Welcome to Gaia! ::

As an Inerrantist, I have often been told that I am teetering on the brink of apostate heresy because I refuse to accept a literalist interpretation of the scriptures. However, I wish people to understand that not only are the inerrantist and literalist positions not irrevocably tied together, but that they are in fact utterly contradictory to one another.

The first thing one must understand is that it possible for the story of Adam and Eve to be a metaphor. In fact, not only is it possibly metaphorical, but in point of fact it is necessarily metaphorical - else God is a liar, the Bible is false and Christianity as a whole becomes little more than a broken structure built on an errant foundation.

To begin with, let us take the verse most often used by Christians to argue for a literal interpretation of Genesis:



Creationists often use verse 12 to argue that Genesis must be a literal accounting of God's creation of the universe, because otherwise Christ's death on the cross was in vain. They argue that if there was death in the world prior to the Fall of Man, then Romans 5:12 is a lie and the basis for man's essential need for regeneration through Christ's sacrifice is unecessary.

The problem with that is that a literal reading of Genesis requires us to take God's words to Adam literally:



And yet Adam and Eve did not die in the day they ate of the fruit. At least, not physically. And therein lies the key - a literal reading of the scriptures requires God to either be a liar in Romans, or a liar in Genesis.
On the other hand, approaching Genesis as metaphor allows us to see that the death of man that God speaks of in both Romans and Genesis is not a physical death, but a spiritual one. That when a man disobeys God, he sins. And when he sins, he dies spiritually.

After all, didn't Jesus Christ himself use rebirth as an analogy for regenerative faith? (John 3:1-7) And Paul claims in Romans 6 that we are dead to sin and reborn through Christ. Neither Paul nor Jesus was speaking of literal life and death here - they are speaking in metaphors.

To attempt to force a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story onto scripture is to ignore the historical use of metaphorical structure throughout the Judeo-Christian scriptures as well as forcing God into a box devised by human minds.
Such small-minded thinking does not do God or the Scriptures the justice they deserve.

The story of Genesis is actually a myth that is explaining realities in life. There isn't literally an Adam and Eve, but there is a first man and woman. We cannot say that there is only a couple that gave birth to different kinds of nationalities, but a couple for each. (However, the ecolution theory may be applied to explain that one couple can satisfy the event of how differently we look today).

Dude, spiritual death is a literal death in God's eyes. If one dies spiritually or is dead spiritually, they are dead in God's eyes. That's why Jesus died on the cross: so creation could be ressurrected.

Also, the introduction of sin in the world introduced the "life has stopped" death. Nothing would have died until sin came into the world. After they ate from the tree, they died spiritually, and were sentenced to eventually die physically.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time.

In fact, it's such common practice that I don't see how you can use it as an argument against anything without ripping away the basis for your own argument.

Psst. Don't make claims you can't objectively back up.

You can't counter the claim "some dead guys figured it out" (which isn't all that smart anyways) with "OMG NO THE BIBLE SAYS NOT!!!".

You know, if you actually understood the implications that my point had, then I doubt you'd agree with it so readily.