Salvaging(Saving) the Story of  Adam and Eve(Genesis chapters 2-3)

Fundies think the story has to be true    
Because it's in the Bible,    
The Word of God.    
"Your Word is truth,"    
Jesus said(John 17.17).    
But Christ was referring to the word    
He was bringing, not the Law of Moses.    
   
There is a distinction between    
the Law and the Gospel.    
For we read that, "The Law was given by Moses    
But TRUTH..came by Jesus Christ"(John 1.17).    
     
If the 5 books written by Moses,    
Called "the Law of Moses,"    
Were, all of it, the truth,      
Then truth came by Moses!    
But we read that,    
"TRUTH..came by..Christ."    
So, according to the Gospel of John,    
The truthfulness of the Law is SUSPECT!!    
     
Anyway, the Fundies uphold Adam and Eve.    
While the other side(made up of scientists,etc)    
Denies every bit of the story.    
I'm here to take the middle ground.    
     
The Adam and Eve story does contain      
the "shadow" of the truth.    
For we read that, "The Law [of Moses]    
has a SHADOW of good things to come"(Colossians 2.17),    
   
The "good things to come" would include    
The true account of Creation    
(And also the literal account      
Of "the Fall of Man".)    
     
Also, we read that, "The Law [of Moses]        
Is the SHADOW of things to come,      
But the Body of Christ"(Hebrews 10.1).      
This means that it will be during      
The time of the Church,    
"the Body of Christ,"(Ephesians 1.22-23)    
That the truth about Creation,  
(Among other things)    
As opposed to "the shadow,"    
Will be discovered.    
     
Since "the Law of Moses" refers      
to the first 5 books of the Bible,    
And Genesis is the first of those books,    
Genesis is part of "the Law."    
And since Adam and Eve and "the Fall of Man"    
Show up in Genesis, chapters 2 and 3,    
Their story is only "a shadow" of the truth,    
NOT the truth itself.    
     
What part of the Adam and Eve story    
Can be saved, held onto,    
And which part is to be "put away"?  
(For we read that,  
"When I was a child..    
I thought like a child..  
But when I became a man,  
I put away childish things"(1 Corinthians 13.11).  
    
Adam and Eve are presented      
as the first man and woman(Genesis 2).    
That part has to be put away.    
For the genealogical record given    
In the Law of Moses  
Says Adam was created only recently.  
Whereas science says modern man goes back  
Something like 200,000 years.  
   
The genealogy from Adam to Terah    
Adds up to 2,000 years(Genesis 5 and 11).    
This brings us to Abram/Abraham(Genesis 12).    
His time can be pinpointed to about 2,000 years BC.    
If we go back 2,000 years before 2,000 BC,    
This brings us to 4,000 BC as the time of Adam.    
So Adam was created,supposedly, around 6000 years ago.    
   
That doesn't square with the historical record.    
Science has found that mankind arose    
Around 200,000 years, in Africa.    
Not in the Middle East, like Genesis 2 says.    
     
But Adam was also the first farmer,      
"tilling the ground"(Genesis 3.23),  
In the area of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers(Gen.2.14).    
THIS IS THE PART THAT NEEDS TO BE HELD ONTO!!    
For Archeology tells us that  
the Agricultural Revolution    
occurred in the Middle East,    
the region between the rivers,    
The Euphrates and the Tigris rivers.    
Agriculture began in Mesopotamia    
(which translates as "between the rivers") -    
Everybody knows that much!!    
This is common knowledge!!  
   
So the Bible has the start of agriculture    
right where Archeology says agriculture began!    
The only trouble is that science says it began    
Around 10,000 to 12,000 years ago,    
Rather than just 6,000 years ago.    
   
To sum up,    
Adam - if we are going to demythologize him -  
represents man at the dawn of civilization.    
(That's what the Agricultural Revolution was.)    
Rather than man at the beginning of Creation.    
   
Why is this distinction important?    
Because "the Fall of Man"    
Is part of the story of Adam and Eve.  
And placing that Fall, NOT at the Beginning,  
But at the start of civilization    
Makes perfect sense!    
   
Do you recall that old saying,  
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?  
Isn't it most likely that mankind's Fall into sin  
Came after humanity gained a little knowledge?  
In other words, when man became civilized.  
(Rather than BEFORE civilization began).  
 
Before civilization brought knowledge,  
mankind was in its infancy.    
 
Like a child, before a certain age,  
is innocent of personal sin,    
So too, mankind was relatively INNOCENT    
before agriculture brought civilization  
(and the knowledge that came with it).  
   
Before agriculture, people lived nomadically,  
As hunter-gatherers,ie, fruit pickers.  
(The fruit-picker part agrees with    
the Garden of Eden depicted in Genesis 2.)  
There were no towns or cities.  
They came only after early mankind  
Became tied to the land via  
Tilling the soil.  
 
After farmers started storing grain in storehouses,  
It's only natural that the people who were still nomads,  
Would band together to break into those houses  
To steal those stock piles, those riches.    
Thus,the origin of WARFARE can be directly tied to what?  
The Agricultural Revolution!  
 
In the 1700s there grew up the cult of "the Noble Savage"    
As Rouseau put it.
He claimed that if man is corrupted
by the evils present in society,
Mankind was better off in the pre-civilized state,
Society in its childhood, you could say.
"When ignorance is bliss,
It is folly to be wise(civilized)".

My point is that Rouseau is basically
agreeing with Genesis, chapters 2 and 3.