Adam is explicitly a metaphorical reference, the word "adam" means "man" in Hebrew

[ChetSinger]

Paul's use of Adam in Romans 5 leads me to conclude that he believed Adam to be a distinct man:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus. - Romans 5

Paul was more familiar with Hebrew than I will ever be, and if he links Adam with a distinct man then that has to be my conclusion, as well.

 

[Assyrian]

Paul's use of Adam in Romans 5 leads me to conclude that he believed Adam to be a distinct man:

Paul was more familiar with Hebrew than I will ever be, and if he links Adam with a distinct man then that has to be my conclusion, as well.

Unless Paul was interpreting the story of Adam figuratively. Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come.

 

[ChetSinger]

Unless Paul was interpreting the story of Adam figuratively. Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come.

I don't think so. I won't discard such a long-held Christian belief because of a conclusion drawn from a particular interpretation of a single phrase in a single verse.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't think so. I won't discard such a long-held Christian belief because of a conclusion drawn from a particular interpretation of a single phrase in a single verse.

I have no clue what other churches taught about Adam in the past.
There are only a handful that could be considered a group of people.
The rest cannot be twisted that way.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't think so. I won't discard such a long-held Christian belief because of a conclusion drawn from a particular interpretation of a single phrase in a single verse.

No you would need to look at all the other passages where Paul speaks of Adam and Eve to see if a figurative interpretation fits there too. He certainly spent a lot of Romans 5 comparing Adam and Christ, from the "just as..." in verse 12 all the way to the end. How about Paul's curious use of the present tense in 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. If he was speaking historically about a literal Adam whose fall brought death it should be 'in Adam all died' but Paul uses the present tense telling us we are in Adam now (which makes sense because we are part of Adam, whose name mean Man or Mankind) and the dying continues with each persons first sin. Then you have Adam and Eve being used as a picture of Christ and the Churc,h he quotes Genesis 2:24 in Eph 5:31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. or 2Cor 11:2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

...I won't discard such a long-held Christian belief...

That is fine, there are plenty of TEs who follow tradition too and believe in a literal Adam and Eve, but remember this isn't about what scripture actually says any more, it is about holding onto tradition

You original point was:

Paul was more familiar with Hebrew than I will ever be, and if he links Adam with a distinct man then that has to be my conclusion, as well.
​

If you are relying on tradition, you aren't relying on Paul's familiarity with Hebrew any more but on Greek and Latin writers who were no more familiar with Hebrew than you or I.

 

[juvenissun]

Unless Paul was interpreting the story of Adam figuratively. Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come.

You are a figure of wisdom used by your 10th generation grandchildren for their grandchildren.

Are you real?

(happy new year)

 

[SkyWriting]

You are a figure of wisdom used by your 10th generation grandchildren for their grandchildren.

Are you real?

(happy new year)

An Icon perhaps?

 

[Assyrian]

Does this mean I pass the Turing test?

 

[ChetSinger]

No you would need to look at all the other passages where Paul speaks of Adam and Eve to see if a figurative interpretation fits there too. He certainly spent a lot of Romans 5 comparing Adam and Christ, from the "just as..." in verse 12 all the way to the end.

In Romans he Paul repeatedly identifies Adam as "one man". This, combined with the genealogies in Genesis and Luke, indicate to me that he was, in fact, "one man".

How about Paul's curious use of the present tense in 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. If he was speaking historically about a literal Adam whose fall brought death it should be 'in Adam all died' but Paul uses the present tense telling us we are in Adam now (which makes sense because we are part of Adam, whose name mean Man or Mankind) and the dying continues with each persons first sin.

Paul saw death around him, so using the present tense makes sense to me. Furthermore, the preceding verse says "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.". Paul is comparing a man (Adam) to a man (Christ).

Then you have Adam and Eve being used as a picture of Christ and the Churc,h he quotes Genesis 2:24 in Eph 5:31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. or 2Cor 11:2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

The comparison of a husband and wife to Christ and the church is a common one in the NT. That doesn't mean that this passage teaches Adam and Eve weren't the first husband and wife; in fact, I think it argues that they were.

That is fine, there are plenty of TEs who follow tradition too and believe in a literal Adam and Eve, but remember this isn't about what scripture actually says any more, it is about holding onto tradition

I think this is exactly what a plain reading of scripture actually says, and church tradition simply reflects it. Is the denial of an actual 6,000-year-old Adam driven not by scripture itself, but by a presumed need to reconcile scripture with radiometric dating of human remains and settlements?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Without a definite article you are correct.

However, Genesis uses the definite article ('ha' in Hebrew), 'the man' to refer to Adam specifically.

In Genesis 1:27, 28 it is even more precise by adding the particle as well, 'et ha adam', literally 'this the man' or 'this man.' This same phrase is also used in 2:15,

bump, yet again.

 

[SkyWriting]

That is fine, there are plenty of TEs who follow tradition too and believe in a literal Adam and Eve, but remember this isn't about what scripture actually says any more, it is about holding onto tradition

I have a tradition of reading the scripture plainly as possible.
Given my church background, I try to not be like them.
I hold to a tradition of not being a smarty pants like my church
leaders and reading the scripture with as little scholarly
interpretation as I can muster Jesus was not fond of such types.

 

[Assyrian]

In Romans he Paul repeatedly identifies Adam as "one man". This, combined with the genealogies in Genesis and Luke, indicate to me that he was, in fact, "one man".

Not sure the "one man" helps you if Paul is interpreting the one man as a figurative picture of Christ. Can you use your interpretation of Genesis to bolster an argument that you believe Adam was literal because you think Paul interpreted him literally? It seems circular. I think Luke was making a point from the genealogy, but it was based on the popular perception of Jesus genealogy, who people thought Jesus was, rather than reporting the genealogy as fact. He describes the genealogy as 'supposed' Luke 3:23 being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli... You find Luke recording the popular opinion of Jesus in Luke 9:18 And he asked them, "Who do the crowds say that I am?" When you get to the end of the genealogy Luke doesn't seem to treat it that literally describing Adam the son of God the same way he describes David the son of Jesse, Even if you take God creating Adam from clay literally, this is not a literal description of Adam's creation. God was not Adam's biological father.

Paul saw death around him, so using the present tense makes sense to me.

Death may have been around Paul, but the people dying were no longer 'in Adam'. If their death happened in a literal Adam it happened long ago in the past. The present tense only work if there is an Adam we are all in now.

Furthermore, the preceding verse says "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.". Paul is comparing a man (Adam) to a man (Christ).

They don't have the indefinite article 'a' in Greek, so if a noun doesn't have an article 'the' we have to choose between translating it as a plain noun or putting an 'a' in front of it, do you say 'government' or 'a government', 'love' or 'a love', 'cheese' or 'a cheese'. The word Paul uses here is anthropos, which can mean 'a man' but it can also mean 'Man' mankind. This is Paul using the same double meaning you find in the Hebrew Adam which can mean Man or a man. Perhaps it should read "For as by Man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead."

The comparison of a husband and wife to Christ and the church is a common one in the NT. That doesn't mean that this passage teaches Adam and Eve weren't the first husband and wife; in fact, I think it argues that they were.

What it shows is that Paul interprets Adam and Eve figuratively as a picture of Christ and the church, with telling us whether Paul saw Adam and Eve as a real couple he interpreted figuratively, or saw Adam and Eve as characters in a parable. What it does show us is the importance of a figurative interpretation of Adam and Eve.

I think this is exactly what a plain reading of scripture actually says, and church tradition simply reflects it. Is the denial of an actual 6,000-year-old Adam driven not by scripture itself, but by a presumed need to reconcile scripture with radiometric dating of human remains and settlements?

It wouldn't be the first time the church had to change its interpretation of plain reading of scripture, just look at the whole Galileo episode. It is more the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 that is affected by radiometric dating, not Adam and Eve. A lot of the original Fundamentalists believed in pre Adamic races as well as a literal Adam and Eve, and it certainly simplifies the whole Cain's wife question. TE's who believe in a literal Adam and Eve don't have any problem with radiometric dating. While radiometric dating overturns the literal interpretation of Genesis 1, with Adam and Eve, it simply gives us the opportunity to ask these questions, to search the scriptures and see how God is speaking to us here.

 

[Assyrian]

I have a tradition of reading the scripture plainly as possible.
Given my church background, I try to not be like them.
I hold to a tradition of not being a smarty pants like my church
leaders and reading the scripture with as little scholarly
interpretation as I can muster Jesus was not fond of such types.

It was more the way they used their learning that was the problem, binding heavy legalistic loads on others, and finding get-out clauses to wriggle out of their own obligations. But he got on all right with the 'teacher of Israel' Nicodemus and called a rabbinical scholar named Saul to show how Jews and Gentiles can join together in one church.

 

[SkyWriting]

While radiometric dating overturns the literal interpretation of Genesis 1....

Impossible and incorrect. Only YOUR literal interpretation. Radiometric dating "begins" as lava cools. There are no groups claiming lava was cooling and animals dropped on it during Creation week. Nobody can use science to validate the scriptures.

http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm
" The dates they give indicate the time elapsed since the magma cooled."

 

[Assyrian]

Impossible and incorrect. Only YOUR literal interpretation. Radiometric dating "begins" as lava cools. There are no groups claiming lava was cooling and animals dropped on it during Creation week. Nobody can use science to validate the scriptures.

http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm
" The dates they give indicate the time elapsed since the magma cooled."

I am aware of Old Earth Creationist literal interpretations of Genesis 1, but I was using "literal interpretation of Genesis 1" in it normal six day creationist meaning while talking to a Young Earth Creationist.

 

[SkyWriting]

It was more the way they used their learning that was the problem, binding heavy legalistic loads on others, and finding get-out clauses to wriggle out of their own obligations. But he got on all right with the 'teacher of Israel' Nicodemus and called a rabbinical scholar named Saul to show how Jews and Gentiles can join together in one church.

Nope. You'll find Jesus appealed only to the "least" educated. A few well educated persons got the message as well. We all know the difference between the rich and the poor. No point in trying to build up churches. Collections of believers are all that matter.

 

[SkyWriting]

I am aware of Old Earth Creationist literal interpretations of Genesis 1, but I was using "literal interpretation of Genesis 1" in it normal six day creationist meaning while talking to a Young Earth Creationist.

There are no young earth creationists claiming that lava was cooling during creation week either. I used to attend such meetings and read everything they produced at the time.

 

[theFijian]

How can the word of the Lord be "pure milk" if it's all a metaphor and none of it is truth?

Something can be all metaphor and still be true.

Paul said in Galatians 3:
"23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Paul taught that the old covenant had been fulfilled, and that the new covenant was the requirement of faith in Jesus Christ, as was foretold in the Scriptures. He NEVER taught that the Scriptures were untrue, or were all allegory.

You probably should read on to Galatians 4 to see what Paul says about allegory.

 

[Assyrian]

Nope. You'll find Jesus appealed only to the "least" educated. A few well educated persons got the message as well. We all know the difference between the rich and the poor. No point in trying to build up churches. Collections of believers are all that matter.

You have switched your argument from saying Jesus was not fond of the educated and scholarly, to saying most of the educated were not fond of Jesus. That is not the same as Jesus no liking scholars or scholarship. It is like the parable of the talents, God expects us to use what he has given us, and as Jesus said in another parable, Luke 12:48 Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required. Money or scholarship can distract us from God, but as Jesus said about it being so hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven (the camel and the eye of a needle), that nothing is impossible for God. Anti intellectualism should have no place in the church, it is burying the talent God gave us in the ground.

There are no young earth creationists claiming that lava was cooling during creation week either. I used to attend such meetings and read everything they produced at the time.

You are simply illustrating another problem with young earth creationism, because not only does radiometric dating show us how long it has been since the lava or magma cooled, it shows us that the rock has cooled from molten state and can point to any later partial melting events too.

 

[ChetSinger]

Not sure the "one man" helps you if Paul is interpreting the one man as a figurative picture of Christ...

I think we'll just have to disagree on this. Peace.