The point here is not to give an exhaustive account of the significance of Genesis 1 as the introduction to the Old Testament canon. Rather, I want to illustrate that stories of creation are told in order to help people interpret their place in the cosmic story. For Israel, this means that the creation narratives are told in order to illustrate how the creator God has placed his name on them and chosen them to fulfill his desires for humanity.
via The Historical Adam and the Saving Christ, Part 1: Adam as Israel | The BioLogos Foundation.
Right, and if Genesis 1-3 is not real history, then Israel’s claim about their place in God’s plan is nothing but a lie.
Genesis 1 and 2 came first, Genesis 3 then presented a problem, and God called Israel to fix it. If you start with Israel, and make creation and fall a projection of them, then they are nothing but a lie.
If people want to be honest, then why dance around this point? No Adam, no Israel, no Jesus. Just celebrate your honesty and move on. Is it any wonder that I find Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, and H. L. Mencken more worth reading than liberal Protestantism?
And Paul goes WAY off course in Ac 17.28 saying that Gen 1-3 is historical.
If it isn’t real.
Amen.
That Adam existed as a real person doesn’t require that Gen 1 be read as a 21st century history text.
I’m a bit confused by the Acts reference unless you mean verse 26, which implies simply that Adam existed as a real person. I’m not sure how that’s way off course.
Well, I do read Genesis 1 as “the space of 6 days,” but the website is devoted to making space for gradual macro-evolution resulting in human beings. That is what prompted this post.
Ah. My apologies. I didn’t follow the link and only read the quote. Following the link, you don’t need to read past the 2nd paragraph to see where the author is coming from.
You are right. My mistake.
Jim