Adam not literal????

[preachinjesus]

Most scholars I've talked to, and after having translated the passage in a rigorous exegesis course, agree that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a poem.

Of course that doesn't disqualify the reality of creation.

Also, I reiterate my big question for those who believe Adam and Eve to be figurative or less that real, literal, historical people:

What do you do with the use of the definite article with their names?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Most scholars I've talked to, and after having translated the passage in a rigorous exegesis course, agree that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a poem.

Who are some of these scholars you have talked to?

The idea of Gen 1:1-2:3 is not even considered a complete portion by many, I don't think. Wenham says that most modern scholars agree that the section ends at 2:4a (cf. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 6).

Gen 1:1-2:3 has virtually none of the characteristics of Hebrew poetry, which you should know if you took a "rigorous exegesis course" and translated it. I would doubt the value of any exegesis course that did not more fully discourse the characteristics of poetry. It has all the characteristics of Hebrew narrative. Were it not for the effort to discount the plain meaning of it, it is doubtful that anyone would have suggested that it was poetry.

One of the most common views today is the framework view, which has a number of exegetical and theological problems. It should be rejected, as should the idea that Gen 1:1-2:3, or any substantial portion of Genesis is poetic.

 

[sag38]

After reading all the posts I've come to an even firmer conviction of the need for doctrinal statements like the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Call it creedal or whatever, it prevents folks who want to take and twist the Bible from teaching in our seminaries, etc. Adam was one man. Eve was one woman. A literal, face value reading leaves no doubt. One has to read in between the lines to come up with any other conclusion.

 

[Crabtownboy]

After reading all the posts I've come to an even firmer conviction of the need for doctrinal statements like the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Call it creedal or whatever, it prevents folks who want to take and twist the Bible from teaching in our seminaries, etc. Adam was one man. Eve was one woman. A literal, face value reading leaves no doubt. One has to read in between the lines to come up with any other conclusion.

One person's twist is another person's truth.

 

[Tom Bryant]

One person's twist is another person's truth.

actually it's not when we're talking about biblical truth

 

[Revmitchell]

actually it's not when we're talking about biblical truth

When scripture is just a book of words then this is the mentality you get.

 

[Amy.G]

Yet another thread that makes me shake my head and wonder how can Christians ask these questions? When we start questioning God's word as truth, we might as well throw the bible in the trash. It's very sad.

 

[Revmitchell]

People do not get to own personal truth. Truth only comes from God and it is singular. Unless of course you want to make your agenda valid.

 

[sag38]

Crabby proves my point. I certainly wouldn't want him teaching in my church, a Bible school, or a seminary that is SBC. Folks like this are exactly why there was a battle for the convention and why we need to stay vigilant.

 

[Revmitchell]

Crabby proves my point. I certainly wouldn't want him teaching in my church, a Bible school, or a seminary that is SBC. Folks like this are exactly why there was a battle for the convention and why we need to stay vigilant.

That's right. :thumbs:

 

[Crabtownboy]

When scripture is just a book of words then this is the mentality you get.

As often happens you are dishonest in your reply ... and also have totally missed the point.

No, I will not reply to more inane comments.

 

[Marcia]

If you were to ask any Hebrew reading Jew to read it to you they always sing or chant it (don't ask more than one as they instantly will begin an argument over tempo and rythym) but...yes the whole torah is in prose.

sometimes song inside of poetry...but yes...the whole thing is prose.

I freaked when I discovered that out...but take it from me...or not...go discover it on your own. I won't say, "I told you so" then...I am gonna go ahead and avoid the rush by doing it now. K?

Just because they chant it does not make it poetry. The genre is not poetry; it is narrative. We don't decide things by how someone chants or reads or sings it; we look at God's word and can tell from the structure and context what the genre is and what it is saying.

 

[JohnDB]

Just because they chant it does not make it poetry. The genre is not poetry; it is narrative. We don't decide things by how someone chants or reads or sings it; we look at God's word and can tell from the structure and context what the genre is and what it is saying.

And there is rythm and meter and alliteration there. Also there are many wordplays as to structure just so that it would fit precisely in that spot.

There were a couple of word changes in Deuteronomy as discovered by the Dead Sea Scrolls...the new changes are preferred as the rythm and meter are restored with these changes and what has been thought to be the original is now seen as wrong and the new changes put in place...in part due to the rythm of the section is restored by these changes. (The age also has something to do with it)

Chiasma is another often used tool inside of the bible...it isn't just something that the politicians use for a tag line. It also is heavily employed in Genesis and the whole Torah. First and second Samuel are written almost completely in this fashion...most of them interlinked with each other.

For this reason it is why (in part) as to why the Torah and other OT books that we have are in tact and not changed. Changes are glaring and obvious when made. The rythm is completely destroyed by these changes. It took a God to write these books...madmen genius aren't dime a dozen.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First faith is not symbolic but an actual event, occurrence, or change.

Second Having faith in Christ in no way leads to Adam being symbolic. Mary Lou Retton could not do the gymnastics you are trying to pull off.

Then you've misunderstood the assertion. The assertion is that Adam is representative. Not symbolic. And since he's representative he's used as a type. Remember before Torah was writen this was all oral tradition which would make it understandable to have the form writen in such a way as to recite in musically.

 

[preachinjesus]

Who are some of these scholars you have talked to?

John Sailhammer comes to mind. Also several of my OT professors during my seminary and post-grad days.

Westermann has noted the poetic structure, Brueggemann and von Rad as well. Augustine believed in multiple levels of interpretting Genesis 1 and poetry was certainly on the table with him.

All that said I don't think it is far fetched, given that Genesis 1 is polemical in nature...addressing pagan creation myths specifically. The great thing about Hebrew poetry is that it can be understood as historical in nature. Just because it is poetic doesn't disqualify it in light of the historic accounts.

I do believe that the text of Genesis, with maybe a few exceptions, is nearly all narrative prose. But let's not haggle over minor details.

 

[Pastor Larry]

John Sailhammer comes to mind

I don't think Sailhamer (note that it only has one "m") believes Gen 1 is poetic. His volume in the EBC says it is narrative. He has some later work on Genesis, and perhaps he changed, but I am not familiar with it.

Westermann has noted the poetic structure, Brueggemann and von Rad as well.

These are three notable liberals for whom issues of poetic vs. prose are the least of their concerns.

All that said I don't think it is far fetched,

I think it is absurd when you read the text, and I think it doesn't help anything unless one is driven to explain why the text doesn't really mean what it says.

I do believe that the text of Genesis, with maybe a few exceptions, is nearly all narrative prose. But let's not haggle over minor details.

I don't know how minor it is, particularly when it is used for particular purposes that undermine the truth of Scripture.

Again, there is nothing in the text of Gen 1 that would indicate that it is poetic. It reads, in Hebrew, just like the rest of Genesis does ... like historical narrative.

 

[Johnv]

On a different site I am having a conversation with a guy who says that Adam and Eve were not literal people. He says they are representative of humanity in general. He asserts that if his postion is true that nothing is lost theologically.

My question to you guys is.....Is this correct?

I'm gonna buck the system here. There's a difference between Adam and Eve being LITERAL people, and Adam and Eve being REAL people. There's generally no disagreement among Christians that Adam and Eve were real. But, since the purpose of the author writing Genesis was not to write a hyper-literal account, it's not a biblical requirement to view Adam and Eve as literal.

The answer to "were Adam and Eve literal" is the same as "what color was Jesus' robe", "how many angels were at Jesus' tomb", or "was the star of bethlehem a star or planet?". The answer is: It's not important to the story.

It's not important whether Adam and Eve were literal, but it's important that they were real.
It's not important what color Jesus' robe was, but it's important that Jesus was given a robe.
It's not important how many angels were at Jesus' tome, but it's important that angels were present.
It's not important what the star was, but it's important that the wise men saw it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

There's a difference between Adam and Eve being LITERAL people, and Adam and Eve being REAL people.

And what's that difference?

 

[Johnv]

And what's that difference?

See the other examples I noted. One is pertinent, the other is not.

 

[Tom Bryant]

whew boy, you sure lost me on the difference between literal and real. I read your "explanation" but it didn't explain anything. I've never heard anyone comment on the color of Jesus' robe so I am not sure where that comes in.
(from Dictionary.com)
Literal

in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.

Real

true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.

So again, what's the diff?