Adam: The Poll

[shernren]

I don't know if this poll has been done before, but it should be sorted out. There is no Other option - if you really, really don't fit into any of the categories simply post what your actual belief is. (Resistance to the "Other"ness of TEs is futile, but one can try.)

 

[Willtor]

I don't know whether Adam was an historical individual. But he at least represents Man, typologically. So I voted for that. But I would have liked an "Unsure" option. It's sort of like the Eucharist. I know that it at least represents Christ's body and blood, symbolically, but I don't know if there is more. It would be difficult for me to select such an option in such a poll because it looks like I'm taking a hard stance against something when I'm not.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I voted for the third option. The way I usually describe it is that Genesis 2-4 tells the story of humanity the way Ezekiel 16 tells the story of Israel. I do think that there is history in the Eden account -- just as the account of the lady Jerusalem also reveals the broad brush strokes of Israel's history. But, in both accounts, there's also a revealing of much that happens behind the veil of what a purely historical account could describe.

I didn't vote for the middle option because although I think the fall is historical, I think Adam (and later Adam and Eve, and later their children) represents humanity, just as the lady Jerusalem represents Israel.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I voted for the second option. As I see it, we can't get around the wider Scriptural assertion that there was a historical Adam, who historically fell, even if the Genesis 2-3 story is mythologized in genre.

I think I'm going to write a historical novel on Adam from a theistic evolutionary standpoint. Something about a non-Adamic snake-worshiping tribe....

 

[Assyrian]

...singin' Elvis songs

Caught in a trap uh huh huh can't break free...

 

[Deamiter]

I think Adam absolutely represents mankind so I voted 3, but I acknowledge the possibility that he was an actual historical figure so I could have voted 2. It strikes me very much like some of the parables that weren't explicitly labeled "parables." Could they be historical events? Of course, but their meaning stands apart from whether or not the events actually happened.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I voted for the third option because I feel the lessons of Genesis are important to apply to our lives whether or not Adam and Eve were literal people.

I am open to a historical priest/king of the early Israelites being the biblical “Adam” but since there is no evidence of this, I cannot assert that it is the case.

 

[Pats]

I voted the third option because it doesn't rule out the possibility of Adam's literal existance. I find myself in agreement with most of what has already been said here. As I see it, the typological representation of humanity and the fall are undeniable. The possibility of Adam's literal existance is just that, it's a possibility. One that too many Christians are, IMHO, wasting time debating over. I don't see how it makes a difference to me and the application of the scripture in my life today.

 

[Xaero]

I voted option 2, but i think Adam could be a historical person AND a reference to the whole mankind.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I think Adam absolutely represents mankind so I voted 3, but I acknowledge the possibility that he was an actual historical figure so I could have voted 2. It strikes me very much like some of the parables that weren't explicitly labeled "parables." Could they be historical events? Of course, but their meaning stands apart from whether or not the events actually happened.

Ditto for me. I'm inclined to think the story is largely allegorical. But it may also be partially historical, how much I have no way to be sure. So I voted 3, but could just as easily have voted 2.

 

[plainswolf]

There are some interesting Church traditions regarding this. Noah obtained the bones of Adam and held them within the Ark during the flood, after which they were buried (at least his skull) in Mt. Calvary, which means the blood of Christ flowed above the very place of Adam's bones..




+

 

[gluadys]

There are some interesting Church traditions regarding this. Noah obtained the bones of Adam and held them within the Ark during the flood, after which they were buried (at least his skull) in Mt. Calvary, which means the blood of Christ flowed above the very place of Adam's bones..




+

It is this sort of totally unsupported story-telling that makes me very suspicious of church tradition as a source of historical information.

Such traditions are more rooted in an allegorical theology than in history. It is a beautiful metaphor, but I very much doubt that it has any historical worth whatsoever.

 

[plainswolf]

It is this sort of totally unsupported story-telling that makes me very suspicious of church tradition as a source of historical information.

Such traditions are more rooted in an allegorical theology than in history. It is a beautiful metaphor, but I very much doubt that it has any historical worth whatsoever.

More specifically it is an eastern Church tradition.. But very seldom are Church traditions 'allegorical' (at least in the Roman Church).. whether it's true or not, who can say, there's really no way to prove whether or not the bones were or not buried there.

+

 

[Scotishfury09]

I picked option 2 because in my mind God selected 2 early primates and separated them from the rest of their kind, gave them souls and set them in the Garden of Eden. The rest of that species evolved into modern day apes and Adam and Eve became... us. I think the aspects portrayed in genesis are mythologized but are still true and meaningful for us.

 

[gluadys]

More specifically it is an eastern Church tradition.. But very seldom are Church traditions 'allegorical' (at least in the Roman Church).. whether it's true or not, who can say, there's really no way to prove whether or not the bones were or not buried there.

+

I disagree. Placing Adam's skull in Golgotha (the Place of the Skull) so that it would be covered by the atoning (covering) blood of Christ is a very obvious theological allegory.

The actual location of Adam's bones is totally irrelevant.

 

[jereth]

Hi everyone! It's been ages since I've been here. Thought I'd drop in quickly and see the fallout of the new Creation museum

I voted (C) because I'm definitely convinced about it, but (B) is possibly true too. (I think both B and C can be simultaneously true).

 

[Ave Maria]

I voted for the last option.

 

[weakestlink33]

I voted for the third option. Although it is possible that the second option is also true (I guess there kinda had to be first humans somewhere), but the second option will never be able to be proved. The third option can been seen everyday life with man's downfalls. I still believe the creation stories are 100% true, but there truth lies in what the stories represent as I don't believe they were intended to be scientific or historical accounts. They are there to grant us truths about human nature and God- namely 1) God created all creation to be good and 2) We were made in His image

 

[tammym1972]

I think Adam was a real human being because he is in the geneaology of Jesus. If he were just symbolic why would he be there?

 

[Mallon]

I think Adam was a real human being because he is in the geneaology of Jesus. If he were just symbolic why would he be there?

Gotta call the first human something.