Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

Clare73 said:

No, the sacrifices actually effected the covering of Israel's sin from the wrath of God (Ro 4:7), as a type of
Christ, who removed (true) Israel's sin and the wrath of God

Baptims is not a means by which we enter into a vital relationship with Christ, by which we are united with Christ.
In NT times baptism so closely followed conversion that the two were considered part of one event (Ac 2:38).
But while baptism is closely associated with faith, it is not a means by which we enter into a vital relationship with Christ.
It depicts graphically what happens as a result of the believer's union with Christ, which comes with faith; i.e., through faith we are united with Christ, just as through our actual birth we are united with Adam. As we became subject to death in father Adam, so now we have died and been raised again with Christ--which baptism symbolizes, it does not effect.

No, the Lord's Supper was the Passover meal in which they partook of the benefits of the sacrifice,
just as they did in other sacrificial meals (Lev 3:15, 7:15-18, 19:5-8) .

You've turned the world upside down. . .reality is based on symbol.
Reality is not based on symbol, reality is based on fact.
It is symbol that is based on the fact of reality, in both the physical order and the spiritual order.


Agreed. . .Adam is also functioning as an archetype, in addition to being the first actual man.

Why the need to deny the reality of what Scriture presents as reality?

I say the terms of the text present the text as reality, which for some reason you need to deny.

Click to expand...

I think we need to be precise about the language Scripture uses when discussing the sacrificial system. Yes, sacrifices had a real effect in the covenantal relationship between Israel and God, but that effect was provisional, not ultimate.

The sacrifices did cover sin (as you rightly point to in places like Psalm 32:1, cited in Romans 4:7), but even the Old Testament is clear that these sacrifices could not remove sin in a final sense. Hebrews 10:4 says explicitly:

“For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”

And Hebrews 10:1 clarifies further that the law and its sacrifices were a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves.

So, yes, they had a covenantal function. But they were types, symbolic acts that pointed beyond themselves to the true sacrifice, Jesus. And when Christ came, He didn’t just cover sin temporarily, He took it away.

In that light, the distinction between symbolic and effectual isn’t as rigid as you’re implying. Symbols in Scripture, especially types instituted by God, are deeply effectual because they point to and are fulfilled by real divine action.

A type is not "ineffectual" just because it isn’t literal in the modern empirical sense. It's effectual because it’s part of God’s revelatory work, designed to prepare us for the ultimate reality in Christ.

Also, it’s true that the Lord’s Supper has roots in the Passover and that in both, participants symbolically partake in the benefits of sacrifice. But there’s a crucial distinction.

The sacrificial meals in Leviticus (such as peace offerings) were part of a covenant system pointing forward to something greater. They provided covenantal participation, not final atonement. Similarly, the Passover meal reminded Israel of God's deliverance, but it did not itself forgive sins, it commemorated an act of salvation.

The Lord’s Supper, instituted by Jesus at the Passover, reinterprets that tradition in light of His own sacrificial death. He says, “This is my body… This is my blood of the covenant, poured out for many” (Mark 14:22–24). The emphasis is not on merely eating a symbolic meal, but on participating in the benefits of His once-for-all sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10).

So yes, there’s continuity with Old Testament sacrificial meals, but also escalation and fulfillment. The Lord’s Supper doesn’t repeat a sacrifice, nor does it function like the Levitical system. It proclaims the Lord’s death (1 Cor. 11:26) and draws us into communion with His once-for-all atonement.

2PhiloVoid said:

I'm not sharing my point of view so you'll be "impressed." I'm simply informing you about my own epistemological path, which is more in the way of Journey Epistemology and Historical Coherence than in a Fundamentalist Presuppositionalism.

Click to expand...

Yes, I presuppose that God's revelation in his word written is true.

Clare73 said:

No, the sacrifices actually effected the covering of Israel's sin from the wrath of God (Ro 4:7), as a type of
Christ, who removed (true) Israel's sin and the wrath of God

Baptims is not a means by which we enter into a vital relationship with Christ, by which we are united with Christ.
In NT times baptism so closely followed conversion that the two were considered part of one event (Ac 2:38).
But while baptism is closely associated with faith, it is not a means by which we enter into a vital relationship with Christ.
It depicts graphically what happens as a result of the believer's union with Christ, which comes with faith; i.e., through faith we are united with Christ, just as through our actual birth we are united with Adam. As we became subject to death in father Adam, so now we have died and been raised again with Christ--which baptism symbolizes, it does not effect.

No, the Lord's Supper was the Passover meal in which they partook of the benefits of the sacrifice,
just as they did in other sacrificial meals (Lev 3:15, 7:15-18, 19:5-8) .

You've turned the world upside down. . .reality is based on symbol.
Reality is not based on symbol, reality is based on fact.
It is symbol that is based on the fact of reality, in both the physical order and the spiritual order.


Agreed. . .Adam is also functioning as an archetype, in addition to being the first actual man.

Why the need to deny the reality of what Scriture presents as reality?

I say the terms of the text present the text as reality, which for some reason you need to deny.

Click to expand...

Here, let's use an example that maybe we will both agree on despite varying denominations:
Consider the bronze serpent in Numbers 21. The serpent didn’t do anything in itself, it was not magic, nor was the metal infused with power. It was a symbol, lifted up at God’s command, and those who looked at it in faith were healed. The power came not from the physical object, but from God responding to their trust in His word.

Jesus explicitly connects Himself to this symbol in John 3:14–15:

"Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life."

So here you have a biblical pattern:

A symbolic act (looking at the bronze serpent)

With real effect (healing)

Not because of the object, but because of faith in God's promise.

Christ’s crucifixion fulfills this symbol. It’s not “smoke and mirrors” because the symbol was pointing to a real and effectual event. The reality of the Cross doesn’t depend on the bronze serpent being anything more than symbolic. It was always about God’s initiative and the people's trust in it.

It shows a clear biblical example where symbolism is used by God to communicate and produce real outcomes.

And I would be happy to draw on a variety of examples of symbolic concepts.

Another example of something that is not meant to be taken as historically real, yet is still theologically true and effective, and that comes from Jesus Himself would be the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31. Most interpreters, including conservative scholars, agree this is not a historical account but a parable, rich in meaning, yet not describing an actual event. There's no indication that Jesus is recounting real people or a literal conversation between Abraham and a man in torment across a cosmic divide.

Yet, despite its non-literal form, it powerfully communicates truth: divine justice, reversal of fortune, and the danger of hard-heartedness toward the poor. It warns us to listen to God’s word while we still have time. The truth of the parable is not diminished by the fact that it's not historical, in fact, that’s how it gains its power.

This challenges the idea that a narrative must be grounded in literal historical events in order to be true or effective. If Jesus Himself used fictional storytelling to convey theological truth, then we should not assume that symbolic or archetypal elements in Scripture make them less truthful or inspired.

So the real question isn’t always “Did this happen literally?” but “What is this passage trying to teach us about God, justice, or redemption?” That keeps the focus where it belongs, on the truth Scripture is communicating.

Clare73 said:

Yes, I presuppose that God's revelation in his word written is true.

Click to expand...

And I abductively, and retroductively, evaluate the Biblical collection of books and letters, and its accompanying Trinitarian tradition, as revealing God's general will and truth through Jesus Christ.

I still reach a place in my theology where I also can say, "Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, Messiah and Son of God."

Job 33:6 said:

I think we need to be precise about the language Scripture uses when discussing the sacrificial system. Yes, sacrifices had a real effect in the covenantal relationship between Israel and God, but that effect was provisional, not ultimate.
The sacrifices did cover sin (as you rightly point to in places like Psalm 32:1, cited in Romans 4:7), but even the Old Testament is clear that these sacrifices could not remove sin in a final sense. Hebrews 10:4 says explicitly:
“For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”

Click to expand...

And Hebrews 10:1 clarifies further that the law and its sacrifices were a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves.
So, yes, they had a covenantal function. But they were types, symbolic acts that pointed beyond themselves to the true sacrifice, Jesus. And when Christ came, He didn’t just cover sin temporarily, He took it away.
In that light, the distinction between symbolic and effectual isn’t as rigid as you’re implying. Symbols in Scripture, especially types instituted by God, are deeply effectual because they point to and are fulfilled by real divine action.

Click to expand...

Which divine action is not necessarily the action of the symbol, for the animal sacrifices (symbols) did not remit sin, they only covered it.

Job 33:6 said:

A type is not "ineffectual" just because it isn’t literal in the modern empirical sense. It's effectual because it’s part of God’s revelatory work, designed to prepare us for the ultimate reality in Christ.
Also, it’s true that the Lord’s Supper has roots in the Passover and that in both, participants symbolically partake in the benefits of sacrifice. But there’s a crucial distinction.
The sacrificial meals in Leviticus (such as peace offerings) were part of a covenant system pointing forward to something greater. They provided covenantal participation, not final atonement. Similarly, the Passover meal reminded Israel of God's deliverance, but it did not itself forgive sins, it commemorated an act of salvation.
The Lord’s Supper, instituted by Jesus at the Passover, reinterprets that tradition in light of His own sacrificial death. He says, “This is my body… This is my blood of the covenant, poured out for many” (Mark 14:22–24). The emphasis is not on merely eating a symbolic meal, but on participating in the benefits of His once-for-all sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10).
So yes, there’s continuity with Old Testament sacrificial meals, but also escalation and fulfillment. The Lord’s Supper doesn’t repeat a sacrifice, nor does it function like the Levitical system. It proclaims the Lord’s death (1 Cor. 11:26) and draws us into communion with His once-for-all atonement.

Click to expand...

Here is another example:
Consider the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1–12). Jesus tells a story about a landowner who plants a vineyard and leases it to tenants. When he sends servants to collect some of the vineyard’s fruit, the tenants abuse or kill them. Finally, he sends his son, who is also rejected and killed.

This isn’t a record of a historical event, but a symbolic, poetic story Jesus used to communicate a serious message. The tenants represent Israel’s religious leaders, the servants are God’s prophets, and the son symbolizes Jesus Himself. The parable predicts Jesus’ own rejection and death, but also points forward to God’s judgment and the establishment of a new kingdom.

Like the bronze serpent in Numbers or the Rich Man and Lazarus parable, this story shows that not every biblical narrative has to be a literal history to carry real theological weight. Symbolism can point forward to a greater truth. Jesus used symbolic stories and prophetic imagery to reveal God’s plan of salvation, judgment, and hope.

So when we look at figures like Adam, it can be helpful to consider whether they might function more as archetypes or symbols, communicating profound truths about humanity and God’s relationship with us, just as Jesus’ parables teach timeless lessons through vivid, symbolic storytelling.

And there are lots of stories like this throughout the Bible.

Clare73 said:

Which divine action is not necessarily the action of the symbol, for the animal sacrifices (symbols) did not remit sin, they only covered it.

Click to expand...

Not sure what's going on with your response, but I'll pull this one out

Animal sacrifices didn’t permanently remove sin themselves, they served as symbolic acts that pointed to something greater. Hebrews 10:4 makes that clear: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” The sacrifices were a temporary, symbolic covering, showing the need for a true, ultimate sacrifice.

That’s exactly why these symbols matter, they prepare us for the real, divine action. Like the bronze serpent in Numbers 21: it was just a piece of metal, but God used it as a visible symbol to focus the people’s faith. The power wasn’t in the object but in God’s promise and response to trust.

Similarly, animal sacrifices pointed forward to Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice on the cross, which truly deals with sin (Hebrews 10:12). So symbols don’t act on their own, they point us to God’s initiative and the deeper spiritual reality.

This principle of symbolic or typological representation can also be applied to figures like Adam. Just as the sacrifices and the bronze serpent served as symbols pointing forward to greater realities, Adam can be understood as an archetype or a “type” of humanity, representing the origin, condition, and need of mankind, rather than necessarily a literal individual. In fact, Paul himself calls Christ the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), highlighting the typological contrast between the first human and the new humanity found in Christ.

So understanding Adam symbolically doesn’t undermine the biblical message; rather, it aligns with the Bible’s broader use of symbols and types that prepare us for the fullness of God’s redemptive work in Jesus.

Clare73 said:

No, the sacrifices actually effected the covering of Israel's sin from the wrath of God (Ro 4:7), as a type of
Christ, who removed (true) Israel's sin and the wrath of God

Baptims is not a means by which we enter into a vital relationship with Christ, by which we are united with Christ.
In NT times baptism so closely followed conversion that the two were considered part of one event (Ac 2:38).
But while baptism is closely associated with faith, it is not a means by which we enter into a vital relationship with Christ.
It depicts graphically what happens as a result of the believer's union with Christ, which comes with faith; i.e., through faith we are united with Christ, just as through our actual birth we are united with Adam. As we became subject to death in father Adam, so now we have died and been raised again with Christ--which baptism symbolizes, it does not effect.

No, the Lord's Supper was the Passover meal in which they partook of the benefits of the sacrifice,
just as they did in other sacrificial meals (Lev 3:15, 7:15-18, 19:5-8) .

You've turned the world upside down. . .reality is based on symbol.
Reality is not based on symbol, reality is based on fact.
It is symbol that is based on the fact of reality, in both the physical order and the spiritual order.


Agreed. . .Adam is also functioning as an archetype, in addition to being the first actual man.

Why the need to deny the reality of what Scriture presents as reality?

I say the terms of the text present the text as reality, which for some reason you need to deny.

Click to expand...

Jesus regarded his baptism as the fulfilling of all righteousness ... the spiritual depths of baptism are only found in a deep relationship, outside of that your merely getting wet ... God calls every son to a cross ...

Clare73 said:

Why the need to "improve" upon the Biblical account.

Paul, who received his revelation in heaven from Jesus Christ (2 Co 12:1-8, Gal 1:11-12) presented Adam as a reality, not just figurative.

Click to expand...

This heaven was in him ... I've been their quite a few times ... and it has always been open to all ...

Job 33:6 said:

I think we need to be precise about the language Scripture uses when discussing the sacrificial system. Yes, sacrifices had a real effect in the covenantal relationship between Israel and God, but that effect was provisional, not ultimate.

Click to expand...

To throw it out there … the language of God (inclusive of Adam and Eve (heavens and the earth, light, darkness, a sun and moon (that rule), the face of the deep, all the trees of the garden, where a garden is planted, what is in the midst, (and what glory (for lack of a better word) where one is viewing this from) etc. real or imagined by us does not change what this language is to God, and how it relates to the truth of the purpose God purposed in himself. The Bible begins defining the language of God with the words “In the beginning” where it (through the process of time (to us) becomes one cohesive narrative, where we begin to find pasture both inside us and outside of us, which all of speaks to the selfsame end, in relationship to who we are (who we have all along been to God, and who God has all along been to us).

Job 33:6 said:

Not sure what's going on with your response, but I'll pull this one out

Animal sacrifices didn’t permanently remove sin themselves, they served as symbolic acts that pointed to something greater. Hebrews 10:4 makes that clear: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” The sacrifices were a temporary, symbolic covering, showing the need for a true, ultimate sacrifice.

That’s exactly why these symbols matter, they prepare us for the real, divine action. Like the bronze serpent in Numbers 21: it was just a piece of metal, but God used it as a visible symbol to focus the people’s faith. The power wasn’t in the object but in God’s promise and response to trust.

Similarly, animal sacrifices pointed forward to Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice on the cross, which truly deals with sin (Hebrews 10:12). So symbols don’t act on their own, they point us to God’s initiative and the deeper spiritual reality.

This principle of symbolic or typological representation can also be applied to figures like Adam. Just as the sacrifices and the bronze serpent served as symbols pointing forward to greater realities, Adam can be understood as an archetype or a “type” of humanity,

Click to expand...

While I respect your copious grasp, Paul, who received his teaching in heaven from Jesus (2 Co 12:1-8, Gal 1:11-12), presents Adam as actual, not just archetype. . .and I have decided not to improve upon Paul.
And then there is the geneaology in Lk 3.

Job 33:6 said:

representing the origin, condition, and need of mankind, rather than necessarily a literal individual. In fact, Paul himself calls Christ the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), highlighting the typological contrast between the first human and the new humanity found in Christ.

So understanding Adam symbolically doesn’t undermine the biblical message; rather, it aligns with the Bible’s broader use of symbols and types that prepare us for the fullness of God’s redemptive work in Jesus.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

While I respect your copious grasp, Paul presents Adam as actual, not just archetype. . .and I have decided to accept Paul's view.

Click to expand...

This is your opinion. It isn't actually evident in the text. Nothing wrong with an opinion, but you should be aware that this is what it is.

Some people have the opinion that Eve was literally made out of a rib bone too.

You're free to believe what you want. But you should know that there are other comfortable ways of accepting truth or the Bible without oddities like this needing to be literally true.

If you ever decide that you're uncomfortable with women being made out of rib bones, before considering atheism, just don't forget that there are other options.

Thanks,

Job 33:6 said:

This is your opinion. It isn't actually evident in the text. Nothing wrong with an opinion, but you should be aware that this is what it is.
Some people have the opinion that Eve was literally made out of a rib bone too.
You're free to believe what you want. But you should know that there are other comfortable ways of accepting truth or the Bible without oddities like this needing to be literally true.
If you ever decide that you're uncomfortable with women being made out of rib bones, before considering atheism, just don't forget that there are other options.

Click to expand...

There are no other Biblical options, the Bible being my sole authority for faith and doctrine.

One good question would be ... Does erternal life grow on a literal tree?

Job 33:6 said:

Here is another example:
Consider the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1–12). Jesus tells a story about a landowner who plants a vineyard and leases it to tenants. When he sends servants to collect some of the vineyard’s fruit, the tenants abuse or kill them. Finally, he sends his son, who is also rejected and killed.
This isn’t a record of a historical event, but a symbolic, poetic story Jesus used to communicate a serious message. The tenants represent Israel’s religious leaders, the servants are God’s prophets, and the son symbolizes Jesus Himself. The parable predicts Jesus’ own rejection and death, but also points forward to God’s judgment and the establishment of a new kingdom.

Click to expand...

Like the bronze serpent in Numbers or the Rich Man and Lazarus parable, this story shows that not every biblical narrative has to be a literal history to carry real theological weight. Symbolism can point forward to a greater truth. Jesus used symbolic stories and prophetic imagery to reveal God’s plan of salvation, judgment, and hope.
So when we look at figures like Adam, it can be helpful to consider whether they might function) more as archetypes or symbols,

Click to expand...

However, I don't see it as helpful to consider as simply archetypes or symbols that which the apostle, who received his teaching in heaven from Jesus (2 Co 12:1-8, Gal 1:11-12), presents as actual.
Types and symbols encompass an actuality.

Job 33:6 said:

This is your opinion. It isn't actually evident in the text.

Click to expand...

It is absolutely evident in Ro 5:18-19. . ."just as. . .so also". . .no actual "just as" means no actual "so also."

Job 33:6 said:

Nothing wrong with an opinion, but you should be aware that this is what it is.
Some people have the opinion that Eve was literally made out of a rib bone too.
You're free to believe what you want. But you should know that there are other comfortable ways of accepting truth or the Bible without oddities like this needing to be literally true.
If you ever decide that you're uncomfortable with women being made out of rib bones, before considering atheism, just don't forget that there are other options.

Click to expand...

The actual truth of the word of God written (2 Tim 3:16) is not subject to my comfort level.
Actually, I don't find "eternal punishment" very comfortable (Mt 25:46).

Job 33:6 said:

communicating profound truths about humanity and God’s relationship with us, just as Jesus’ parables teach timeless lessons through vivid, symbolic storytelling.

And there are lots of stories like this throughout the Bible.

Click to expand...

You well know that Jesus presented his parables as such, while neither Genesis nor Paul present Adam as parable.
Have a hard time with understanding "analagous?"

Clare73 said:

There are no other Biblical options, the Bible being my sole authority for faith and doctrine.

Click to expand...

Ok. That's your personal opinion, again. I could say that my position is the only biblical option, and that yours is a disservice to the Bible. But that would be hermeneutically lazy and dishonest.

RileyG said:

Belief that God created the first man and first woman is mandatory. The Church just isn’t anti-science.

Click to expand...

It is an immutable fact that God created all things through a word that is God … therefore all things are by him and for him and without him was not any thing made that was made.

If Adam and Eve are literal and an immutable fact, then the knowledge of good and evil must still be the fruit you pluck from a tree, which the same must go for the tree of life; immutable as well … but Jesus contradicts this with the words he was given to speak (as to what, where, when, why, how) and in whom you have these truths of life and knowledge) …

Job 33:6 said:

Not sure what's going on with your response, but I'll pull this one out
Animal sacrifices didn’t permanently remove sin themselves, they served as symbolic acts that pointed to something greater. Hebrews 10:4 makes that clear: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” The sacrifices were a temporary, symbolic covering, showing the need for a true, ultimate sacrifice.
That’s exactly why these symbols matter, they prepare us for the real, divine action. Like the bronze serpent in Numbers 21: it was just a piece of metal, but God used it as a visible symbol to focus the people’s faith. The power wasn’t in the object but in God’s promise and response to trust.

Click to expand...

Note that the metal was actual, it was not something that "symbolized" metal, which "symbol" of metal then symbolized healing.

Job 33:6 said:

Similarly, animal sacrifices pointed forward to Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice on the cross, which truly deals with sin (Hebrews 10:12). So symbols don’t act on their own, they point us to God’s initiative and the deeper spiritual reality.

Click to expand...

Symbols are both actual and representative.
They are not just mental representations.

Job 33:6 said:

This principle of symbolic or typological representation can also be applied to figures like Adam. Just as the sacrifices and the bronze serpent served as symbols pointing forward to greater realities, Adam can be understood as an archetype or a “type” of humanity, representing the origin, condition, and need of mankind, rather than necessarily a literal individual. In fact, Paul himself calls Christ the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), highlighting the typological contrast between the first human and the new humanity found in Christ.
So understanding Adam symbolically doesn’t undermine the biblical message;

Click to expand...

Actually, it does.

If there were no Adam whose sin to impute to those of Adam (Ro 5:17, 14-16 18-19), there would be no need for its remedy, Christ's righteousness to impute to those of CHhist.

Job 33:6 said:

rather, it aligns with the Bible’s broader use of symbols and types that prepare us for the fullness of God’s redemptive work in Jesus.

Click to expand...

And understanding Adam symbolically does not equate to Adam's actual non-existence,
just as understanding animal sacrifice symbolically does not equate to the animal sacrifice's non-existence.

Clare73 said:

Note that the metal was actual, it was not something that "symbolized" metal, which "symbol" of metal then symbolized healing.

Symbols are both actual and representative.
They are not just mental representations.

Actually, it does.

If there were no Adam whose sin to impute to those of Adam (Ro 5:17, 14-16 18-19), there would be no need for its remedy, Christ's righteousness to impute to those of CHhist.

And understanding Adam symbolically does not equate to Adam not actually existing as a person,
just as understanding animal sacrifice symbolically does not equate to no actual animal sacrifice.

Click to expand...

Was the parable of the rich man and Lazarus also literally true? No? Well I guess that's a waste of a story too then.

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 said:

Was the parable of the rich man and Lazarus also literally true? No? Well I guess that's a waste of a story too then.

Click to expand...

So that's the problem. . .parables are not symbols, and symbols are not parables.