Is the Account of Adam and Eve LITERAL?

[Josiah]

This question was presented to our resident pastor, who posted this:

Attention: Pastor Rickert has emailed his response and I will now copy and paste it here through this account:


May the risen Lord be with you



It is true that the Bible is not opposed to allegory (Galatians 4:24) and we have examples of individuals using it in the Old Testament (Judges 9:7-15) so it is not just a New Testament thing. However, in the case of Genesis 1-3, the text presents the information as historical facts. If you wish to interpret it as if Moses was writing an allegory, then one should ask how Moses intended the allegory to be understood (at least if one wants to be textual). Certainly Moses would have no problem with God creating Adam and Eve, so there is no reason to assume he wanted it to be understood as an allegory. So, just the plain reading of the text, and how we understand the beliefs of people during the days of Moses, leads us to think in terms of historical facts.



One of the big problems (but certainly not the only one) with reinterpreting Adam and Eve in some allegorical fashion is the negative impact it has on the message of salvation. The Fall ushers in our need for a Savior. How do you explain sin and our need without the Fall. This often leads to some sort of works-righteousness solution to sin. Also, what do you do with the first promise of the Messiah (Genesis 3:15). Also, how do you handle the numerous other Biblical references to Adam and Eve that take the account as historical? How to we understand Jesus as the “Second Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45-49) if there was no first Adam? To be honest, those I’ve met who struggle with the history of Adam and Eve, also struggle with being sinners, being in need of a Savior, the resurrection of the body, as well as the Divine inspiration of the Bible in general.



Other than not liking to think of ourselves as sinners in need of a Savior, other reasons I’ve heard for rejecting the historical nature of Genesis 1-3 is that it does not well harmonize with modern science, and science is taken as the final authority. Some reject it because they, a priori, reject the idea that God interacts with creation. One view takes contemporary science as the ultimate authority and the other takes personal opinion as the ultimate authority (God must conform to my opinion). According to the Bible, the Triune God is the ultimate authority, not fallen humanity.



Blessings in the Name of the Second Adam

Pastor Rickert


.

I largely agree....

Although PERSONALLY, I'm pretty open to an allegorical "spin" on this.

ONE of the things that leads me to that possibility is the very names "ADAM" and "EVE".

I think it is POSSIBLE to "read" this as an affirmation that mankind has "fallen" and is sinful.

I'd "buy" that completely except I agree with Pastor Richart, that DOES seem to cause a problem with the point of Saint Paul in his letters of Christ as the NEW Adam, the UN-Adam. IF a literal individual person by the moniker of "Adam" did not exist and this "Fall" did not literally happen, that DOES seem to generate some "problems" with some of Paul's points.....

On the other hand, it is OBVIOUS that death has existed since Creation.... and thus the Fall and "sin." And it seems obvious Adam and Eve were not the only homo sapiens on the Earth at the time....

I'm willing to chuck this up largely to MYSTERY. And pretty much irrelevant.



- Josiah.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

This question was presented to our resident pastor, who posted this:




I largely agree....

Although PERSONALLY, I'm pretty open to an allegorical "spin" on this.

ONE of the things that leads me to that possibility is the very names "ADAM" and "EVE".

I think it is POSSIBLE to "read" this as an affirmation that mankind has "fallen" and is sinful.

I'd "buy" that completely except I agree with Pastor Richart, that DOES seem to cause a problem with the point of Saint Paul in his letters of Christ as the NEW Adam, the UN-Adam. IF a literal individual person by the moniker of "Adam" did not exist and this "Fall" did not literally happen, that DOES seem to generate some "problems" with some of Paul's points.....

On the other hand, it is OBVIOUS that death has existed since Creation.... and thus the Fall and "sin." And it seems obvious Adam and Eve were not the only homo sapiens on the Earth at the time....

I'm willing to chuck this up largely to MYSTERY. And pretty much irrelevant.



- Josiah.

I believe in the literal truth of the account of Adam and Eve, simply because it ties in so seamlessly with the rest of Holy Scripture. Adam and Eve ate a forbidden fruit, death came into the world and Jesus countered that when He came to earth. Allegories are fine, but when it comes to Sacred Scripture, I think one should tread carefully. This is God's revelation of Himself to us in Holy Writ. Pull one thread and the whole fabric might unravel. Always beware of trying to apply human reason to Sacred Scripture. Happy Easter.

 

[JRT]

A very great deal of scripture is wide open to interpretation. As a Christian of over 70 years and also a retired scientist, I have no problem in regarding Genesis as allegorical.

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death. What we are is a people that is still evolving. We are no longer "just animals" but something more.

Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a real world where there was real good and evil.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise."

 

[NewCreation435]

I don't see any reason to think that Adam and Eve weren't literal people who lived and died on the earth. Have you ever noticed how Adam lived over 900 years and we literally know about 15 minutes of his whole life? What type of person he was, what did he do most of the day. Did he sing, dance, write, farm? It doesn't say

 

[MennoSota]

I don't see any reason to think that Adam and Eve weren't literal people who lived and died on the earth. Have you ever noticed how Adam lived over 900 years and we literally know about 15 minutes of his whole life? What type of person he was, what did he do most of the day. Did he sing, dance, write, farm? It doesn't say

We know this. God gave a rule to Adam and Eve. They disobeyed and the holy relationship with their Creator was broken. Corruption of the human nature brought a need for a redeemer. That Redeemer is God, himself, in the person of Jesus.
There is no need to over think this truth. There is no need to try reconcile it with scientific reasoning. God provided this information for us so we might recognize our own corruption and by His grace be redeemed by the atoning blood of Christ Jesus.
Rebels will come up with sophisticated reasons to remain in rebellion and not bow their knee to the Sovereign King. Even Christians tend to look for ways to make God an advisor to them rather than accept that He is King and we are saved solely by His mercy and grace.

 

[psalms 91]

Just another example of trying to complicate the simple message of God. It is simple, so simple that those with great inntelects try to complicate things. People dont care about all the ins and outs who are lost but they do embrace the siomple message of salvation if presented without all the rest. It is sad that people take the message of Jesus and try to complicate it and in the process make people twice the child of hell that they were

 

[NewCreation435]

We know this. God gave a rule to Adam and Eve. They disobeyed and the holy relationship with their Creator was broken. Corruption of the human nature brought a need for a redeemer. That Redeemer is God, himself, in the person of Jesus.
There is no need to over think this truth. There is no need to try reconcile it with scientific reasoning. God provided this information for us so we might recognize our own corruption and by His grace be redeemed by the atoning blood of Christ Jesus.
Rebels will come up with sophisticated reasons to remain in rebellion and not bow their knee to the Sovereign King. Even Christians tend to look for ways to make God an advisor to them rather than accept that He is King and we are saved solely by His mercy and grace.

True

 

[atpollard]

I remember being a very young child and being fascinated with Ancient Egypt and Greece and Rome. I remember reading that it was common knowledge that the Egyptians invented the spoked wheel that gave them an advantage in chariot technology over their solid-wheeled neighbors. I remember that archeologists all accepted as true that iron was introduced with the early Romans, granting them an advantage over the Bronze wielding Greeks. Every serious archeologist and historian KNEW that the Biblical account of the Hittites with iron rimmed chariot wheels predating the Egyptians was simply nonsense.

Then one day archeologists discovered the ruins of the Hittite civilization with iron rimmed chariots just like the Bible said.
I remember that discovery and am reluctant to bet against scripture on any historic point. Six literal days of creation don’t really agree with what I know of geology, but my money is still on six literal days.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

I remember being a very young child and being fascinated with Ancient Egypt and Greece and Rome. I remember reading that it was common knowledge that the Egyptians invented the spoked wheel that gave them an advantage in chariot technology over their solid-wheeled neighbors. I remember that archeologists all accepted as true that iron was introduced with the early Romans, granting them an advantage over the Bronze wielding Greeks. Every serious archeologist and historian KNEW that the Biblical account of the Hittites with iron rimmed chariot wheels predating the Egyptians was simply nonsense.

Then one day archeologists discovered the ruins of the Hittite civilization with iron rimmed chariots just like the Bible said.
I remember that discovery and am reluctant to bet against scripture on any historic point. Six literal days of creation don’t really agree with what I know of geology, but my money is still on six literal days.

Science will undoubtedly prove you and the Bible right. I find it rather amusing that as science advances, we find more and more Biblical truth being shown to be correct, while secular theories drop by the wayside. Lest anybody forget, the Theory of Evolution is still a theory, not a proven Law, such as gravity. One day, that theory will be disproven as well. So, when we ( as a species) learn in a couple of millennia that the Scriptures have been true all along and all our research has done is proven that Truth, the faith of our descendants will finally be exonerated. Y- DNA and Mitochondrial DNA have shown that we are a global family, connected over the centuries to one common couple. Hey, the story of Adam and Eve was recorded by Moses four thousand years or so ago, so this hard- won, scientifically studied truth was already available to the faithful in Holy Writ. There will be other truths proven, no doubt.

 

[kiwimac]

Genesis 1 & 2 and the story of Adam and Eve are allegory rather than actual historical truth.

 

[psalms 91]

Literal for sure

 

[Lamb]

I believe that it is literal. If we start going down the path in thinking that the accounts in the bible never happened then how strong could our faith be that God would come to earth and die for the forgiveness of all our sins?

 

[Lamb]

I believe that it is literal. If we start going down the path in thinking that the accounts in the bible never happened then how strong could our faith be that the one true God would come to earth and die for the forgiveness of all our sins?

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

I believe that it is literal. If we start going down the path in thinking that the accounts in the bible never happened then how strong could our faith be that the one true God would come to earth and die for the forgiveness of all our sins?

Therein lies the seduction. It's just like when the Devil said to Eve, “Did God actually say, ‘You[a] shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” ( Genesis 3:1) The Evil One begins with an exaggeration and then he goes on to contradict God's word. Eve listens to him, breaks the only rule God has laid down for her and Adam, she persuades Adam to break the selfsame rule and Paradise is lost https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=ESV! Questioning the revealed word of God always proves to be a slippery slope and the bottom of that hill is the Lake of Fire itself. Human overreliance on reason is an endemic result of Original Sin. Our reason is limited, God is not. God has revealed Himself to us and we have the written Word to show us how we are to walk. Once we start turning away from that word, we ultimately turn away from Faith.

 

[hedrick]

It's unfortunate the people seem to see allegory as the only alternative. Allegories have specific features that Gen 1 - 3 lack. In an allegory key elements of the story stand for something else. This isn't the case in Genesis.

But there are other types of story that aren't historically accurate. Parables are one example. A few of the parables are allegories, but many aren't.

Usually people who don't think the creation stories are historically accurate don't think they're allegory. Myth, legend, and saga have all been used. These are all traditional stories that are ways of talking about reality without being history. Gen 2 - 3 have been critical to Christian theology. Discussions of sex, gender roles, and sin are all based on that story.

It's hard to know whether at some point they were understood as historical. In my opinion the editor on Genesis couldn't have understood them as historical. Despite modern attempts at harmonizing them, they are obviously contradictory chronologies. I assume the editor of Genesis felt an obligation to preserve all of the traditional stories. You can see it in two versions of the Noah story, etc. Presumably the value wasn't in providing an actual historical account, but rather because those stories are how his culture talked about things like where sin came from and the roles of men and women. That's not quite an allegory. It's closer to Jesus' parables, though I wouldn't quite call the accounts parables.

How does the modern understanding of origins actually affect Christian theology? In principle it needn't have any impact. We could understand the accounts of sin, etc, as being valid even though the stories aren't historical. Unfortunately there's a problem with that. It is virtually impossible that humanity was ever sinless, and sin entered through the actions of one pair. In fact people seem to be designed to learn from experience. If you assume that people are going to live in a variety of environments and cultures, that's pretty much the only reasonable way to make people. But that means that mistakes are a basic part of how we work. And it's sort of hard to imagine those mistakes not including some actions that violate morals. Indeed it's hard to imagine all specifics of the moral code remaining constant.

This doesn't make Christian theology impossible, but it changes it. It says that people were imperfect from the beginning. We were always designed to need to forgive each other, and to need God's grace. Jesus shows us what humanity is intended to be, but he doesn't show us something that once existed from which we fell.

 

[atpollard]

It's unfortunate the people seem to see allegory as the only alternative. Allegories have specific features that Gen 1 - 3 lack. In an allegory key elements of the story stand for something else. This isn't the case in Genesis.

But there are other types of story that aren't historically accurate. Parables are one example. A few of the parables are allegories, but many aren't.

Usually people who don't think the creation stories are historically accurate don't think they're allegory. Myth, legend, and saga have all been used. These are all traditional stories that are ways of talking about reality without being history. Gen 2 - 3 have been critical to Christian theology. Discussions of sex, gender roles, and sin are all based on that story.

It's hard to know whether at some point they were understood as historical. In my opinion the editor on Genesis couldn't have understood them as historical. Despite modern attempts at harmonizing them, they are obviously contradictory chronologies. I assume the editor of Genesis felt an obligation to preserve all of the traditional stories. You can see it in two versions of the Noah story, etc. Presumably the value wasn't in providing an actual historical account, but rather because those stories are how his culture talked about things like where sin came from and the roles of men and women. That's not quite an allegory. It's closer to Jesus' parables, though I wouldn't quite call the accounts parables.

How does the modern understanding of origins actually affect Christian theology? In principle it needn't have any impact. We could understand the accounts of sin, etc, as being valid even though the stories aren't historical. Unfortunately there's a problem with that. It is virtually impossible that humanity was ever sinless, and sin entered through the actions of one pair. In fact people seem to be designed to learn from experience. If you assume that people are going to live in a variety of environments and cultures, that's pretty much the only reasonable way to make people. But that means that mistakes are a basic part of how we work. And it's sort of hard to imagine those mistakes not including some actions that violate morals. Indeed it's hard to imagine all specifics of the moral code remaining constant.

This doesn't make Christian theology impossible, but it changes it. It says that people were imperfect from the beginning. We were always designed to need to forgive each other, and to need God's grace. Jesus shows us what humanity is intended to be, but he doesn't show us something that once existed from which we fell.

If there was no ‘first Adam’, then that renders all the verses about the ‘second Adam’ meaningless and worse ... false. If scripture contains deliberately false statements from God, then it can hardly be inspired. The ‘mythological’ Adam has deep and profound consequences.

Then what do we do with the DNA that shows that all women trace back to a single female ancestor? So science proves there was no Adam, but there was a literal Eve?

 

[hedrick]

If there was no ‘first Adam’, then that renders all the verses about the ‘second Adam’ meaningless and worse ... false. If scripture contains deliberately false statements from God, then it can hardly be inspired. The ‘mythological’ Adam has deep and profound consequences.

Then what do we do with the DNA that shows that all women trace back to a single female ancestor? So science proves there was no Adam, but there was a literal Eve?

No, it doesn't make the second Adam meaningless. The second Adam is an analogy. Jesus wasn't in any literal sense a clone of Adam. Rather, it's a way of talking about his role, as the beginning of a new people, as Adam was the beginning of the old people. Just because the basis of the analogy isn't a historical figure doesn't change the usefulness of the analogy. Preachers use analogies with fictional characters all the time. (At least the ones I've listened to do.)

God didn't write the Bible. It's a human witness to God's activity. Furthermore, I maintain that the editor of Genesis didn't make a mistake by including the creation stories. I would assume that when he combined two different traditions about creation he would have realized that they couldn't both be literally accurate. They were stories that were used as a basis for discussions like the one Paul gave us.

To deny evolution and other basic ideas about history requires such a level of conspiracy theory that I'm not interested in discussing it. I am, however, concerned about the theological implications.

You're misinterpreting the idea of a mitocondrial Eve. From Wikipedia:

"The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to biblical Eve. This led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic. Popular science presentations of the topic usually point out such possible misconceptions by emphasizing the fact that the position of mt-MRCA is neither fixed in time (as the position of mt-MRCA moves forward in time as mtDNA lineages become extinct), nor does it refer to a "first woman", nor the only living female of her time, nor the first member of a "new species"." There would have been other women alive at the same time, and no doubt some of them have living descendants. They just aren't descended down a direct matrilineal path.

Note, the Mitochondial Eve would have been different in the 1st Cent from what it is now, and it will continue changing in the future. See the diagram in the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve.

Incidentally, there's a male equivalent. It's unlikely that they lived at the same time.

Furthermore, the calculation leading to mitocondrial Eve is based on a model of evolution. I don't think you can reasonably quote it while also maintaining the historical accuracy of Genesis.

 

[MennoSota]

No, it doesn't make the second Adam meaningless. The second Adam is an analogy. Jesus wasn't in any literal sense a clone of Adam. Rather, it's a way of talking about his role, as the beginning of a new people, as Adam was the beginning of the old people. Just because the basis of the analogy isn't a historical figure doesn't change the usefulness of the analogy. Preachers use analogies with fictional characters all the time. (At least the ones I've listened to do.)

God didn't write the Bible. It's a human witness to God's activity. Furthermore, I maintain that the editor of Genesis didn't make a mistake by including the creation stories. I would assume that when he combined two different traditions about creation he would have realized that they couldn't both be literally accurate. They were stories that were used as a basis for discussions like the one Paul gave us.

To deny evolution and other basic ideas about history requires such a level of conspiracy theory that I'm not interested in discussing it. I am, however, concerned about the theological implications.

You're misinterpreting the idea of a mitocondrial Eve. From Wikipedia:

"The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to biblical Eve. This led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic. Popular science presentations of the topic usually point out such possible misconceptions by emphasizing the fact that the position of mt-MRCA is neither fixed in time (as the position of mt-MRCA moves forward in time as mtDNA lineages become extinct), nor does it refer to a "first woman", nor the only living female of her time, nor the first member of a "new species"." There would have been other women alive at the same time, and no doubt some of them have living descendants. They just aren't descended down a direct matrilineal path.

Note, the Mitochondial Eve would have been different in the 1st Cent from what it is now, and it will continue changing in the future. See the diagram in the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve.

Incidentally, there's a male equivalent. It's unlikely that they lived at the same time.

Furthermore, the calculation leading to mitocondrial Eve is based on a model of evolution. I don't think you can reasonably quote it while also maintaining the historical accuracy of Genesis.

LOL Good luck with that, hendrick.

 

[hedrick]

I believe that it is literal. If we start going down the path in thinking that the accounts in the bible never happened then how strong could our faith be that the one true God would come to earth and die for the forgiveness of all our sins?

I can see how you would think that way, but that’s not actually the consequence of rejecting inerrancy. When you assess Scripture according to normal criteria, then you look at what the authors would reasonably know. The NT authors wrote when original witnesses were alive (Paul and probably Mark), or at least their testimony was still known (probably the other Gospels). The prophets wrote during the events they described. The final editing of Kings was almost certainly later than at least the earlier kings, but refers to chronicles written at the time.

This is not the case for Genesis, and probably also for the rest of the Pentateuch. For that the editors would have had access to traditional stories, but not any real historical sources.

The problem with inerrancy is that it becomes a separate article of faith. You can’t establish it the way you’d normally assess the accuracy of documents. It’s a doctrine, which can be read into the Bible but isn’t actually there explicitly. It’s a pretty weak reed on which to rest our faith. Furthermore, it produces a kind of rigidity of interpretation. It forces people to ignore contradictions and to explain away disagreements with science and archaeology. For people like me, it makes the foundation of the faith weaker.

I have no problem believing that Mark got much of his content from Peter. The NT is the kind of document historians normally deal with. They have a reasonable basis, though they certainly aren’t perfect. But the moment you claim inerrancy, in order to believe the Gospel accounts of Jesus, which otherwise have a reasonable historical foundation, I have to believe assertions about ancient history that (short of conspiracy theory involving lots of scientists and historians) we know are wrong.

If I believed that the Bible had to be understood through inerrancy I wouldn’t be a Christian.

 

[MennoSota]

I can see how you would think that way, but that’s not actually the consequence of rejecting inerrancy. When you assess Scripture according to normal criteria, then you look at what the authors would reasonably know. The NT authors wrote when original witnesses were alive (Paul and probably Mark), or at least their testimony was still known (probably the other Gospels). The prophets wrote during the events they described. The final editing of Kings was almost certainly later than at least the earlier kings, but refers to chronicles written at the time.

This is not the case for Genesis, and probably also for the rest of the Pentateuch. For that the editors would have had access to traditional stories, but not any real historical sources.

The problem with inerrancy is that it becomes a separate article of faith. You can’t establish it the way you’d normally assess the accuracy of documents. It’s a doctrine, which can be read into the Bible but isn’t actually there explicitly. It’s a pretty weak reed on which to rest our faith. Furthermore, it produces a kind of rigidity of interpretation. It forces people to ignore contradictions and to explain away disagreements with science and archaeology. For people like me, it makes the foundation of the faith weaker.

I have no problem believing that Mark got much of his content from Peter. The NT is the kind of document historians normally deal with. They have a reasonable basis, though they certainly aren’t perfect. But the moment you claim inerrancy, in order to believe the Gospel accounts of Jesus, which otherwise have a reasonable historical foundation, I have to believe assertions about ancient history that (short of conspiracy theory involving lots of scientists and historians) we know are wrong.

If I believed that the Bible had to be understood through inerrancy I wouldn’t be a Christian.

hedrick, I think you and I define the term, Christian, quite differently.