Therefore, the story of the creation of Man was not passed down from the first generation but must have been deduced much later. It was then pounded and sifted under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, formed into beautiful poetry so it could hold up, written down and then passed along..fairly recently.
The error we make is thinking that a literal/mechanical reading is the "Strong Reading" and that the poetic reading is the "Weak Reading".
Marc1152, I did read your posts. I admit I forgot for a moment that you did not deny a historical Adam but your posts are confusing to me in that you sound too much like a literary critic and I'm not quite used to that discourse. Anyway, upon rereading and second thought, I do think what you are saying in the above quote makes sense and is an idea worth considering. However, for some reason the Bible emphasizes the genealogical lineage from Adam to Noah to Abraham, Moses, David (etc) to Jesus. This poses a problem to me since it is repeated throughout the Bible.
I previously asked, what of the Prophet Enoch? He is said to have been the seventh from Adam. The Apostles believed in his existence as the author of Hebrews refers to him, as does Jude. With regard to Noah, he is also referred to by Christ in the gospels. Apparently, though they lived thousands of years ago, they are held to have been real people. Given the genealogies in the Bible, it seems rather problematic to me that Adam all of a sudden might have been a hominid or several hominids which God endowed with a soul. At what point in evolution were they endowed with morality, for instance?
Anyway, aren't we trying to appease modern science too much and trying to live up to modern standards by questioning Adam's historicity? Genealogies are not allegories, are they? St. Paul even bases teachings on the account of man's creation (e.g. gender roles), and speaks of Adam and Eve as distinct individuals. However, if I understand you correctly, you wouuld be argue that the Genesis account developed into what we know to provide a basis for that divine law and order, without the Genesis having occurred literally as written (e.g. Eve being taken from Adam's rib) but nonetheless revealing basic truths? There are still other details in the Genesis account that are problematic though, for instance that animals and man alike supposedly did not consume meat.
Frankly, I don't claim to know how everything came to be. I am rather troubled by the seemingly contradictory geological data on the one hand and the biblical accounts on the other, yet who am I to say either are wrong? I don't believe in a young earth, but with regard to man's origins and the beginning of mankind, I cannot say I'm satisfied by what science has to offer, and I prefer to stay on safe ground and take Genesis' word for it, while acknowledging that the text is not meant to be a scientific report, but not necessarily unhistorical for that reason either. (c.f. Noahs's Flood did occur, but the "world" probably referred to a particular region and that doesn't mean the Bible is lying when it says the "world" was flooded). With regard to eye witness accounts, however, those about Jesus are contested, too, and I don't think we need to evaluate biblical accounts based on whether there were eye witnesses? I see the bible as a divine revelation above anything else.
When it comes to my views of creation, as I tried to explain before, I tend to think that Adam was the first "human being" in the fullest sense of the word, in that he was created in the image and likeness of God. Perhaps the Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus and others are our biological ancestors, but since evolution cannot produce souls, they were only man-like and never truly "human". Therefore the first true man must have been "created" supernaturally and endowed with free will, etc. as per Genesis account. Either that means he was a new creature entirely or that evolution was used to bring about the physical characteristics and the spiritual provided by God's intervention ("breath of life"). Supposing that Adam and Eve were immortal before the Fall, they might have lived for centuries in Eden. However, like I said before, this is pure speculation.
Enough said for now.