Paula

TS,

While it is common knowledge that Hebrew poetry uses repetition, the parallels are within a few lines– certainly not between entire chapters (even considering that the chapter divisions came much later, the point is that what we call ch. 1 is not a parallel of ch. 2, not even structurally).

And above all, the method of expression is still not the genre. Facts in sequence are being conveyed; that they are done so with style does not make them allegories. It would be like the difference between “Both good and bad things were happening” and “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”. Genesis 1 is expressing, one way or another, a sequence of events, and Genesis 2, while not violating the sequence, pauses to give additional details of some events.

So regardless of terminology or style, the fact remains that the creation account is not a made-up story, parable, allegory, or vision, but history. No one in the NT, including Jesus, gave any hint that Gen. 1 and 2 was not a historical record. Even the 10 Commandments refer to it as the basis for the Sabbath, which would be quite meaningless had it been allegorical. And of course with Jesus being the “last Adam”, and sin coming through Adam alone, it all evaporates into meaninglessness if Adam is a mere allegory. And if Adam is historical, then so is creation week; they are both found in the same passage.

That’s my whole point in all this: both Adam and creation week are in the same passages of scripture, so if one is allegory then so is the other. No one has ever come up with an explanation as to how only some parts of the account are fiction and some are history.