Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 84808 | ||
The meaning of Adam and Eve. A consensus seems to be expressed about the literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis. As a Christian who believes the Bible is God's inspired word, I would like to present another interpretation. There are, in fact, many Bible-believing Christians who interpret these chapters differently. I find that the opening chapters of Genesis contain a mythic language that suggests we are not to interpret these texts within the "scientific/rationalistic" mode. The language moves away from mythic writing, and into much more concrete history, with the story of Abram and Sarai. It is easy to get hung up on questions of "who married who" etc, and get distracted from the real meaning of the passage. The God-given story of Adam and Eve tells us essential things about what it means to be human. That's why Adam's name isn't a proper name, but a generic term meaning "man." It tells us, for instance, that all humans are of one family, from all races cultures. It tells us that men and women are made in God's image. It tells us about how God intended intimacy between humanity and God, but we chose rebellion instead. It tells us about the relationship between men and women, and the communal character of being human. The expulsion from the garden speaks to our sense of loss and alienation in the world -- and also about the discipline of work and toil. There are so many profound themes wrapped into these short chapters. We don't need to know what literally or scientically happened, to embrace this Word as foundationally true. Focusing on difficulties in literal interpretation prevents us from getting to the substantive meat that can feed our souls. I would suggest that there is a danger in using a literal lense on these passages of scripture. If we claim mythic passages as literal, we lose credibility when we claim other difficult passages are literal. The language of the resurrection accounts, for instance, talk about witnesses and proofs, specific places and times. It is clear that the gospel writers and early Christians believed the resurrection to be a historic, literal occurance. If we sully our credibility with Genesis, it makes it harder to make the case for the resurrection. I do not intend to be divisive or difficult. Instead, I hope that we can allow for some diversity in the reading. In fact, I don't want to discuss the "literal vs. mythic" issue -- but rather, to shift the emphasis to "what does this text say to us, anyway?" Peace. |
||||||
2 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Morant61 | 84847 | ||
Greetings Just Read Mark! I have two major problems with the approach to Genesis that you have advocated. 1) There isn't anything in the text to indicate that it is a 'mythic' account. I have read many of the 'mythic' creation accounts of ancient cultures. They tend to be very fantastic. The Genesis creation account is not like them at all. What is the textual difference between the creation account and the historical narratives of Abraham? 2) There are also many theological issues tied into the reality of the man Adam. For instance, are these New Testament verses about Adam also mythical? a) Luke 3:38 - "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." This NT verse specifically says that Seth was the son of a man named Adam. b) 1 Tim. 2:13 - "For Adam was formed first, then Eve." c) Jude 14 - "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: 'See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones'" This passage details that Enoch lived 7 generations from the man Adam. Finally, Rom. 5:12-21 is based entirely upon the reality of a man named Adam who sinned. Simply put my friend, the New Testament treats Adam as exactly what Genesis says that he was - a man created from the dust of the earth by God, who sinned against God, and who brought sin and condemnation into the world. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 84894 | ||
Thank you, Tim, for your good questions. The first question is essential, and frankly I will have to look into it again. It has been a while since I have worked it through. Off the top of my head, there are things like the poetic structure of the days in Genesis 1, the fact that there are days before there is a sun, the 2nd version of the creation story that has a different emphasis... Basically, there is a huge symbolic resonance - and lack of historical data - to everything that happens. The tower of Babel. The ark. I realize I am presenting a generalized case here. But when it gets to Abram and Sarai, there is so much more particular information about their travels, their characters, their ethical choices. Please understand -- when I suggest certain passages are intended to be mythic, I am not diminishing their value. I believe God has presented these myths for us to live by. Secondly -- New Testament references to Adam and Eve. I don't see any trouble here, actually. The New Testament writers lived by the Adam and Eve story just as we should. Those passages still make sense either way. I do believe that rebellion against God is a key part of being human (as Adam and Eve show us) and that Jesus reconciles us to God -- so Romans 5 is a concise and powerful explication of this. The geneologies (ie. in Luke 3) pose interesting problems. The fact that the 2 geneologies for Jesus (Matthew and Luke) are different is a problem anyway - aside from Adam and Eve. So I have taken them to make a point like this -- Jesus is a descendent of David (how exactly doesn't matter) and thus fulfills the promises of God; -- the structured number of generations (whether they are literal or not) express that God is the God of history, and is in control. -- Jesus is not some upstart, but is the fulfillment of the entire history of Israel. So some geneologies are Jewish record keeping, but others (like at the beginning of the gospels) are freighted with other significance. These other meanings were so urgent, that discrepancies in the details pale in comparison. Turning back to the early geneologies in Genesis (and quotes elsewhere) -- their function is to emphasize "all of humanity is one family." Would you permit me a moment of conjecture? Perhaps the geneologies around Abraham are historical -- especially since the Hebrews identified themselves as followers of the "God of Abraham." Perhaps the earlier chapters where contributed later -- but adopted the structure of geneologies elsewhere in Genesis. Thus linking the mythic truth of origins to the particular lives of specific people. To put this digression in perspective -- I will reiterate my main point. It doesn't really matter whether these bits are historical or mythical, so long as we really commit ourselves to live by the message it conveys. |
||||||
4 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Morant61 | 84903 | ||
Greetings Just Read Mark! Thanks for your response my friend! I would have to respectfully disagree though! ;-) The 'days' of creation are about the only point where one could possibly make the case that the language was mythic or poetic. But, even that doesn't mean that it can't also be historical as well. However, everything else in Genesis is presented in the same manner. Adam and Eve, their children, Noah, Abraham, and on down. Each section uses exactly the same introductory forumla and structure. I simply can't buy that Gen. 1-2 is 'make believe' but the rest is history. There simply isn't anything in the text to back that view up. It is based upon assumptions outside of the text - i.e. - that evolution is true and creation must not be. Finally, notice that you have actually demonstrated why I believe this view is problematic by your response to the NT passages. You have turned them into myths as well, including the genealogies, even though there is no reason to do so. Rom. 5, in particular is a major problem. Rom. 5 doesn't teach, as you put it: "I do believe that rebellion against God is a key part of being human (as Adam and Eve show us) and that Jesus reconciles us to God -- so Romans 5 is a concise and powerful explication of this." Rather, it teaches that just as we all became sinners because of the sin of one man (Adam), so also, the actions of one man (Jesus) brings justification. The entire passage absolutely hinges upon the reality of a man named Adam who sinned against God and who was the father of us all. The doctrine of original sin only makes sense in terms of the creation account. The doctrine of depravity only makes sense in terms of the creation account. Once we make creation mythical, we have to start turning major doctrines on their heads as well. My approach to Scripture is quite simple. If the text identifies itself as a parable, then it is a parable. If the text identifies itself as history, then it is history. I would never take a passage which is presented as history and make it into a myth. Well, I have to run! I'll chat with you later my friend. God Bless! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||