Questions About a Metaphorical Reading of Genesis

[Biarien]

I was talking with someone the other night who believes in a literal reading of Genesis, including the creation story. She asked me what the metaphorical view is of the Adam and Eve story.

I answered that one interpretation is that Adam and Eve refer to all humans that God endowed with a 'spirit/soul.' They all turned away from Him, and that is the original fall.

This made me think of a couple questions that I wasn't quite sure how to answer.

1. Do people believe that Adam was a man, or men in general (same with Eve, obviously)?

2. What does death refer to? Meaning the whole "If you eat from this tree, you will die" thing. Is this a spiritual death or a physical death?

2.a. If death (from sinning) refers to spiritual death, which I believe most metaphorical interpretations believe, how would Adam&Eve/people have lived forever spiritually?

2.b. Clarification: My guess is this: People always died physically, but before God breathed life (a soul) into them, they were like animals. After He gave them souls, they had the same inheritance as any Christian does now. However, their sin made that inheritance of eternal life insecure, so they had to ask God's forgiveness (this sounds really dumb because it's condensed, but yeah...bear with me please). How does that sound?

I think that's it. I thought I had more questions, but after typing those out, I feel like I've forgotten the others. Maybe I never had any others to begin with. If I do, I'll post them again.

 

[lucaspa]

This made me think of a couple questions that I wasn't quite sure how to answer.

1. Do people believe that Adam was a man, or men in general (same with Eve, obviously)?

Adam represents each and every man. Eve represents each and every woman. In a sense, you are Adam, I am Adam. Each of us comes to a point in our lives where we can disobey God and each of us disobeys.

2. What does death refer to? Meaning the whole "If you eat from this tree, you will die" thing. Is this a spiritual death or a physical death?

Spiritual. Genesis 2:17 says Adam will "die in the same day" that he eats the fruit. Since Adam lived 930 years, it couldn't be physical death.

2.a. If death (from sinning) refers to spiritual death, which I believe most metaphorical interpretations believe, how would Adam&Eve/people have lived forever spiritually?

The same ways as are proposed now: thru either resurrection or thru the soul.

2.b. Clarification: My guess is this: People always died physically, but before God breathed life (a soul) into them, they were like animals. After He gave them souls, they had the same inheritance as any Christian does now.

This is the old Jewish interpretation where Adam and Eve are the first Jewish people. Other people were around, which is how Cain had someone to marry. I'm not thrilled with that theory; it raises some real problems as to what happens when souled and soulless people produce offspring.

However, their sin made that inheritance of eternal life insecure, so they had to ask God's forgiveness (this sounds really dumb because it's condensed, but yeah...bear with me please).

Basically, their disobedience (sin is not used in Genesis 2-3) cut them off from God. And it is being cut off from God that makes you spiritually dead.

 

[Biarien]

Thanks for your response. I'd still be interested in hearing other points of view, if there are any.

 

[gluadys]

I was talking with someone the other night who believes in a literal reading of Genesis, including the creation story. She asked me what the metaphorical view is of the Adam and Eve story.

I answered that one interpretation is that Adam and Eve refer to all humans that God endowed with a 'spirit/soul.' They all turned away from Him, and that is the original fall.

This made me think of a couple questions that I wasn't quite sure how to answer.

1. Do people believe that Adam was a man, or men in general (same with Eve, obviously)?

2. What does death refer to? Meaning the whole "If you eat from this tree, you will die" thing. Is this a spiritual death or a physical death?

2.a. If death (from sinning) refers to spiritual death, which I believe most metaphorical interpretations believe, how would Adam&Eve/people have lived forever spiritually?

2.b. Clarification: My guess is this: People always died physically, but before God breathed life (a soul) into them, they were like animals. After He gave them souls, they had the same inheritance as any Christian does now. However, their sin made that inheritance of eternal life insecure, so they had to ask God's forgiveness (this sounds really dumb because it's condensed, but yeah...bear with me please). How does that sound?

I think that's it. I thought I had more questions, but after typing those out, I feel like I've forgotten the others. Maybe I never had any others to begin with. If I do, I'll post them again.

I think its pretty good for a start. Here are some additional thoughts.

1. I think of Adam & Eve as being humanity. This is consistent with their names. Adam="man", "human". Eve = "life", "being" One Jewish commentator I read says a good translation of Gen 2:7 is that out of the dust of the Earth (Hebrew "adamah"), God made an Earthling (Hebrew "adam"). And actually, whatever the English translation says, the personal name "Adam" is not a requirement of translation anywhere in chapters 2-4. The whole story makes perfect sense using the terms "man" and "woman". Except for the line when the man gives a name to the woman. Even so, it is an archetypal name refering to her role as mother, life-bearer.

2. I think it is primarily the death of innocence. You cannot have the knowledge of good and evil and still be innocent about evil. It is possible to have knowledge of evil without sin---after all God has such knowledge. But it is not possible to be unaware of evil as an innocent person usually is*. In our experience we see such innocence only in animals, young children and a some mentally impaired adults.

On the other hand, it is not possible to be a mature, functioning adult without such loss of innocence.

*Occasionally, one comes across a very, very spiritually mature person who seems to be able to combine a deep knowledge of good and evil with a character of innocence. I think it takes a lot of walking with God to get to such a point. And that such a person has, earlier in their life, experienced loss of innocence and somehow acquired it again.

2a Given my response to 2a, I would see Adam & Eve living forever spiritually if they had been able to lose their innocence without becoming sinners. But what drew them to the tree, after hearing the serpent, was the egotistic desire to be like God. When egotism enters the picture, loss of innocence without sin becomes impossible. So their first true knowledge of evil was of evil in themselves. That, I believe, is also consistent with most human experience. We tend to identify as most evil those qualities we are most ashamed of in ourselves.

2b Remembering that eternal life is not so much a reference to future life, but to a quality of life we can enjoy here and now in intimacy with God. It is that intimacy with God known in the innocence which precedes knowledge of good and evil that is lost. When we see evil in ourselves and know it to be evil, we are ashamed to be in the presence of God. (Gen. 3:10; cf. Isa. 6:5; Luke 5:8) We have difficulty forgiving ourselves and cannot believe God will forgive us.

The redemption we know in Christ Jesus enables us to accept God's forgiveness, to forgive ourselves, and re-enter a relationship marked by confidence and trust in the loving mercy of God. This is actually a better state than that of innocence, in so far as innocence is based on ignorance. We haven't forgotten what we know of evil. Yet, the bond in which we were held by the knowledge of evil has been broken, and our fellowship with our Creator restored.

 

[Biarien]

As I'm sure you can tell, this is something I haven't bothered to give deep thought to, mainly because I don't consider it very crucial either way. But my desire for knowledge always gets the better of me in the end. Thanks for your response.

 

[lucaspa]

*Occasionally, one comes across a very, very spiritually mature person who seems to be able to combine a deep knowledge of good and evil with a character of innocence. I think it takes a lot of walking with God to get to such a point. And that such a person has, earlier in their life, experienced loss of innocence and somehow acquired it again.

I think those people (and I have been blessed to know a few) exude a character of goodness. Not innocence. But like you said of God: they know evil but are without sin. They have been able to expunge evil from their life.

 

[lucaspa]

As I'm sure you can tell, this is something I haven't bothered to give deep thought to, mainly because I don't consider it very crucial either way.

Well, it isn't crucial. It only becomes crucial if you make the logical error of tying the how of creation to the existence of God. But saying a literal Adam is necessary for sin and thus necessary for Jesus and salvation is the way that the logical error is made. It's how the how of creation is made critical to the existence of God.

 

[KleinerApfel]

You cannot have the knowledge of good and evil and still be innocent about evil. It is possible to have knowledge of evil without sin---after all God has such knowledge. But it is not possible to be unaware of evil as an innocent person usually is*. In our experience we see such innocence only in animals, young children and a some mentally impaired adults.

On the other hand, it is not possible to be a mature, functioning adult without such loss of innocence.

*Occasionally, one comes across a very, very spiritually mature person who seems to be able to combine a deep knowledge of good and evil with a character of innocence.

The sense of the word in Genesis translated "knowledge" is not simply the observation, judgment or intellectual assessment of it, but the firsthand experience of good and evil.

When the bible speaks of men "knowing" their wives, meaning sexual intimacy, this is the word used. Human beings were not meant to have that kind of knowledge of good and evil.

Pre-fall Adam and Eve would have had moral judgment to discern right from wrong. This is the knowledge which, being made in God's image, they received without loss of innocence. The knowledge required to make right choices.

Does this make a difference to how you see the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"?

Blessings, Susana

 

[packsaddle]

I was talking with someone the other night who believes in a literal reading of Genesis, including the creation story. She asked me what the metaphorical view is of the Adam and Eve story.

why are you so quick to abandon biblical truths?

we have lineage in the Bible from Adam (Chronicles) extending all the way to Jesus (Luke).

at what point in the geneology does the myth start to be real factual data?

where is the line that divides the last mythological generation, and the first literal generation?

 

[gluadys]

Pre-fall Adam and Eve would have had moral judgment to discern right from wrong. This is the knowledge which, being made in God's image, they received without loss of innocence. The knowledge required to make right choices.

Does this make a difference to how you see the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"?

Blessings, Susana

No, it doesn't, because I do not know of any scripture which supports your assertion. How do we know that being created in the image of God gave Adam and Eve discernment of right from wrong?

I might be prepared to say they had the capacity for moral judgment, but I would assume it was, as yet, an undeveloped capacity. Just as human infants, for example, have the capacity to learn language, but don't develop that capacity right away.

I think you are reading a pre-conceived notion into scripture which is not really there.

In short, you are confusing your interpretation of the text with the text itself.

Other interpretations can be equally valid, if not more so.

 

[Biarien]

why are you so quick to abandon biblical truths?

I said: I was talking with someone who asked me what the TE viewpoint is, so I decided to ask here to get an informed answer [paraphrased].

You said: Why are you [referring to me] so quick to abandon Biblical truths?

Do you see the problem here?

I ask a question, and you take it upon yourself to not only decide for me what my beliefs are (if you bother to actually read the post I never even stated my personal beliefs), then tell me I am wrong for having them.

First of all, you're correcting beliefs you imposed on me, not beliefs I ever professed to hold.

Seconldy, do you perfectly understand everything written in the Bible? If so, please, educate us all. If not, please stop telling others they are abandoning the truth when you cannot even be certain you have not abandoned it yourself.

 

[Biarien]

The sense of the word in Genesis translated "knowledge" is not simply the observation, judgment or intellectual assessment of it, but the firsthand experience of good and evil.

When the bible speaks of men "knowing" their wives, meaning sexual intimacy, this is the word used. Human beings were not meant to have that kind of knowledge of good and evil.

Pre-fall Adam and Eve would have had moral judgment to discern right from wrong. This is the knowledge which, being made in God's image, they received without loss of innocence. The knowledge required to make right choices.

Does this make a difference to how you see the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"?

Blessings, Susana

That's definitely something I've never heard mentioned. Could you maybe post a bit of the language analysis, or a link to it, if you have one? I'd be interested in reading that.

 

[ThePhoenix]

why are you so quick to abandon biblical truths?

we have lineage in the Bible from Adam (Chronicles) extending all the way to Jesus (Luke).

at what point in the geneology does the myth start to be real factual data?

where is the line that divides the last mythological generation, and the first literal generation?

Which lineage?

 

[packsaddle]

I said: I was talking with someone who asked me what the TE viewpoint is, so I decided to ask here to get an informed answer [paraphrased].

You said: Why are you [referring to me] so quick to abandon Biblical truths?

Do you see the problem here?

I ask a question, and you take it upon yourself to not only decide for me what my beliefs are (if you bother to actually read the post I never even stated my personal beliefs), then tell me I am wrong for having them.

lets take it from the top:

do you believe that man is the product of fortunate genetic mutations?

 

[Biarien]

packsaddle, why are you trying to interrogate me? I asked a question to clarify what a certain group of people believe about how to correctly interpret creation (which is going quite well, apart from your interruption, I might add), and you take it as an opportunity to launch some sort of attack on beliefs you've imposed on me? This thread is not meant for you to be the judge of my beliefs, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped derailing this thread with your inquisition and either create a new thread for this, PM me, or simply stop altogether, ok?

 

[packsaddle]

packsaddle, why are you trying to interrogate me?

I just wanted to know where you stand on the issue, that's all.

 

[Biarien]

I was talking with someone on a different message board who said Genesis is not to be taken as a metaphor, but rather as an oral tradition (or something like that).

Does anyone here make that distinction, and if so, could you clarify as to what it means?

 

[gluadys]

I was talking with someone on a different message board who said Genesis is not to be taken as a metaphor, but rather as an oral tradition (or something like that).

Does anyone here make that distinction, and if so, could you clarify as to what it means?

It's not really a distinction since Genesis could be both. As far as the second creation account is concerned it was almost certainly taken from a pre-existing oral tradition. It has the imagery, simplicity and folkloric qualities of a story told and retold from one generation to another. Consider, for example, the detail of the man needing a helper and God creating animal after animal and bringing them to the man, who gives them all names but does not find one to be the helper he needs. Classic story-telling technique. But read literally, it makes God look like a buffoon who doesn't quite know what this new creature needs.

By contrast the other creation story has a carefully crafted literary structure and was probably deliberately composed by the writer for his purpose. The parallelism of this story with Babylonian creation myths suggest strongly that the purpose was to extol the God of Israel as the true God and dismiss the gods of Babylon as false gods and idols.


btw, when the question is simply one of "is this literal or is it not" we often use almost any word that means "not literal" such as metaphor, figure, symbol, allegory, etc. without distinguishing the separate meanings of these terms.

Just because something is not literal does not mean it is necessarily a metaphor or allegory either. These are literary terms with specific meanings in the study of literature.

The first creation story can be thought of as a hymn of praise to the Creator written in poetic style.

The second is probably best described as a folkloric myth.

So, strictly speaking, neither of them is metaphor.



Oral tradition is simply the practice of passing information from one generation to the next by word of mouth instead of entrusting it to writing. It was universally used by non-literate peoples. In some cultures talented individuals were specially trained to learn the stories, laws and geneologies of their people. Oral tradition is still very much alive in some cultures--Native American, for example.

 

[Biarien]

Ok, that was a great post. My terminology is obviously not up to snuff. Thanks for another very helpful post.

 

[KleinerApfel]

How do we know that being created in the image of God gave Adam and Eve discernment of right from wrong?QUOTE]

From what we know of our Lord as the righteous judge, we can confidently say that He would not issue a "life or death" command to a being unable to understand the concept of obedience, right and wrong actions.

Blessings, Susana