Was Adam a Real Person?

They do not comment on these chapters. They do not tell the reader how to interpret these sections of Genesis, whether it be literal or non-literal. They treat Old Testament apocalypses under OT prophecy. They treat the book of Revelation by itself as an apocalypse and only refer to other apocalyptic works in relation to it.

One problem is that many confuse apocalyptic with eschatological. Eschatology, of course, refers to “last things”, it is a type of content. Eschatology can be in the form of a narrative, a prophetic oracle, a parable, a poem, an epistle, or an apocalypse. An apocalypse just “reveals”, it is a type of literature in which the particular type of content (eschatological, prophetic, etc.) goes into. It can reveal the past, present or future. It can reveal what is presently going on in heaven or it can reveal the eschatological future. It can also reveal the past. Stuart and Fee appear to take a preterist approach to almost all of Revelation, save for 11:5-19 and 19:1-22:21. These latter passages are purely eschatological in their estimation.

Well, many scholars take Genesis 1-11 to be non-literal (Hamilton). Some take it to be literal but literary and not-reflecting actual reality (Hummel, Barth, Gunkel, Wenham, Westermann, Brueggemann, Stek). These scholars speak of it being, saga, poem, doctrine, hymn, metaphorical narration, parable, et al. So the idea that Genesis 1-11 is a type of literary genre apart from that of the narrative sections of Genesis is not an unheard of idea.

I have read many scholars who take the story to be proto-apocalyptic but not apocalyptic as Daniel or Revelation.

Duane Garrett, “Rethinking Genesis” is the best example of one who takes the story as traditionally apocalyptic. He is a very conservative scholar. He believes in Mosaic authorship and an early date for the composition of Genesis.

Jack Glaze also holds to Edenic story as apocalyptic but I am at a loss to give you the name of the article. He has mostly written on the book of Jonah, anyway.

I was simply presenting the fact that the article you referenced admitted that there were apocalyptic passages in Genesis.

Almost all do. Even the article you referenced says so towards the end. Apocalyptic literature often comes out during times of persecution. The writer is giving his audience who are suffering persecution an insight into the behind the scenes plan of God in defeating their persecutors. Almost all apocalyptic literature has come during persecution. The Babylonian Exile, the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes, the Jewish-Neronian persecution, and the Domitian and subsequent Roman persecutions.

Scholars? Too many to mention: Moody, Bauckham, Ellis, Fee and Stuart, Warren, Morris, Terry, Smalley, Russell, Mounce, Gentry, Erickson, Collins, Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard. It’s just a common understanding among conservative scholars.

It does make sense though. Revelation helps Christians in time of persecution, as does the book of Daniel, which is both short-story and apocalypse. If the book of Revelation had no concern for the present world then it is meaningless for us today. Similarly with the creation and fall of man. These events concern us because we need to know who created the world and why we are in the situation we are in and what God is going to do about it. Of course, the meaning of any Biblical passage, regardless of genre, is concerned with the present, because it speaks to all people at all times in all situations. Apocalyptic literature is concerned with the present even more so because it is created during times of persecution to aid believers during such times.

The purpose of Luke with his genealogy is two show that Christ is the Lord of the whole human race and not just the Jews. Luke is writing to Gentiles. Matthew, on the other hand, is writing to Jews and starts with Abraham and David. Both writers employ the use of genealogies for a specific theological purpose and both are changing aspects of the genealogy for their purposes. You’ll notice that Matthew and Luke’s genealogies are not identical. Matthew skips a few people. You’ll notice that Luke and Matthew do not always agree on the fathers and sons of certain people. You’ll notice Matthew highlights/adds women to the genealogy list: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, the wife of Uriah, and Mary. All these women have some notoriety. Tamar pretended to be a harlot and Judah slept with her, Rahab was a harlot, Ruth was a Moabite and something occurred between her and Boaz in chapter 3:4-7, David raped the wife of Uriah, Bathsheba, after seeing her bathe, and Mary was pregnant before she was married to Joseph. I won’t state what my interpretation for why Matthew and Luke differently shaped the genealogical material; I only want to show that they had different theological purposes and shaped the historical record accordingly. Again, as Matthew is showing Christ to be the King of the Jews, Luke is showing Christ to be King of all nations and all the peoples. That he mentions Adam is to be expected since Adam is the head of the human race. I do not think that Luke intends Adam to be taken literally any more than he intends Adam to be literally the son of God. Only Jesus is the son of God. This is how I reconcile the un-historical Adam in the genealogies. Adam is not historical and neither are the genealogies.

Not at all. But I do not know what you know and you do not know what I know. I cannot assume that you know what I know anymore than you can assume that I know what you know.

Furthermore, you and I are not the only ones engaged in this discussion and we are certainly not the only ones who are reading the discussion. While I am responding to your points and questions I also have to keep in mind that others are reading my responses to those points and questions.

Finally, I want to answer your points and questions as thoroughly as possible.

I disagree. Reference does not mean literalness. As I mentioned previously, a NT writer can refer to a non-canonical, non-historical work and not vouch for its literalness, i.e., the genealogy of Melchizedek. Also, occasionally the OT writers will refer to the cosmology of the creation. They will talk about the dome of the sky, the firmament, the holy mountain where God resides, the bars of the earth, the roots of the mountains, the pillars supporting the earth, Sheol residing at the bottom of the sea, etc. Now no one takes these to be literal, yet this is how the Israelites and other ancient Canaanite peoples conceived of their world and God’s creation. And God did not deem it necessary to correct them on their lack of knowledge about His creation. As long as they knew He created it, God really did not seem to care if they believed the world was flat or not. The first chapter of Genesis uses much of these Canaanite cosmology devices in describing God’s creation. What is interesting is that it appears the author was refuting the pagan idea that epic battles between the gods created the world. While describing God effortlessly creating the world through His very will and word, the author is refuting pagan polytheism and making it a laughable scenario. “Your gods have to create through strife and chance, our God creates by His Word and will.” The NT revelation gives us a better idea of what, or rather Who, this Word is. So I do think that the Bible can refer to people, things, and events in a symbolic, non-literal fashion. I think the Holy Spirit does this in order to convey a particular meaning/truth for all people at all times.

Then you have the advantage over many of us. The more I have learned about writing the better I have learned about what the authors of the Bible were trying to do. I am sure you know quite a bit about what the authors are doing.

Well, none of us would ever state that we have exhausted all the language and symbols of Revelation but I do think we can have a basic understanding from which to build upon.

Of course, symbolic language does not necessarily designate future orientation. Christ Himself used parables to convey meanings about the present kingdom of God.

Naturally, different authors are going to have different styles. But look at Genesis 2-3 and Revelation 22. The Tree of Life is in both passages. Rev. 12:9 refers to the Satan as “the serpent of old”, an allusion to the Edenic story. John was using symbols and allusions from many different OT apocalypses: Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and Genesis being prime examples.

I apologize. I was responding to points and questions and arguments not people. Since I didn’t identify either you or the other person as making these points I was neither attempting to imply you made the points stated by another nor that your points were made by another. I was simply responding to arguments. I will refrain from responding to collective arguments when I see your name in the midst. Your welcome.

 

Genesis 1-11 is not allegory. If any part of it is not meant to be taken literally it would be better classified as etiology, an Ancient Neareastern form of story telling.

Paul uses Adam as a paragigm, even if Paul really believed that Adam was a literal man.

It is possible that the Genesis stories are not so much about the origin of sin as they are about the nature of sin. I see Adam everyday when I look in the mirror.

Dave

 

Oh so many terms!

I'd agree with Dave in his assertion that Genesis can not reasonably be viewed as allegory. Allegory has several definitions in Webster's and can loosely be defined as something symbolic - but it more specifically refers to a story with hidden symbolic meaning. What most moderates and liberals assert is that it is theological epic. I don't know why so many here keep saying that liberals consider Genesis 1-11 as allegory.

Regarding apocalypticism - I don't know that I'd call Genesis apocalyptic.

John J. Collins, arguably the most prominent expert on JudeoChristian apocalypticism, defines apocalyptic literature as "a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an other-worldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world."

Certainly apocalyptic does not have to refer to the future, although if often does.

 

I fully agree. And of course there are indications that Genesis 1 - 11 is early oriental epic literature rather than an historical narrative. And of course there is the absolute impossibility that the story of Noah’s Ark is an accurate historical narrative, so if we claim that it is an historical narrative, we are testifying that the Bible contains inaccurate information—and that is not something that I am comfortable testifying to.

To be more specific regarding Noah’s Ark—the Ark as described in Genesis was only a tiny fraction of the size of ship that would be required to hold even two of all the animals (not to mention the additional clean animals) alive on the earth 5,000 years ago. If one argues that the dimensions of the Ark are only symbolical, then this story ceases to be an historical narrative and takes on allegorical qualities. If one argues that God performed a vast series of miracles allowing for the gathering of all those animals from all over the face of the earth and miraculously squeezed them into a wooden boat the size of the Ark, then this story ceases to an historical narrative and becomes a miracle narrative of such proportions that it would be more correct to call it fantasy literature.

Considering just for a moment fitting the animals (not counting even their cages and their food) into the Ark, it is comparable to fitting 100 gallons of water into a one ounce bottle—a feat that even God could not perform for the size of the bottle by definition is a constant, and water would cease to be water long before it was compressed to even half of its volume.

And since we know that the story of Noah’s Ark is NOT an historical narrative, there is no reason to believe that the story of Adam and Eve is an historical narrative. However, that is not to say that Adam and Eve were not real people, it is only to say that the story about them should not necessarily be taken literally.

 

That you disagree with me is fine. That you believe it to be literal and historical is fine. Regardless of whether you treat the story as literal or not the same meaning is apprehended by you. Whether one sees it as narrative, allegory, psalm, apocalypse, saga, whatever, the same truth is given by Holy Spirit to the believer.

Yes, now we say they are metaphors and poetics, but at the time they were considered as real as the six days of creation. It was only after the incontrovertible facts of modern astronomy and geology that believers began to look at these references as metaphors and poetry. What I and many others are suggesting is that we reexamine the first eleven chapters of Genesis and view them as metaphors and poetry. Really, when believers began to see the Biblical cosmology as metaphorical it did not change the meaning the Bible was trying to convey. The same will occur in relation to Genesis 1-11.

Are you saying that the books of the Bible did not have human authors?

So if the rest of the Scripture speaks about the firmament, the gates of Sheol, the dome of the sky, et al, and they do not exist as they are described, then are these passages not from God? Some scholars believe that those sections of the Bible which do not adhere to science are not from God. I do not. I just do not think that God cares about such detail. He appears to have no problem with believers believing in a flat earth or Sheol at the bottom of the ocean. Because God doesn’t have a problem, I don’t either.

Look at Job 38. The Lord speaks to Job about creation. Look at the language God used: the foundation of the earth, enclosed the seas with doors, the springs of the sea, gates of death, storehouses of rain and hail, the abundance of water in the clouds, the water jars of heaven. Is the Lord lying to Job?

I disagree.

Literal? I’d say that was more figurative. A more literal since would be Jesus as only begotten Son.

Let me make it clear that I do not think the entire book of Genesis is apocalyptic. Very few books are entirely apocalyptic. Daniel is short-story and apocalyptic. Revelation is letter, prophecy and apocalyptic. I think Genesis is narrative, poetry and apocalyptic. I also hold to the JEDP theory of Pentateuch authorship if that helps you understand where I am coming from.

I already have mentioned in previous posts on this thread many aspects of similarities and differences between Genesis 1-11 and other apocalyptic literature, not just the Tree of Life metaphor. Seraphim and angelic figures, large chiastic structures, highly imaginative symbolism, weird and strange animals, etc. Not to mention the poetic language.

First, it is interesting that chapters 1 and 2-3 are separate pieces. Whether one believes they were written by the same person is immaterial. We know these are separate pieces because the creation events in either chapter are in different chronological orders.

1:11 – God creates trees and plants and vegetation (3rd day).
1:20 – God creates fish and birds (5th day).
1:24 – God creates beasts and then God creates man in His own image, male and female He created them (6th day).
2:2-3 – God rested from his creating (7th day).

2:7 – Lord God forms man (adam) from ground (adamah).
2:9 – Lord God creates trees out of ground; no shrubs or plants on earth before man (2:5)
2:19 – Lord God creates beasts and birds from the ground (adamah).
2:22 – Lord God creates woman from man’s rib.

Notice how different the order of creation is in these two chapters. Plants-beasts-man and woman vs. man-plants-beasts-woman. Was man created before or after the plants and animals? To take both as literal is bad hermeneutics.

Notice how in 1:24 beasts and man were created on the same day. Notice in 2:7 and 2:19 that both man and beasts were created out of the same stuff (adamah). Both are called “living creatures or souls or beings.” The exact same Hebrew words are used, nephesh hayiyah. What is the difference between man and beast? Man is called adam because he came from the adamah, the animals were not so named. Man was created in the image of God, animals were not. Whether you interpret this passage literally or apocalyptically, whether you interpret this passage as instantaneous or a process of millions of years of evolution (directed by God) the result is the same. Man is created in God’s image. Man is not degraded in either interpretation, the exact opposite is true.

Notice in verse 2:9 that God “caused to grow every tree.” The trees did not instantaneously appear. There was a process for the trees “to grow”. Nevertheless, God caused the process. Notice in 2:19 that God “forms every beast”. “Form” like “grow” can involve a process. Notice in 2:7 that God “forms man”. In Isaiah 44:2, the same word is used for “form” (yatsar). Notice the Isaiah 44:2 passage: “The Lord formed you from the womb.” Now wait a second. A person is formed in the womb by male sperm and female egg and forms over a nine-month period. Why is God saying he formed someone in one’s womb? Perhaps because he created the process by which all people are formed in the womb. We all say that we are God’s creation despite the fact that we admit that we were created differently than Adam.

Now, look at the Hebrew words used in chapters two and three. Poetic and figurative language is used. Man (adam) from ground (adamah). Female (ishah) came out of male (ish). Eve (chavvah) is mother of all the living (chay) (i.e. men come from women). The serpent was crafty (arum) and the man and woman are naked (erum). The puns are flying left and right. The author is using this pun language to make theological points about man and his predicament. None of this would make any since if it was written in any language other than Hebrew.

Look at chapter one. In 1:7-8 God is separating waters (mayim) from waters (mayim) and making one the heavens (shamayim).

The deep, the firmament, these are ancient middle eastern cosmogony terms that describe a world that no one believes exists. Are these terms found in the narratives of the Bible? No. They are found in the poetic and apocalyptic sections of the Bible, where they can be figuratively understood.

These three chapters are full of the language that we find in poetic and apocalyptic literature. None of the straight forward language that we find in the Abraham narrative is there.

Yes, I just simply believe that the text does indicate its non-literalness.

I disagree. The meaning of the story did change for me when I learned it was non-literal. Its truth certainly did not change. In fact, my appreciation for the story and its meaning has only grown since I understood its nature. Hey, if you feel that the story in Genesis would be devoid of much of its sharpness if you believed it to be non-literal then by all means stay with your belief that it is literal. The power of the Scriptures in its meaning is so much more important that our literary conception of it.

[ January 03, 2005, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Anleifr ]

 

I do not believe Genesis requires a world-wide flood, since the word for 'the earth' (ha eretz) can also refer to 'the land.' In fact, it sometimes refers to the land of Israel. maybe the inhabited parts of the earth were flooded.

 

I considered that position once before. But I got stuck on Gen. 7:19.

It talks about the waters covering the mountains (har). It cannot refer to hills because the author would have used gib`ah as in Gen 49:26.

But even if we do say that the "land" was flooded and the "hills" were convered that still doesn't solve the problem from a geological/scientific point of view. There is no evidence for such a major flood.

Now I wrote a paper on the judgments in Revelation and argued that when John uses "ge" (earth) he is at some points using it in its "land" usage. "A third of the trees of the land were burnt" rather than "a third of the trees of the earth were burnt". John definitely uses "ge" as "land" when he writes 10:2. That's the most natural reading of the imagery. I was coming at the book from a preterist point of view and was comparing the judgments to events in the land of Israel during the Roman destruction of Jerusalem as recorded by Josephus.

Regardless, I think you're definitely giving serious attention to the text.

 

Just as I believe God said what He said in Job 38.

It seems only to be poetic when one is from a culture that holds such cosmologies to be inaccurate. When one comes from a culture that believes such a cosmology to be a literal representation of reality then the terms are no longer considered poetic but factual.

Well, it may not be incontrovertible proof but it does lend credence to a non-literal viewpoint when aggregated with all the other factors.

 

We know for a fact that 5,000 years ago there were well over 2,000,000 genetically distinct populations of land animals, the large majority of which we still have today; although very many of the largest animals have perished during the past 5,000 years. Whether one calls these genetically distinct populations “species” or “kinds,” they are a genetic reality that Noah would have had to have at least one pair of aboard the Ark for them to have survived. The weight of these animals would be about the same as the amount of water displaced the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan. Yet the Genesis account states that there were additional numbers of all the clean animals, the weight of which would have been at great as the amount of water displaced by a whole fleet of air craft carriers in the Ronald Reagan class (I posted the actual statistics in another thread on this message board). When one includes the necessary cages and food, the total weight would be as great as the amount of water displaced by all the ships in the entire U.S. Navy.

But this problem is only the very small tip of the iceberg. There are tens of thousands of genetically discreet populations of aquatic animals that are very sensitive to the concentration of salt in the water, and in the deluge described in Genesis, if one takes it literally, all of these tens of thousands of genetically discreet population would necessarily have been brought aboard the Ark and kept in aquariums, and the weight of that water would be as great as the amount of water displaced by a ship the size of the state of Massachusetts (assuming that Noah has a source of electricity aboard the Ark and thousands of air pumps to oxygenate the water, otherwise the ship would have to have been larger than the whole state of Texas).

But of course Noah’s dilemma would not end there, for the maintenance of these aquariums, not to mention 4,000,000+ caged animals, would require a staff numbering into the thousands.

Those who argue that only 2,000 animals would necessarily have been preserved assume a rate of macroevolution thousands of times faster than is genetically possible, proving beyond any doubt whatsoever that these persons know nothing about biology.

One biologist with whom I was acquainted calculated the number of genetically distinct populations of beetles that are known for a fact to have been present for at least 5,000 years to be in excess of 1,000,000. He further calculated that a pair of each of these genetically distinct populations of beetles would number in excess of 2,000,000 beetles, and that their weight, plus the weight of their food and the containers to keep them, would be greater than the amount of water displaced by the Ark. In simple layman’s language, the Ark would have sunk immediately from this weight alone!

For those who do not understand what a genetically distinct population is, it is a population of plants or animals which when crossed with any plant or animal from any other population produces non-fertile offspring (if any at all). For example, when a horse and donkey are bred together, you get a mule, and mules are sterile. Therefore, it is absolutely undeniable that Noah would have to have taken aboard the Ark more than 2,000,000 kinds of land animals, and tens of thousands of aquatic animals with a high degree of sensitivity to the level of salt in the water.

EVERY biologist knows these things, and any biologist who tells you differently is not telling you the truth. Am I telling you the truth? Ask the local high school biology teacher! The ONLY “biologists” who will deny these basic facts are creationists wearing blinders.

 

I don't know if the bible says this or not about the animals food and all, I'll have to reread that, but couldn't God have put the animals in some sort of stasis?

Rachel

 

Rachel,

The Noah's Ark story portrays all of the animals being saved from the flood by human means, a wooden boat built by Noah and his family. Miraculous intervention by God (other than instructions for building the Ark) is totally absent in the story.

 

Adam is real. He's just not a historical person. His experience is identical with that of every person who has ever lived, and the story reveals much about the nature of God and His covenants with His people.

Gen 2-3 in the form we have them now was written sometime in the 580-530 BC range, and the Jews that wrote it had no way of "confirming" the truth of the source material except that it was consistent with their understanding of the God that had revealed himself in Israel's experience, namely that disobedience to God's commands results in exile from the land of milk and honey, which had just happened to them at the hands of Babylon.

The fact that Eve looks a whole lot like the goddess Asherah and that the trees and snake in the garden look a lot like the Asherah poles and golden serpents destroyed by Kings Hezekiah and Josiah make me think that the A&E accounts originated in the mythological cults of Israel and Judah (that the prophets specifically condemn in 1-2 Kings). It's probable that the story itself was originally written to explain why the northern kingdom was destroyed, and was altered to fit the Babylonian exile, eliminating references to the "pagan" gods and goddesses in favor of a single Yahweh and his two humans...

There is more to truth than wooden concepts of historical factuality. The A&E account is first and foremost theologically true of Israel's experience, and its placement at the dawn of history represents that it is more fundamentally true than those accounts which follow.

No, that is a major way to misread the Bible from start to finish.

The Bible is not given as a revelation for a handful of historical facts, but the revelation of God and His purposes in His Kingdom.

Luke is not an authority on the genealogies, he just quotes the structure he received in the Septuagint.

Again, there is more to being "real" than wooden historicity.