Male and Female...in the beginning

[Assyrian]

If Adam means human race, would the first sin also become a metaphor? If so, would the sacrifice of Jesus also become a metaphor?

The parable of the Good Shepherd laying down his life for his sheep is a metaphor for Jesus sacrifice on the cross. Is that what you mean? But if the Good Shepherd is a metaphor does that mean Jesus didn't die on the cross?

But seriously, I find literalist keep running into this problem when they try to understand metaphors, probably because they avoid metaphors they are simply not used to dealing with them. They stop at the idea there is literal and there is metaphorical and the metaphorical is not literally true. If they were more used to metaphor they would go on to look at what truths the metaphor is speaking about. If Adam is a picture of the human race and Adam's sin a parable about how we all sin and fall short of the glory of God, would a mere story of Christ's sacrifice save us, or would it take the real thing?

If one of the Adams (he might not even called Adam) sinned. Why should other Adams also be condemned?

Rom 5:12 death spread to all men because all sinned.

Which Adam and which Eve committed the sin?

We all did.

I think your ultimate "goal" is to make all Gen 1-11 allegorical. So people can make whatever interpretation to the whole Bible as needed. This is one of the major reason that I want to be a YEC. It is not so much about the age of the earth.

Not my goal. It is the creation accounts I am interested in and how they are interpreted in the rest of the bible. You have heard me argue for a local flood based on the plain meaning of the text. How is that wanting to make all Gen 1-11, and the whole bible allegorical? I will argue there is metaphor and allegory throughout the bible because there is, God speaks to us in metaphor, parable, poetry, allegory and in plain words. The doctrine of literalism is a complete misunderstanding of how God speak to us. If there is any agenda, it is the literalism which distorts the whole bible as an excuse to take the poetry and metaphors of Genesis 1-3 literally.

 

[juvenissun]

The parable of the Good Shepherd laying down his life for his sheep is a metaphor for Jesus sacrifice on the cross. Is that what you mean? But if the Good Shepherd is a metaphor does that mean Jesus didn't die on the cross?

But seriously, I find literalist keep running into this problem when they try to understand metaphors, probably because they avoid metaphors they are simply not used to dealing with them. They stop at the idea there is literal and there is metaphorical and the metaphorical is not literally true. If they were more used to metaphor they would go on to look at what truths the metaphor is speaking about. If Adam is a picture of the human race and Adam's sin a parable about how we all sin and fall short of the glory of God, would a mere story of Christ's sacrifice save us, or would it take the real thing?

Rom 5:12 death spread to all men because all sinned.

We all did.

If God created 100 human beings and two of them sinned. Why should the rest of 98 be punished? Why would the rest 98 "also" sinned? The human race interpretation of Adam does not make sense.

Literal or allegorical, the interpretation should be reasonable. Literal Adam is "A" "Man". One may argue a lot of that man, but it is restricted to a man. The situation and the meaning is restricted and is relatively simple. Metaphoric Adam is human race. If so, A LOT variables are introduced into this term. It becomes complicated and its meaning could become multiple and is widely open or other interpretations, such as both male and female can be identified in Adam before the separation. How about this wielder one: It is perfectly Biblical for male to give birth by implanting an uterus into a man.

One way to interpret the sacrifice of Jesus as a metaphor is that Jesus is not a real human. He is God and He never really died at any single moment. I figured this one out in shorter than one minute. And I believe there could easily be many other versions. This is the very source of all kind of cults.

Here comes another one, which popped out of my mind in a second: Jesus only died for "some" people, but not for all people. Because not all people in the Garden sinned. And one can complete the rest of the story into an entirely different bible.

The Bible does have metaphors. But we should minimize it and should interpret an obvious metaphor (parable) as literal as possible.

 

[1whirlwind]

Didn't Paul tells us to avoid genealogies? And Luke tells us the genealogy he gives was 'supposed'. I don't genealogies are a very firm foundation for our understanding of scripture when they come with recommendations like that.

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

There is a difference in "endless genealogies" and those that are written for.....
​

11 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Ephesians 5.

Genesis 2.

You could have been a bit more explicit.


Because the "husband is the head of the wife," which is a shadow of Christ being Head of the woman/church....doesn't mean.....

Because the love of a husband to wife is different from the love from a wife to husband.

Even homosexuals need to pretend that (disgusting).

Man and woman are born (or made) unequal. So, Adam is Adam, and Eve is Eve. Adam is not Adam "and" Eve

.
​

Men and women are not "unequal" or have a different love. Rather, men and women have different roles in this life.


.

 

[Assyrian]

If God created 100 human beings and two of them sinned. Why should the rest of 98 be punished? Why would the rest 98 "also" sinned? The human race interpretation of Adam does not make sense.

Rom 5:12 death spread to all men because all sinned.

Literal or allegorical, the interpretation should be reasonable. Literal Adam is "A" "Man". One may argue a lot of that man, but it is restricted to a man. The situation and the meaning is restricted and is relatively simple. Metaphoric Adam is human race. If so, A LOT variables are introduced into this term. It becomes complicated and its meaning could become multiple and is widely open or other interpretations, such as both male and female can be identified in Adam before the separation. How about this wielder one: It is perfectly Biblical for male to give birth by implanting an uterus into a man.

Or by cloning a rib cell. So what?

Incidentally the idea of Adam being a hermaphrodite before Eve is a literal interpretation, not a metaphorical one. But there are plenty of metaphorical interpretations of Adam in the bible to be going on with, Adam as the human race (Gen 6 & 1Cor 15), Adam as a figure of Christ (Rom 5:14), Adam and Eve as a picture of marriage (plenty of references in the gospels and Paul's epistles), Adam and Eve as a picture of Christ and the Church (2Cor 11).

One way to interpret the sacrifice of Jesus as a metaphor is that Jesus is not a real human.

You mean the lamb of God? But that is mixing up the metaphorical picture of a sacrificial sheep with its meaning in the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Seriously Juv, trying to explain metaphors to a creationist feels like talking to people with Aspergers or Autism. I am pretty sure it is because they don't want to understand rather than any genuine inability to understand metaphor.

He is God and He never really died at any single moment. I figured this one out in shorter than one minute. And I believe there could easily be many other versions. This is the very source of all kind of cults.

Now you have to realise it is Christ death on the cross that is real. It is the symbolic descriptions, the Good Shepherd, Lamb of God, Eve's seed being bitten by a snake, that are made up stories, metaphors. Metaphors don't mean the cross didn't happen.

Here comes another one, which popped out of my mind in a second: Jesus only died for "some" people, but not for all people. Because not all people in the Garden sinned. And one can complete the rest of the story into an entirely different bible.

Where does it say Jesus only died for the people who sinned in the Garden? Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Metaphor doesn't mean make anything up. You certainly shouldn't make up stuff that is going to be contradicted by the rest of scripture. I don't know where you get you ‘Jesus only died for some people’ from a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis, if you take Adam and Eve literally, there were no other people in the Garden, if you take them as a metaphorical picture of the human race, then it is a picture of everyone sinning and falling short of God.

The Bible does have metaphors. But we should minimize it and should interpret an obvious metaphor (parable) as literal as possible.

Whatever for? We should try to understand metaphors the way they are used in the bible and the way the bible shows us how to interpret the ones it explains. You want to stick as close as possible to the literal because you find metaphor confusing, the fact is, you find metaphors confusing because you keep sticking with the literal. Jesus spent three years teaching his disciples to understand metaphors and parables. As his disciple, you should let him teach you too.

 

[Assyrian]

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

There is a difference in "endless genealogies" and those that are written for.....
​

11 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
.

I suppose the way you know if you are using the genealogies properly as part of all scripture, or misusing them, is if you keep going on about them endlessly, as creationists seem to do.

 

[1whirlwind]

I suppose the way you know if you are using the genealogies properly as part of all scripture, or misusing them, is if you keep going on about them endlessly, as creationists seem to do.

Okay, that was funny.

I don't see the connection in genealogies and creationists you're making. I don't know why they were brought up in the first place (and yes, I remember you said it was a creationist that introduced it here). To my mind it was the evolutionist that talk about it to show that it shouldn't be taken literally so Gen. 1 shouldn't be either.



.

 

[Assyrian]

Okay, that was funny.

I don't see the connection in genealogies and creationists you're making. I don't know why they were brought up in the first place (and yes, I remember you said it was a creationist that introduced it here). To my mind it was the evolutionist that talk about it to show that it shouldn't be taken literally so Gen. 1 shouldn't be either.
.

Sometimes they come up in arguments about inerrancy, but more often it is creationists saying Adam must be literal because Luke gives Jesus' genealogy all the way back to Adam, or Genesis 1-3 must be literal because of the genealogies in 4&5.

 

[Papias]

Assyrian wrote:

If Adam is a picture of the human race and Adam's sin a parable

Remember, everyone, that in many TE views, including that of the churchs with a majority of Christians, Adam was the literal single first person, transitional between an ape and a human, who literally sinned by rebelling against God. Adam need not be generalized to the whole human race if you don't like that being done. A literal, single, first human, Adam, is fully consisten with TE, and an acceptance of evolution.

Papias

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Assyrian wrote:



Remember, everyone, that in many TE views, including that of the churchs with a majority of Christians, Adam was the literal single first person, transitional between an ape and a human, who literally sinned by rebelling against God. Adam need not be generalized to the whole human race if you don't like that being done. A literal, single, first human, Adam, is fully consisten with TE, and an acceptance of evolution.

Papias

What I fail too see from TE proponents is an explanation as to how man (an intimate being with a soul and definite identity) could have been derived from "animal" (beings without souls or concepts of identity). Trying to fit this evolutionary scenario with scripture is nothing but ugly, awkward, and flat out incompatible.

 

[juvenissun]

Rom 5:12 death spread to all men because all sinned.

Why should ALL men sin if only two of them sinned? It does not make sense.

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian wrote:

Remember, everyone, that in many TE views, including that of the churchs with a majority of Christians, Adam was the literal single first person, transitional between an ape and a human, who literally sinned by rebelling against God. Adam need not be generalized to the whole human race if you don't like that being done. A literal, single, first human, Adam, is fully consisten with TE, and an acceptance of evolution.

Papias

Good point Papias, worth reiterating.

 

[Assyrian]

Why should ALL men sin if only two of them sinned? It does not make sense.

I agree it doesn't make sense. That is the doctrine of Original Sin, it has nothing to do with evolution, nothing to with Genesis either. It comes from Augustine and his reading of the Latin text of Romans 5:12. I don't think there is any basis for it in the Greek but that is another issue. It is a pretty widespread doctrine among both creationists and TEs.

As well as Romans 5 not mentioning Original Sin affecting the rest of the human race, it doesn't give a mechanism for Original sin being passed on either. I know many people think of it being passed on genetically, but the bible doesn't say that, it is simply a way of explain how the doctrine works. It isn't the only explanation, Augustine's original idea was that it was passed on by concupiscence, the sin of sexual desire when our parents conceived us. But again the bible doesn't say that either. Both of those rely on Adam and Eve being the parents of the human race, but there are other traditional explanations that do not depend on that at all, for example the idea of Adam as federal head which a lot of TEs go for. It is as good an explanation as the genetic one.

 

[Assyrian]

What I fail too see from TE proponents is an explanation as to how man (an intimate being with a soul and definite identity) could have been derived from "animal" (beings without souls or concepts of identity). Trying to fit this evolutionary scenario with scripture is nothing but ugly, awkward, and flat out incompatible.

Who says animals don't have souls?

 

[gluadys]

What I fail too see from TE proponents is an explanation as to how man (an intimate being with a soul and definite identity) could have been derived from "animal" (beings without souls or concepts of identity). Trying to fit this evolutionary scenario with scripture is nothing but ugly, awkward, and flat out incompatible.

No reason why you should see an explanation of this. Neither scripture nor the theory of evolution, nor the evidence of physical evolution gives us the slightest clue as to how it happened. How can there be an explanation without some evidence to suggest an explanation?

Also, your objection rests on your definition of soul, which may not be the correct definition of soul. It's not as if we had anything other than dogma to define what a soul is.

 

[gluadys]

Why should ALL men sin if only two of them sinned? It does not make sense.

Scripture doesn't tell us that. It does tell us that all men sinned. So any suggested reason as to why all men sinned is purely human speculation.

I am pretty sure that whenever a person sins, it makes sense to them at the time.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Who says animals don't have souls?

Last time I checked, salvation does not apply to the animal kingdom. This is an obvious truth the Bible speaks about, mankind are the sole possessors of souls, it is the very component that defines us as being made in the image of God --> being entities of an eternal nature.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

No reason why you should see an explanation of this. Neither scripture nor the theory of evolution, nor the evidence of physical evolution gives us the slightest clue as to how it happened. How can there be an explanation without some evidence to suggest an explanation?

Also, your objection rests on your definition of soul, which may not be the correct definition of soul. It's not as if we had anything other than dogma to define what a soul is.

What you are doing here is simply blurring the lines and washing your hands clean from the topic. Whether you want to believe it or not, the human experience in its entirety does not exist without the human soul. Scripture reveals enough on the topic of what a soul must be. In the words of C.S. Lewis, "You do not have a soul, you are a soul...you have a body". It is the seat of human identity, they very core of a human, of which engenders the whole of the human experience, the Hebrew word "nephesh" reveals certain aspects of it. Most importantly, it is what defines us as being made in His image, beings of an eternal nature.

Humans are in possession of it
Every other species are not

So again, if humans arose from primitive forms ("beasts"), then this is a very relevant and important issue.

 

[Assyrian]

Last time I checked, salvation does not apply to the animal kingdom. This is an obvious truth the Bible speaks about, mankind are the sole possessors of souls, it is the very component that defines us as being made in the image of God --> being entities of an eternal nature.

I'll reply to ths over in the Evolution and the Human Soul thread

 

[juvenissun]

I agree it doesn't make sense. That is the doctrine of Original Sin, it has nothing to do with evolution, nothing to with Genesis either. It comes from Augustine and his reading of the Latin text of Romans 5:12. I don't think there is any basis for it in the Greek but that is another issue. It is a pretty widespread doctrine among both creationists and TEs.

As well as Romans 5 not mentioning Original Sin affecting the rest of the human race, it doesn't give a mechanism for Original sin being passed on either. I know many people think of it being passed on genetically, but the bible doesn't say that, it is simply a way of explain how the doctrine works. It isn't the only explanation, Augustine's original idea was that it was passed on by concupiscence, the sin of sexual desire when our parents conceived us. But again the bible doesn't say that either. Both of those rely on Adam and Eve being the parents of the human race, but there are other traditional explanations that do not depend on that at all, for example the idea of Adam as federal head which a lot of TEs go for. It is as good an explanation as the genetic one.

You do not have to go that far. The reason is very simple: Adam is only "A" "Man", not human race. That solves this theological question.