I agree that it works much better metaphorically, primarily because it is written that way; nearly everything in the story is a symbol of some sort, from the people to the props to the actions they take. Taken literally, the story becomes awkward and has too many plot holes to be acceptable as something that actually took place.
But the redemption promise is very specific, and the story is regarded as literal in the NT. Paul explains that Eve was deceived, not Adam. Paul tells us that just as sin was introduced to the world through the actions of one man, redemption would be delivered through the actions of one, er... god-as-man. And so on. It has to be literal, doesn't it? Was Paul drawing the metaphor out even farther, or was he ignorant of the true story? So much for divine inspiration, then.
But the redemption promise is very specific, and the story is regarded as literal in the NT. Paul explains that Eve was deceived, not Adam. Paul tells us that just as sin was introduced to the world through the actions of one man, redemption would be delivered through the actions of one, er... god-as-man. And so on. It has to be literal, doesn't it? Was Paul drawing the metaphor out even farther, or was he ignorant of the true story? So much for divine inspiration, then.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
