Originally posted by Marcia:
From Mercury's postings, I do not think he is advocating a literal Adam and Eve, yet you say he is. It would be nice to hear from him on that.
You're right. This is another topic I was trying to steer clear of out of deference to the original topic, but I suppose I should explain in detail.
Originally posted by David Ekstrom:
I agree that Gen 1 and 2 are metaphorical but they are metaphorical of something. To say that they are metaphorical does not mean that they are devoid of meaning.
Absolutely. Among other things, they speak to the creation of the universe, the relationships between God, humans and the rest of creation, and the goodness and orderliness of creation.
Moses goes out of his way in Gen 2 to depict man's creation as independent of the creation of the animals. In fact, that, and the marriage to Eve, seems to me to be the whole point of retelling the creation event again.
I wouldn't go that far. The author goes out of his way to say that both humans and beasts were formed from the ground by God -- that's a huge similarity. When no helper is found for Adam, God first forms all the beasts, and it is only when no suitable companion is found that God forms Eve. There is both physical sameness and relational and spiritual difference between humans and animals.
As for why creation is retold, I think the purpose is to reveal more details than are possible than in a single, literal story. Jesus used many stories to describe the kingdom of heaven. In Genesis, we have two stories about the creation of earth. The second reveals God's benevolence in creating in response to needs, while the first stresses God's transcendence and power. The second also shows God as imminent, even walking in the garden, while in the first God speaks creation into being from above. The second puts humans in their place as creatures of dust made to tend a garden, while the first explains how we are made in God's image to rule creation.
Both pictures reveal the truth, but the truth is too big and occasionally too paradoxical to fit into a single literal, historical account.
While I find much of what Mercury says to be fascinating, I don't see how the Bible can be harmonized with the evolution of man from lower forms of life.
I don't think evolution really needs to have much to do with it. It is true that my interpretation does not conflict with science, but neither does it require all of science to be true or accepted. Many who hold the framework view on the Genesis creation accounts do not accept evolution. The kernel of the view goes back to Augustine who certainly had other reasons for holding to it than evolutionary theory.
Let me be even more clear: even if I returned to my earlier opinion that the universe is 6,000 years old and all kinds of animals were separately created, I would still hold this interpretation, and it would not contradict with it. My view on Genesis does not require evolution or even old ages, although it is compatible with both.
If I understand him, he's saying that at a point in time, God did a special creative work and granted a human soul to two animals which became our forebears. He is advocating a literal Adam and Eve.
No. While I'm open to the possibility that Adam and Eve were literal individuals, I do not think it is the most likely possibility. I think we mainly agree on how we interpret Genesis 1, so I'm going to focus on Genesis 2:4-3:24.
I think that Genesis 2-3 recounts the beginning of humanity in a way that focuses on theology and not history. For a more historical treatment, I'd suggest reading Romans 1:20-32 which gives a broad-brush overview of human history from creation to Fall to the present.
In Genesis 2-3, there are a number of symbols that represent more than what they are. Perhaps the most obvious is the serpent. Traditionally, the serpent has been interpreted as a beast possessed by Satan. I think the serpent
represents Satan, our accuser. Treating the serpent as representing Satan rather than being possessed by Satan allows for a plainer reading of the narrative.
For instance, Genesis 3:1 says that the serpent was "more crafty than any other beast of the field". Why would that be relevant if the serpent was possessed by Satan? In that case, it would be Satan's craftiness that was at work in his dealings with Eve, not the serpent's. However, the representative view solves this. The serpent was crafty, which means that our adversary, the devil, is crafty.
The second portion of the text that cannot be properly explained with the possession view is God's judgement. Notice that the buck stops with the serpent. Adam blames Eve who blames the serpent. The serpent doesn't blame its actions on Satan, nor does God perceive that the serpent was not personally nor fully guilty of deceiving Eve. The serpent itself is punished, and no punishment is meted out on any agent that possessed the serpent. Now, in the representative view, this is as it should be, because the serpent
represents Satan, and so the serpent's punishment is really Satan's punishment, including the prophecy that some day the woman's seed will bruise his head. With the possession interpretation, Satan manages to pull off a con that even fools God, and the serpent becomes the witless scapegoat for what he did (perhaps due to Satan leaving the beast dumb before it could defend itself).
There are other representations too. The tree of life represents God's sustaining power. It is not just a magical tree that God made. If that were the case, there would be no need to banish Adam and Eve from the garden to prevent them from eating from the tree. Surely God could remove the magic from the tree so that it no longer imparted immortality, or even destroy the tree. But, if the tree represents God's sustaining power, this makes sense. Being cast out of the garden and not being able to eat of the tree means being cut off from the fullest expression of God's sustaining power (although, of course, even our present lives still require God's sustenance in a more limited form).
Similarly, I think the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents experiential knowledge of good and evil. When humans decided to spurn God and serve their own desires, they "ate" from this tree -- the effects are graphically described in Romans 1:21-23 and following. And finally, I believe Adam and Eve represent the first humans, how ever many there were.
Now, on to the usual objections.
Why would God cloak the historical reality in this way?
The same reason God has cloaked the physical details of heaven and hell, or all the details Jesus revealed to John in Revelation. Note how both Revelation and Genesis 1-3 share many similarities: they are the only places in the Bible where
the tree of life is mentioned (not just
a tree of life), and Revelation is the only book to connect Satan with the serpent. Revelation uses seven seals, seven trumpets and seven vials as a framework for revealing how God's decrees affect earth in the same way Genesis 1 uses the seven days (and in all, the seventh item is set off as special).
Perhaps a better question is, What purpose would a detailed historical account of creation and early humanity serve? Everything we need to know is revealed for us, and God has given us the ability and the mandate to explore more about creation ourselves. God doesn't need to reveal these details any more than he needed to reveal the immense size of stars and the universe, the way the earth rotates the sun, the shape of the earth, the nature of DNA, or any other mystery that humans would one day unlock on their own (using their God-given abilities, of course).
Doesn't this view do away with the Fall?
No, but it makes the Fall something that happened to a community, not an individual or couple. Those familiar with the Old Testament will see how this is not at all uncommon in how God deals with people. The sins of the individual can influence the group. For instance, when Israel had a bad king, the whole country typically went bad.
What about Original Sin?
When humanity was able to know God (and this would be at the beginning of humanity, since I would say this is a characteristic of being human and sharing God's image), they instead chose to reject God. The result was all sorts of sinfulness that not only corrupted them, but also the world that has been subjected to their rule by God (Genesis 1:26-28; Romans 8:19-22).
These original sins led to a corrupted environment for all future humans. In the story, Abel and Cain grew up in a much different environment than they would have if their parents hadn't sinned. The same holds true if Adam and Eve represent the first population of humans, and it holds true today as well. None of us are raised by perfect parents and we all see terrible actions around us, and probably many of our sins are due to imitating what we see or learning to accept it as natural. So, I don't think Original Sin is something we inherit (such as through genes), but rather its effects continue to be all around us.
Jesus was affected by Original Sin the same way we are, since he too had its affects all around him. As such, we can truthfully say that he "had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Hebrews 2:14-18). We "do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are -- yet was without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).
What about Adam's headship?
Adam represents the first humans, so we are still all in Adam. This also explains why Paul could sometimes refer to just Adam as a shorthand for referring to Adam and Eve. If they were literal individuals, this would be problematic, especially where it gets Eve off the hook for her involvement.
Why did Jesus refer to Adam by name?
The same reason he's referred to by name in Genesis. The same reason I still refer to Adam even though I don't believe he's a historical individual. If Adam represents the first humans, then it makes perfect sense to refer to the first humans by saying "Adam".
What about the sanctity of marriage?
I don't see how this affects it. Genesis 2 still outlines God's template for human relationships, even if it isn't a historical account of an actual couple. The historicity of the good Samaritan doesn't determine whether or not we should follow his example, and the same is true when it comes to the example of marriage.
What about the sanctity of life?
I don't see how this affects it. All of creation is still God's creation, and humans are still unique in our physical world in that they share the image of God.
I think humans and other species of apes share a common ancestor in the past (as do other animals if you go further back).