Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

[Job 33:6]

None of which negates Paul's usage of Adam as actual. . .

Again. The Bible is not a science textbook. Genesis describes ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern science.

Moses isn't Francis Collins.

 

[Clare73]

Again. The Bible is not a science textbook. Genesis describes ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern science.

None of which negates Paul's usage of Adam as actual. . .

Moses isn't Francis Collins.

Who woulda' tho't it?

 

[Job 33:6]

None of which negates Paul's usage of Adam as actual. . .

It tells us that the text is written in an ancient literary context, not a biological one. So if your baseline assumption is that the text is addressing biological issues in a literalistic way, such as we might find in a 21st century biology textbook, then you're reading the Bible out of context. It's the same reason that the Catholic Church was wrong about heliocentrism.

 

[Clare73]

It tells us that the text is written in an ancient literary context, not a biological one. So if your baseline assumption is that the text is addressing biological issues in a literalistic way, such as we might find in a 21st century biology textbook, then you're reading the Bible out of context. It's the same reason that the Catholic Church was wrong about heliocentrism.

And if your baseline assumption is that Paul did not view Adam as actual, then you're reading Paul out of context.

The gospel of Paul (Luke) makes that clear in Lk 3:23-33.

 

[Job 33:6]

None of which negates Paul's usage of Adam as actual. . .

No kidding, Sherlock. . .

Additionally, as noted before, truth can be conveyed theologically, without needing to affirm modern biological concepts. The Bible does this all the time. The truth of the Bible doesn't hinge on scientifically concordant concepts like a genetically ancestral Adam. That's the wrong genre.

 

[Job 33:6]

And if your baseline assumption is that Paul did not view Adam as actual, then you're reading the Biblie out of context.

That's like arguing that Moses viewed the solid dome sky raqia as "actual" and then telling non-literalists that they're reading out of context. That doesn't make any sense.

Ancient people weren't geneticists.

 

[Fervent]

It tells us that the text is written in an ancient literary context, not a biological one. So if your baseline assumption is that the text is addressing biological issues in a literalistic way, such as we might find in a 21st century biology textbook, then you're reading the Bible out of context. It's the same reason that the Catholic Church was wrong about heliocentrism.

I appreciate your willingness to engage with a brick wall, and wish you luck on that endeavor. Though I will point out, the Catholic Church wasn't opposed to Galileo because of heliocentrism, which is clear because of their support for Copernicus' scientific endeavors. Galileo dared to make theological statements without authorization, which is what got him censured. Heliocentricism was more peripheral to the issue, with the central issue being the Church's restrictions on theological engagement without being trained in the proper avenues and being authorized by the church.

 

[Clare73]

Additionally, as noted before, truth can be conveyed theologically, without needing to affirm modern biological concepts. The Bible does this all the time. The truth of the Bible doesn't hinge on scientifically concordant concepts like a genetically ancestral Adam. That's the wrong genre.

Red herring. . .

 

[Clare73]

That's like arguing that Moses viewed the solid dome sky raqia as "actual" and then telling non-literalists that they're reading out of context. That doesn't make any sense.

None of which negates Paul's usage of Adam as actual. . .

Ancient people weren't geneticists.

Meant to write "your reading Paul out of context" in post #244.
The gospel of Luke (Paul) makes that context clear (Lk 3:23-33).

 

[Job 33:6]

I appreciate your willingness to engage with a brick wall, and wish you luck on that endeavor. Though I will point out, the Catholic Church wasn't opposed to Galileo because of heliocentrism, which is clear because of their support for Copernicus' scientific endeavors. Galileo dared to make theological statements without authorization, which is what got him censured. Heliocentricism was more peripheral to the issue, with the central issue being the Church's restrictions on theological engagement without being trained in the proper avenues and being authorized by the church.

Sure.

Many protestant leaders, such as John Calvin, also had issues with concepts of heliocentrism, if it's of a valued reference. And they would reference the Bible in various ways in favor of geocentrism.

Indeed, many early church fathers were also flat earthers.

Ultimately being this issue of concordism, still present throughout history. Though sometimes it may have been of a more dominant interest to some than to others.

 

[Job 33:6]

Meant to write, "You're reading Paul out of context."

Paul didn't write Genesis, did he? Ultimately, the topic of the historicity of Adam, boils down to Moses and Genesis. Not new testament commentary on Adam. Though it's still useful for reference.

 

[Fervent]

Sure.

Many protestant leaders, such as John Calvin, also had issues with concepts of heliocentrism, if it's of a valued reference. And they would reference the Bible in various ways in favor of geocentrism.

Indeed, many early church fathers were also flat earthers.

Ultimately being this issue of concordism, still present throughout history. Though sometimes it may have been of a more dominant interest to some than to others.

A lot of that was more defending the status quo against innovation, though there is naturally an element of such reticence inherent in a religion that places a premium on tradition.

 

[Job 33:6]

Paul didn't write Genesis, did he? Ultimately, the topic of the historicity of Adam, boils down to Moses and Genesis. Not new testament commentary on Adam. Though it's still useful for reference.

Unless it's Jesus of course.

But I'll give an example of why this matters. Mathew referenced Hosea. He mentions Jesus coming out of Egypt. Right. But Hosea was talking about Moses.

New testament authors are valuable for insight. But if you really want to get down to the historicity of Genesis, you have to start with Genesis.

 

[Clare73]

Paul didn't write Genesis, did he? Ultimately, the topic of the historicity of Adam, boils down to Moses and Genesis. Not new testament commentary on Adam. Though it's still useful for reference.

Genesis is plain to see.

Paul demonstrates the meaning of that plainness.

 

[Clare73]

Paul didn't write Genesis, did he? Ultimately, the topic of the historicity of Adam, boils down to Moses and Genesis. Not new testament commentary on Adam. Though it's still useful for reference.

Red herring. . .

The immedite point is not the historicity of Adam. . .it's about Paul's view of Adam, as actual or only figurative.

Paul presents Adam as actual (e.g., Ro 5:12-17,1 Co 15:45) and, therefore, figurative.

And having received his revelation from Jesus Christ, personally (2 Co 12:1-8, Gal 1:11-12), Paul is authoritative.

 

[Job 33:6]

Red herring. . .

The immedite point is not the historicity of Adam. . .it's about Paul's view of Adam, as actual or only figurative.

Paul presents Adam as actual (e.g., 1 Co 15:45) and, therefore, figurative.

"Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters"

It's not a red herring to argue that reading the Bible in context is ultimately what's the issue. And I've already addressed this.

Red herring. . .

The immedite point is not the historicity of Adam. . .it's about Paul's view of Adam, as actual or only figurative.

Paul presents Adam as actual (e.g., Ro 5:12-17,1 Co 15:45) and, therefore, figurative.

Romans 5 definitely draws a parallel between Adam and Christ. But your conclusion assumes that imputation only works if Adam is a specific historical individual. That’s not required by the text.

The key idea in Romans 5 is representation, not biology. Adam functions as a theological archetype, a pattern of humanity's fallenness. Paul even says as much: “Adam, who is a type of the one to come” (Rom 5:14). The comparison is symbolic and theological. It’s about how sin and grace operate in the human condition, not necessarily how genetics or literal ancestry work.

If Adam is a representative figure of humanity's capacity to rebel, and Christ is the representative figure of God's grace and obedience, the logic of Romans still holds. The power of the comparison lies in what Adam represents, not in how many chromosomes he had or whether he lived 6,000 years ago.

We don't say that Christ’s imputation of righteousness only works if he’s the genetic opposite of a literal Adam, we say it works because Christ entered our condition and offered redemption. Likewise, Adam’s “sin” can be understood as describing the human condition, not a historical chain of transmission.

In fact, insisting on a literal Adam as the sole mechanism for imputed sin risks reducing a rich theological truth to a biology problem. The gospel isn’t contingent on ancient DNA, it’s about God's remedy for a condition we all share.

So no, a non-literal Adam doesn’t eliminate the need for Christ’s righteousness, it explains why everyone needs it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Red herring. . .

The immedite point is not the historicity of Adam. . .it's about Paul's view of Adam, as actual or only figurative.

Paul presents Adam as actual (e.g., Ro 5:12-17,1 Co 15:45) and, therefore, figurative.

Maybe that's even a bigger issue here. You are basing your belief on a literal Adam, by referencing Paul, who isn't even the original author of Genesis. That's like referencing Paul in Ephesians 4 when he quotes Psalm 68;18. You're out of context.

Or like referencing Mathew when he quotes Hosea. It's just in the wrong context.

 

[Clare73]

Unless it's Jesus of course.

But I'll give an example of why this matters. Mathew referenced Hosea. He mentions Jesus coming out of Egypt. Right. But Hosea was talking about Moses.

Yes, the quotation originally referred to God's calling the nation out of Israel in the time of Moses.
Do you not realize that by inspiration Matthew applies it to Jesus also?

That he sees the history of Israel (God's children) briefly restated in the life of Jesus (God's unique Son).
That just as Israel as an infant nation went down into Egypt, so the child Jesus went there.
And as Israel was lead by God out of Egypt, so also was Jesus.
You think Matthew made a mistake, out of ignorance?

"Ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 3:7)

I think it's a deeper spiritual problem,..... one that deals with regeneration.
Anytime a person goes out of their way to talk themselves out of believing what the scriptures say, and then also tries to talk another person out of their faith in GOD's word, that's a tare.
It's one of those definite tell tell signs that The Holy Spirit will point out to you about people. We just need to acknowledge it and move on.

 

[Job 33:6]

Really? . . .are you sure about that?

Really? . . .

That both Ps 68:18 and Hos apply to Eph 4 and Mt, respectively, negates their meaning/application in their own context?

Explains a lot. . .

Am I sure that Paul isn't the author of Genesis?

Mathew and Paul negates the meaning of the old testament? Revelation doesn't negate original context. It fulfills it, but it doesn't overwrite it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, the quotation originally referred to God's calling the nation out of Israel in the time of Moses.
Do you not realize that by inspiration Matthew applies it to Jesus also?

That he sees the history of Israel (God's children) briefly restated in the life of Jesus (God's unique Son).
That just as Israel as an infant nation went down into Egypt, so the child Jesus went there.
And as Israel was lead by God out of Egypt, so also was Jesus.
You think Matthew made a mistake, out of ignorance?

"Ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 3:7)

Well they apply the texts to Jesus, but they do not re-tell the original narrative. Mathew referencing Hosea to talk about Jesus doesn't make Hosea untrue or less true.