You know what I find as annoying and disingenuous as fuck? When modernist Christians try to have their cake and eat it too in regard to wanting to believe in science, history, and the Bible all at the same time, and so will believe in evolution and act like it doesn’t have any bearing on the validity of the Bible. They simply say that the story of Adam and Eve is to be taken allegorically and that the story of the eating of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge isn’t necessary to be true in order for Christianity to be true. Meanwhile, according to St. Paul, Christ had to be sacrificed to save the world from the sin that "entered the world through ONE man" (Romans 5:12). "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). So if the story of Eden didn’t actually happen, then there is no need for the sacrifice of Christ. Furthermore, as in that quote from 1 Corinthians 15, Paul (or rather the actual writer of the First Timothy epistle) speaks elsewhere of Adam and Eve as if they're real, historical figures:
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." - 1 Timothy 2:11-15
What a nasty, misogynistic book the Bible is, eh? (And where the hell does the writer of First Timothy get off saying that it wasn't Adam who was deceived. It's pretty clear from Genesis 3:6 that, since both ate the forbidden fruit, BOTH of them were in fact deceived.) And they don’t only play this cherry-picking game with the story of creation and the fall of man. They conveniently play it throughout the Old Testament, for example with the story of Noah and the flood, and the talking, burning bush, and the splitting of the Red Sea by Moses, etc., etc. It’s mainly Catholics whom I’ve encountered using this form of apologetics, though I know Methodists, Anglicans and other denominations do as well. It's bizarre, though, because, again, Paul speaks of Moses like he was an actual historical person who once existed, for example when he says:
"Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come." - Romans 5:14
However, they don’t do this apologetical tap dance with the New Testament, and that’s what really gets to me. Because if they’re going to take the OT stories as mere allegories and symbolisms, then, to be logically consistent, they would have to do that with the virgin birth, Crucifixion and Resurrection as well. In fact, Genesis 1:1 - “In the beginning God” - would also have to be taken symbolically, which would ironically make the Holy Bible an atheistic book! In fact, why don’t they do the opposite? Why not claim that it’s the NT that’s purely allegorical symbolism and the OT that’s completely literal, hmmmmmmmmmm??
