Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

[2PhiloVoid]

So where does Moses state Genesis is prophetic? Prophetic of what? Prophetic of meatloaf on Monday?Just rhetorical verbal diarrhea here .........

If Moses is a prophet, then his statements are, at base minimum and at the lowest descriptive level, "prophetic." It's a logical inference.

He's also the first author of the Old Testament books (I.e. the Torah), and for those of us like myself who take the Philosophy of History and Historiography and Hermeneutics as prior to, and a 'key' into belief, Moses is for me the beginning of biblical history ----Not Adam.

If you have a different approach to reading, interpreting and valuing the Old Testament and its relation to the New Testament, have at it. I'm not going to tell you 'how' to approach it. I will, however, attempt to explain my historical point of view, assuming others don't keep showing up to berate me or poke me in the eye because I stated something they, in their particular Christian tradition, just happen to disagree with.

 

[public hermit]

Moses has definitely been considered a prophet in Christian circles. Deut. 18:15 being the primary text where Jesus is the prophet like Moses that God raised up. "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him."

Also, the Samaritans, like the Sadducees, only accepted the Torah, and Moses was considered the prophet who spoke of the coming Messiah. Again, Deut. 18:15 being the guiding text. So, when Jesus is speaking to the Samaritan women at the well, she says, "I know that Messiah is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” That is, the Messiah will speak, and they will listen, which is what happened, according to the gospel text.

 

[The Liturgist]

All of which may be true, in the context of your literalist Pauline theology. None of which is true in the context of my non-literalist theology, which is shared by vast swaths of Christendom. I simply reject your literalist Pauline theology.

You are aware, surely, that James the Just and the apostles who actually knew and walked with Jesus formed the Christian community in Jerusalem and remained thoroughly observant Jews. They were bitterly opposed to Paul, far more so than the sanitized NT suggests. Paul, who never knew Jesus, says in Galatians that he got his gospel from no one but by personal revelation.

"I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Galatians 1:11-12 (NIV). OK, but James - the acknowledged pillar of early Christendom, together with Peter - and those who had actually known and walked with Jesus thought very, very differently.

Contrary to your dogmatic "I'm right and you're wrong and God agrees with me" approach, I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with your literalist Pauline theology. It simply isn't my understanding or that of many, many others, and I couldn't make myself believe it if I tried. A literal Adam and Eve are completely irrelevant to me.

This argument suffers from three fundamental flaws: the status of the Pauline Epistles as not only inspired Scripture, but as the oldest part of the New Testament, represents not just the scholarly consensus among Christian denominations, but also is part of the statement of faith of this website, and all proposed canons for the New Testament from the Early Church include the Pauline epistles, so that by the time St. Athanasius of Alexandria composed the definite New Testament canon shared by all Christian denominations (something that has never been agreed on with the Old Testament; there have always been minor variations between local churches even in the same communion, so the Ethiopian Old Testament is different from the Coptic Old Testament (a translation of the Byzantine Old Testament), which is different from the Peshitta Old Testament, among the Oriental Orthodox, and among the Eastern Orthodox the Old Testament as used by Slavonic churches has minor differences in arrangement to the one used by the Mediterranean churches, such as the Greeks, Antiochians and Cypriots, and even among British Protestants, the Anglicans use several deuterocanonical books in the KJV which are not accepted by the Presbyterians of the Church of Scotland (including Baruch, which was regarded as Protocanon by John Calvin). Indeed the Christian Forums statement of faith prohibits challenging St. Paul’s status as an inspired Apostle, which I hope you are not doing or about to do.

The second fundamental problem is that the Jews traditionally always believed in Adam and Eve as literal humans; the idea that they are metaphorical is recent in Judaism and is held by mainly by some Reformed Jews and by the Reconstructionist Jews. Orthodox Jews, Karaite Jews, the Beta israel (Ethiopian Jews), and the related Samaritan Hebraic religion all believe in Genesis 2 literally (although the Karaites interestingly do not believe in the existence of a devil; rather, they believe the serpent in Genesis ch. 2 was a particularly clever snake, which is … interesting.

The third fundamental problem is of course that the Pauline epistles do not exist in isolation to or in opposition to the rest of the New Testament, but rather, their words are echoed throughout the rest of it. To use just some examples of St. Paul’s statements aligning with those of the other Holy Apostles and Evangelists, let’s take a look at this:

Parallel Scripture References Between the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels/Acts
Demonstrating theological unity and mutual testimony

1. Institution of the Eucharist
   1 Corinthians 11:23–25 — “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you…”
   Luke 22:19–20; Matthew 26:26–28 — “This is my body… this is my blood of the covenant…”
   
2. Incarnation in Time
   Galatians 4:4 — “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman…”
   John 1:14 — “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us…”
   
3. Christ as Image of God
   Colossians 1:15 — “Who is the image of the invisible God…”
   John 1:18; John 14:9 — “He who has seen Me has seen the Father…”
   
4. Fullness of God in Christ
   Colossians 2:9 — “For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
   John 1:14 — “Full of grace and truth…”
   
5. Preexistence and Incarnation
   Philippians 2:6–7 — “Who, being in the form of God… took upon him the form of a servant…”
   John 1:1–3, 14 — “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word became flesh…”
   
6. Christ’s Divine Sonship
   Romans 1:3–4 — “Declared to be the Son of God with power… by the resurrection from the dead.”
   Luke 1:35 — “That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
   
7. Adam–Christ Typology and Salvation
   Romans 5:12–21 — “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners…”
   John 3:16–17 — “For God so loved the world… that the world through him might be saved.”
   
8. Death and Resurrection
   1 Corinthians 15:3–4 — “That Christ died for our sins… and rose again the third day…”
   Luke 24:46–47 — “Thus it is written… that Christ should suffer, and rise…”
   
9. Return of Christ (Parousia)
   1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 — “The Lord himself shall descend from heaven…”
   John 14:3; Acts 1:11 — “I will come again…” / “This same Jesus shall so come…”
   
10. The Holy Spirit in Prayer
    Romans 8:26 — “The Spirit helpeth our infirmities… with groanings which cannot be uttered.”
    John 14:16–17 — “The Comforter… even the Spirit of truth…”
    
11. Spiritual Gifts
    1 Corinthians 12:4–11 — “Diversities of gifts… same Spirit…”
    Acts 2:1–4 — “They were all filled with the Holy Ghost…”
    
12. Speaking in Tongues
    1 Corinthians 14:2 — “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men…”
    Mark 16:17 — “They shall speak with new tongues…”
    
13. One Mediator
    1 Timothy 2:5 — “One mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
    John 14:6 — “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
    
14. Scriptural Inspiration
    2 Timothy 3:16 — “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…”
    John 10:35 — “The Scripture cannot be broken…”
    
15. Confession and Resurrection
    Romans 10:9 — “If thou shalt confess… and believe… thou shalt be saved.”
    John 11:25–26 — “He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live…”
    
16. Unity in Christ
    Galatians 3:28 — “Ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
    John 17:21 — “That they all may be one…”
    
17. Regeneration by the Spirit
    Titus 3:5–6 — “He saved us… by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”
    John 3:5 — “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit…”
    
18. Baptism and New Life
    Romans 6:3–4 — “Buried with him by baptism into death…”
    John 3:3–5 — “Except a man be born again…”
    
19. Eucharistic Participation
    1 Corinthians 10:16–17 — “The cup of blessing… the bread which we break…”
    John 6:53–56 — “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man…”
    
20. New Creation
    2 Corinthians 5:17 — “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature…”
    John 3:3; Acts 9:1–6 — “Except a man be born again…” / Paul’s conversion as renewal

Also, finally, in closing I would note that St. Paul’s conversion is recorded in Acts, which makes it clear that he is a legitimate Apostle, and it was under his influence that St. James the Just and the rest of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 decided that conversion to Judaism was not a prerequisite to becoming Christian, St. Paul having previously convinced St. Peter of this fact (and indeed St. Thomas was separately aware of this, for in his ministry in Syria, Mesopotamia and India, he converted not just Aramaic speaking Jews, but gentiles, and was martyred in 53 AD when an enraged Hindu Maharaja threw a javelin at him; the site of his martyrdom is widely believed to be the oldest Christian church in continual operation (since subsequent Hindu rulers of Kerala and Malankara believed the Christians had good karma, and forced the Christians to live in buffer zones between castes they viewed as having bad karma and upper castes with their good karma; however Hindu persecution was historically less of a problem than it is at present, and was historically less of a problem than persecution by Buddhists (who at present are not actively persecuting Christians, but the Red Hat Buddhists of Bhutan vigorously persecute the Hindu minority, and the Rohingya people, a predominantly Islamic people from Myanmar, are the victims of a vicious genocide being waged by the government, which resulted in a prominent “freedom fighter” who persuaded many people to call the country Burma rather than Myanmar on the grounds that name was associated with the military dictatorship, to be stripped of her Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[The Liturgist]

That is incorrect IF I still view the underlying nature of the book of Genesis as being prophetic in nature.

Firstly, the status of Genesis as inspired prophecy is correct, according to Luke ch. 24, in which Christ our True God reveals that all the books of the Law and Prophets (the Old Testament, including the five books of the Torah) are about Him, and opens the books for the Apostles.

For this reason, Lutherans such as my dearly beloved friends @Ain't Zwinglian and @MarkRohfrietsch , Anglicans such as my dearly beloved friend @Shane R, Roman Catholics such as my dearly beloved friends @Michie and @chevyontheriver , Calvinists such as my dear friend @Clare73 Eastern and Oriental Orthodox such as my dearly beloved friends and fellow Orthodox Christians @prodromos @jas3 and several others (we have one member whose name I frequently forget, who always writes good things on the forum) and other Christians use the New Testament to interpret the Old, for the Old Testament prophecies, many of which are in Genesis, have the effect of validating the Messianic identity of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Thus I can fully understand why my friend @Ain't Zwinglian expressed dismay at your post; the idea that Genesis is not a book of prophecy is contrary to the beliefs of most Christians, whether traditional liturgical Christians or of other backgrounds.

Also equally frustrating is your assertion that if Genesis is prophecy, then that somehow contradicts the doctrine of the imputation of righteousness, which is not at all the case (on the contrary, the reverse is true).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Firstly, the status of Genesis as inspired prophecy is correct, according to Luke ch. 24, in which Christ our True God reveals that all the books of the Law and Prophets (the Old Testament, including the five books of the Torah) are about Him, and opens the books for the Apostles.

For this reason, Lutherans such as my dearly beloved friends @Ain't Zwinglian and @MarkRohfrietsch , Anglicans such as my dearly beloved friend @Shane R, Roman Catholics such as my dearly beloved friends @Michie and @chevyontheriver , Calvinists such as my dear friend @Clare73 Eastern and Oriental Orthodox such as my dearly beloved friends and fellow Orthodox Christians @prodromos @jas3 and several others (we have one member whose name I frequently forget, who always writes good things on the forum) and other Christians use the New Testament to interpret the Old, for the Old Testament prophecies, many of which are in Genesis, have the effect of validating the Messianic identity of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Thus I can fully understand why my friend @Ain't Zwinglian expressed dismay at your post; the idea that Genesis is not a book of prophecy is contrary to the beliefs of most Christians, whether traditional liturgical Christians or of other backgrounds.

No, I think I clearly stated that I think the book of Genesis is prophetic. How is it that you're reading the opposite into what I've said?

Also equally frustrating is your assertion that if Genesis is prophecy, then that somehow contradicts the doctrine of the imputation of righteousness, which is not at all the case (on the contrary, the reverse is true).

I didn't say or address anything as yet about the topic of imputation? I'm beginning to wonder how closely some of you are actually reading what I'm saying.

 

[ARBITER01]

A museum worker cleans the floor in front of true to scale copies of the paintings "Adam" and "Eve" by Hans Baldung Grien, the apprentice of German Renaissance painter Albrecht Duerer, during a pre-view of the Duerer exhibition at the Staedel museum in Frankfurt October 22, 2013. | Reuters/Kai Pfaffenbach

Data from the National Survey of Religious Leaders reveals that only 25% of Catholic and mainline Protestant pastors say they firmly believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Among Evangelical pastors, the numbers are somewhat better, but a notable portion still express doubt or uncertainty about whether Adam and Eve were real historical figures.

For some, this may seem like a minor theological point in the broader narrative of Scripture. But in truth, whether Adam and Eve were real people has profound implications for the authority of the Bible, the doctrine of original sin, the credibility of Jesus’ teachings, and the very foundation of the Gospel itself.

Genesis presents Adam and Eve not as metaphorical symbols but as literal individuals created uniquely by God. Genesis 2:7, ESV, says, “Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”

This verse isn’t written in the style of myth or parable. It’s a clear and deliberate account of the origin of humanity. Later, in Genesis 2:22, the creation of Eve is described in similarly specific terms: “And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Continued below.

Why Believing in a Literal Adam and Eve Matters

Dismissing Adam and Eve as mere symbols of human imperfection may win intellectual approval, but it undermines the Bible’s authority, distorts the doctrine of sin, and strikes at the very heart of the Gospel message. Data from the National Survey of Religious Leaders reveals that only 25 percent...

www.standingforfreedom.com

If the account wasn't true, then why would Jesus say we must be born again?

 

[Michie]

If the account wasn't true, then why would Jesus say we must be born again?

Why are you asking me? I believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

 

[ARBITER01]

Why are you asking me? I believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

So do I.

My question is directed to those questioning the legitimacy of the account. If it is not true, then there would be no reason for Jesus to demand that we be born from above, and His work He accomplished here was unnecessary. He could of just stayed up in heaven.

 

[trophy33]

My question is directed to those questioning the legitimacy of the account.

I am not sure what "questioning the legitimacy of the account" means. It is legitimate in its form and purpose - mythical beginnings narrative for the Jews exiled in Babylonia.

But it is not a literal history word for word. And it does not claim to be, so what legitimacy is being questioned?

If it is not true, then there would be no reason for Jesus to demand that we be born from above, and His work He accomplished here was unnecessary. He could of just stayed up in heaven.

These two things are not related. Being born from above is in the opposite of being born here on earth. We are being born here on earth independently on whether you read Genesis 1/2 literally or not.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Also equally frustrating is your assertion that if Genesis is prophecy,

How can a book (or any book)that contains genealogies NOT BE HISTORY? Strange.

 

[HBP]

A problem seldom pointed out is raised by Cain, Abel and Seth. If the Adam and Eve account is literal history, so are the Cain, Abel, Seth accounts - no? The second generation of humans were keeping flocks, raising crops, building cities, etc.? Uh, no. Somehow Cain was fearful that the "others" would kill him, hence the mark of Cain. Who were these others? This is simply nonsense, completely contrary to all we know about early humans, who were cave dwellers and nomadic hunter-gatherers. A theology completely divorced from reality is simply not my thing. I prefer not to live in a state of constant cognitive dissonance, one foot in an imaginary "theological world" and one foot in the real world.

 

[trophy33]

How can a book (or any book)that contains genealogies NOT BE HISTORY? Strange.

Easily, because it is the standard in the ancient genealogies.

 

[The Liturgist]

How can a book (or any book)that contains genealogies NOT BE HISTORY? Strange.

Indeed, the idea that the prophetic status of Genesis makes it ahistorical is absurd; the work is obviously historical as well as prophetic.

Specifically, the events recorded in it are real, and they directly influence the actions of Christ, thus the book prophesied Christ through historical typological events, for example, the test of faith of St. Abraham wherein he was stopped at the last second from offering his son Isaac provides additional meaning to the sacrifice of the only begotten Son and Logos.

 

[The Liturgist]

This is simply nonsense, completely contrary to all we know about early humans,

We know that about some early humans. But there are cave dwellers even today, such as the Anchorite monk Fr. Lazarus el Antony, a Coptic monk, who lives in the same country as Alexandria and Cairo.

The nature of caves is also such that they tend to preserve their contents whereas a city built with primitive plant and animal material could vanish without a trace, or be overbuilt so many times that as an archaeological layer it becomes indecipherable.

 

[The Liturgist]

You'll note that those who insist upon a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve do because they are projecting back onto the account (1) their particular interpretation of the authority of the Bible and (2) their particular understanding of Christian theology. Add (1) and (2) together, and the Genesis account "must" be historical truth for these folks. In my little corner of Christianity, the literalness of a first couple is primarily a scientific question. I don't have to be a gung-ho Darwinian to accept that the Genesis account is simply not plausible. It expresses spiritual truths and nothing more. In my little corner, a literal reading has theological ripples that lead to a God and a Christianity that are, to me, cartoonish and simply not believable.

Has it occurred to you that your own view of Genesis could be shaped by contemporary cultural references to it?

Viewed from the Patristic perspective, there is nothing about the book which is cartoonish, which is why none of the early church Fathers, who lived in a civilization so advanced it would not be surpassed until recent centuries, had objections to the book.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I'll note that the NT presents the imputation of the sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16) to all those of Adam as the pattern (Ro 5:14) for a central NT doctrine: the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (Ro 5:18-19, 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9) to all those of Christ.

I'll note that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is just as (Ro 5:18-19) the imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17, 12-16).
If Adam is a myth, all that relates to or corresponds to Adam is necessarily a myth.
The last (second) Adam, Christ (1 Co 15:45, Ro 5:12-21, 45-49) would also be a myth.

In your unbelief of the existence of Adam, contrary to the apostolic teaching (Ro 5:17-19) of Christ (Lk 10:16), you nullify central NT doctrine.

If, as you say, everything depends on the literal historical exitance of Adam and Eve, one would have no choice but to defend that literal belief at all costs and in the face of all contrary evidence. It is Christian tradition to do so. I acknowledge that. But I do not acknowledge that the life and mission of Jesus depends on it even though NT writings utilize a literal sense to explain Jesus.

 

[HBP]

Let's cut to the chase, and then I'll bow out. All discussions at all Christian-oriented forums, in my experience, tend to be dominated by those with a literalist mindset. Actual history, science and even biblical scholarship are measured by a literalist view of the Bible, not vice-versa. This is why I refer to living in a state of constant cognitive dissonance. The literalist theology must be "saved" at all costs, no matter how badly actual history, science and even biblical scholarship must be contorted to "fit." The literalist mindset is presented at these forums as though it were the "real" Christianity and those whose theology attaches greater weight to actual history, science and biblical scholarship are dubious Christians at best and perhaps not "real" Christians at all (the "no true Scotsman" fallacy).

Let's take William Lane Craig, surely one of the three or four most renowned evangelical scholars of the past 50 years. He spent years thinking about Adam and Eve before writing his book of a few years ago. He decided Adam and Eve were "theologically necessary," but he also realized a literalist view of Genesis is absurd. Ergo, he has a "real" Adam and Eve being created 500,000 years into human evolution! Is this a literal reading of Genesis? Hardly. It's a theologically-driven attempt to "save" Genesis in the face of the actual history and science of human origins and development. How is this "better" than a rational acceptance that Genesis was written roughly 1,500 years before Jesus, literally hundreds of thousands and even millions of years before the events it purports to describe, by people who held a primitive view of almost everything and that it is simply a metaphorical attempt to express the human condition and profound spiritual insights that may well have been inspired by God?

I refer to the literalist mindset as Perpetual Vacation Bible School. I tried to live in PVBS for a while and realized this was simply impossible, requiring constant pretending and forcing me to live in a state of cognitive dissonance where actual history, science and biblical scholarship had to constantly be "explained away." If you can juggle all the balls that PVBS requires you to juggle, be my guest. My overarching principle these days is: I am no longer going to pretend to believe things that I am constitutionally incapable of believing. My juggling days are over.

 

[Clare73]

So where does Moses state Genesis is prophetic? Prophetic of what? Prophetic of meatloaf on Monday?Just rhetorical verbal diarrhea here .........

Passing itself off as Biblical "scholarship."

Case closed .

 

[Clare73]

Firstly, the status of Genesis as inspired prophecy is correct, according to Luke ch. 24, in which Christ our True God reveals that all the books of the Law and Prophets (the Old Testament, including the five books of the Torah) are about Him, and opens the books for the Apostles.
For this reason, Lutherans such as my dearly beloved friends @Ain't Zwinglian and @MarkRohfrietsch , Anglicans such as my dearly beloved friend @Shane R, Roman Catholics such as my dearly beloved friends @Michie and @chevyontheriver ,

Calvinists such as my dear friend @Clare73 Eastern and Oriental Orthodox such as my dearly beloved friends and fellow Orthodox Christians @prodromos @jas3 and several others (we have one member whose name I frequently forget, who always writes good things on the forum) and other Christians use the New Testament to interpret the Old, for the Old Testament prophecies, many of which are in Genesis, have the effect of validating the Messianic identity of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Thus I can fully understand why my friend @Ain't Zwinglian expressed dismay at your post; the idea that Genesis is not a book of prophecy is contrary to the beliefs of most Christians, whether traditional liturgical Christians or of other backgrounds.

Also equally frustrating is your assertion that if Genesis is prophecy, then that somehow contradicts the doctrine of the imputation of righteousness, which is not at all the case (on the contrary, the reverse is true).

I don't claim to b a "Calvinist," but a Paulist. . .however, I will accept that label from my also dear friend because there is probably not much of Calvin with which I will disagree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So do I.

My question is directed to those questioning the legitimacy of the account. If it is not true, then there would be no reason for Jesus to demand that we be born from above, and His work He accomplished here was unnecessary. He could of just stayed up in heaven.

No, there's still a reason for Jesus to fulfill all that He fulfilled. Because even if Adam and Eve weren't literally 'real' historical people, all that is needed is for a statement from God, through a prophet, to be given to humanity to the effect that, "All have sinned and have fallen short of the Glory of God."

And that's what I believe we have. And that statement through Moses and the rest of the Hebrew/Israelite prophets stands, whether the first 11 chapters of Genesis are ultra-literal or not.

But if some of you who take the first eleven chapters of Genesis in a very literal way, then that's fine with me. Just don't lip-rash the rest of us who, at present, don't.