Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

[Akita Suggagaki]

Don't play coy, Clare. You're attitude doesn't give me any reason to talk to you about the points of the Bible on which I'm sure we do agree.
The sad thing is, you don't care to find out either. But you sure do love to pontificate, don't you?
Anyway, have a blessed day, Sis!

Yep, sometimes best to move on.

 

[Fervent]

Yep, sometimes best to move on.

Yep...especially when the person seeks to have their cake and eat it too. Clearly she recognizes genres since she places a premium on "apostolic teaching" in the epistles as the lynchpin of her theology. Then she kicks the ladder by denying the existence of literary genres.

 

[Job 33:6]

What I never understand is this: God created a universe that operates according to principles and laws. God blessed humans with minds and senses capable of investigating and to a large extent understanding the universe. The achievements of science and the associated disciplines like philosophy and logic are perhaps the most profound achievements of humanity. Science tells us the cosmology of Genesis is completely wrong. Science tells us the origin and development of humanity set forth in Genesis is completely wrong. Not simply "not accurate," but as false as it could possibly be. Yet literalists insist it is science that is completely wrong, even though they rely on science pretty much every waking moment of their lives.

What is the logic? Are an orderly universe and humans with minds and senses capable of investigating it just a big joke on God's part? Is it all just a cosmic test to see if we will trust our lying minds and senses or the words of Genesis? Is science just some Satanic illusion? What sort of God would this be? I truly just don't get it. I cannot escape the conclusion that literalism seems more like a mental illness than what I would call faith or belief. I've always been deeply interested in epistemology, the branch of philosophy that deals with how we know what we know, and I would love to understand how any rational human actually believes Genesis is literally true. Is it some badge of honor (borrowing Mark Twain's quip about faith) to "believe things you know ain't so"?

Part of the problem is education and awareness. The Catholic Church held to geocentric views in opposition to Galileo. They had never heard of ancient Israelite cosmology and likewise had not yet understood the discovery of heliocentrism.

Unfortunately, people oftentimes seek out paths of least resistance. Theologically, it is easier to protect ones faith as a blunt literalist, so long as they close their ears to outside information. Understanding ancient isrealite cultural context and cosmology, or understanding biology however, are time consuming tasks that many people just aren't up for.

 

[Job 33:6]

There being no generic link between animal and man, I'm going with the Genesis account.

Half-truth is falsehood.

Ro 5:14 presents a spiritual type of the imputation of Adam's sin, not a physical type. . .which spiritual type therefore
1) has no bearing on his physical origin, and
2) is not representive, but actual, in that spiritual imputation of his sin to all of us (Ro 5:17-19).

Romans 5:14 indeed describes Adam as “a type of the one to come.” That’s typological language, and Paul uses it to draw a theological connection between Adam and Christ, not necessarily to insist on a one-to-one historical causality. The point Paul is making is about the universality of sin and the greater sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive work. Whether Adam is understood as a physical individual or as an archetype, the theological logic of the passage still holds: sin is universal, death is universal, and Christ’s gift is available to all.

When you say, “this is not representative but actual,” I think we need to ask, what does “actual” mean in theological terms? Is it about biological inheritance? Legal guilt? Or is it about participation, that we are all implicated in sin because we all repeat the pattern Adam represents? The Eastern Orthodox tradition, for instance, has long emphasized ancestral sin as corruption and mortality, not legal guilt. That doesn’t make it any less real or spiritually consequential.

Romans 5:17–19 still works in an archetypal reading. Paul’s point is that just as sin and death came into the world, whether through a historical person or through the story that describes all of us, Christ enters that same story and undoes what sin did. The solution (Christ) is real and effective, regardless of whether the “one man” is historical or archetypal. That’s because the story of Adam is our story, it’s spiritually, morally, and theologically true even if not scientifically or genealogically precise.

Theological truth does not become “half-truth” simply because it uses literary form or symbolic representation. That would dismiss entire genres of Scripture, from Psalms to Revelation.

So the question remains: What is Paul trying to teach? I think it’s this, that sin reigns in the human condition, and that Christ’s obedience offers a deeper, more powerful grace. And that message remains fully intact whether Adam is literal, archetypal, or both.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Has anyone kept you from presenting what you wish to present?

I don't want to present anything. I don't have an agenda here other than to be the Christian that I am.

Strawman. . .

It falls to you to Biblically demonstrate the error of my "pontification."

Excuse me while I do my best "slain in the spirit" impression. Here it goes..............................

 

[HBP]

There being no generic link between animal and man, I'm going with the Genesis account.

You might want to rethink that statement.

All mammals, including ourselves, are descended from an ancestral species that lived about one hundred million years ago. In our mammalian ancestry an average base has changed, say from an A to a T, at the almost unbelievably slow rate of about one change per billion years. This means that only a small fraction of the bases, one hundred million divided by one billion, or 1/10, have changed during that time. As a result, we share roughly 90 percent of our DNA with mice, dogs, cattle, and elephants.​

​

Coming closer to home, the DNA of human beings and chimpanzees is 98 to 99 percent identical. The differences between us that we (and presumably the chimps) regard as significant depend on only 1 or 2 percent of our DNA.​

​

Unequal by nature: a geneticist’s perspective on human differences

www.amacad.org

​

I happen to believe neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is scientifically flawed, but your statement is simply incorrect.

BTW, you never answered my question about the fate of those who die as infants. Since your position is that all humans from birth have the sin nature and are deserving of God's wrath, what is your literalist tap dance around that issue? Is God's wrath flexible and selective, so infants are spared even though they are deserving of God's wrath? Why are kind and loving adults not spared as well? How does that work?

Your presumed hero Augustine - he is pretty much the author of the doctrine of original sin, after all - thought that unbaptized infants were damned. The Catholic Church continues to struggle with this issue: The hope of salvation for infants who die without being baptised. Since you appear to regard the doctrine of original sin as the very foundation of Christianity, we await your literalist, biblical position on the fate of infants.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Sometime people argue that because Jesus referred to Adam, he must have existed literally and historically.
Let's give Jesus some credit. He knew and understood far more than anyone around him. He came to our level to communicate with us using everything he could in terms of symbols and images to communicate a message that was beyond anyone's imagination. A women who lost a coin, a pearl of great price, a sower of seed, weeds and wheat, wise and foolish virgins, workers in the vineyard. So much more than meets the eye.

 

[trophy33]

Sometime people argue that because Jesus referred to Adam, he must have existed literally and historically.
Let's give Jesus some credit. He knew and understood far more than anyone around him. He came to our level to communicate with us using everything he could in terms of symbols and images to communicate a message that was beyond anyone's imagination. A women who lost a coin, a pearl of great price, a sower of seed, weeds and wheat, wise and foolish virgins, workers in the vineyard. So much more than meets the eye.

Jesus also claimed that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. While in reality for example orchid seeds in Australia are smaller.

Jesus was simply talking to Jews and in their cultural context.

 

[Clare73]

Romans 5:14 indeed describes Adam as “a type of the one to come.” That’s typological language,

Yes, and Adam was the pattern (Ro 5:14), meaning he actually existed. . .or anything patterned on him (i.e., imputation of Christ's righteousness, Ro 5:18-19) would also be only figurative.

and Paul uses it to draw a theological connection between Adam and Christ, not necessarily to insist on a one-to-one historical causality.

Strawman. . .you don't really understand this, do you?
And yet so smug. . .

It's not about causality. . .Adam didn't cause the imputation of Christs' righteousness (Ro 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 5:18-19, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9), the imputation of Adam's sin to all those of Adam was simply the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

The point Paul is making is about the universality of sin and the greater sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive work. Whether Adam is understood as a physical individual or as an archetype, the theological logic of the passage still holds: sin is universal, death is universal, and Christ’s gift is available to all.

When the imputation of Christ's righteousness is patterned on a non-existent "archetype," there is no ground for faith in a real imputation of Christ's righteousness, it's all just smoke and mirrors.
Your God is incompetent.

When you say, “this is not representative but actual,” I think we need to ask, what does “actual” mean in theological terms?
Is it about biological inheritance? Legal guilt?

No it's about spiritual reality. . .more "real" and lasting than physical reality.
God is actually spiritual (non-material), not physical.
Angels are actually spiritual (non-material), not physical.
Humans are actually both spiritual (their spirit) and physical (their body).

Adam's sin is actually imputed (charged) to those of Adam (Ro 5:17, 14-16, 18-19).
Christ's righteousness is actually imputed (credited) to those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19, Ro 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10?6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9)

Or is it about participation,

It's about what the NT reveals it to be about. . .spiritual actuality.

that we are all implicated in sin because we all repeat the pattern Adam represents? The Eastern Orthodox tradition, for instance, has long emphasized ancestral sin as corruption and mortality, not legal guilt. That doesn’t make it any less real or spiritually consequential.

Romans 5:17–19 still works in an archetypal reading. Paul’s point is that just as sin and death came into the world, whether through a historical person or through the story that describes all of us, Christ enters that same story and undoes what sin did.

And it's all just a story. . .we have no way of knowing if any of it. . .sin, guilt, atonement redemption. . are actual spiritual reality, or just smoke and mirrors.
You think God is that shoddy and ambiguous about such consequential everlasting matters?

The solution (Christ) is real and effective,

If the problem is simply figurative, then there is no need for an actual solution.

Jesus got it wrong when he actually died on the cross for a problem inherited from a figurative Adam.

And God got it wrong when he imputed to us (Ro 5:17-19) the sin of a figurative Adam which the actual Jesus died on the cross to remit.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, and Adam was the pattern (Ro 5:14), meaning he actually existed. . .or anything patterned on him (i.e., imputation of Christ's righteousness, Ro 5:18-19) would also be only figurative.

I'd disagree here. The word τύπος (type) means a pattern, example, or foreshadowing. It doesn’t inherently require the person to be historically real, only that they serve a theological or literary function that points forward to Christ.

The effectiveness of Christ’s righteousness and imputation in Romans 5 is not dependent on the historicity of Adam, but on the reality of human sin and God’s redemptive plan.

The theological point stands either way: sin entered the world and Christ is the remedy. Even if Adam is archetypal or symbolic, Christ's work remains real, literal, and redemptive.

By your logic, the good Samaritan is all smoke and mirrors because the good Samaritan wasn't a real person. That's not how truth in the Bible works.

 

[Clare73]

You might want to rethink that statement.

All mammals, including ourselves, are descended from an ancestral species that lived about one hundred million years ago. In our mammalian ancestry an average base has changed, say from an A to a T, at the almost unbelievably slow rate of about one change per billion years. This means that only a small fraction of the bases, one hundred million divided by one billion, or 1/10, have changed during that time. As a result, we share roughly 90 percent of our DNA with mice, dogs, cattle, and elephants.​

​

Coming closer to home, the DNA of human beings and chimpanzees is 98 to 99 percent identical. The differences between us that we (and presumably the chimps) regard as significant depend on only 1 or 2 percent of our DNA.​

​

Unequal by nature: a geneticist’s perspective on human differences

www.amacad.org

​

I happen to believe neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is scientifically flawed, but your statement is simply incorrect.

BTW, you never answered my question about the fate of those who die as infants. Since your position is that all humans from birth have the sin nature and are deserving of God's wrath, what is your literalist tap dance around that issue? Is God's wrath flexible and selective, so infants are spared even though they are deserving of God's wrath? Why are kind and loving adults not spared as well? How does that work?

Your presumed hero Augustine - he is pretty much the author of the doctrine of original sin,

You haven't heard "original sin" from me, but you have heard the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 14-16, 18-19) from me.

after all - thought that unbaptized infants were damned.

Adam's sin is imputed to all (Ro 5:17, 14-16, 18-19) and damns all.

The Catholic Church continues to struggle with this issue: The hope of salvation for infants who die without being baptised. Since you appear to regard the doctrine of original sin as the very foundation of Christianity, we await your literalist, biblical position on the fate of infants.

All mankind is born condemned (Jn 3:18) by the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17), which condemnation is removed by faith in Jesus Christ (Jn 3:18).
Baptism does not change that.
The doctrine of election answers your question regarding infants (Eph 1:4-5), as in the case of Jacob and Esau, where Jacob was elected before either one was born and had done anything good or bad (Ro 9:11).
Election is by sovereign choice of the Holy Spirit only (depending on nothing but his will to do so, Jn 3:6-8).

 

[Clare73]

You're attitude doesn't give me any reason to talk to you about the points of the Bible on which I'm sure we do agree.
The sad thing is, you don't care to find out either. But you sure do love to pontificate, don't you?
Anyway, have a blessed day, Sis!

I don't want to present anything. I don't have an agenda here other than to be the Christian that I am.

Then all is well. . .

 

[Clare73]

You might want to rethink that statement.
All mammals, including ourselves, are descended from an ancestral species that lived about one hundred million years ago. In our mammalian ancestry an average base has changed, say from an A to a T, at the almost unbelievably slow rate of about one change per billion years. This means that only a small fraction of the bases, one hundred million divided by one billion, or 1/10, have changed during that time. As a result, we share roughly 90 percent of our DNA with mice, dogs, cattle, and elephants.

None of which is a link, it's commonality.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Jesus also claimed that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. While in reality for example orchid seeds in Australia are smaller.

Jesus was simply talking to Jews and in their cultural context.

And they still didn't get it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then all is well. . .

It's mostly well, other than that you seem to give the indication that I'm going to hell because I've always had trouble seeing the Bible the way you see it.

But otherwise, I agree. All is well with Jesus.

 

[Fervent]

Jesus also claimed that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. While in reality for example orchid seeds in Australia are smaller.

Jesus was simply talking to Jews and in their cultural context.

He also relied on the science of the day to communicate, such as the Greek idea that the eyes produced light. God isn't afraid of using human misconceptions to convey His message.

 

[Job 33:6]

Jesus also claimed that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. While in reality for example orchid seeds in Australia are smaller.

Jesus was simply talking to Jews and in their cultural context.

How dare you claim that Jesus spoke truths without it being literal history. I happen to have a history/science textbook on the good Samaritan and...

 

[Clare73]

It's mostly well, other than that you seem to give the indication that I'm going to hell because I've always had trouble seeing the Bible the way you see it.

But otherwise, I agree. All is well with Jesus.

Get much exercise jumping to conclusions?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Get much exercise jumping to conclusions?

Not as much as I need, I'm sure.

Here's the point though: I FULLY understand all of what you're saying about Adam and imputation for sin. It was the first monumental theological hurdle I came to back when I was 17, picking up a Bible for the first time in my life and seriously beginning to read it. I didn't grow up in a fundamentalist, frequent church going family, so I've had a lot of analytical evaluating and theological slogging to do over the past few decades to even get to a point where I could say, as I do now, "Hey, you know, I think this Bible is, more or less, a prophetic work of God, and Jesus is the answer to the problem."

So, like I keep saying, if you believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that's fine by me. By contrast, I have my understanding of the use of Adam and Eve worked out a little differently than you do, but I essentially end up at a very similar place that you do. The difference between us is that you start with the Bible and then try to explain the world via the Bible. I, on the other hand, start with a bunch of other academic propositions and ideas, and I see if the Bible emerges with significance and historicity of a kind and level I can believe in.

But I'm glad you have your faith, Clare.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's pretty much it. . .

You judge the Bible. . .while the Bible judges me.

Somehow when you say it, it doesn't sound the same as when I say it.

It's a gift of the Holy Spirit (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, 18:27, 2Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3), as is all saving faith.

Yep.