Adam then Eve

[wayseer]

Sure I do and we can talk about anything in either lineage that you care to converse about. But for now you are dodging the question. At what point does metaphor end and literalism begin? According to the Nicene Creed Matthew list 2 literal names and 15 verses of metaphor. Is that what you want me to notice?

Matthew does not mention Adam in the genealogy. So where does that leave your argument? If you are going to rely of certain sections of texts then you have to allow others to have the same perogative.

So, Yes, where does one apply one criteria of interpretation to one body of text and apply another criteria to another body of text?

Good question. What is your solution?

My solution was that I enrolled in university and studied theology. I am no scholar but at least I have a better idea of what I am doing.

 

[Yah1]

I cant' help you there. Jesus said many times - there are those who in listening do not hear and in looking do not see.

Uhh well i'm listening to what you have to say, and i am seeing the posts with my eyes so...

 

[westtexas]

Matthew does not mention Adam in the genealogy. So where does that leave your argument? If you are going to rely of certain sections of texts then you have to allow others to have the same perogative.

So, Yes, where does one apply one criteria of interpretation to one body of text and apply another criteria to another body of text?

Good question. What is your solution?

My solution was that I enrolled in university and studied theology. I am no scholar but at least I have a better idea of what I am doing.

They both support my view and leave yours to (metaphor?). I believe both lineages to be literal. There is NOTHING contradictory in either. Both tie together beautifully. They leave your view though with much to explain which you have not done thus far. You don't believe either lineage? They aren't listed in the Nicene Creed-right? Maybe Matthew's is literal because it does not go all the way back to Adam? Use a little of that seminary teaching and help me out. Where does metaphor end and literalism begin?

 

[wayseer]

Where does metaphor end and literalism begin?

Exactly - which is my question to you. How do you determine if you are dealing with metaphor or allegory or symbol or literal fact?

 

[westtexas]

Exactly - which is my question to you. How do you determine if you are dealing with metaphor or allegory or symbol or literal fact?

You're playing games now. Can't explain your theology? I've already stated I believe from Adam to Jesus is literal. All of it. The whole lineage (even Genesis). You have stated you believe Adam is metaphorical-Jesus is literal. So at what point does this lineage go from metaphorical to literal? You've got a chance to explain your seminary learned theology.
Curious as to which school you studied theology at.

 

[wayseer]

You're playing games now.

If you only think I am playing games then I am wasting my time here.

Can't explain your theology?

Apart from writing a theological paper and given the confines of this thread I've done my best.

I've already stated I believe from Adam to Jesus is literal.

That is your choice. But as I have illustrated if you are going to stick with a literal interpretation then you have to account for the anomolies - like the absence of Adam from Matthew's geneaology - obviously he did not include Adam for some reason.

You have stated you believe Adam is metaphorical-Jesus is literal. So at what point does this lineage go from metaphorical to literal? You've got a chance to explain your seminary learned theology.

Where would you like me to begin?

Let's start with the reason Matthew wrote his version of events one way and Luke wrote his versions of events another way. Why the difference - and - why the similarities? Both were addressing their respective communities which were undergoing change - change at different levels and to different degrees. Matthew was addressing those who were of Jewish background while Luke, writing some time later was addressing largely gentile converts.

So what Matthew says needs to be read through Jewish eyes - what was important for Jews. And in this respect Moses and Egypt loom large in Matthews narrative. In fact, Matthew has Jesus and family traveling back and forth to Egypt which is not accounted in the other gospels. Maybe Jesus went to Egypt but maybe Matthew is trying to tell his audience something about the connecting between escaping from Egypt and escaping from judgement.

Luke had other agendas running - like the pre-emenience of Peter.

But don't take what I say - do you own research and read a little wider. You might like reading through Mark L.Strauss Four Portraits: One Jesus - a survey of Jesus and the Gospels - it a good solid start point. Just as four painters paint a portrait of the one person - there the same; but different.

Curious as to which school you studied theology at.

St Francis Anglican Theological College.

 

[reba]

One summer mid 70s the opportunity to set in a bible study under a saved rabbi came up. His subject was Genesis, He taught Genesis as real happening, as in literal. I would say not all Jewish scholars would agree with the teaching of Genesis being mythical, or metaphor type story.

 

[wayseer]

One summer mid 70s the opportunity to set in a bible study under a saved rabbi came up. His subject was Genesis, He taught Genesis as real happening, as in literal. I would say not all Jewish scholars would agree with the teaching of Genesis being mythical, or metaphor type story.

Indeed. But I think you need more than one scholar. But the point is not about numbers - it's about how each one of us deals with the text. If you have a methodology then you need to stick with that process. Admittedly, sticking with a literal interpretation saves time and effort but hardly deals with the thorny issues that the texts thrown up with some consistency. Was the parable of the Prodigal Son really factual? Did the story of the vineyard tenants really happen? How is it explained that the final words of Jesus differs in each Gospel? These are uncomfortable questions and there is no easy answers at hand.

I think the main issue people have with even thinking that things might be different to what they have accepted is that any change of position will effect one's faith. If parts of the texts are not literally true am I really saved? If Adam may not have existed then perhaps Jesus did not exist in which case my faith goes up in smoke. I can understand the problem.

I happen to think that the way to deal with these questions is to embrace the journey to find out rather than settling for second best and always looking over your sholder and wondering. From my own experience the story of God's revelation is incredible and beats anything I heard from the pulpit - except in a relatively few cases. Most of those preaching the word fail to understand the real depth of what they are saying and much of the time their words are little more than jingoistic jargon and sounds more like through repetition they are trying to convince themselves that God is really real.

It's a journey - it's an adventure. Don't miss it.

 

[stovebolts]

Your'e catching on - they are stories. Harry Potter, Stars Wars along with the creation story are not fact.



Have they something to contribute?

This might come as a shock - ready - most Jews are secular. You will inevitably find the few who, like some Christians, believe the story rather than focusing on the revelation.

No.

Next question.

So lets see here. You put the creation story on par with human imagination.... Outstanding. And that most Jews are secular have nothing to do with Orthodox Jews. Most Catholics use birth control... Yet the Catholic Church teaches against birth control. Your point is mute.

You know, I just cringe when somebody runs in and says that the creation story is not fact. Why? Because when you look at the creation story as a textbook with axioms and maxims, one completely misses the point.

So the story of creation in Genesis is deeper than what most Christians have been told. If we read it as 'order' out of 'chaos', as does Judaism, rather than 'something' out of 'nothing' - very Western perspective - we get a clearer picture of what is being said.

A good starting point is the Jewish Study Bible. This is a comprehensive study (over 2000 pages) of the Jewish Bible - the Tanakh. And just to make a quote concerning Genesis, 'The theology must be inferred from stories, and the lived relationship with God must take precedence over abstract theology' (P 8).

Or better yet if you want to really dig into it from a Jewish Perspective, grab the Torah commentary from Ramban.
http://www.amazon.com/Ramban-Nachmanides-Commentary-Torah-Vol/dp/1932443045

Ramban is about as Jewish as it gets... So we see that the idea of "something out of nothing" is far from a western idea.

Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the verse in its simplicity. The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word bara (created). Everything that exists under the sun or above was not made from non-existence at the outset. Instead He brought forth from total and absolute nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having the power of potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary matter created by G-d; it is called by the Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyly, He did not create anything, but he formed and made things with it, and from this hyly He brought everything into existence and clothed the forms and put them into a finished condition.

Know that the heavens and all that is in them consists of one substance, and the earth and everythign this is in it consists of one substance. The Holy One, blessed be He, created these two substances from nothing; they alone were created, and everything else was constructed from them.

This substance, which the Greeks called hyly, is called in the sacred language tohu, the word being derived from the expression of the Sages: “betohei (when the wicked bethinks himself) of his doings in the past.” If a person wants to decide a name for it [this primordial matter], he may bethink himself, change his mind and call it by another name since it has taken on no form to which the name should be attached. The form which this substance finally takes on is called in the sacred language bohu, which is a composite word made up of the two words bo hu (in it there is [substance]). This may be compared to the verse, Thou art not able 'asohu' (to perform it, Exodus 18:18) in which case the word asohu is missing a vav and an aleph [and I is a composite of the two words] aso hu. It is this which Scripture says, And he shall stretch over it the line of 'tohu' (confusion) and the stones of 'bohu.' (Isaiah 34:11) [The tohu in Hebrew or the hyly in Greek] is the line by which the craftsman delineates the plan of his structure and that which he hopes to make. This is derived from the expression, Kavei (Hope) unto G-d (Psalms 27:14). The stones are forms in the building. Similarly it is written, They are acconted by Him as nought and 'tohu,' (Isaiah 40:17) as tohu comes after nothingness and there is nothing yet in it.

So the Rabbis have also said in Sefer Yetzirah: “He created substance from tohu, and made that which was nothing something.”

They have furthermore said in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah: “Rabbi Berachyah said: “What is the meaning of the verse, And the earth was 'tohu' (without form) 'vavohu' (and void)? What is the meaning of the word “was?” It had already been tohu. And what is tohu? It is a thing which astonishes people. It was then turned into bohu. And what is bohu? It is a thing which has substance, as it is written, [bohu is a composite of the two words] “bo hu” (in it there is subtance)

 

[stovebolts]

It is accepted that the creation 'myth' in the biblical account is somewhat similar to two other 'creation myths' that were circulating at the time - Gilgamesh and Enuma Elish. Admittedly there are significant differences. It was a time, something like 2000 years BC, that humans were struggling with the concept of the 'order' and 'chaos'.

I am very familiar with these writing as well as other ANE (Ancient Near Eastern) texts. You should pick your self up a copy by Pritchard.
http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Easte...63&sr=1-1&keywords=ancient+near+eastern+texts

You'll find many interesting stories and not just gilgamesh that paralell Biblical stories. You'll even find a story from Egypt that closely parallels the biblical story of Joseph, so does this mean that the Biblical story of Joseph is simply an imaginative story as you've categorized creation? One could argue quiet effectively that the story of Joseph was taken from this Egyptian story and that the Biblical story of Joseph is pure myth. How would you counter that?

 

[reba]

The fact that the Gospels are slightly different gives them a higher sense of credibility then if they were identical. We can all watch the same story unfold yet relate to it a bit differently. Also repeat it back with the same core of truth from different eyes, minds and hearts.

 

[wayseer]

So lets see here. You put the creation story on par with human imagination.... Outstanding. And that most Jews are secular have nothing to do with Orthodox Jews. Most Catholics use birth control... Yet the Catholic Church teaches against birth control. Your point is mute.

I have not put the creation story on 'par' with anything. Perhaps it is you with the fertile imagination.

 

[wayseer]

I am very familiar with these writing as well as other ANE (Ancient Near Eastern) texts. You should pick your self up a copy by Pritchard.
http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Easte...63&sr=1-1&keywords=ancient+near+eastern+texts

You'll find many interesting stories and not just gilgamesh that paralell Biblical stories. You'll even find a story from Egypt that closely parallels the biblical story of Joseph, so does this mean that the Biblical story of Joseph is simply an imaginative story as you've categorized creation? One could argue quiet effectively that the story of Joseph was taken from this Egyptian story and that the Biblical story of Joseph is pure myth. How would you counter that?

I would counter it by saying that scholars have considered this in the intervening millennia - others are still playing catch-up.

If you want to stick with your literal interpretation - go for it. Just don't expect everyone to cheer you on.

 

[wayseer]

The fact that the Gospels are slightly different gives them a higher sense of credibility then if they were identical. We can all watch the same story unfold yet relate to it a bit differently. Also repeat it back with the same core of truth from different eyes, minds and hearts.

Good response and one that has some merit.

It is not that fact that they are 'different' that is the problem. It is the fact that they are different at critical and significant moments - like the words spoken by Jesus on the cross. This would seem such a singular moment that one would think that the evidence would strongly corroborate.

 

[rrowell]

Good response and one that has some merit.

It is not that fact that they are 'different' that is the problem. It is the fact that they are different at critical and significant moments - like the words spoken by Jesus on the cross. This would seem such a singular moment that one would think that the evidence would strongly corroborate.

Is there a reason to not think all accounts happened? remember who is actually speaking:

John 14:24-26 (KJV)
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

 

[elijah23]

God created all the other species with a female counterpart right from the outset.

What is the significance of the fact that He created Eve last of all?

I see no significance in it. Someone had to be first, someone had to be last.

 

[BornAgain]

I see no significance in it. Someone had to be first, someone had to be last.

There is much significance and many great posts on this thread why man was created first....and in the Bible.

 

[smaller]

Adam was both a literal person and a figurative person in many ways.

Jesus Himself is no different.

It always brings difficulties if some say whatever events transpired in the biblical narrative were not literal events or literal people.

I can not say that any given event was not literal. But to say they were literal also entails the extent of which they were literal. We know for a certainty that the literal Adam/Eve was also a type or analogy of all of us.

In the priority of understanding, literal takes a back seat to the interpretive/allegorical/type methodology.

The biblical/historical narrative may not fall along the same lines as any given interpreter of historical fact.

Archeologists and Biblical scholars of every sort have entirely discounted the historical literal events. Not saying I agree with that view, but many have landed there.

There are many items of the historical/literal that some early church fathers saw differently. Irenaeus for example taught that Jesus ministered for up to 15 years past His Baptism, to as late as 45 years of age as compared to the commonly taught 3.5 years.

Historical/literal interpretation is filled with just as many contradictions via whatever historical filters are applied as the literal/allegorical side of the matters.

Were any of the characters literal? Of course. All of them were so. I believe that is why the Gospel accounts of Matt. and Luke start early with the genealogy narratives, but even in those narratives they are certainly NOT rote historical factual elements and they vary, quite dramatically and for certain intentions.

Here for example is Matthew's account of this figure:

Jechonias begat Salathiel

and here is Luke's account:

Salathiel, which was the son of Neri

How one tries to dissect these matters gets interesting. Obviously when there are such diversions one has to move off of purely literal intention as might be commonly perceived. And many other 'literal' but one or two steps off the stated literal are required. Usually when there are such diversions, they are placed there by Divine Intent, and such avenues can lead to many interesting conclusions. Depends on the 'methodology' employed.

s

 

[BornAgain]

I heard a sermon yesterday about "The Two Adams" and was thinking about starting a thread on it. I need to do some more research on it first but it is scriptural and very interesting.

 

[for_his_glory]

Genesis 1:
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

As the animals had help mates God saw that Adam also needed one and formed his helpmate from Adams rib making both equal as God made both of them to be as one flesh and not one greater than the other as Adam called her women as she was bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh seeing she was one of his own equal to himself. There job was to take care of the garden and to replenish the Earth.