Adam

[Ivan Hlavanda]

I know there are Christians out there that do not hold the view the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal history, Adam was not literal, God did not create everything in 6 days ets...because the science disproves this.

If you do not believe in literal Adam, you then cannot believe in literal 2nd Adam, Jesus Christ the Saviour. Because if Adam did not exist, then the fall did not happen and there is no need for a Saviour.

You cannot believe in a metaphorical Adam and then believe in literal resurrection of Christ, the second Adam who came to fix what the first Adam broke. You also have problem explaining Romans 5:12-21

P.S. I know the view of metaphorical Adam is held by very few, but it has been bothering me deeply that people believe this, and I am studying Romans 5 and this is on my heart.

 

[Yarddog]

I know there are Christians out there that do not hold the view the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal history, Adam was not literal, God did not create everything in 6 days ets...because the science disproves this.

If you do not believe in literal Adam, you then cannot believe in literal 2nd Adam, Jesus Christ the Saviour. Because if Adam did not exist, then the fall did not happen and there is no need for a Saviour.

You cannot believe in a metaphorical Adam and then believe in literal resurrection of Christ, the second Adam who came to fix what the first Adam broke. You also have problem explaining Romans 5:12-21

P.S. I know the view of metaphorical Adam is held by very few, but it has been bothering me deeply that people believe this, and I am studying Romans 5 and this is on my heart.

I haven't heard of a metaphorical Adam but there is a deeper meaning of Adam than the literal. It's allegorical.

 

[Job 33:6]

I know there are Christians out there that do not hold the view the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal history, Adam was not literal, God did not create everything in 6 days ets...because the science disproves this.

If you do not believe in literal Adam, you then cannot believe in literal 2nd Adam, Jesus Christ the Saviour. Because if Adam did not exist, then the fall did not happen and there is no need for a Saviour.

You cannot believe in a metaphorical Adam and then believe in literal resurrection of Christ, the second Adam who came to fix what the first Adam broke. You also have problem explaining Romans 5:12-21

P.S. I know the view of metaphorical Adam is held by very few, but it has been bothering me deeply that people believe this, and I am studying Romans 5 and this is on my heart.

The fall does not hinge on a literal Adam. Many conservative evangelicals and Bible scholars acknowledge this. If you think their number is "very few", I would recommend investigating the topic a bit more. Have you at least read the works of Tremper Longman III and John Walton?

Others that might be worth reading, Bruce Waltke, Robert Alter, Gordon Wenham, Nahum Sarna, Pete Enns. Or if you prefer more theological content, NT Wright or John Collins. Among others.

These are all very well known, many of which are conservative evangelicals that hold to the inerrancy of scripture.

And there are broader professional sources that support positions of a non historical Adam as well. Bible commentaries: NICOT, TOTC, the Oxford handbook of the Pentateuch, and more.

So, the position is not held by "very few", you just have to broaden your horizons to see the substantial body of Evangelical Old Testament scholars.

In academic biblical studies, a significant proportion of respected scholars interpret Adam as archetypal, symbolic, or theological, not necessarily historical.