If Genesis 3 is a metaphor...

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Perfect example of "logical defenestration".

That sounds like tongues. I'll try that at church on Sunday!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

if Gen 3 is some sort of abstraction then the crux of the text still shows us that man is fallen and all the products of fallen man still remain the same.

The reason to look at this account as a non-literal account could be for various reasons but a strong one might be that if we assume Moses penned this account through divine authority then this is 2500 years after the fact and that's a long time for an oral account to be preserved without corruption.

Some questions we need to ask are:

What did the post-exodus Hebrew's believe before Moses told them the orthodox account?
Was there competing accounts analogous to the fall of man in surrounding cultures?
Do the post-exodus Hebrews show us a dis-value to truth in favour of false teaching?

Then ask does it matter? If this is a non-literal account then does it affect the main points of the account that man is fallen and needs a redeemer regardless of how it may have actually happened?

The details that make up the account are important but I don't see the surface literal meaning important but rather a greater message being proclaimed in the account. If we are to accept a strict literal account then we should absolutely avoid snakes at all costs because it's just not worth getting caught in their deception again and it shows us that there is a secret garden hidden in the world with the gift of eternal life, but look out its guarded by an angel. These are not productive messages of the account nor are they anything to do with the point of it but a strict literal interpretation demands it.

Both Jesus and Paul treated Genesis as a literal account of the events. To them, Adam was a real person. Paul says that, "Death reigned from Adam to Moses", referring to them both as real people who lived at a particular point in history. Paul also says that Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't, so according to him, Eve was a real person in history as well.

There are many unassailable proofs that the Bible is literally true, so if it is true in other areas, then Genesis is a true historical record as well.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

...I do think that we should be careful not to equivocate between God's requirement for human death as a penalty for sin, on the one hand, and the merely distasteful idea of a "human sacrifice," on the other hand.

God's requirement for human death as a penalty for sin?

I think death is simply a requirement for transformation. It is part of the beauty of nature though we are too afflicted by grief to appreciate it. I don't think sin has much to do with it. Jesus was sinless. He died. We all still die in spite of his death and resurrection. I think we are too bonded and bogged down with literal interpretation of Genesis. Even the Catholic Church, while it acknowledges "figurative language" still holds to a primordial couple. To me it seems like clinging to a fond myth.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

God's requirement for human death as a penalty for sin?

I think death is simply a requirement for transformation. It is part of the beauty of nature though we are too afflicted by grief to appreciate it. I don't think sin has much to do with it. Jesus was sinless. He died. We all still die in spite of his death and resurrection. I think we are too bonded and bogged down with literal interpretation of Genesis. Even the Catholic Church, while it acknowledges "figurative language" still holds to a primordial couple. To me it seems like clinging to a fond myth.

If Adam and Eve were not real people in history, then there was no fall, therefore no original sin. If there is no original sin, then the rest of the Bible has to be just another religious book and not the Word of God at all.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

There are many unassailable proofs that the Bible is literally true, so if it is true in other areas, then Genesis is a true historical record as well.

Not necessarily. Are all the parables relating historical facts? We have to appreciate the poetry and imagination as inspired also.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

If Adam and Eve were not real people in history, then there was no fall, therefore no original sin. If there is no original sin, then the rest of the Bible has to be just another religious book and not the Word of God at all.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't God also speak through a variety of literary styles.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't God also speak through a variety of literary styles.

He does. The Bible is made up of several literary styles - narrative, history, letters, poetry, prophetic. Genesis is an historical narrative. Jesus and Paul treated it as real history involving real people. Myth and metaphor are not literary styles. Metaphor is a figure of speech representative or symbolic of something else. Genesis is definitely not that. Myth is using a false belief or idea, or a traditional story explaining the early history of a people. If your definition of a myth is the second one then it could fit, but that does not change the fact that it is a series of historical facts.

 

[Contenders Edge]

If Genesis 3 is a metaphor, parable, myth...what ever, then what really happen?

If there was no Garden, no real Adam, no Eve created from Adams side, no serpent, no tree of knowledge of good and evil and no fall Can the Theo-Evo's tell us why we are sinners in need of a savior?

When did mankind sin? What stage of evolution?
Why does mankind sin?
How was mankind thrust into sin in need of a savior?

They have no answer; at least not any satisfying ones.


Those who accept Genesis as being an actual account are able to give far more satisfying answers to the questions posed than anyone who believes otherwise. It is only from a young earth creation point of view that we are best able to answer questions such as:




Why we wear clothes.


The origins of marriage and the purpose thereof.


Why, in a general sense, there is so much evil and suffering in the world.


What the world was like before sin, death, and the curse upon creation.


Why there is more than one language in the world.


The origins of animal blood sacrifices.


How the nations of the world came to be.


Why death is called an enemy.




It is only by accepting Genesis as actual history and not as myth or metaphor are we best able to understand and even appreciate the purpose and process of redemption. The fall of man and creation can be summed up in a three-fold process:




1. Separation from God which results in eternal damnation.


2. Physical death of our bodies.


3. A cursed creation which, as a consequence of sin and death is subject to the sufferings that we are subject to.




And just the fall of man and creation can be summed up in a three-fold process, so the redemptive process can be summed up in a three-fold process:




1. Salvation of our souls through Christ who died on the cross for our sins and rose again from the dead.


2. The redemption of our bodies which is yet to come.


3. And a new creation in which there is no more sin, death, curse, or any kind of suffering.




If you adhere to any other rendering of the Genesis account other than that which is a literal face value account, you will never be able to adequately comprehend the redemption process because doctrines such as theistic evolution, the gap theory, and day-age theory (a.k.a. progressive creationism) all put sin, death, and all things associated with a cursed creation before Adam and Eve through whom sin and death came to all man (Rom. 5:12) which also resulted in a curse upon all creation (Gen 3, Rom. 8:22) bringing upon it all the sufferings, sorrows, and grief that there could be which is why it is written that because of man’s sin, “the creation groaneth and travaileth in pain” (Rom. 8:22).


The questions that you ask cannot and should not be ignored or dismissed by the body of Christ yet far too often are and as a consequence, souls are still lost who might otherwise had repented if more Christians would learn to appeal to the authority of the Bible to answer those often asked questions.


It is because of cleverly devised lies that are being systematically propagated by our academic institutions, media, and even entertainment industries that many have fallen away from the faith who otherwise might have remained if only they had been given the answers needed to solidify their faith and had been made ready to meet those various challenges to their faith; some of which come in the form of hard questions and intellectually challenging arguments.


While it is possible for men to come to a saving faith in Christ in spite of being deceived by the elaborate Darwinian lie, many more have fallen away from or have rejected the Gospel because of it.


I was one such person who became a Christian before he became a six day creationist. But before I had become exposed to the case made for the historicity of Genesis, the Holy Spirit was already at work, opening my eyes to the fact that Genesis, upon which rests the entire scripture and with it, the Gospel, cannot be harmonized with evolution, no matter how much many professors of the Christian faith might try. I had already begun to have doubts about the evolutionary theory before my belief in Darwinism was obliterated by an incredible scientific case made for a six-day creation and against evolution.


Because of my desire to strengthen my ability to make a reasoned based case for the Gospel, creationism, and later, apologetics in general, became a subject that I, figuratively speaking, eat and drink; I wish that we all did. For if we did, how much better would we all be at making a rational case for our faith. How much better prepared would we be at defending the authority of the scriptures by which we receive our faith. And how much better would we be at detecting and exposing the false doctrines and heresies that have entered into our midst.


If one were to search the scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, on any given subject, you would be amazed at just how much of the doctrine we receive from the Bible has its origins in Genesis. If we cannot trust that “first book of mention” upon which sit the rest of scripture, then how can we trust any of it?


What is most incomprehensible is how those claiming to be Christian can, without question, accept the virgin birth of our Savior through Mary, the account of His many miracles, His death for our sins, His resurrection, and even His eventual return, but refuse to accept Genesis as an actual account of origins. Jesus warned that if we cannot believe Him when it came to earthly things, how can we believe Him about heavenly things? (Jn. 3:12)


The Gospels claim Genesis as actual history, as did our Lord, and the Apostles and in denying the truth of Genesis, a blasphemy is committed because those deniers of Genesis, even those claiming to be followers of Christ have called Christ a liar and have assaulted His integrity.


I pray that the eyes of those amongst us who think they can harmonize the Bible with doctrines contrary thereto will be opened to this grievous error and learn to hold fast to the authority of the scriptures and abandon all opposing doctrines that their faith in Christ may be all the more strengthened and so that the errors that have crept in within our ranks may no longer be perpetuated.

​

 

[Cis.jd]

Then how can you say that the story of Christ's death and resurrection isn't simply a spiritual/metaphorical lesson? What do you actually accept in the Bible as true events?

Mainly because of the historical evidence behind it which allows us to academically confirm Jesus' death and resurrection to not be just a metaphorical lesson.

For me, I consider Biblical true events when it deals to Jesus because him being the Messiah and all that is told in John 1 is what my religion is about. I find no importance (let alone very lacking in an academical debate) to know if any of the OT figures (except for David and Solomon) where actual individuals or what details/events in their story contains more creative/expressive writing details than literal narratives.. Whoever is correct on this has 0 impact on the Apostles Creed.

 

[DamianWarS]

Both Jesus and Paul treated Genesis as a literal account of the events. To them, Adam was a real person. Paul says that, "Death reigned from Adam to Moses", referring to them both as real people who lived at a particular point in history. Paul also says that Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't, so according to him, Eve was a real person in history as well.

There are many unassailable proofs that the Bible is literally true, so if it is true in other areas, then Genesis is a true historical record as well.

saying "There are many unassailable proofs that the Bible is literally true" is not the argument. the argument is related to early Genesis accounts, specifically Gen 3, so let's represent this as best as possible rather than implicit accusation that the entire bible is turned into a metaphor. no one is saying that and it also is in violation of the Nicene Creed which would be against forum rules for this part of CF, so let's assume the best from those we are speaking with.

Quotes from Jesus and Paul show us value to preserve the accounts but if they are strict literal accounts or not are uncommented and is not the purpose of their use nor do they demand it.

 

[DamianWarS]

Then how can you say that the story of Christ's death and resurrection isn't simply a spiritual/metaphorical lesson? What do you actually accept in the Bible as true events?

the pre-Abrahamic accounts of Genesis would be written aprox 1000-2500 years after they took place and major accounts like the creation, flood and separation of languages would have many competing accounts from surrounding cultures, especially those who are more advanced.

Whereas the Abrahamic accounts themselves would be a lot closer to the time they were written and have no competing accounts because Abraham's story is uniquely for the Hebrew's and no one else so their high value of preserving their detail is far more likely. Also, the Abrahamic accounts are far more detailed than the pre-Abrahamic accounts which also suggests more accurate information.

What we have is post-exodus Hebrews with very little detail about God and a propensity to surrender to pagan ways as evident in many accounts. They were quick to complaining and lacked trust in their direction as a people and their leader, also evident in many accounts. This points to pre-Moses Hebrews were probably unorganized in leadership, had a poor understanding of God, had no to very little systems of official faith and probably were saturated in pagan ways or some sort of hybrid folk faith. and what do you expect with no guidance and left to their ways for hundreds of years?

Moses had a task to unite the people, start a monotheistic system of faith and orthodox beliefs, and cleanse pagan elements from the Hebrews, an entire generation had to die off to prepare the Hebrews to go the promise land so this points to very deep seated values systems that were counter-God.

This in no way disvalues literal accounts from the rest of the Bible. it just looks at the early Genesis accounts far removed from the time they were written with a greater focus than surface literal details, such as to de-paganize the post-exodus Hebrews and points to the one true God, creator and sustainer of all things.

 

[Danielwright2311]

If Genesis 3 is a metaphor then so are the ten commandments and then there is no commandments.

And what Jesus said to follow the commandments is also not true.

The devil is hard at work trying to change truth into lies.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

If Genesis 3 is a metaphor then so are the ten commandments and then there is no commandments.

And what Jesus said to follow the commandments is also not true.

The devil is hard at work trying to change truth into lies.

Why? The commandments were given in Exodus and Deuteronomy not Genesis.

 

[Danielwright2311]

Why? The commandments were given in Exodus and Deuteronomy not Genesis.

The same books all from the same God. That's why. All written by mosses or about mosses.

 

[-57]

At some point the parental ancestors of all living humans committed an act of sin/disobedience against God. And all humanity was directly negatively affected by that act. That was literal fact. Some of the language and figures used in the story were symbolic or figurative.

As in Adam the father of all his progeny committed this act of disobedience and now all humanity is effected?

 

[-57]

Okay. I'll play.
Sin began when Lucifer got proud and tried to be equal with God. That is also why and how sin began. It did not begin with Adam and Eve. It was already there with Satan who came to Eve in the form of a talking serpent.

I agree. But I was referring to humanity and how the Theistic Evolutionist perceives it.

 

[-57]

If there was no garden, no serpent, and Adam and Eve are just characters- so what? We don't lose the knowledge that our fallen nature is the result of the sins of our common parents, and that it resulted in their expulsion from Paradise.

We can look at humanity and know we have a fallen nature. My question is how does it fit in with Theo-Evo theology.

 

[-57]

The Garden of Eden is God's rest, righteousness. The Garden story is the 2nd creation story. God's children have 2 creations. We are born into this world and then created anew into righteousness or God's rest. Man cannot achieve righteousness through his own efforts but must depend on God to grant him this through faith.

In the Garden is the Tree of Life, which is Jesus, whom God's children are free to eat from and live. There is also the Tree of Knowledge, which is the Mosaic Law. All of the different animals are the Gentiles, just like Peter's vision in Acts. Adam and Eve are the Hebrew Nation. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is the desire to justify oneself by obedience to the Law. Trying to do so brings death to those who sin.

After God brought Israel out of Egypt, they looked back upon what they were called out of, just as Lot's wife looked back. They built an idol to worship and doubted God and could not re-enter God's rest, just as Adam and Eve were expelled from God's rest, Eden.

Just as Adam was cursed to till the soil, which is man's works, the Jews also had to work. Paul's description of the law and works from Romans expresses this.

Genesis is full of allegorical stories depicting Jesus and prophecies of what was to come.

You had said " All of the different animals are the Gentiles, just like Peter's vision in Acts"

I never heard of that one...Can you present a theological line of reasoning to support that?

 

[-57]

One definition of sin is disobeying a written commandment. Another type of sin is not knowing to do right in the absence of proper written commandments, resulting in sin and loss.

Jesus came to give light to the world. As John testified, the light shined in the darkness, but the darkness perceived it not (John 1:5). Looking for the Garden of Eden is like looking into the darkness; the place can not be found. Believing Jesus' teachings is like the approaching dawn.

My reply was in response to Theo-Evoism and how they would say an evolving population would sin.

 

[-57]

Some things are just natural consequences and bad habits yield bad results. I don't buy the "one man mythology". Even since we as humans could make choices we sometimes choose badly.

So in my view Jesus saves us primarily by his moral example rather than by some expiation to a God that requires a human sacrifice.

Is that your belief, that the Father required the death of Jesus befor humans could be forgiven?

Should I strike the verses out of Romans, 1 Corinthians and Acts?