Doesn't an 'allegorical' Garden of Eden nullify the need for a Ransom?

by AK - Jeff 52 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AK - Jeff

  I have noted in the past few months or years that Christians, when faced the nearly insurmountable evidence that the Garden of Eden events are improbable if not impossible [I refer to fossil evidence that supports hominid existence on this planet perhaps millions of years ago, as example] to overcome, that the 'fall back' position is often that the Garden of Eden account is just allegory, not literal.

  But it occurs to me that if it is just allegorical, then there is no specific event to mark the 'fall of man' and 'original sin'. Without that, what purpose is served with the idea of a 'ransom' in which 'the last Adam' overcomes the sin of Adam in the garden. Why would NT writers refer to the events as if literal if they are just allegory? Are then Jesus and Paul and others who referred to the GoE liars? Or was the 'son of god' so poorly informed as to the actual events that he just went along with the traditions handed down to his parents?

  Yet there seems little defense for the GoE being literal at all with the amount of evidence contrary to the idea that man has been here only as long as Bible chronology allows.

  I am sure I have not originated this idea, but I cannot recall it being discussed specifically.

  Wouldn't an allegorical Eden void the Ransom? No original sin - no need to make atonement for mankind's fall from favor. To me, this is a can of worms opened by Christians that cannot be effectively argued.

  Discuss away. I am interested in seeing the gymnastics.

  Jeff
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I don't know that you will get satisfactory answers from believers or unbelievers. Believers on JWN haven't generally come around to saying the Garden was allegory and unbelievers dismiss the story.

  I will try for the new future believers in the Bible being the fictional allegorical word of God. Christianity has been saying for millenium that "Jesus died for OUR sins." So, they can add: "We don't need no stinking Garden."
• 

  upnorth

  I don't see why it would make a difference.

  The Bible points to Christ as it's mark of validity not Eden.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  I would be interested in just reading a Christians take on this. I don't wish to debate it per se, but I think Jeff makes a very good point. Simply because Jesus and Paul both referred to original sin.

  If original sin is allegorical, then the value of Jesus sacrifice would thus be allegorical. Yet, we all know the "blood must be shed" aspect of the sacrifice.

  So, if you want to say that the events of the GoE are literal, you have problems.

  If you want to say they are allegorical, you really do call into question the teaching and merits of Jesus sacrifice.

  Interesting....
• 

  mindmelda

  Well, the need for ransoming could well be allegorical too, some basic human need for redemption from guilt, forgiveness that actually only can come first from ourselves and then from others.

  Forgiveness and believing one is forgiven does certainly have some inarguable benefit to a person, although there's no way to prove supernatural benefit.

  There's no proof that humans were every perfect and lost that, either.

  I never try to prove anything supernatural, I just occasionally think I'm experiencing it. The very word means it's outside of the natural observable and therefore, provable realm of things, doesn't it?
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Well, the need for ransoming could well be allegorical too, some basic human need for redemption from guilt, forgiveness that actually only can come first from ourselves and then from others.

  Thats fair enough.

  Forgiveness and believing one is forgiven does certainly have some inarguable benefit to a person, although there's no way to prove supernatural benefit.

  Agreed. A lack of guilt definitely does wonders....

  I never try to prove anything supernatural, I just occasionally think I'm experiencing it. The very word means it's outside of the natural observable and therefore, provable realm of things, doesn't it?

  Thats true. This also puts Jesus sacrifice and Star Trek on an equal level.
• 

  mindmelda

  Hey, don't blaspheme Star Trek! LOL

  Actually, some modern myths have just as much meaning and power as old ones, and Star Trek and Star Wars are good examples.

  I've seen people talk about both of those and the profound messages they contain as though they were real, because the effect it has on them is quite real.

  And, Star Trek inspired a lot of this generations science oriented geeks to make the technology and attitudes of a more just and non-racist (and um, much less capitalist driven society) they envisioned on the series a reality. Sometimes, we make the myth a reality because that is the power of myth, the power of belief. It becomes the basis for the very real things we do and say, for better or worse. And lets face it, people understand the nature of good and evil much better as presented in Star Wars with it's spiritual references to "the light" and "the Dark Side" of "The Force" (much of the behavior of the super honorable Jedi is from the Buddhist inspired Code of Bushido, as Lucas was admittedly inspired by Kurasawa and his samurai movies, even down to the way he costumes the Jedi knights in his movies).

  Don't worry, newer and more relevant myths will eventually replace some of the older ones that are no longer so useful. The Bible has had a good ride, much longer than most mythos, but I think it's time is just about up as a whole. The Gospel may end up being the only part we deem worth keeping in future generations. Even now, many Christians regard it as the only and final "Biblical authority". Tells you something.

  But, come on, the Bronze Age writings of the laws and history of tribal Hebrews as a way to live our lives in every single way now? NO freaking way! Some of it is so basic it's in nearly every culture on earth, such as prohibitions against murder, rape and theft, but the rest...important only if you were a Bronze Age Jew.

  A myth doesn't HAVE to be real to be useful, it only need be able to move people with it's lessons and teachings. One thing I always rather liked about the Greeks, they weren't so invested in their own mythos as reality that they shoved it on others...they themselves realized it was MYTH, at least the more educated Greeks.

  But, yes some of our better cinematographers and writers have been able to come up with some much better and understandable myths than the Bible now, and as you can see, the people who are invested in still pushing Bible myth as reality are pretty threatened by that at times.

  They attack competing myth when they recognize it, why do you think the Fundies (and Witnesses) hate Harry Potter so much? Because it speaks to kids about love, friendship, loyalty, bravery, forgiveness, the power of good to defeat evil and other values they believe can and should only be taught by the Bible.
• 

  doublelife

  Thanks for posting this topic. This is what finally gave me the courage to accept that I'm not a christian. I accepted fast that I was in a cult and didn't have a hard time letting go of jw beliefs. But, it took me several months to let go of christianity even though I had doubts. It was scary for me because I didn't want to oppose God. Once I accepted the garden of eden as allegorical, I naturally realized that there is no original sin and no need for a ransom. The truth has set me free.
• 

  darth frosty

  Thing is you cannot get out of genesis without finding holes in the bible. How can any faith be placed in such a book (or collection of books.)

  Anybody who tries to tie in the old and new testament to have meaning is falling into the classic line spoken at the end of 'the man who shot liberty valence.'

  John stewart in recounting the events confesses that it was not he who shot the man. The newspaper editor who was writing his rendition looks at him takes all of his written notes and crumples them up and throws them in the fire. He than delivers the fatefull line of note:

  'This is the west sir...When the legend becomes fact, PRINT THE LEGEND.'
• 

  Leolaia

  I think first it is important to distinguish the Society's Eden-centered explanation of the "ransom" (such as the "scales" concept of Jesus and Adam as equally perfect beings) from the variety of soteriological concepts in the NT; it is a ransom theory variant that owes somewhat to post-biblical Christian interpretation (such as that found early in Origen and later in the Church and in Protestantism), rather than what is in the NT itself. Among other things, it conflates the various NT views of the meaning of Jesus' death, such as the Pauline focus on justification and reconciliation and the distinct post-Pauline concept of Jesus' death as a ransom (found in Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:6). There is nothing in the "ransom" metaphor, which draws on Roman monetary practices (the price paid to set a slave free), that requires an Eden narrative. Paul has a distinct but similar concept of sin as a slaveholder which releases an individual from obligatory servitude through death (whether the individual's or Jesus', Romans 6). Paul utilizes the received Eden narrative to delineate the starting point of sin and death (cf. Romans 5), but this isn't really necessary to his argument because he approaches sin and the need for justification as a present state affecting all seeking to approach God; it doesn't matter whether or not this state has a starting point, only that the state exists. It is thus noteworthy to explore other approaches to sin and justification in post-exilic Judaism that did not utilize the Eden narrative; in fact, the concept of Genesis 2-3 as relating a "fall" of man arose comparatively late. In other streams of Judaism, sin was attributed to the Watchers (= Enochic Judaism), or had no distinct beginning but always existed as part of the natural order. For instance, Sirach takes the Eden narrative as simply indicating paradigmatically what every person faces, Adam was simply the first; "all flesh" is decreed death but man was given the intelligence (unlike the animals) to follow divine laws (i.e. the Torah) and obtain a higher standing with God. Philo of Alexandria also took an allegorical view of the Eden narrative and interpreted the death referred to therein as pertaining to the immortal soul and not the flesh, which occurs anyway "in the course of nature" (De Specialibus Legibus 1.105-108). Paul argued that the Torah actually enslaved men to sin and that Jesus' death offered a better way for achieving justification through grace (substituting Jesus' death for the death a person would have to undergo to be freed from sin). One could surely question or problematize Paul's logic here, but it is not really dependent on a notion of the "fall".