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.

 

[AaronClaricus]

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

Not sure about a metaphorical Adam but there is a less literal Adam interpretation. Not everyone see Adam as living to 930 after being specially created in 4004 BCE. Some put it at 5500 BCE or 3700 BCE based on greek and jewish texts. I place Adam on a timeline at about 10,000 BCE as that's the most plausible time on the standard history timeline for Adam. By 4004 BCE humans had cities that would be impressive in our post modern times.

Of course this interpretation would also support the hypothesis of pre-adamic men. Those individuals aren't necessarily theologically important to us. Life was a cruel and inflexible icescape before 9650 BCE.

 

[Yarddog]

Not sure about a metaphorical Adam but there is a less literal Adam interpretation. Not everyone see Adam as living to 930 after being specially created in 4004 BCE. Some put it at 5500 BCE or 3700 BCE based on greek and jewish texts. I place Adam on a timeline at about 10,000 BCE as that's the most plausible time on the standard history timeline for Adam. By 4004 BCE humans had cities that would be impressive in our post modern times.

Of course this interpretation would also support the hypothesis of pre-adamic men. Those individuals aren't necessarily theologically important to us. Life was a cruel and inflexible icescape before 9650 BCE.

I understand the allegorical meaning and the ages have something to do with prophecy.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

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

What then, were the authors of Genesis 2-3 and of Romans 5, who both speak of Adam, intending to convey? Genesis 2-3 does not show any of signs of “exalted prose narrative” or poetry. It reads as the account of real events; it looks like history.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

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

Romans 5:12 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

How can we have all sinned in one man, if Adam was not the first person created and he was only an allegory?

Adam was a person, who represented the whole humanity. Adam was commanded by God to eat from every tree except from one. He was created on the 6th day, and Eve was created from him. 1 Timothy 2:13-15 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

In Mark 10:6-9 Jesus affirms Adam and Eve as historical people. You even have the lineage from Adam to Noah and their ages. Was that symbolic too? Why would God bother with their ages if they were symbolic? Were all these people symbolic? Who was the real person in Jesus' lineage, when does it start? Enoch? Noah? Moses? Did Cain kills Abel symbolically also? What about Abel's and Cain's offerings? It all falls apart if we don't take the text literally.

1 Cor 15:45 also confirms literal Adam "So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit".

To sum it up, the New Testament does not treat Genesis 3 as allegory, does not treat it as myth. If you study the New Testament, you will find a number of references to Adam. One of them is in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke chapter 3 verse 38. The genealogy of Jesus starts from Adam through his son all the way down to the Lord Himself. You will find New Testament references to Satan as the serpent in the Garden as the one who lied to Eve, as the one who deceived Eve. You will find references to Eve as the one being deceived. So the New Testament gives many, many references back to Genesis chapter 3, and all of them treat it as actual people, a man named Adam, a woman named Eve, in a garden, and a serpent who was none other than the devil and Satan. There are, in every case where references made to this event, no indications that it is anything other than actual history. Even Jude 1:14 says Enoch, identifying him in human chronology, was the seventh from Adam. Adam was the first man, Eve was the first woman, and this is the real story of how sin came into the world.

 

[Yarddog]

What then, were the authors of Genesis 2-3 and of Romans 5, who both speak of Adam, intending to convey? Genesis 2-3 does not show any of signs of “exalted prose narrative” or poetry. It reads as the account of real events; it looks like history.

AI generated:
Biblical allegory is the interpretation of a biblical story or passage as having a symbolic meaning beyond its literal meaning, where characters, events, and settings represent abstract ideas or spiritual truths. Examples include the story of Adam and Eve symbolizing the fall into sin, or the story of Sarah and Hagar representing the old and new covenants, respectively.

Thus, Adam can be a literal person and also be an allegory, as Sarah is the new Covenant, according to Paul.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Of course this interpretation would also support the hypothesis of pre-adamic men.

1 Cor 15:45 says otherwise "So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit".

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

AI generated:
Biblical allegory is the interpretation of a biblical story or passage as having a symbolic meaning beyond its literal meaning, where characters, events, and settings represent abstract ideas or spiritual truths. Examples include the story of Adam and Eve symbolizing the fall into sin, or the story of Sarah and Hagar representing the old and new covenants, respectively.

Thus, Adam can be a literal person and also be an allegory, as Sarah is the new Covenant, according to Paul.

Please don't give me AI responses

 

[Yarddog]

Please don't give me AI responses

Why not. It is the same as what you would find in a book. Sarah and Hagar are allegories, according to Paul. It's scripture.

 

[Job 33:6]

Romans 5:12 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

How can we have all sinned in one man, if Adam was not the first person created and he was only an allegory?

Paul’s argument in Romans 5 doesn’t require Adam to be the first biological human or a literal individual in a modern historical sense. What Paul needs is a representative figure whose story stands for the human condition. In several well-accepted scholarly models, Adam functions as an archetype or covenant head, someone whose failure represents the universal pattern of human sin. In these views, “all sinned in Adam” means that Adam’s story expresses what is true of every human: all people choose sin and participate in the same broken condition symbolized by Adam’s disobedience.

Other approaches propose that God chose a historical Adam from among early humans to serve as a covenant representative. In that model, humanity is affected by Adam’s failure not because he is the first human biologically, but because he acts on behalf of those he represents, much like how Christ’s obedience benefits those he represents. In both the archetypal and representative views, the theological point Paul is making remains intact: sin and death are universal, and Christ is the new representative who reverses Adam’s pattern.

 

[AaronClaricus]

1 Cor 15:45 says otherwise "So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit".

Descriptions of the antediluvian world are hard to comprehend even for people that have spent a lifetime of formal study on the topic. Ascribing history level precision to every line of Moses' poems isn't something high level Christian academics do. Just a few chapters later you have the "table of nations" where fathers and sons are representing large groups of people.

With a modern(or at the very least post classical) creationist interpretation there are obvious things that don't fit the literal timeline of the early genesis chapters. Noah's flood according to western Christianity falls into recorded history that's backed with archeology findings(whole cities and temples with writing founded by Pharoahs), synced with astronomical observations and carbon dated for good measure. There's just not a good way to assign fixed dates for antediluvian times in the bible.

My suspicion is the story of Adam is much older, people "toiled"(Genesis 3:17) for 1000s of years before the kept harvest records and hundreds more before harvest records became writing. There was historically a first person to work a field, this is who I ID as Adam. He would be the first man in a lot of people's eyes even if he wasn't physically the first. Mostly because of his works. Of the 8 billion or so people alive today only a handful, less than 10k people can truly say they are from a time before Adam and separated from Adam. The 7.99999 Bilion others live the life of Adam everyday in some form or another.