Garden of Eden as an allegory, historicity of Adam


jerome1232
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've held to the idea that our creation stories are allegorical, however, what happens with Adam? I think there has to be a literal Adam based on various teachings but how does that reconcile with an allegorical creation story? How does that reconcile with the idea that the human race could not have originated with two individuals?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we need to keep these ideas exclusive? John, who's gospel is filled with thematic elements (Judas leaves the supper to betray his Master, "and it was night" - cue thunder, lightning) sees the blood, water, and spirit elements of birth and rebirth in the Atonement. He clearly sees it as carrying an allegorical message. Elder Talmage, relying on the testimony of physicians, sees it as a literal elements witnessed at His death that testify to the manner of his death (a broken heart - which leads others to apply their own allegorical teachings to it).

 

I'm not going to tell you to exclusively sit in either the allegory or literal camp here. I don't think you necessarily have to for other Bible stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does there have to be a literal Adam? Hopefully without saying too much here, certain ceremonies make it clear that Adam and Eve are repesentative of us all (at least in some parts). Things don't need to be "either-or," and most aren't. In the New Testament Jesus taught mostly in parables. He may well have done the same in the Old Testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does there have to be a literal Adam? Hopefully without saying too much here, certain ceremonies make it clear that Adam and Eve are repesentative of us all. Things don't need to be "either-or," and most aren't. In the New Testament Jesus taught mostly in parables. He may well have done the same in the Old Testament.

 

Except we, unquestionably, preach of and believe in a literal Adam. The amount of material in support of this is so overwhelming that even a suggestion of otherwise is... well...I don't want to insult. Do some research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does there have to be a literal Adam? Hopefully without saying too much here, certain ceremonies make it clear that Adam and Eve are repesentative of us all (at least in some parts). Things don't need to be "either-or," and most aren't. In the New Testament Jesus taught mostly in parables. He may well have done the same in the Old Testament.

 

There is one challenge that I see in accepting Adam only as a figurative character. The heart of Christian theology -- in spite of all the differences in details -- is that Christ came to redeem a fallen mankind. I'm not enough of a theologian or philosopher to understand the full logic behind these things, but it often seems to me that, if Adam and his fall are merely story, then are Christ's ministry and atonement likewise merely story or allegory? As I must reject the latter, I also want to find some way to make Adam and his fall real events, too. I don't fully know how to reconcile this with what science teaches, though I believe they can be reconciled.

 

If nothing else, it is a good question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except we, unquestionably, preach of and believe in a literal Adam. The amount of material in support of this is so overwhelming that even a suggestion of otherwise is... well...I don't want to insult. Do some research.

The problem can be in the research done.  If one consults the scripture as naturally written as a witness in the physical elements of this earth there are DNA traces of the human species that go back in time over 50,000 years.  There is overwhelming evidence that humans with our specific DNA existed well over 12,000 years ago.

 

We can create all kinds of mitigation for the physical evidence but in the end in such a effort we are forced to believe in a G-d that is somewhat deceptive and  misleading in regards to doctrine or empirical evidence.  Ether to prevaricate the exactness of doctrine or in the preponderance of empirical evidence deliberately left behind to testify of the reality of what really happened.

 

Somewhere critical evidence is missing - either in the scripture witness or in the empirical record.  I can understand somewhat if we think of the scriptures as symbolic but there were humans long before the time that scripture tells us that Adam existed and there is a preponderance of evidence that there was death taking place for hundreds of thousands of years on earth before  the scriptures tell us that Adam fell and initially brought death for the first time.  Obviously something is wrong somewhere and only one of the record possibilities even remotely allows for a possibility of humans tampering with and changing the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one challenge that I see in accepting Adam only as a figurative character. The heart of Christian theology -- in spite of all the differences in details -- is that Christ came to redeem a fallen mankind. I'm not enough of a theologian or philosopher to understand the full logic behind these things, but it often seems to me that, if Adam and his fall are merely story, then are Christ's ministry and atonement likewise merely story or allegory? As I must reject the latter, I also want to find some way to make Adam and his fall real events, too. I don't fully know how to reconcile this with what science teaches, though I believe they can be reconciled.

 

If nothing else, it is a good question.

 

It is a good question - for witch there is insufficient evidence.  If there was no fall there is no salvation and this life has no reason nor justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem can be in the research done.  If one consults the scripture as naturally written as a witness in the physical elements of this earth there are DNA traces of the human species that go back in time over 50,000 years.  There is overwhelming evidence that humans with our specific DNA existed well over 12,000 years ago.

 

We can create all kinds of mitigation for the physical evidence but in the end in such a effort we are forced to believe in a G-d that is somewhat deceptive and  misleading in regards to doctrine or empirical evidence.  Ether to prevaricate the exactness of doctrine or in the preponderance of empirical evidence deliberately left behind to testify of the reality of what really happened.

 

Somewhere critical evidence is missing - either in the scripture witness or in the empirical record.  I can understand somewhat if we think of the scriptures as symbolic but there were humans long before the time that scripture tells us that Adam existed and there is a preponderance of evidence that there was death taking place for hundreds of thousands of years on earth before  the scriptures tell us that Adam fell and initially brought death for the first time.  Obviously something is wrong somewhere and only one of the record possibilities even remotely allows for a possibility of humans tampering with and changing the evidence.

 

If the biblical record was all we were dealing with, sure...I can see your logic. But it is not. We have other scripture that we know was not tampered with, and we have modern day, living, prophet words affirming the same.

 

There is no choice between the two. You either accept God and His words or you put your trust in the arm of flesh.

 

I'm not saying or arguing that everything in the scriptures is factual rather than allegorical. But with the story of Adam, whereas there may be allegorical elements, the reality of Adam being the literal first man and the father of the human race can simply not be ascribed as such without denying Gods prophets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that the creation accounts are focused on the "Whys"  Why was the earth created, Why is our world the way it is now? Why do we need a Savior? etc.  That is the information we really and truly need

 

I find that the creation accounts are not focused on the "Hows" much beyond God did it.  I find questions like the OPs to be very much a How question. 

 

So for me we simply have not been told How God did it, simply that he did, and they we need to have faith that when the time is right we can learn the How

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not so much how was it done. It's how do I connect these dots. I think it's very clear that the creation story is symbolic (a tree that grants awareness of good and evil, another tree that grants immortality, clearly symbolic stuff in my mind) but it's also very clear (I think) that Adam and Eve must be literal people. I'm having trouble connecting those dots. I had a thought...

Adam was really the first prophet, the first man to be taught by God. If this is so quite a bit of the symbolism around the garden and the fall don't make much sense to me. /shrug. Perhaps mankind was innocent and not accountable until they were taught by God through Adam. I don't know. I agree that treating everything as symbolic runs into problems with the fall and the atonement.

 

I am really just pondering and wondering what others thoughts on the matter are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's very clear that the creation story is symbolic (a tree that grants awareness of good and evil, another tree that grants immortality, clearly symbolic stuff in my mind) 

 

 

I have to ask again. Why? Why is this clear in your mind? What makes you so confident in your understanding of the eternities that this sort of thing is so unlikely to be reality?

 

Do you relegate all things you don't understand to "certainly allegorical"? What about Jesus's miracles? The water to wine? The walking on water? The raising of the dead?

 

Just because it is not something our puny mortal minds can comprehend does not in any way argue for the fact that it must therefore be allegorical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me, what was Jesus' most frequent method of teaching? Was it not allegory? There are tons of them throughout the NT. I don't think it's a stretch to say that just maybe that was his preferred method of instruction before he came here too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me, what was Jesus' most frequent method of teaching? Was it not allegory? There are tons of them throughout the NT. I don't think it's a stretch to say that just maybe that was his preferred method of instruction before he came here too.

 

Possible. But not logically convincing. Doesn't quite stand up as a rock solid "ergo".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble with Adam as a purely allegorical and non-historical figure is, Joseph Smith claimed to have seen him.  And claimed he would return to the earth prior to the Second Coming of Christ.  Joseph F. Smith further claimed to have seen Mother Eve.

 

If Adam can be allegorical, so can any other figure Joseph claimed to have seen--Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Elijah, Moses, and so on--up to and including Jesus Christ Himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how much knowledge I can contribute. But, I'd like to share my thoughts on the matter in the interest of offering a new perspective.

 

The Catholic church says that the Hebrew translation of "adam" is simply "man". They have taken this to mean that Adam was not actually a person but more of a symbolic allegory of man. Another fire fueling this perspective of theirs is the evidence that supports (not proves) evolution. One can see all the bones laid out that demonstrate the evolutionary progression of man at the Smithsonian Institute. A third element of the confusion, I suspect, is the symbolism in the Garden. We know that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was real but also had symbolic meaning, as well as others elements of the account. So, I suspect that some people take the idea of some elements having symbolism to mean the whole thing is symbolic.

 

Those are three sources that I can account for as possibilities for the notion of Adam being purely allegorical.

 

However, as has already been pointed out by a couple people here, this would go against the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith.

 

He revealed that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri. If it was purely allegorical, then the place doesn't actually exist and Joseph couldn't reveal its location. The Bible tells us it is in between 2 rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, which would place it in either Turkey, Syria, or Iraq. But, the Bible has been tampered with. In the older days of the old and new testament, people didn't know about the America's. I could just see scribes hearing of a land that was not known to their world and changing the wording to place it somewhere more familier. I am not saying that's what happened, merely presenting an idea.

 

So, if we know the bible has been tampered with, and evidence from archeological digs is merely supporting theories without empirically proving them, theories made by man (and many, not all, scientists are athiests), one must look for a more definitive source. That source, to me, has got to be Joseph Smith. So, for me, Joseph Smith says he talked to Adam and knows the location of the Garden of Eden, Adam has got to be real, then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've held to the idea that our creation stories are allegorical, however, what happens with Adam? I think there has to be a literal Adam based on various teachings but how does that reconcile with an allegorical creation story? How does that reconcile with the idea that the human race could not have originated with two individuals?

 

I've found a lot of things in the scriptures tend to have both literal and symbolical sides to them at the same time.

if you go back far enough sooner or later it just has to be 2, at least supposing if evolution is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are told that Adam was the first man and that he existed somewhere around 6,000 years ago.  This is confirmed by our modern prophets.  But there is little explanation of exactly what that means and precisely how Adam came about.  I would make it clear that it is my understanding that G-d is a G-d of TRUTH!.  I do not believe G-d does one thing and leaves empirical evidence of something very different.  I also do not believe that the scripture term "Arm of the Flesh" and "empirical evidence" is synonymous.  For example; it appears to me that the arm of the flesh can be involved in the interpretation of scripture and that "empirical evidence" simply means evidence obtained by observation.  I would point out that the spirit can guide empirical study but is not involved in what takes place in pursuing the arm of the flesh.

 

It is my understanding that Adam was the first man - this means that the individual Adam that existed according to scripture about 6,000 years ago was the first physical human specimen that was a recipient of a spirit entity that was a literal spiritual offspring of the Father.  It seem possible to me that Adam and Eve were also physical offspring of human like creatures that were 100% physically identical to Adam and Eve but were not recipients of a spirit entity that was a spirit being that was a literal spiritual offspring of the Father.  I am not teaching this as doctrine because I do not know nor do I have evidence to support this speculation.  I only give this as a speculative possibility to demonstrate that we do not have enough in scripture or empirical evidence to make this conclusion one way or the other.

 

The one point of doctrine to which I have no mitigation deals with the introduction of death for all the creatures on earth.  We are told that death initially came into this world because of the fall of man (Adam and Eve).   Obviously there are remains of creatures that died on this earth even millions of years prior to the advent of the man Adam and the woman Eve.  Though I believe in our Prophets and I believe in our doctrine - I am also honest with myself and I cannot discount the extraordinary preponderance of evidence that death has always been a factor of life since life was established by the creation of life as part of the creation of this planet.  I am unaware of any empirical evidence that there was ever a plant or creature on this planet that was genetically predisposed to live indefinitely.  Since all things from G-d have more than one witness by the very law of G-d himself - I do not know any way to resolve this paradox - yet.  Therefore I cannot say I can give my witness or belief for that which I cannot resolve - therefore I hold to a faith that someday we will have enough explained to understand - but I sure do not see any possibility even at any current horizon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe G-d does one thing and leaves empirical evidence of something very different.  .

 

You mean like the empirical evidence against the veracity of the Book of Mormon? The Book of Abraham? That Joseph Smith was a fraud? Maybe that's was all allegory too.

 

therefore I hold to a faith that someday we will have enough explained to understand.

 

Which is the only sensible response to these things for someone who is a believer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like the empirical evidence against the veracity of the Book of Mormon? The Book of Abraham? That Joseph Smith was a fraud? Maybe that's was all allegory too.

Be honest, there is no empirical evidence against the Book of Mormon, only a list of *haven't found that's* which is actually very slowly, kind of being checked off. Even the BofA stuff isn't comparable to what we know of the history of our Earth and what is written in our holy books of the history of the earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be honest, there is no empirical evidence against the Book of Mormon, only a list of *haven't found that's* which is actually very slowly, kind of being checked off. Even the BofA stuff isn't comparable to what we know of the history of our Earth and what is written in our holy books of the history of the earth.

 

Try arguing that with someone who believes the BOM an obvious fraud. :)

 

I'm not going to go research it out and provide a list of evidences against the BOM...for obvious reasons.

 

Regardless, my point is, there will always be empirical evidence (usually highly interpreted evidence, but the arrogance of man means general unwillingness to admit such) against God and truth. We live by faith in spite of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Traveler. There isn't any to link to. Empirical evidence is something you get by observation or experimentation. The closest we have to an attempt at that is an incredibly flawed DNA analysis.

I'm not really sure what you can point to, but more importantly you seem to be implying that we are simply calling anything that can't be easily explained or doesn't make sense to us a story, and that isn't the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share