 2 account substituting the “earthling” or the “human” every time you see Adam it reads much more like Adam being portrayed as a type of all humans and our shared experience.
Many interpret Genesis to teach that humans were created immortal and became mortal after sin. However, I think the most natural reading of Scripture implies the opposite: ‘from the dust’, implies we were created mortal yet the tree of life in the story symbolized that although we were created mortal we were created with the potential for immortality.
For example in Ezekiel it speaks prophetically of a divine ruler who though he a god will become mortal like a man. Implying that angelic beings were created to be immortal yet some became mortal, but for humans the Bible seems to be saying we were created moral like animals yet through the death and resurrection of Jesus we can obtain immortality.
Romans 7 is another passage where Paul does a speech in character of Adam dramatizing the experience of all humanity living in the flesh, setting up Romans 8 where he speaks of life in the Spirit.
Secondly if you compare it with other ANE creation myths, no one else was ever trying to tell primordial history (ie stories of events that took place before the dawn of civilization) in a way of scientifically telling the story in a way that conveyed exactly the facts of how it happened. Instead they were telling stories in a way that expounded upon what they believed about the diving, what it means to be human and how the divine and humans relate to one another.
It seems strange to me to demand that Israel told there stories in a way more akin to post-enlightenment modern Western culture rather than to the ANE culture where it was written.
2 Likes
I may be peculiar, but for me the issue of the Original Couple is not whether they existed or not. The power or the meaning of the original Couple is the story of the Fall. or Original Sin.
If the story of the Fall does not ring true, then it makes no difference as to whether the Original Couple were actual human beings or literary figures or whatever.
1 Like
If there was no original sinner there can be no original sin. The fall itself fails on the level of the reality of a tree that imbues knowledge. Not to mention the sheer ineptness of God for allowing it. Do we really think that God did not want us to be sentient? (which is the result of eating from the tree of knowledge)
No, the meaning of Genesis 2-5 is not as simple as “the fall”. If God is God then man cannot undo all His good work in one fell swoop of disobedience. Sin is the result of sentience, not eating an apple…
The value of Genesis 2-5 is rooted in the origins of the Judaism and the emphasis placed on heritage. There are lessons about temptation, sin and responsibility (the excuses were futile). There is theology in the bonding of male and female (Male chauvinism?) and the place of man in the Universe. There is a counterpoint for salvation inasmuch as Paul uses it to emphasise that one man can make a difference, be it Adam or Christ. But we can do a lot of damage trying to rectify all the details into theology. Especially when people start trying to doctrinise the use of animal fur for clothing, as opposed to fig leaves or claim that physical death is caused by Adam’s Original sin.
Richard
1 Like
I think maybe Roger is saying that the theological importance is in the historicity of the fall of humanity, not in the historicity of Adam. If that is what he is saying, I agree. The Genesis narrative could be a totally mythologized presentation of something that happened, even though the historical details were lost.
2 Likes
If the garden was not real, how did humanity fall? Is humanity actually fallen? Or is that just an excuse for the existence of Christianity?
God created everything “Good”. Would that not include humanity? Are we claiming that man can undo God’s goodness?
Forgiveness is on an individual basis. Perhaps there is no need to make it anything else? Perhaps righteous purity is not so much impossible as “Practically impossible” due to the hardness of it to achieve. In life, sometimes we seem to be confronted with “the lesser of two evils” both of which would be termed a sin. So perhaps it is the circumstance, not the nature that makes man sinful?
I am a firm believer that Original Sin, in any shape, form or derivation, is false.
Richard
1 Like
We don’t necessarily know the historical facts surrounding it.
I would say the Bible and personal and corporate human experience clearly teach that.
Christianity exists because of Christ, not fallen humanity. I believe God intended to become incarnate and join himself to his creation to complete his creative work of redeeming of all things as his plan A, not his plan B because humans sinned.
I don’t think the Hebrew word implies morality. It implies something being fit and proper and functioning in its intended way in the order God set up.
No. But Christians are claiming when it comes to moral goodness, humans have a choice to rebel against God’s rule. That doesn’t nullify his place as rightful ruler.
2 Likes
Perhaps it is not so?
You could claim biblical support, but I think you need to look closer at your human neighbours.
Christ’ own words do not agree. He came to “save the lost”.
He also claimed that “Only the sick need a physician.”
It would seem that Christ came as a response to fallen Jews.
The notion of plan A or B does not apply to a God who can see all. Who is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. It is a human concept.
Maybe, literally, but in terms of Good, it must assume that includes all aspects. We do not need to play linguistics
Having a choice does not make man fallen.
The arguments you made were circular and human. (IMHO)
Richard
Oh, yes, we always need to play linguistics, Richard. It’s not just a game, it’s meaning itself. 
Except I didn’t make any arguments, I just told you what I thought. Can you not tell the difference?
2 Likes
If you insist. Reasons,/ arguments, we are still on linguistics. Clearly I will have to be a little more precise when conversing with you.
Richard
In Genesis 4 and 5 Adam and Eve are posed as the biological parents of Cain ans Seth. The biblical data indicates that Cain and Seth were rulers in the Neolithic Period (city building, tools, naming cities after the heir, etc.). Analysis of the king lists of Genesis 4 and 5 further reveals that Cain and Seth married patrilineal cousins. Adam had a contemporary named Enoch (Enosh/Enos or Nok). This explains why the royal persons of Adam and Enoch/Enosh are paralleled in Psalm 8:4 - “What is man [enosh] that you are mindful of him, the son of man [ben adam] that you care for him?”
There is further textual evidence that Eve understood her son Cain to be a ruler. In Genesis 4:1 she gives birth to Cain and says (in Akkadian) “qaniti” (kaniti) which has the iti indicator for ruler, as found in the name Nefertitti. Kaniti is a reference to king, as Kandake (Candace in English Bibles) is a reference to queen. The Akkadian itti, as in itti šarrim, means “with the king” or “for the king.”
That little back and forth between Christy and Richard was priceless. Thank you. 
1 Like
There are clearly two creation stories in Gen. The first one tells what happened, in somewhat poetic fashion, blow by blow. It is told from outside, from an observer’s point of view, perhaps God’s. In the story that starts in Gen 2:4, the tone of voice changes; clearly a different (human) author, but still part of scripture and to be fully relied upon. We are given a setting and a time, and thus we are invited into the story. But this is no ordinary story. This one has a man at the center of it, one made by God in a magical manner. Then God made a garden that included magical trees. Don’t we see as we read this that we aren’t doing history anymore?
But this is no ordinary story. It answers questions - why doesn’t God live with us; why do we wear clothes; why does it hurt to have a baby; why do we long for a man and for babies even though we are likely to suffer as a result; why do men leave their own family and stick with a woman, whom he must work hard and sometimes risk death to protect? And so many more. Like the man said – how much time do you have?
And yet the odd thing is that there are several things that have lately been uncovered that point to this strange story. We have recently found fossils that show that snakes once had legs. We have been able to trace human descent to one woman. We have also traced human descent to one man; although of course they were not a couple. Ancient human authors of Creation Part 2 could not have known about either of these things.
Also – I’ve heard a lot of talk about how humans differ from animals. Well, it seems that all of our superpowers are shared in some degree by various animals, even exceeded by some. But there is one. Every human culture insists on the wearing of clothes, however meager; but no animal anywhere wears such things, nor is the least embarrassed about bodily functions.
Very interesting.
On the Theology Forum I tried a discussion on just this and was basically shot down. If God was embarrassed by our nakedness why did He not cover it all up? Even the Genesis story seems to imply that it is the human need for clothing that God succumbs to rather than God Himself dictating it. I wonder why embarrassment should be part of sentience? David goes naked to praise God and is frowned upon by the religious authorities. It does seem that both nakedness and sexual enjoyment are an obsessive no.no, in the bible.
Ah well. There goes my sainthood.
Richard
Except in Song of Songs of course.
1 Like
that’s the spot every teen boy wanders to during a boring sermon! (not to speak of the odd stories from Genesis and the other books of the Pentateuch–like when my son asked about Noah getting drunk last year).
2 Likes
One of those rare moments when ones lack of biblical study is regretted.
Wait. “Twin fawns of a gazelle that graze among the lilies”? Oh my, thank you google.
1 Like