It may well be that given current exegetical method we are unable to
decisively interpret the text's intention. But that is not the end of
the story. The Reformers made much of the principle that "Scripture
interprets Scripture." If an interpretation of Gn 1-3 is possible given
exegetical constraints, but is contradicted by other passages of Scripture,
that would seem to rule it out. If we ask "What are the minimum
historical facts that we can discern from Gn 1-3?" we would certainly
affirm that God created all that there is, for example. And I think we
would also have to affirm that the doctrine of the Fall and original sin
must entail that Adam and Eve were historical persons. Now whether these
persons were the product of special creative acts of God, or were simply
two advanced hominids to whom God chose to reveal himself in a unique and
special way, we may be unable to decide. (I prefer the former, but can't
give a copmpelling argument.) But to say "Adam" and "Eve" were simply
symbols of an evolving humanity which failed to take their evolving moral
consciousness seriously seems to vitiate Paul's detailed argument in Romans.
Garry