Again referring to this article by Emadi, he says, and i agree, that one of the non-negotiables about the interpretation of Genesis that give integrity to the balance of the Christian faith where God’s atonement is strung through the entire OT and fulfilled in Jesus dying on a cross to absorb Gods wrath for our redemption is this statement:
“Points 5 to 7 all deal with the historicity of Adam and Eve. In short, I’m positing that while evangelicals may charitably disagree on the chronology of [Genesis 1], the historicity should never be up for discussion. The record of God specially creating his own image, giving him dominion, bringing him a spouse, and then exiling that couple from his presence upon their rebellion must be an accurate account of real, historical events. Without the special creation of humanity as God’s image-bearers (Point 5) we lose our sense of worth and identity, not to mention the foundation of theological anthropology. Without the doctrine of humanity’s shared parentage (Point 6) we lose the notion that every human, regardless of race, ethnicity, or social rank, is a fellow image-bearer ([Acts 17:26])—a brother or sister in the human community. Without the historical fall of Adam (Point 7) we lose the doctrine of original sin and we also lose the most essential building block of biblical theology—the Adam-Christ typology ([Rom. 5:12–21]”
So your acceptance of a non historical, more symbolic view of Adam and Eve is in disagreement with Emadi who suggests it is a non negotiable. Thats fine as you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. On the other hand, you told me that my theological perspective is “bad theology” and this is quite disconcerting.
I am familiar with some of the theological bends in the anglican community and have some very strong disagreements. There have been a number of theologians out of your camp that treat scripture like historical evolution from other religious camps instead of a stand alone revelation from the very God who created the universe. They sound more like my secular colleges new age religion professor that spun a perspective w an attempt to debunk Christianity’s legitimacy and less like another brilliant Christian religion professor of mine who knew 12 languages, scrutinixed Scripture as a Hebrew scholar and concluded it as truly sacred text as from the very mouth and heart of the literal God. His name is Edwin Yamauchi. (That was a long time ago)