An open invitation to debate

[TB2]

Eve throws a big spanner in your evolution theory.
Unless you want to speculate that Adam slept for a couple of billion of years whilst the female of the species evolved to allow procreation to take place.

Only if Genesis 1-3 is meant to be understood as a modern scientific account.... but it's not. Modern science and Genesis are largely apples and oranges that have little to do with each other.

 

[TB2]

Was their death before sin?

It seems there was

 

[Manfred]

Only if Genesis 1-3 is meant to be understood as a modern scientific account.... but it's not. Modern science and Genesis are largely apples and oranges that have little to do with each other.

Not the point.

The Genesis account has God create man from dust, and Eve from man .
Modern scientific reasoning has to deny the account where Adam is created by God from dust (If you want to say evolved from dust, then over billions of years, and then had Adam sleep for another Billion or so while Eve evolved from his rib)

So people come up with all sorts of theories to discredit the scriptures and call it poetry and not to be taken literally, until the narrative suits their agenda, and then it changes from poetry and guessing to literal.

I don't buy it.

 

[makesends]

Was their death before sin?

Whose death? And whose sin?

 

[Fred]

Whose death?

Any

And whose sin?

Adam

 

[TB2]

Not the point.

The Genesis account has God create man from dust, and Eve from man .
Modern scientific reasoning has to deny the account where Adam is created by God from dust (If you want to say evolved from dust, then over billions of years, and then had Adam sleep for another Billion or so while Eve evolved from his rib)

So people come up with all sorts of theories to discredit the scriptures and call it poetry and not to be taken literally, until the narrative suits their agenda, and then it changes from poetry and guessing to literal.

I don't buy it.

I hear what you're saying, and you're absolutely right we can't simply change Scripture to suit our needs. That's why two things must be done. We must (1) first see what science and Scripture claim by themselves independent of one another (and let the chips falls wherw they may), and (2) follow sound hermeneutic principles of biblical interpretation. The most fundamental is that Scripture must always be interpreted in the proper, original historical context of the time. In the case of Genesis, the proper Ancient Near East (ANE) context of the time.

When we do that we see that Genesis 1 is a unique genre that combines elements of *both* poetry and prose/narrative.

We see that Genesis 2-5 also combines elements of *both* poetry and prose/narrative, but in a noticeably different way. For example, only Genesis 1 has the repetitive stanza like formulae "And God said," and "There was evening and morning on Day X."

When it comes to the account of Adam & Eve, we see that the account includes *both* "literal" and symbolic/figurative elements. It is not either-or, but both. For example, the garden of Eden account has the tell tale marks of Hebrew poetry: chiastic literary structure of events arranged in a mirror image. Similar to how the Noah's Flood account has a Hebrew poetic chiastic, mirror image literary structure. We see evidence in the Scriptural text itself that the names Adam & Eve are meant to be understood both literally and figuratively. They are the individual names of the person Adam and Eve, but also representative of all humanity. For the Hebrew adam means 'man' and adamah means earth or ground so there is a play on words. Similarly eve has an etymology related to 'life/living.' Their names are representative names for all of humanity, and would be like if we said in English their names are Man and Woman. What's his name? His name is "Man." What's her name? Her name is "Woman." Those are their individual names, but also names representative of all humanity. Yet at the same time, the genealogy in Genesis 5 makes it clear that we are meant to understand them as real, individuals, and real historical people. Yet at the same time their names can't be their actual names for both historical and biblical reasons we know that the Hebrews and Hebrew language as a people group did not come later until the time of the patriarchs with Abraham on. This conforms with archeological evidence that Hebrew is a Semitic language that developed from a paleo Hebrew-Phonecian script. In short, the Hebrew language did not exist until after the Flood and Tower of Babel. And Adam & Eve are uniquely Hebrew names with no known counterparts found in other languages.

We see numerous archetypes and symbols common to the ANE. Formation from the dust of the ground was a common archetype to indicate mortality. We see this in the curse in Genesis 3 where God says from dust you came to dust you will return. The account teaches that Adam and Eve were created mortal, not immortal, and their lives could only be maintained eternally by being in God's life sustaining presence in the garden with the Tree of Life. Their curse and expulsion from Eden relegated them to their mortal, dying state.

We see that rib is a common mistranslation and that a better translation is side, as in a whole half side of Adam that is taken from him. The picture seems to be of Adam being split in half and one half being formed into Eve. The symbolic, archetypal significance being clear that Eve is his counterpart (similar to our English idiom idea of where spouses describe each other as their "better half"). We see this idea when Adam names her Woman for out of (one half/side) of Man she came.

We see that gardens are well known symbols of sacred space in the ANE. We see the garden of Eden functioning the same as sacred space that is life sustaining as long as Adam and Eve remain, but under curse if expelled from the God's life sustaining presence represented by the garden. The Tree of Life and Tree of Wisdom/Knowledge are unique to Genesis and without known parallel. They have a clear symbolic element. Does that mean the garden wasn’t literally real? No, the narrative locates the garden of Eden in relation to known geographic markers, so it's meant to be understood as a real place. But there are still symbolic elements to it (the same way Noah's ark can be real but still symbolic in the NT for God's salvation. Just like how baptism is real water that also symbolizes death burial resurrection). Real things that also have deep theological symbolism at the same time and it is usually the symbolic theological meaning that is of greatest import. Just like the symbolic meaning of baptism is more important than the literal act.

Similarly, there is rich theology contained in the account that goes beyond misguided debates over literal vs figurative. There are elements of both and this is not a contradiction. We see in the garden sacred space. That as long as they remain in God's Presence they will live forever. Symbolized by the Tree of Life. Similarly, the Tree of Wisdom is Divine Wisdom from God that God gives and provides as He wants. It is God's prerogative to give, not humanity's prerogative to take for themselves to try to be like God, instead of learning to be dependent on God.

But most beautiful of all is the discovery by OT scholars (evangelical ones) that the account contains Hebrew catch words and catch phrases lifted straight from (or the other way around) the Levitical priesthood. We see references (more clear in Hebrew) to precious stones, some of which occur in the priestly garments and breastplate. Adam is placed by God to tend and care for the garden. The Hebrew words are the same ones used to describe the care and tending function of the priests in the sacred space of the tabernacle. Adam is cast in a priestly function. The branching menorah lampstand in the tabernacle is also representative of the Tree of Life. Just as the cherubim guard the Holy of Holies presence of God in the tabernacle, so also the cherubim have a similar guardian role, guarding sacred space of the garden, God's life sustaining divine presence that Adam and Eve are expelled from because they made the choice of independent self-reliance instead of dependence on God to provide their needs. And many such wonderful, beautiful other things. And we haven't even got to the serpent, which long before it came to be understood as Satan was a symbol in the ANE for a creature of chaos opposed to God's divine order. And on and on.

Is this all there is? I doubt any one can claim to understand the full complete significance. But this is at least a genuine, honest attempt to understand Genesis as it would have been understood in the context of the ANE and in the context of ancient Israel. The information is not my own, but comes from conservative evangelical Christian OT scholars.

And hopefully you can recognize that it was all done without any reference to modern science and without any intrusion or influence of modern science that would tempt one to alter what Scripture says.

 

[Manfred]

I hear what you're saying, and you're absolutely right we can't simply change Scripture to suit our needs. That's why two things must be done. We must (1) first see what science and Scripture claim by themselves independent of one another, and (2) follow sound hermeneutic principles of biblical interpretation. The most fundamental is that Scripture must always be interpreted in the proper, original historical context of the time. In the case of Genesis, the proper Ancient Near East (ANE) context of the time.

When we do that we see that Genesis 1 is a unique genre that combines elements of *both* poetry and prose/narrative.

We see that Genesis 2-5 also combines elements of *both* poetry and prose/narrative, but in a noticeably different way. For example, only Genesis 1 has the repetitive stanza like formulae "And God said," and "There was evening and morning on Day X."

When it comes to the account of Adam & Eve, we see that the account includes *both* "literal" and symbolic/figurative elements. It is not either-or, but both. For example, the garden of Eden account has the tell tale marks of Hebrew poetry: chiastic literary structure of events arranged in a mirror image. Similar to how the Noah's Flood account has a Hebrew poetic chiastic, mirror image literary structure. We see evidence in the Scriptural text itself that the names Adam & Eve are meant to be understood both literally and figuratively. They are the individual names of the person Adam and Eve, but also representative of all humanity. For the Hebrew adam means 'man' and adamah means earth or ground so there is a play on words. Similarly eve has an etymology related to 'life/living.' Their names are representative names for all of humanity, and would be like if we said in English their names are Man and Woman. What's his name? His name is "Man." What's her name? Her name is "Woman." Those are their individual names, but also names representative of all humanity. Yet at the same time, the genealogy in Genesis 5 makes it clear that we are meant to understand them as real, individuals, and real historical people. Yet at the same time their names can't be their actual names for both historical and biblical reasons we know that the Hebrews and Hebrew language as a people group did not come later until the time of the patriarchs with Abraham on. This conforms with archeological evidence that Hebrew is a Semitic language that developed from a paleo Hebrew-Phonecian script. In short, the Hebrew language did not exist until after the Flood and Tower of Babel. And Adam & Eve are uniquely Hebrew names with no known counterparts found in other languages.

We see numerous archetypes and symbols common to the ANE. Formation from the dust of the ground was a common archetype to indicate mortality. We see this in the curse in Genesis 3 where God says from dust you came to dust you will return. The account teaches that Adam and Eve were created mortal, not immortal, and their lives could only be maintained eternally by being in God's life sustaining presence in the garden with the Tree of Life. Their curse and expulsion from Eden relegated them to their mortal, dying state.

We see that rib is a common mistranslation and that a better translation is side, as in a whole half side of Adam that is taken from him. The picture seems to be of Adam being split in half and one half being formed into Eve. The symbolic, archetypal significance being clear that Eve is his counterpart (similar to our English idiom idea of where spouses describe each other as their "better half"). We see this idea when Adam names her Woman for out of (one half/side) of Man she came.

We see that gardens are well known symbols of sacred space in the ANE. We see the garden of Eden functioning the same as sacred space that is life sustaining as long as Adam and Eve remain, but under curse if expelled from the God's life sustaining presence represented by the garden. The Tree of Life and Tree of Wisdom/Knowledge are unique to Genesis and without known parallel. They have a clear symbolic element. Does that mean the garden wasn’t literally real? No, the narrative locates the garden of Eden in relation to known geographic markers, so it's meant to be understood as a real place. But there are still symbolic elements to it (the same way Noah's ark can be real but still symbolic in the NT for God's salvation. Just like how baptism is real water that also symbolizes death burial resurrection). Real things that also have deep theological symbolism at the same time and it is usually the symbolic theological meaning that is of greatest import. Just like the symbolic meaning of baptism is more important than the literal act.

Similarly, there is rich theology contained in the account that goes beyond misguided debates over literal vs figurative. There are elements of both and this is not a contradiction. We see in the garden sacred space. That as long as they remain in God's Presence they will live forever. Symbolized by the Tree of Life. Similarly, the Tree of Wisdom is Divine Wisdom from God that God gives and provides as He wants. It is God's prerogative to give, not humanity's prerogative to take for themselves to try to be like God, instead of learning to be dependent on God.

But most beautiful of all is the discovery by OT scholars (evangelical ones) that the account contains Hebrew catch words and catch phrases lifted straight from (or the other way around) the Levitical priesthood. We see references (more clear in Hebrew) to precious stones, some of which occur in the priestly garments and breastplate. Adam is placed by God to tend and care for the garden. The Hebrew words are the same ones used to describe the care and tending function of the priests in the sacred space of the tabernacle. Adam is cast in a priestly function. The branching menorah lampstand in the tabernacle is also representative of the Tree of Life. Just as the cherubim guard the Holy of Holies presence of God in the tabernacle, so also the cherubim have a similar guardian role, guarding sacred space of the garden, God's life sustaining divine presence that Adam and Eve are expelled from because they made the choice of independent self-reliance instead of dependence on God to provide their needs. And many such wonderful, beautiful other things. And we haven't even got to the serpent, which long before it came to be understood as Satan was a symbol in the ANE for a creature of chaos opposed to God's divine order. And on and on.

Is this all there is? I doubt any one can claim to understand the full complete significance. But this is at least a genuine, honest attempt to understand Genesis as it would have been understood in the context of the ANE and in the context of ancient Israel. The information is not my own, but comes from conservative evangelical Christian OT scholars.

And hopefully you can recognize that it was all done without any reference to modern science and without any intrusion or influence of modern science that would tempt to alter what Scripture says.

Wow

Thank you for this response, it is well written and when read makes perfect sense. Thanking you for the time it took.

However...

The book of Genesis was written by Moses under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. (Perhaps you are claiming different authors?)
Why would the same author, under the same inspiration change from poetry to literal when describing events.
As for Adam being "cloned", resulting in Eve, it still defies the theory of evolution.

I also strongly believe that Genesis 1 it is not merely poetry/prose because of this:
Mat_19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mar_10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

I do not think that Jesus referenced the creation of God in a poetic/prose format but rather as literal events.
Heb_11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

 

[TB2]

Thank you for your response it is appreciated.

The book of Genesis was written by Moses under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. (Perhaps you are claiming different authors?)

Scripture say Moses received the Law. Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentaeuch is the view from tradition, but Scripture doesn't actually say Moses also wrote Genesis

Why would the same author, under the same inspiration change from poetry to literal when describing events.

Literal vs poetic is a false dichotomy. Historical biblical narrative can contain figurative hyperbole (like we see in the accounts of conquest of Canaan). Similarly, poetry can contain literal history like when we see biblical poetry about real events like the Red Sea

As for Adam being "cloned", resulting in Eve, it still defies the theory of evolution

But I agree with you that we need to keep modern science out of it. That includes trying to anachronize by reading modern scientific back into Genesis before there was such a thing as modern science or like how some Christians read back modern understanding into Jeremiah 10 and incorrectly see it as a prohibition against Christmas trees before there was such a thing as Christmas trees. The formation of Eve is archetypal and not meant to be a scientific account of things. It kind of misses the whole point.

I also strongly believe that Genesis 1 it is not merely poetry/prose because of this:

It is both poetry and prose (and I can show you). But poetry does not automatically mean nonliteral, nonhistorical, nor does prose automatically mean narrative literal historical. Historical narrative can contain figurative elements, and poetry can be about literal historical events. So the prose and/or poetry tells us nothing about whether it's meant to be seen as historical literal or nonliteral

 

[EarlyActs]

Privileged Planet-- good movie

Yeah PP is great!

 

[CrowCross]

I hear what you're saying, and you're absolutely right we can't simply change Scripture to suit our needs. That's why two things must be done. We must (1) first see what science and Scripture claim by themselves independent of one another (and let the chips falls wherw they may), and (2) follow sound hermeneutic principles of biblical interpretation. The most fundamental is that Scripture must always be interpreted in the proper, original historical context of the time. In the case of Genesis, the proper Ancient Near East (ANE) context of the time.

When we do that we see that Genesis 1 is a unique genre that combines elements of *both* poetry and prose/narrative.

We see that Genesis 2-5 also combines elements of *both* poetry and prose/narrative, but in a noticeably different way. For example, only Genesis 1 has the repetitive stanza like formulae "And God said," and "There was evening and morning on Day X."

When it comes to the account of Adam & Eve, we see that the account includes *both* "literal" and symbolic/figurative elements. It is not either-or, but both. For example, the garden of Eden account has the tell tale marks of Hebrew poetry: chiastic literary structure of events arranged in a mirror image. Similar to how the Noah's Flood account has a Hebrew poetic chiastic, mirror image literary structure. We see evidence in the Scriptural text itself that the names Adam & Eve are meant to be understood both literally and figuratively. They are the individual names of the person Adam and Eve, but also representative of all humanity. For the Hebrew adam means 'man' and adamah means earth or ground so there is a play on words. Similarly eve has an etymology related to 'life/living.' Their names are representative names for all of humanity, and would be like if we said in English their names are Man and Woman. What's his name? His name is "Man." What's her name? Her name is "Woman." Those are their individual names, but also names representative of all humanity. Yet at the same time, the genealogy in Genesis 5 makes it clear that we are meant to understand them as real, individuals, and real historical people. Yet at the same time their names can't be their actual names for both historical and biblical reasons we know that the Hebrews and Hebrew language as a people group did not come later until the time of the patriarchs with Abraham on. This conforms with archeological evidence that Hebrew is a Semitic language that developed from a paleo Hebrew-Phonecian script. In short, the Hebrew language did not exist until after the Flood and Tower of Babel. And Adam & Eve are uniquely Hebrew names with no known counterparts found in other languages.

We see numerous archetypes and symbols common to the ANE. Formation from the dust of the ground was a common archetype to indicate mortality. We see this in the curse in Genesis 3 where God says from dust you came to dust you will return. The account teaches that Adam and Eve were created mortal, not immortal, and their lives could only be maintained eternally by being in God's life sustaining presence in the garden with the Tree of Life. Their curse and expulsion from Eden relegated them to their mortal, dying state.

We see that rib is a common mistranslation and that a better translation is side, as in a whole half side of Adam that is taken from him. The picture seems to be of Adam being split in half and one half being formed into Eve. The symbolic, archetypal significance being clear that Eve is his counterpart (similar to our English idiom idea of where spouses describe each other as their "better half"). We see this idea when Adam names her Woman for out of (one half/side) of Man she came.

We see that gardens are well known symbols of sacred space in the ANE. We see the garden of Eden functioning the same as sacred space that is life sustaining as long as Adam and Eve remain, but under curse if expelled from the God's life sustaining presence represented by the garden. The Tree of Life and Tree of Wisdom/Knowledge are unique to Genesis and without known parallel. They have a clear symbolic element. Does that mean the garden wasn’t literally real? No, the narrative locates the garden of Eden in relation to known geographic markers, so it's meant to be understood as a real place. But there are still symbolic elements to it (the same way Noah's ark can be real but still symbolic in the NT for God's salvation. Just like how baptism is real water that also symbolizes death burial resurrection). Real things that also have deep theological symbolism at the same time and it is usually the symbolic theological meaning that is of greatest import. Just like the symbolic meaning of baptism is more important than the literal act.

Similarly, there is rich theology contained in the account that goes beyond misguided debates over literal vs figurative. There are elements of both and this is not a contradiction. We see in the garden sacred space. That as long as they remain in God's Presence they will live forever. Symbolized by the Tree of Life. Similarly, the Tree of Wisdom is Divine Wisdom from God that God gives and provides as He wants. It is God's prerogative to give, not humanity's prerogative to take for themselves to try to be like God, instead of learning to be dependent on God.

But most beautiful of all is the discovery by OT scholars (evangelical ones) that the account contains Hebrew catch words and catch phrases lifted straight from (or the other way around) the Levitical priesthood. We see references (more clear in Hebrew) to precious stones, some of which occur in the priestly garments and breastplate. Adam is placed by God to tend and care for the garden. The Hebrew words are the same ones used to describe the care and tending function of the priests in the sacred space of the tabernacle. Adam is cast in a priestly function. The branching menorah lampstand in the tabernacle is also representative of the Tree of Life. Just as the cherubim guard the Holy of Holies presence of God in the tabernacle, so also the cherubim have a similar guardian role, guarding sacred space of the garden, God's life sustaining divine presence that Adam and Eve are expelled from because they made the choice of independent self-reliance instead of dependence on God to provide their needs. And many such wonderful, beautiful other things. And we haven't even got to the serpent, which long before it came to be understood as Satan was a symbol in the ANE for a creature of chaos opposed to God's divine order. And on and on.

Is this all there is? I doubt any one can claim to understand the full complete significance. But this is at least a genuine, honest attempt to understand Genesis as it would have been understood in the context of the ANE and in the context of ancient Israel. The information is not my own, but comes from conservative evangelical Christian OT scholars.

And hopefully you can recognize that it was all done without any reference to modern science and without any intrusion or influence of modern science that would tempt one to alter what Scripture says.

I don't think you'll find any christian who would disagree that portions of the bible are "poetic". Would you seem to fail to realize is that poetry often presents the literal and historical truth. Paul Reveres ride as presented by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and the song about the Edmund Fitzgerald by Gordon Lightfoot come to mind.

When one applies "science" to scripture it often fails....for example we all know axes don't float. But according to the bible this event happened. We also know that science tells us when a person dies they don't...can't...come back to life on the third day. But, as you should know the bible presents this as a historical fact concerning Christ Jesus.

Miracles do happen...through out time God has intervened in earthly events. Christians such as yourself often forget. this. Peter got it right when he wrote "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God," 2nd Peter 3:5. Instead they exchange the truth for a lie and tell us "Our planet began as part of a cloud of dust and gas."...winding the process backwards to a proposed event "known" as the Big Bang.

This is not what the bible teaches. Paul in 1st Tim 2:13 tells us....For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. Genesis 2 tells us how.
Does it spell it out completely? No....but it does tell us Adam was made from the dust then Eve from Adams rib (side).
The Theistic Evo's tell us God used evolution as the process for bringing about mankind. They tell us Genesis is nothing more than an expression, allegory or like you they change what the bible presents into simple poetry and prose/narrative.

They deny the biblical fact where Luke tells us...that God made man and from this one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth. Acts 17:26. This goes directly against the theories of the "science based" Theo-Evos....in fact the bible even goes a step further when in Genesis we are told Eve is the mother of all living. Genesis 3:20.

As a bible believing Christian I believe in miracles. I stand opposed to your ideas of what is falsely called knowledge.

Later on in Genesis we read about a world wide flood. Jesus speaks of the flood. Peter speaks of the flood as well as other scripture in Gods Word.....yet, you find a way to nullify the flood. Do you really believe Christ Jesus died on a cross, was buried then rose from the dead? Emphisis on defying your science and rose from the dead?

 

[TB2]

Would you seem to fail to realize is that poetry often presents the literal and historical truth

I literally said the same thing in my posts

Later on in Genesis we read about a world wide flood. Jesus speaks of the flood. Peter speaks of the flood as well as other scripture in Gods Word.....yet, you find a way to nullify the flood

Please listen carefully. I have not nullified the biblical Flood. I've simply challenged the common assumption that the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood. That assumption is not taught in Scripture. That assumption is not supported by Scripture.

As a bible believing Christian I believe in miracles

Me too. I've personally witnessed many natural law defying miracles.

This is not what the bible teaches

I do appreciate how difficult it is for us to see past our own blinders. And we all have them. And our own culture and modern world we're born into is a huge blinder. We don't realize how much our view of Scripture is colored by the lens of modern culture and understanding that we read Scripture through. But we can't do that. To properly understand Genesis we must understand it in its ancient historical context; not through the lens of modern scientific understanding. I get it. It's hard to see how this would be wrong to do.

But that is the irony that people don't see. You criticize modern science, yet at the same time you value science (because our culture does) and so you believe that "true" science will agree with the Bible. Christians don't see the love-hate relationship we have with science. We criticize secular science, but then at the same time desperately want "true" science to agree with the Bible, because we value science in our culture.

Do you see the irony here? You're criticizing me for supposedly putting modern science over the Bible, when I'm telling you that Scripture needs to be interpreted independent of modern science. I'm the one saying we must ditch modern science altogether in order to properly understand what Scripture is teaching.

 

[Sereni-tea]

I hear what you're saying, and you're absolutely right we can't simply change Scripture to suit our needs. That's why two things must be done. We must (1) first see what science and Scripture claim by themselves independent of one another (and let the chips falls wherw they may), and (2) follow sound hermeneutic principles of biblical interpretation. The most fundamental is that Scripture must always be interpreted in the proper, original historical context of the time. In the case of Genesis, the proper Ancient Near East (ANE) context of the time.

When we do that we see that Genesis 1 is a unique genre that combines elements of *both* poetry and prose/narrative.

We see that Genesis 2-5 also combines elements of *both* poetry and prose/narrative, but in a noticeably different way. For example, only Genesis 1 has the repetitive stanza like formulae "And God said," and "There was evening and morning on Day X."

When it comes to the account of Adam & Eve, we see that the account includes *both* "literal" and symbolic/figurative elements. It is not either-or, but both. For example, the garden of Eden account has the tell tale marks of Hebrew poetry: chiastic literary structure of events arranged in a mirror image. Similar to how the Noah's Flood account has a Hebrew poetic chiastic, mirror image literary structure. We see evidence in the Scriptural text itself that the names Adam & Eve are meant to be understood both literally and figuratively. They are the individual names of the person Adam and Eve, but also representative of all humanity. For the Hebrew adam means 'man' and adamah means earth or ground so there is a play on words. Similarly eve has an etymology related to 'life/living.' Their names are representative names for all of humanity, and would be like if we said in English their names are Man and Woman. What's his name? His name is "Man." What's her name? Her name is "Woman." Those are their individual names, but also names representative of all humanity. Yet at the same time, the genealogy in Genesis 5 makes it clear that we are meant to understand them as real, individuals, and real historical people. Yet at the same time their names can't be their actual names for both historical and biblical reasons we know that the Hebrews and Hebrew language as a people group did not come later until the time of the patriarchs with Abraham on. This conforms with archeological evidence that Hebrew is a Semitic language that developed from a paleo Hebrew-Phonecian script. In short, the Hebrew language did not exist until after the Flood and Tower of Babel. And Adam & Eve are uniquely Hebrew names with no known counterparts found in other languages.

We see numerous archetypes and symbols common to the ANE. Formation from the dust of the ground was a common archetype to indicate mortality. We see this in the curse in Genesis 3 where God says from dust you came to dust you will return. The account teaches that Adam and Eve were created mortal, not immortal, and their lives could only be maintained eternally by being in God's life sustaining presence in the garden with the Tree of Life. Their curse and expulsion from Eden relegated them to their mortal, dying state.

We see that rib is a common mistranslation and that a better translation is side, as in a whole half side of Adam that is taken from him. The picture seems to be of Adam being split in half and one half being formed into Eve. The symbolic, archetypal significance being clear that Eve is his counterpart (similar to our English idiom idea of where spouses describe each other as their "better half"). We see this idea when Adam names her Woman for out of (one half/side) of Man she came.

We see that gardens are well known symbols of sacred space in the ANE. We see the garden of Eden functioning the same as sacred space that is life sustaining as long as Adam and Eve remain, but under curse if expelled from the God's life sustaining presence represented by the garden. The Tree of Life and Tree of Wisdom/Knowledge are unique to Genesis and without known parallel. They have a clear symbolic element. Does that mean the garden wasn’t literally real? No, the narrative locates the garden of Eden in relation to known geographic markers, so it's meant to be understood as a real place. But there are still symbolic elements to it (the same way Noah's ark can be real but still symbolic in the NT for God's salvation. Just like how baptism is real water that also symbolizes death burial resurrection). Real things that also have deep theological symbolism at the same time and it is usually the symbolic theological meaning that is of greatest import. Just like the symbolic meaning of baptism is more important than the literal act.

Similarly, there is rich theology contained in the account that goes beyond misguided debates over literal vs figurative. There are elements of both and this is not a contradiction. We see in the garden sacred space. That as long as they remain in God's Presence they will live forever. Symbolized by the Tree of Life. Similarly, the Tree of Wisdom is Divine Wisdom from God that God gives and provides as He wants. It is God's prerogative to give, not humanity's prerogative to take for themselves to try to be like God, instead of learning to be dependent on God.

But most beautiful of all is the discovery by OT scholars (evangelical ones) that the account contains Hebrew catch words and catch phrases lifted straight from (or the other way around) the Levitical priesthood. We see references (more clear in Hebrew) to precious stones, some of which occur in the priestly garments and breastplate. Adam is placed by God to tend and care for the garden. The Hebrew words are the same ones used to describe the care and tending function of the priests in the sacred space of the tabernacle. Adam is cast in a priestly function. The branching menorah lampstand in the tabernacle is also representative of the Tree of Life. Just as the cherubim guard the Holy of Holies presence of God in the tabernacle, so also the cherubim have a similar guardian role, guarding sacred space of the garden, God's life sustaining divine presence that Adam and Eve are expelled from because they made the choice of independent self-reliance instead of dependence on God to provide their needs. And many such wonderful, beautiful other things. And we haven't even got to the serpent, which long before it came to be understood as Satan was a symbol in the ANE for a creature of chaos opposed to God's divine order. And on and on.

Is this all there is? I doubt any one can claim to understand the full complete significance. But this is at least a genuine, honest attempt to understand Genesis as it would have been understood in the context of the ANE and in the context of ancient Israel. The information is not my own, but comes from conservative evangelical Christian OT scholars.

And hopefully you can recognize that it was all done without any reference to modern science and without any intrusion or influence of modern science that would tempt one to alter what Scripture says.

Agree completely. I have tried to present a lot of this in various posts here, but you have said it so much clearer!

 

[makesends]

Any



Adam

I can't prove it, but my personal opinion is that there was death before the fall of Adam. Just not spiritual death. Not death by way of sin nor the curse.

 

[TB2]

I can't prove it, but my personal opinion is that there was death before the fall of Adam. Just not spiritual death. Not death by way of sin nor the curse.

I think you're correct. There are some scientific and biblical arguments for your claim.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I accept your challenge! ... Umm, errr, except I'm an evolutionary paleobiologist, so we probably already agree with each other, for the most part. We even like the same Tombstone movie quotes.

I'm sure there is something that we would debate.

Only if Genesis 1-3 is meant to be understood as a modern scientific account, but it's not. Modern science and Genesis are largely apples and oranges that have little to do with each other.

Not even that is accurate, because at least apples and oranges are both fruit.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Not the point. The Genesis account has God create man from dust, and Eve from man. Modern scientific reasoning has to deny the account, where Adam is created by God from dust. So, people come up with all sorts of theories to discredit the scriptures, ...

Moden science does not have to deny a literal de novo creation of Adam by God. Both positions can be held as true without contradiction: (1) God directly created Adam de novo from the dust. (2) A few million other humans lived throughout the world (i.e., outside of Eden) at the time. This is a subject that I would be willing to engage in a formal debate.

 

[TB2]

I'm sure there is something that we would debate.




Not even that is accurate, because at least apples and oranges are both fruit.

Well both communicate via human language so maybe that can be the fruit part they have in common

 

[Manfred]

I'm the one saying we must ditch modern science altogether in order to properly understand what Scripture is teaching.

This is an error in my opinion. Modern science consists of a whole lot of speculation. If you read any scientific article you find the words "probable; most likely; suggests; should be inferred; etc."

Modern science does not support the ideas postulated by some, rather it is one big speculation based on assumption and bad premises.

Rather, science stand diametrically opposed to the supernatural, and therefore some will try and discredit scripture by trying to circumvent the supernatural and trying to justify their thoughts and incomplete evidence in the natural.

That which is flesh is flesh.

 

[Manfred]

Moden science does not have to deny a literal de novo creation of Adam by God. Both positions can be held as true without contradiction: (1) God directly created Adam de novo from the dust. (2) A few million other humans lived throughout the world (i.e., outside of Eden) at the time. This is a subject that I would be willing to engage in a formal debate.

Your position re there being "millions" of people outside of Eden is easily refutable.

When a genealogy is traced back, the amount of people in that genealogy reduces, and does not increase to millions.
If you follow any of the genealogies in scripture, you find a reduction of people not and increase.

A lot of children can be born in a span of a 900 year lifetime.

 

[EarlyActs]

Wow

Thank you for this response, it is well written and when read makes perfect sense. Thanking you for the time it took.

However...

The book of Genesis was written by Moses under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. (Perhaps you are claiming different authors?)
Why would the same author, under the same inspiration change from poetry to literal when describing events.
As for Adam being "cloned", resulting in Eve, it still defies the theory of evolution.

I also strongly believe that Genesis 1 it is not merely poetry/prose because of this:
Mat_19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mar_10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

I do not think that Jesus referenced the creation of God in a poetic/prose format but rather as literal events.
Heb_11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

The chain of custody is prob much tighter. Chad 1-39 were originally verbal. See Cassuto on format of verbal recitation.