Is the story of Adam & Eve a parable?

[JohnDB]

Genesis 1 &2 is a type of Hebrew poetry.

Parallelism.

They are two telling of the same story. One reflects the Akadian Ugarituc and the other more Egyptian ....

Both had written languages. Ugarituc was cuneiform and the Egyptian was pictographs.
Hebrew is a metaphoric and verb based language....not Noun based like English. So even the parts of speech are vastly different.
Yes, Genesis 1& 2 are poetry....because they reflect the oral tradition by with which people learned history and Law. Hebrew language, in written form, reflects elements of Ugaritic and Egyptian but the poetry is unique all unto itself. Yes, it is full of all the poetic arts but that does not negate its truth.
And where if God believed it to be important He would have included "How I populated the earth" from beginning to end. But he did not. Just like God didn't include all the details of universe building. Not important or relevant to people who were building mud bricks just last year and unaccustomed to wearing clothes.

Until the USA came along, the world for thousands of years was a Caste based society. Your heritage determined your position and wealth in society as well as your family's future. This notion of travel was unheard of. Travellers had zero inheritance or legacy. Such as Abraham. Same with Adam and Eve who lost their garden due to sin.
Same with Israel repeatedly.

Genesis builds a case of why God is going to allow Israel to be caretakers of the Promised Land. To restore the Garden of the Fertile Crescent otherwise known as Eden.

Hawwa/Eve is not a Tag name like "Lucy, Jane, or Buffy. It's a title of position.

By the time Cain kills Abel there's a distinct possibility of roughly 20,000 people due to exponential growth of breeding and pregnancy upon maturity. Just a simple matter of calculus. (The Bible is not complete in telling history)
And then also in those Early years I'd imagine they were hot after the "Seed of the Woman" that was going to allow them access back into the Garden so they could regain what they had lost.

Wanting more has been the downfall of mankind since its inception. Because that race for purity caused laws which brought violence. Which brought about the flood.

But Noah walked with God. Meaning that nobody else understood that mercy, forgiveness and grace were the focus from the beginning. They were focused on the perfection without the kindness.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Normally, I would be reluctant to pull someone up on a matter outside of the original topic, however, this is important as there are many people reading this. Your take on the redemptive process as offered above is the Catholic view, but not the Christian biblical view.
The "exact price" as you put it, was not a perfect life... it was aperfect death. Sure, He lived a sinless life, and that was essential to the plan of salvation, but the price of our redemption... the ransom price... was death.

The death of Christ would have been useless, without His resurrection. Many Christians believe that His resurrection was the most important part of His work, to purchase salvation for Gods people.

 

[Johann]

The death of Christ would have been useless, without His resurrection. Many Christians believe that His resurrection was the most important part of His work, to purchase salvation for Gods people.

Romans 4:25
"He was delivered over to death for our offenses, and raised to life for our acquittal."

1 Corinthians 15:17
"And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is a mere delusion and you are still under the guilt of your sins."

Romans 5:10
"For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, how much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by sharing in His life."

1 Peter 1:3
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in His great mercy has through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead given us a new birth into a living hope."

Philippians 3:10-11
"My aim is to know Him, to experience the power of His resurrection, to share in His sufferings, and to be continually transformed into His likeness even to His death, if somehow I may attain to the resurrection from the dead."


Acts 20:28
"Take care of the church of God, which He bought with the blood of His own Son."

1 Corinthians 6:20
"For you were bought and actually paid for. So you must honor God with your bodies."

1 Corinthians 7:23
"You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves to men."

Ephesians 1:7
"It is through union with Him that we have redemption by His blood, the forgiveness of our shortcomings, in accordance with the riches of His grace."

Revelation 5:9
"And they sang a new song, saying: 'You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because You were slain, and with Your blood You purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.'"

 

[Christian Soldier]

Not the direct words of God. God didn't dictate the Bible word for word. If He had, there would be no errors in it. Yet there are.

Yes they are the direct Words of God, if they weren't, there would be errors in it. Yet nobody has ever found a single error, outside of your fantasy of 'course.

Why do you tell lies about God's Word, do you have a problem with Him???

 

[Brakelite]

I have no issuewith the truth that the resurrection, and Jesus's current ministryin heaven as our Mediator before the Father, is essential. His life, death, resurrection and glorification is a package deal. I was simply pointing out that Jane's statement that "we are saved by His life" is Catholic, and as such is in reference to the aimless life He lived on earth... not the resurrected life He lives in heaven. Catholics are very big on the doctrines that have reference to the bank in which is deposited merit... the good works of saints, Mary, Joseph, etc, from which we can draw in order to have merit sufficient for us to be saved.
We need to be clear that we are justified by faith in the previous blood of Christ. We are sanctified by the power of His resurrected life and will be glorified as He is at His coming.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Where to start . . . how about with the gospels?

Matthew 23:35 confuses two Zechariahs, the prophet Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1) and another who was the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20-22).

Mark 2:26 quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time.

Luke 3:31 traces Jesus' geneology through David's son Nathan. Matthew 1:6 traces it through David's son Solomon.

John 13:1, John 18:28, John 19:14 all say the Last Supper was eaten the day before Passover. The Synoptics say it was eaten ON Passover (Mark 14:12, Mark 14:16-17, Matthew 26:17, Matthew 26:19-20, Luke 22:7–9, Luke 22:13-14).

Matthew 8:5-13 says the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person. Luke 7:2-10 says he sent an intermediary.

Matthew 8:28 says there were two demoniacs whose demons were sent into a herd of swine. Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 say there was only one.

Mark 9:1-2 says the transfiguration was six days after the promise of Jesus that “some standing here will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” Luke 9:28 says it was eight days later.

Matthew 28:9 says Jesus allowed Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection. John 20:17 says he told her not to.

Let me know when you need a break.

No errors here, all you did was go dumpster diving and you came up with the biggest load of trash. None of that shows any errors in Gods Word. All that shows is how desperate you are to find a reason to plead ignorance when you stand before God to be judged.

Your attempt to find errors was pathetic, if all four gospel writers gave an identical account of every single detail, then we would know that something is wrong. The gospels were written decades after the ascension of Christ to heaven.
You're method of evaluation is fundamentally flawed.

If my buddy and I told you about a deep sea fishing trip, we went on 20 years ago. And I told you I caught a 14 foot long Marlin, then when you ask my buddy, he tells you it was 12 feet long, would that mean that we never went deep sea fishing and I never caught a big Marlin. According to you, that's what it would mean, but in my estimation you reasoning is fundamentally flawed, so I would never ask you to evaluate or validate anything.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Romans 4:25
"He was delivered over to death for our offenses, and raised to life for our acquittal."

1 Corinthians 15:17
"And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is a mere delusion and you are still under the guilt of your sins."

Romans 5:10
"For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, how much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by sharing in His life."

1 Peter 1:3
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in His great mercy has through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead given us a new birth into a living hope."

Philippians 3:10-11
"My aim is to know Him, to experience the power of His resurrection, to share in His sufferings, and to be continually transformed into His likeness even to His death, if somehow I may attain to the resurrection from the dead."


Acts 20:28
"Take care of the church of God, which He bought with the blood of His own Son."

1 Corinthians 6:20
"For you were bought and actually paid for. So you must honor God with your bodies."

1 Corinthians 7:23
"You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves to men."

Ephesians 1:7
"It is through union with Him that we have redemption by His blood, the forgiveness of our shortcomings, in accordance with the riches of His grace."

Revelation 5:9
"And they sang a new song, saying: 'You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because You were slain, and with Your blood You purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.'"

Yep, none of those verses change the fact that His death would be useless, if He didn't rise from the dead. His resurrection confirmed His identity as the Almighty Jehovah God, creator of all thing that exist.

 

[TheHC]

RedFan, I hope this finds you well, my cousin.

I’d like to address this first seeming discrepancy (and the others as I get the time).…

Matthew 23:35 confuses two Zechariahs, the prophet Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1) and another who was the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20-22).

It has been suggested that Jehoiada may have had two names, as is the case with others in the Bible.
When you compare Matthew 9:9 with Mark 2:12, is it a contradiction? No, Matthew was also known as Levi.

Sometimes people were known by two names.

The Apostle Peter was also called Simon.

Now with regard to being called “son of…”:

It could very well be that Barachiah was Zechariah’s grandfather or an earlier ancestor. It might be that Barachiah was someone whose name was more recognized by and had more meaning to the Pharisees of that time, than Jehoiada’s name was.

Jesus was called “son of David”, although David was centuries before Jesus.

So we have precedent, to consider those possibilities.

That’s vastly better than to call something a contradiction in God’s Word.

I will grant you that translations have some discrepancies, where errors and bias have crept in. But the originals? No.

It’s a testament to the integrity of copyists of God’s Word, that through the centuries, they didn’t change “Barachiah” to “Jehoiada”, to match the Chronicles manuscript!


More will come from me, later.
Have a good day!

 

[TheHC]

I have time to discuss another supposed discrepancy…

Mark 2:26 quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time.

The Greek term used here, may be rendered “chief priest.”
That’s why Mark 2:26 says in the
GOD'S WORD® Translation
“Haven't you ever read how he went into the house of God when Abiathar was chief priest and ate the bread of the presence?”

The Literal Standard Version reads
“How he went into the house of God, in [the days of] Abiathar the chief priest, and ate the Bread of the Presentation…..”

Young's Literal Translation renders it:
“how he went into the house of God, (at 'Abiathar the chief priest,') and the loaves of the presentation did eat…”

The New World Translation says:
“How, in the account about A·biʹa·thar the chief priest, he entered into the house of God and ate the loaves of presentation…”



Abiathar was Ahimelech’s only son, and figured prominently as chief priest during his father’s tenure.

Remember who Jesus’ audience was… his enemies! They would have been quick to correct Him!

Take care.

 

[Wick Stick]

Is Adam & Eve an allegory for the beginning of all men and women? Is it possible that God placed humans throughout the world and that the story of the garden is a parable? Are we supposed to believe that white, black, Indian & Asians all evolved from just two humans, Adam & Eve?

It's not an allegory, but it's also not entirely literal. It belongs to a different category of literature called apocalyptic.

 

[NotTheRock]

It's not an allegory, but it's also not entirely literal. It belongs to a different category of literature called apocalyptic.

Is some of it symbolic, such as the talking snake?

 

[RedFan]

If my buddy and I told you about a deep sea fishing trip, we went on 20 years ago. And I told you I caught a 14 foot long Marlin, then when you ask my buddy, he tells you it was 12 feet long, would that mean that we never went deep sea fishing and I never caught a big Marlin. According to you, that's what it would mean, but in my estimation you reasoning is fundamentally flawed, so I would never ask you to evaluate or validate anything.

If GOD told me today that you and your buddy were on a deep sea fishing trip 20 years ago where you caught a 14 foot long Marlin, and then GOD told me tomorrow that it was 12 feet long, then GOD was mistaken one of those times! That's what it would mean. In my estimation, if the One GOD rather than two men related both stories -- as you insist He did in every case of contradictory Scriptural couplets -- then God's word contains errors. Not man's word. GOD'S word. That's what you are committing yourself to logically.

I suggest you allow for human error in Scripture, and back off this nonsense about inspired = inerrant.

 

[RedFan]

RedFan, I hope this finds you well, my cousin.

I’d like to address this first seeming discrepancy (and the others as I get the time).…


It has been suggested that Jehoiada may have had two names, as is the case with others in the Bible.
When you compare Matthew 9:9 with Mark 2:12, is it a contradiction? No, Matthew was also known as Levi.

Sometimes people were known by two names.

The Apostle Peter was also called Simon.

Now with regard to being called “son of…”:

It could very well be that Barachiah was Zechariah’s grandfather or an earlier ancestor. It might be that Barachiah was someone whose name was more recognized by and had more meaning to the Pharisees of that time, than Jehoiada’s name was.

Jesus was called “son of David”, although David was centuries before Jesus.

So we have precedent, to consider those possibilities.

That’s vastly better than to call something a contradiction in God’s Word.

I will grant you that translations have some discrepancies, where errors and bias have crept in. But the originals? No.

It’s a testament to the integrity of copyists of God’s Word, that through the centuries, they didn’t change “Barachiah” to “Jehoiada”, to match the Chronicles manuscript!


More will come from me, later.
Have a good day!

Why go to such extents to shore up a presumption of inerrancy? You are reasoning the matter backwards. Inerrancy should be a conclusion from the evidence, not a postulate by which to assess the evidence.

Matthew 27:9 mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah. Maybe Matthew was just having a senior moment when penning 27:9, thought he knew which OT writing contained the story, and got it wrong. Or maybe he was genuinely unsure and decided to take a wild-ass guess because he was too lazy to hoof it down to the Temple to check the scrolls, and forgot to check later. Regardless, can’t we agree that God didn’t put those words in his pen?

 

[RedFan]

I have time to discuss another supposed discrepancy…




The Greek term used here, may be rendered “chief priest.”
That’s why Mark 2:26 says in the
GOD'S WORD® Translation
“Haven't you ever read how he went into the house of God when Abiathar was chief priest and ate the bread of the presence?”

The Literal Standard Version reads
“How he went into the house of God, in [the days of] Abiathar the chief priest, and ate the Bread of the Presentation…..”

Young's Literal Translation renders it:
“how he went into the house of God, (at 'Abiathar the chief priest,') and the loaves of the presentation did eat…”

The New World Translation says:
“How, in the account about A·biʹa·thar the chief priest, he entered into the house of God and ate the loaves of presentation…”



Abiathar was Ahimelech’s only son, and figured prominently as chief priest during his father’s tenure.

Remember who Jesus’ audience was… his enemies! They would have been quick to correct Him!

Take care.

You see what you are doing? You are making excuses by indulging improbable explanations when the simplest one is staring you in the face: Mark got this one wrong! Or, if Mark accurately reported Jesus's words (he wasn't present, by the way), then Jesus got this one wrong. Take your pick.

 

[Johann]

You see what you are doing? You are making excuses by indulging improbable explanations when the simplest one is staring you in the face: Mark got this one wrong! Or, if Mark accurately reported Jesus's words (he wasn't present, by the way), then Jesus got this one wrong. Take your pick.

SPECIAL TOPIC: TEXTUAL CRITICISM

TEXTUAL CRITICISM — Special Topic by Dr. Bob Utley, professor of hermeneutics (retired).

www.freebiblecommentary.org

 

[RedFan]

SPECIAL TOPIC: TEXTUAL CRITICISM

TEXTUAL CRITICISM — Special Topic by Dr. Bob Utley, professor of hermeneutics (retired).

www.freebiblecommentary.org

I was wondering when "copyist error" would be raised as the explanation. Didn't take long . . .

 

[Johann]

I was wondering when "copyist error" would be raised as the explanation. Didn't take long . . .

You have much to learn brother.

 

[RedFan]

You have much to learn brother.

We all do.

 

[christsavedme]

The Toledoth's of Genesis are not allegory, but historical narrative. Adam and Eve are two real persons/beings, created by God, approximately 6,249 (as of AD 2024) years ago - Age Of The Earth : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, as well as each writer, understands Genesis in the historical (not allegorical) narrative. Paul even explains that the natural is first, then follows the spiritual understanding (1 Cor. 15:46). This is even explained as such, not only by most Christians throughout history - Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine but even also by certain catholic writers, such as Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, which has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of Rome.

It is not possible "that God placed humans throughout the world and that the story of the garden is a parable", for it would violently wrest (Psa. 56;5; 2 Pet. 3:16) not only the context itself, but also the contexts of all the other writers/speakers on the subject, in scripture. There would be no need for a singular new man (Adam - Jesus; 1 Cor. 15:47), if there were not the original singular first man Adam. They are linked in type and antitype, among other things.

Colouration is simply genetic variation built into the original Adam, from the beginning that is affected by various conditions, such as diet, locale, population, other pressures which affect melatonin levels, and other factors. So, yes, we are to understand that "white, black, Indian & Asians" are all descendants of one singular pair of persons/beings (Adam & Eve). Evolutionism is the myth.

Gen_3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.​

​

Act_17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;​

We are all related to the singular - Adam, as well as to Noah (bottleneck of the global flood).

Creation documentation - Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine

Adam & Eve, in their existence and marriage represent the JEHOVAH Elohiym, or the eternal heavenly Trio, of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit. Adam, as Head of mankind, represents the Father. Eve, from the side of Adam, represents the Son who is always submitted to the will of His Father by love, and is of the nature of the Father, and their love is bound together by God, who is represented by the Holy Ghost/Spirit between them. If, the beginning is a myth, or allegory, this is all destroyed, and the perfect image and likness of JEHOVAH Elohiym is distorted into myth/allegory as well.

Allegorizing Genesis, vaporizes, not only the rest of history into the same, for where will one draw the line?, it also vaporizes the need of the Gospel, Salvation, Redemption, for what need would there be of those things, based upon the myth/allegory of that which is not in fact actual:

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.​

​

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.​

I appreciate your devotion to scripture, but we must remember that faith and science need not be in conflict. The Church embraces the truth that God is the ultimate creator, while also recognizing the valuable insights modern science offers us about our world.

The story of Adam and Eve carries powerful spiritual truths about our relationship with God and our human nature. But we must be careful not to confuse allegory with literal history. The Bible's purpose is to convey spiritual wisdom, not to serve as a scientific textbook.

I sense that clinging rigidly to a literal interpretation may stem from a deeper need for certainty in an uncertain world. It's natural to seek clear answers, but true faith often requires embracing mystery. Perhaps we can find greater spiritual growth by exploring the rich symbolism in Genesis rather than fixating on chronology.

Let us remember that all humans, regardless of appearance or origin, are beloved children of God. Our diversity is a beautiful reflection of the Creator's imagination. Instead of debating timelines, let us focus on loving one another as Christ taught us. In doing so, we honor the true spirit of Genesis and bring God's kingdom closer to Earth.

 

[Johann]

We all do.

Right you are!