Like many Believers, I don't claim to fully understand the ins and outs of the opening chapters of Genesis, they are recorded in the form of a synopsis through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and probably by Moses.
I have never seen any indication that they are merely a story or a parable full of metaphor and hyperbole...indeed the way in which the events and characters are further referenced throughout Scripture precludes this idea as I see it, especially when you read 1Corinthians 15, which categorically makes reference to this part of the word of G-d and says IT IS WRITTEN...
45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
If we pursue the whole idea which erodes the word of G-d...what do we say when the Bible tells us He made Adam from the dust of the ground..are we to rationlise it or explain it away. In the same breath when Jesus spat in the dust and formed eyes in the blind man...doesn't such a thing speak of the Creator in action? John 9:
1As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. 2And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” 3Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4“We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. 5“While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.” 6When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, 7and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.
The Apostle Paul references Adam...just as it is recorded in Genesis...and he was one of the greatest intellectuals of his era, and probably the greatest theologian of all time...
1 Tim 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Adam is included in several genealogies, including that of the L-rd's.
I could go on, but you see my point...so when you say,
"In my own reading, I see no necessary contradiction between Genesis 1 and the theory of evolution. The point of Genesis 1 is not, necessarily, to give a literal account of creation with a timed chronology; more likely (to my reading anyway), it is trying to affirm that God created, created good, and created in a way leading towards Christ. Evolution does not contradict this (or need not necessarily contradict this). "
As your brother in Messiah I would strongly disagree, and humbly suggest that the weight of biblical support for a straight-forward reading and understanding of Genesis is overwhelming...and to contemplate anything else even in the light of so-called scientific evidence, actually calls into question the veracity of YHWH.
I think that there are some things you may have missed when considering what Brother Marcius was saying on reading Genesis. There are indeed many aspects of Genesis that are best read in a literal light and the scriptures seem to note often where figures were indeed historical/literal such as Adam. To say that such an individual did not exist would create a myriad of problems....including the reference to geneologies and the claims of Christ. A literal reading of Genesis does a lot to address that.
On the same token, there are other clear aspects of Genesis that would not make sense or be scientifically sound if assuming that all parts of the Genesis account be taken literally. The greatest example of this, IMHO, can be found in the identity of the serpent. People have often read the text and assumed that all snakes are descendants of the serpent in the Garden----and they thus assume all snakes must be cursed
even when the scriptures don't necessarily say that.
Due to how the Lord told the Serpent in Genesis 3 that he would craw on his belly the rest of his days, many have assumed that all snakes in our time/since were descendants of the Serpent who decieved Eve........and many try to make the conclusion based on how others in the world of science have been of the mindset that snakes used to have legs (more shared
here,
here ,
here, and
here), even though others have noted that
even some lizards do not have legs/seem similar to snakes.(more shared
here/h
ere )--wit t
he main difference between lizards and snakes being external ears and eyelids.
I have always struggled with that since some say that the translation of the word Nachash (used for serpent) does not mean snake like we see them today...and for more, one can consider the work of
Michael S. Heiser--- a Hebrew scholar who points out that "the Hebrew word "serpent" is Nachash..which is actually an adjective (meaning 'bright,' 'brazen'....as in shiny brass). For in his view, he points out the Hebrew in detail..for essentially, the Nachash, or "serpent," was actually a being of light translated as "the shining one." And as Michael describes, this is clearly in line with other descriptions of the enemy in in the Old Testament..and the NT when it comes to describing him as an angel of light (more discussed
here ).
Personally, I think it's more than reasonable..especially when considering the reality of how the Serpent/Devil was not necessarily within Adam's Jurisdiction as all the other animals...as after his fall, he was essentially "renegade"/"off the grid" so to speak. It makes more than enough sense to say "Serpent" was literally the Angel of Light rather than an actual animal or in the sense of the Enemy possessing the body of an animal the Lord had already made known as
snakes..as it'd be pretty foolish that all of the
snakes were now made to pay for the mistakes of one who was out of control ( lol).
For a good read on the issue, one can go to
Evolution - GeoCreationist Perspective on Evolution -Genesis 3:14-15 - When the Serpent Lost His Legs
Apart from that, to assume that all snakes are "cursed"/corrupt would be off since the scriptures repeatedly noted where they were often highly praised. Indeed, God often spoke negatively of them in the scriptures ( Genesis 49:16-18 , Numbers 21:5-7, Deuteronomy 32:32-34 , Job 20:13-15, Psalm 140:2-4 , 2 Corinthians 11:2-4 , Matthew 23:32-34, Luke 10:18-20 )---and yet they were considered admirable/things God noted as valuable/to be appreciated it often ( Matthew 10:15-17, Proverbs 18-19).
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+30:18-20&version=NIV
Proverbs notes where the snake was admired/valued at one point due to how amazing it was. The way of a serpent upon a rock is amazing since the snake has no arms, legs, or feet.....and for it to slither /twist through on a smooth rock where there is no leverage (unlike grass or sand)---using no toeholds and leaving no tracks, yet moving efficiently...that is all the wise design of the Lord.
All of that is said to make the point that it can be very off to assume that all aspects of Genesis must be literal if/when certain things literally don't make sense in nature or fit in with the rest of the scriptural narrative...as it concerns the Serpent/his role. There was more going on...