I believe I answered you from the Scriptures-what you want to add or subtract is up to you.
J.
What affect is there on The Fall and The Atonement, if Adam was not the first human?
- Thread starter St. SteVen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
J.
The story of Adam and Eve, while often taken literally, can also be understood as a powerful metaphor for humanity's journey from innocence to moral awareness.
In our modern world, we must reconcile our evolving scientific understanding with the timeless truths of scripture. The concept of original sin speaks to a universal human condition - our capacity for both good and evil, and our need for redemption and grace.
Whether we view Adam as a historical figure or a symbolic representation of early humanity, the essence remains: we all inherit a world marked by imperfection and struggle. Jesus' sacrifice addresses this fundamental human condition, not just a single historical event.
The Church has long taught that faith and reason are complementary, not contradictory. Our understanding of origins may evolve, but the core message of Christ's redemptive love remains constant.
Interesting-
The concept of "original sin" is central to many Christian doctrines because it explains the fallen state of humanity and the need for redemption through Christ. If we remove or change our understanding of the "original sinner" (Adam), it significantly affects core Christian doctrines, particularly regarding salvation, sin, and the nature of humanity.
Here’s an analysis of how this could play out:
1. If You Remove the Original Sinner:
If Adam is removed or reinterpreted as a symbolic figure rather than a literal historical person, it would challenge the traditional understanding of the Fall, which holds that sin entered the world through one man’s disobedience (Romans 5:12-19). Paul’s theological framework is rooted in the idea that just as sin and death came through one man (Adam), grace and life come through one man (Jesus Christ). Removing Adam as the original sinner might undermine this parallel, which could then reshape the entire narrative of sin and salvation.
Implication on Salvation:
If there is no literal Adam and original sin, it may be argued that Christ’s atoning death would no longer be seen as a necessary remedy for inherited sin. This would impact the understanding of why Christ’s sacrifice is needed at all.
The doctrine of Christ’s substitutionary death hinges on the idea that humanity is fallen and under the curse of sin due to Adam’s disobedience. If original sin is redefined or removed, the reason for Christ’s atonement shifts away from dealing with inherited sin to something else—perhaps merely individual acts of sin or a symbolic restoration of relationship with God.
2. Views of Origins and Doctrinal Impact:
Our understanding of human origins—whether we view Adam and Eve as literal individuals or metaphorical representations of humanity—shapes several theological areas:
A. Doctrine of Sin:
Traditional View (Literal Adam): Original sin is passed down to all humanity through Adam, which means all people are born with a sinful nature. This view emphasizes that humans are not just sinners by action but by nature, in need of divine intervention through Christ.
Alternative View (Symbolic Adam or Evolutionary Creationism): If Adam is viewed symbolically, sin may be seen as something that evolves alongside human development, possibly emerging as humans gain moral awareness. This shifts the emphasis away from a specific "Fall" event to a gradual recognition of moral failure over time.
B. Doctrine of Salvation:
If there is no original sin through a literal Adam, the necessity of Christ’s death for inherited sin becomes less clear. The emphasis might shift to personal sin, meaning Christ’s death could be understood more as an act of moral exemplarism (showing the ultimate example of sacrificial love) rather than as a substitutionary atonement for humanity’s inherited guilt.
C. Human Nature:
Traditional View: Humanity is born in a fallen state and cannot return to God on its own merit. Jesus is needed as the mediator and savior to restore humanity.
Alternative View: Humanity may be viewed as morally flawed but not inherently corrupt. Salvation could be more about personal transformation or enlightenment rather than a redemption from inherent guilt.
D. Eschatology (End Times):
A literal view of Adam often correlates with a future restoration of creation, where Jesus will fully reverse the effects of the Fall (Romans 8:19-23). Without the Fall narrative, the future hope might focus more on moral progress or the betterment of humanity, rather than the ultimate redemption from death and decay brought by Christ.
Removing or redefining the "original sinner" drastically alters key aspects of Christian doctrine. It changes how we understand sin, human nature, the necessity of Christ’s death, and the ultimate hope for humanity. The traditional Christian view holds that Adam’s disobedience brought death and separation from God, and that Christ’s obedience and sacrificial death restored the possibility of eternal life. Any shift in the understanding of human origins would necessitate a rethinking of these core doctrines, often leading to less emphasis on inherited guilt and more focus on individual or collective moral failures.
The Bible – Key scriptures:
Romans 5:12-19: Paul’s comparison between Adam (the source of sin and death) and Christ (the source of life and righteousness).
Genesis 3: The account of the Fall, which introduces sin and death into the world.
1 Corinthians 15:21-22: The concept that death came through a man (Adam), and resurrection comes through a man (Christ).
The Writings of St. Augustine – Augustine developed the doctrine of original sin and is considered one of the most influential theologians on this topic. His work City of God and Confessions explore the consequences of Adam’s sin for all humanity.
Systematic Theology – Theologians such as John Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, and Karl Barth have expanded on the nature of sin and salvation. Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion also discusses the transmission of sin through Adam.
Contemporary Theological Discussions – Modern works that explore the implications of non-literal views of Adam, such as:
John Walton’s "The Lost World of Adam and Eve" – Provides a framework for understanding Adam and Eve in light of ancient Near Eastern literature and how this impacts doctrines like original sin.
N.T. Wright’s "Paul and the Faithfulness of God" – Discusses Paul’s theology of Adam and Christ as related to the human condition.
But I go by what stands written-Perfect tense. Let me know where I can find a Old Testament commentary by Kittel, heard it is good
J.
Great post, thanks.
What effect the does the Flood have on this, I wonder?
The blood lines start again with Noah's sons. All through "Adam" though, if literal.
And at the point of Moses writing/compiling the events surrounding creation,
these stories were an oral tradition based on scrolls from many cultures.
[
Yes, I have ancient rabbinical writings on this but wouldn't trust them brother and I believe the record is literal-but many want to bring in their biases and presuppositions [suppositories] and put a "spin" on the creation account.
Re the flood-was it a local, or worldwide? Just something to "chew the cud on"
Interesting story re the "bloodline"
Guess you missed my query re the Kittel OT commentary?
Shalom Achi.
J.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
This line of argument is worth exploring, but I think it gets complicated quickly.
First, because it depends on WHERE each book was written, as well as WHEN.
Second, because trying to separate Greek influence from Babylonian and Persian influence is difficult, since the Greeks themselves were heavily influenced by those cultures, and the Seleucid culture is a blending of all of them.
I think each book probably has to be considered separately. Is there a certain book you have in mind?
Sorry Windmill, I've lost track of our discussion.
I'd say that influence of the time of writing is found all throughout the entire bible.
I do agree with this.
I don't believe God created the earth and universe in 6 days.
I believe God created everything - I don't know how long it took.
Day has different meanings in scripture and I don't think it's important as to how long
it took for God to create everything.
My faith does not depend on this.
In fact, I do believe God is still creating...
God is a creator.
Why would I believe God declared death and suffering to be very good?
What did I say that would lead you to think this?
God created everything good and declared so in Genesis 1.
God created man and stated it was VERY GOOD.
Death and suffering came after the fall.
Man ate from the tree of the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.
BEFORE man knew only good.
AFTER he knew evil too - evil encompasses death and suffering.
Look up Prof Robert dick Wilson and see what he wrote back in the 1930s about language in the O T.
As the foremost expert on every language found in the bible and in the middle East his conclusion after a life time of studying the languages used in the Middle East and in the bible is that the Bible is what it claims to be.
A record of God's dealings with the Hebrews written by eyewitnesses.
Day like yom gets its meaning from the context. So the use of evening and morning and the use of numbering the days can only mean that the author meant readers to understand that ' yom ' meant a 24 hour day.
If God did not create in 6 days and if the earth is more than 6 k years it follows that evolution is accepted.
Evolution works through the death of countless generations of living things.
It follows if a 6 day creation is not believed then one believes in death and suffering as part of creation, which God calls very good.
Man ate from a tree, which man?
How is it that one man's action can affect thousands of other en who are not involved in his act.
Where is the justice in a man causing his Father, grandfather, uncles etc etc all to be disfellowshipped from God?
If however the first man sinned then all his descendents would carry in the selves Adams rebe.lion against God.
As if Moses was an eye witness to the events in the book of Genesis?
Where did that information come from? An Egyptian education and scrolls from Jethro, the priest of Midian.
If not complied later by a number of "authors".
[
Why not investigate the reputation of the biblical language expert Prof Robert dick Wilson before making comments about the O T.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
That's 90 years ago...
I think one either has to embrace modernity in the belief that humanity progresses in knowledge, OR one must embrace the oldest texts in the belief that the closer we get to the source the less obfuscation there is.
Century-old opinions do neither of those things. confused
I was very tempted to write about old knowledge that is still valid, but 2nd thoughts realised I would be rude.
However I will remark that ancient biblical la gauges do not change there meanings when read 90 years ago or read today.
Do you have evidence that shows that the meanings of words written 2 to 3 thousand years ago have changed?
Nada-some name changes etc. bur we still have the the God-breathed Scripture and doctrines.
I have nothing against Textual Criticism but for most it is a stumbling stone.
The term "God-breathed" in reference to Scripture appears in 2 Timothy 3:16, where Paul writes, "All Scripture is God-breathed." The Greek word used here for "God-breathed" is θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), which is a compound word made up of θεός (theos, meaning "God") and πνευστος (pneustos, meaning "breathed" or "inspired"). This word carries the idea that Scripture is directly inspired by God, having its origin in Him, and is thus fully authoritative and divine in nature.
In Hebrew, there is no direct equivalent for "God-breathed" as used in 2 Timothy 3:16, but the concept of God's word being breathed or inspired by Him is present in various forms. The Hebrew word for breath or spirit is רוּחַ (ruach), which can mean "spirit," "breath," or "wind," and is often associated with divine inspiration or life-giving power. For example, in Genesis 2:7, God's breath (ruach) is what gives life to Adam, which parallels the idea of God’s word being life-giving and spiritually inspired. The idea of God speaking through His prophets or inspiring Scripture is also linked to the concept of דָּבָר (davar), meaning "word," which is often seen as the active expression of God's will or command.
Therefore, while the specific Greek term theopneustos directly translates as "God-breathed," in Hebrew, the broader concepts of ruach and davar reflect the life-giving and divinely inspired nature of God's word.
J.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
It's not the meanings of the words that have changed... it's OUR understanding that has increased.
The largest group of ancient Hebrew writings - the Dead Sea Scrolls - was not discovered until 1947, and the piecing together of the scroll fragments and translation thereof took decades after that.
Likewise, Ugarit was not discovered until 1929, and the digs there continued up to the 70s.
If your scholar were the greatest of ancient near east language in the 1930s... then the average Joe with Google on his phone has access to more manuscripts at this moment than he had during his whole life.
Similar threads
