The Historicity of Adam: how important?

[Calminian]

Was talking to a christian I met, and we began discussing origins. He informed me did not believe Genesis was literal, in fact he believed it was all allegory. When asked if Adam and Eve were real people he answered, it's up for debate.

I can deal with some alternative views on origins, even though I disagree. I can get along and fellowship and exercise grace, even though I strongly disagree. Denying the historicity of Adam and Eve, though, is a bit of a stumbling block.

Thoughts appreciated.

 

[Scarlett O.]

It's a deal-breaker for me. If he doesn't believe in a literal Adam/Eve, then how does he deal with Paul's teaching of death through Adam and life through Christ in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15?

If Adam is an allegory, then why isn't the prophecy of Christ in Genesis 3 when Adam/Eve receive their punishments an allegory, too?

And, by the domino effect, the Christ of Paul's teachings in Romans and 1 Corinthians is allegorical as well.

It's a slippery slope when one begins at Genesis 1:1 and calls it allegory. It affects the entire rest of the Bible.

 

[TCassidy]

It's a slippery slope when one begins at Genesis 1:1 and calls it allegory.

I respectfully disagree. Allegory does not necessarily mean fictitious. The word used to be used to indicate a generalization regarding something. In other words a narrative that does not include all the details.

Genesis 1 can be considered an allegory in that it tells us what God did but does not tell us how He did it or give every detail of every act of creation.

I believe Genesis 1 is an allegory in that it tells us what we need to know about creation without going into every detail. The fact that God does not give us every detail of how and why He created as He did does not detract from the historicity of what He did reveal to us.

When we look at some of the really old commentaries we see the word used in this way. Don't apply a limited 21st century meaning to a word used in the 17th or 18th century.

 

[rlvaughn]

...When asked if Adam and Eve were real people he answered, it's up for debate...Denying the historicity of Adam and Eve, though, is a bit of a stumbling block.

The Bible deals with Adam & Eve as real human beings created by God, the progenitors of the human race, as well as the source of our sin and death. This is a fundamental doctrine that is not up for debate.

 

[Calminian]

I respectfully disagree. Allegory does not necessarily mean fictitious. The word used to be used to indicate a generalization regarding something. In other words a narrative that does not include all the details.

Genesis 1 can be considered an allegory in that it tells us what God did but does not tell us how He did it or give every detail of every act of creation.

I believe Genesis 1 is an allegory in that it tells us what we need to know about creation without going into every detail. The fact that God does not give us every detail of how and why He created as He did does not detract from the historicity of what He did reveal to us.

When we look at some of the really old commentaries we see the word used in this way. Don't apply a limited 21st century meaning to a word used in the 17th or 18th century.

Point taken, I agree. To clarify, this particular person took the non-concordist view of Genesis, claiming it's merely a literary work with no connection to real history. This is the preferred view of modern theistic evolutionists and the contributors at BioLogos.

However, many fudge the issue and cling to a historical Adam despite the logical implications of their view. Tim Keller would be an example.

 

[Calminian]

The Bible deals with Adam & Eve as real human beings created by God, the progenitors of the human race, as well as the source of our sin and death. This is a fundamental doctrine that is not up for debate.

Yeah, I think that's where i have to land. A denial of the first Adam is cutting into essential doctrines.

 

[Deacon]

Allegory does not necessarily mean fictitious. The word used to be used to indicate a generalization regarding something. In other words a narrative that does not include all the details.

Yeah, I’ve been on a John H. Walton kick for the past few weeks. I’ve been reading a few of his books that have been on my “to read” list.

In his book, The Lost World of Adam and Eve, he describes three boxes that the authors of Scripture use when writing about Adam and Eve (particularly when spoken about in the NT), “archetypal, illustrative and historical.”

He clearly states his position in a chapter titled, "Though Some of the Biblical Interest in Adam and Eve Is Archetypal, They Are Real People Who Existed in a Real Past.

Its certainly more complicated than just real or allegorical.

Rob

 

[canadyjd]

It's a deal-breaker for me. If he doesn't believe in a literal Adam/Eve, then how does he deal with Paul's teaching of death through Adam and life through Christ in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15?

If Adam is an allegory, then why isn't the prophecy of Christ in Genesis 3 when Adam/Eve receive their punishments an allegory, too?

And, by the domino effect, the Christ of Paul's teachings in Romans and 1 Corinthians is allegorical as well.

It's a slippery slope when one begins at Genesis 1:1 and calls it allegory. It affects the entire rest of the Bible.

Well stated, as usual. Not much left to say.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Bible deals with Adam & Eve as real human beings created by God, the progenitors of the human race, as well as the source of our sin and death. This is a fundamental doctrine that is not up for debate.

Jesus and Paul saw genesis as being factual/historical account of what happened, so why make it into myth/allogory? Answer, in order to force "scientific truths" of evolution and origins into Christianity.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeah, I’ve been on a John H. Walton kick for the past few weeks. I’ve been reading a few of his books that have been on my “to read” list.

In his book, The Lost World of Adam and Eve, he describes three boxes that the authors of Scripture use when writing about Adam and Eve (particularly when spoken about in the NT), “archetypal, illustrative and historical.”

He clearly states his position in a chapter titled, "Though Some of the Biblical Interest in Adam and Eve Is Archetypal, They Are Real People Who Existed in a Real Past.

Its certainly more complicated than just real or allegorical.

Rob

he also accomodates much of Theistic Evolution world view into his opinions though...

 

[Yeshua1]

I respectfully disagree. Allegory does not necessarily mean fictitious. The word used to be used to indicate a generalization regarding something. In other words a narrative that does not include all the details.

Genesis 1 can be considered an allegory in that it tells us what God did but does not tell us how He did it or give every detail of every act of creation.

I believe Genesis 1 is an allegory in that it tells us what we need to know about creation without going into every detail. The fact that God does not give us every detail of how and why He created as He did does not detract from the historicity of what He did reveal to us.

When we look at some of the really old commentaries we see the word used in this way. Don't apply a limited 21st century meaning to a word used in the 17th or 18th century.

Do you accept the historical account of the fall and the single Adam and Eve though then?

 

[Calminian]

Yeah, I’ve been on a John H. Walton kick for the past few weeks. I’ve been reading a few of his books that have been on my “to read” list.

In his book, The Lost World of Adam and Eve, he describes three boxes that the authors of Scripture use when writing about Adam and Eve (particularly when spoken about in the NT), “archetypal, illustrative and historical.”

He clearly states his position in a chapter titled, "Though Some of the Biblical Interest in Adam and Eve Is Archetypal, They Are Real People Who Existed in a Real Past.

Its certainly more complicated than just real or allegorical.

Rob

But he gets a little dicy on this also because he doesn't accept these real historical figures as the first couple from which all humanity comes. IOWs the historical Adam he believes in is a different Adam.

 

[Calminian]

Jesus and Paul saw genesis as being factual/historical account of what happened, so why make it into myth/allogory? Answer, in order to force "scientific truths" of evolution and origins into Christianity.

Any true historical person be used as allegory. Hagar and Sarah for instance.

 

[Deacon]

[H]e also accomodates much of Theistic Evolution world view into his opinions though...

I wish you’d read his material rather than parrot his detractors.
It’s the other way around, TE accommodates (adjusts to) much of the Biblical theology of John Walton.

"The position that I have proposed regarding Genesis 1 may be designated the cosmic temple inauguration view. This label picks up the most important aspect of the view: that the cosmos is being given its functions as God’s temple, where he has taken up his residence and from where he runs the cosmos. This world is his headquarters.
The most distinguishing feature of this view is the suggestion that, as in the rest of the ancient world, the Israelites were much more attuned to the functions of the cosmos than to the material of the cosmos. The functions of the world were more important to them and more interesting to them. They had little concern for the material structures; significance lay in who was in charge and made it work"

If Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins, then it offers no mechanism for material origins, and we may safely look to science to consider what it suggests for such mechanisms. We may find the theories proposed by scientists to be convincing or not, but we cannot on the basis of Genesis 1 object to any mechanism they offer. The theological key is that whatever science proposes that is deemed substantial, our response is, “Fine, that helps me see the handiwork of God.” Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One. p 162
​

Rob

 

[Calminian]

I wish you’d read his material rather than parrot his detractors.
It’s the other way around, TE accommodates (adjusts to) much of the Biblical theology of John Walton.

"The position that I have proposed regarding Genesis 1 may be designated the cosmic temple inauguration view. This label picks up the most important aspect of the view: that the cosmos is being given its functions as God’s temple, where he has taken up his residence and from where he runs the cosmos. This world is his headquarters.
The most distinguishing feature of this view is the suggestion that, as in the rest of the ancient world, the Israelites were much more attuned to the functions of the cosmos than to the material of the cosmos. The functions of the world were more important to them and more interesting to them. They had little concern for the material structures; significance lay in who was in charge and made it work"....​

​

Here's the first challenge I put to non-concordists like Walton. The Israelites and their culture did not exist at the time of the Genesis accounts. Non-concordists often accuse Biblical creationists of forcing modern culture onto the Genesis account. But the truth is, they force ANE culture onto the Genesis account even though the Genesis text is pre-ANE, and even pre-Flood for the first 8 chapters.

Yet Walton and others insist on harmonizing the text with ancient cosmologies that were popular thousands of years after many of the Genesis patriarchs died.

 

[Deacon]

… the Genesis text is pre-ANE, and even pre-Flood for the first 8 chapters.

Whether the text was drawn from pre-ANE sources (or not) is immaterial - - - the inspired author was Moses,

...the material was written/composed to communicate to people of that time.
​

The inspired texts were not written to us... they were written for us.

Rob

 

[Calminian]

Whether the text was drawn from pre-ANE sources (or not) is immaterial - - - the inspired author was Moses,

...the material was written/composed to communicate to people of that time.
​

The inspired texts were not written to us... they were written for us.

Rob

It's very material. There is textual evidence that Moses drew from pre-ANE writings, and even credited the authors in the many toledoth statements. If ANE cosmologies were later inserted that's quite a charge against Moses. But why? What evidence do you have that Moses would be compelled to do such a thing? Did other authors of the Bible do likewise? Why would Moses impose a culture onto historical documents?

 

[Deacon]

It is in your court then to prove that those earlier documents were inspired.
I'll only stick my neck out so far to say that Moses (and his writings) were inspired - only they carry the authorized message of God to his people.

"Why would Moses impose a culture onto historical documents?" - inspiration perhaps?
Moses communicated (like other biblical authors) from within the culture in which he lived.

SO WHAT ARE THE CULTURAL IDEAS BEHIND Genesis 1? Our first proposition is that Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology. That is, it does not attempt to describe cosmology in modern terms or address modern questions. The Israelites received no revelation to update or modify their “scientific” understanding of the cosmos. They did not know that stars were suns; they did not know that the earth was spherical and moving through space; they did not know that the sun was much further away than the moon, or even further than the birds flying in the air. They believed that the sky was material (not vaporous), solid enough to support the residence of deity as well as to hold back waters. In these ways, and many others, they thought about the cosmos in much the same way that anyone in the ancient world thought, and not at all like anyone thinks today. And God did not think it important to revise their thinking.
John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 14.
​

Rob

 

[Calminian]

It is in your court then to prove that those earlier documents were inspired....

I would argue the opposite. The ball is in the court of the non-concordist to explain how Genesis can be inspired. If the Genesis accounts are pre-mosaic, and many of them pre-Abrahamic and even pre-Flood, why would God change the accounts to reflect a modern culture? Did Moses change the original accounts he drew from, and add in modern cultural beliefs? That seems to go against all the examples of inspiration we have.

My view is very straightforward. God inspired Moses to compile an accurate historical account of his ancestors and the creation. That by definition is inspiration.

All you've done so far is quote Walton's false view of Genesis being a made-up document during ANE times, and somehow inspired.

 

[Yeshua1]

He denies literal 6 days, denies a single Adam and Eve, God used evolution etc!