Although it's easy for liberals to regard the accounts in the Book of Genesis as metaphorical, and even perhaps point to interesting developments from the Sumerian legends, it's interesting to note why Creationists are possibly so desperate to claim a scientific validity for events in the Book of Genesis: We can only be saved if we follow Jesus We need to be saved because we are all born sinners Jesus died to save us from our sins but we must follow him to be saved. We are born sinners because we inherited sin from Adam. Adam brought sin into the world. By this simply line of reasoning, for the Resurrection of Jesus to have any meaning whatsoever, Adam must have had literal existence in the first place. After all, if there was no Adam then there was no literal first sin that the blood of Jesus need wash us with. Or have the Creationists missed the point? Is the death of Jesus and belief in Christ not at all dependent upon a literal Adam? Is the Garden of Eden account a metaphor for a much more profound "fall" story, perhaps even the separation of Man from nature? If so, does that at all affect the way in which the purpose of the Resurrection is interpreted? This thread is dedicated to examining the theological links between Adam and Jesus, and the different perspectives on their required - or not - relationship.