Of redemptive history

[shernren]

I'm not sure what you want. I consider the entirety of Scripture to be our redemptive history. I don't see how the method of how/why I came to such a conclusion has any bearing on answering the OP's question.

But if the entire Scripture is redemptive history we come back to the question of how it is redemptive history. Parables are in Scripture. How are they redemptive history? Did the younger son actually tell his father to give him his inheritance, and did he actually squander it in a foreign land, repent, and return, and was he actually forgiven by his father and rejected by his older brother? According to creationists and evolutionists, no, it did not happen that way, it isn't real - so it's not redemptive history?

"It did not happen that way" =/= "It isn't real".

 

[Assyrian]

Please define for me this 'Redemptive history' of which you speak.

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21

Does this include seven headed monsters?

 

[gluadys]

Now you are just playing a semantics game.

Semantics is serioius business when we are being careful about the meanings of words and concepts. It is only a game when we are playing around with words that mean essentially the same thing. For example, it is a semantic game to argue about whether a medicine "killed the patient" or "contributed to the patient's death".

But when necessary distinctions need to be made, when we need different names for different things, semantics--the study of meaning--is just the prescription we are looking for.

Did God actually form the first human right out of the ground? According to evolutionists, no. Whether you want to call it an event, an account, a widget, or whatever, it did not happen that way, it isn't real.

It did not happen literally in that way. However, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. So it is real.

(The semantics here centre on what is the meaning of "real".)

Did God actually remove Adam's rib and fashion it into Eve? According to evolutionists, no, it did not happen that way, it isn't real.

What does it mean that Eve was formed of Adam's rib? Does rejecting the description of Eve's creation as literal require rejecting the reality of her creation or the real meaning of the image? No, it doesn't. So, it is real.

Did a serpent actually seduce Eve into actually eating an actual fruit from an actual tree as the first actual act of actual human disobedience; leading to the first actual appearance of actual hardship/suffering/death that had not previously actually existed on earth? According to evolutionists, no, it did not happen that way, it isn't real.

Even most creationists don't think the serpent was really a serpent. Does that make the story not real? If the serpent can be a symbol that "really means" Satan, why cannot the tree and the fruit also be symbols that "really mean" temptation? Why can the eating of the fruit not be a symbol that "really means" sin--whatever the actual details of the first sin?

No, it did not actually happen as described, because the description is couched in symbolic language, but, nevertheless, it is real.

For TEs, whatever the mode of description, the event is real and relevant. The event occurred and is relevant to our redemption. So it is part of redemption history and we do not deny that.

 

[HypnoToad]

But if the entire Scripture is redemptive history we come back to the question of how it is redemptive history. Parables are in Scripture. How are they redemptive history? Did the younger son actually tell his father to give him his inheritance, and did he actually squander it in a foreign land, repent, and return, and was he actually forgiven by his father and rejected by his older brother? According to creationists and evolutionists, no, it did not happen that way, it isn't real - so it's not redemptive history?

"It did not happen that way" =/= "It isn't real".

Nope, don't agree with your logic there at all.

Nowhere did I say that "not real" equates to "not part of redemptive history".

The parables are part of redemptive history, and they aren't real, they are fictional stories. Your equation doesn't work.

 

[HypnoToad]

Does this include seven headed monsters?

Yes, everything in John's revelation is part of our redemptive history.

The fact that some of it hasn't happened yet does not contradict my statement. God said it's going to happen, His word can not be broken, so it may as well already be considered historical fact. And the fact that some of it is imagery doesn't contradict my statement, as shown in my last post.

I, personally, though, wouldn't have chosen to belittle it with Godzilla posters, but that's just me.

 

[HypnoToad]

Does rejecting the description of Eve's creation as literal require rejecting the reality of her creation or the real meaning of the image?

You've just proven my point.

You just stated that one can reject the literal description and still accept the "real meaning". Therefore, the "literal description" must necessarily not be the "real meaning". Which mean they aren't real, according to evolutionists.

 

[Deamiter]

Yes, everything in John's revelation is part of our redemptive history.

The fact that some of it hasn't happened yet does not contradict my statement. God said it's going to happen, His word can not be broken, so it may as well already be considered historical fact. And the fact that some of it is imagery doesn't contradict my statement, as shown in my last post.

I, personally, though, wouldn't have chosen to belittle it with Godzilla posters, but that's just me.

And if no seven-headed monster ever comes in the end times? Does that make the meaning of the passage less real? Perhaps the monster is never real, but if one does not ignore the symbolic meaning of the monster, then they are fully accepting the reality of it's symbolic place in redemptive history.

You're playing rather silly symantic games yourself if you argue that the literal existance of a symbolic figure has any bearing on the reality of the concept, event or object the figure symbolizes!

My understanding of redemptive history revolves around the idea that every human (besides the obvious exception) has sinned. Since we all reject God in some way, we are all in need of salvation. I do not need salvation because of another man's sin, but because of my own. The point is that the reality that the story of the fall symbolizes is no less real, and no less a part of what you call "redemptive history" because it is not a historical account!

In each of these cases, that the details never happened does not in any way detract from the reality of the teaching that these details are meant to convey. Of course, if you define reality as only what has happened, then you automatically remove all sorts of things from reality, like love or compassion or beauty -- concepts that cannot be defined solely in terms of historical existance.

 

[HypnoToad]

And if no seven-headed monster ever comes in the end times? Does that make the meaning of the passage less real?

Apples and oranges.

Once again, "meaning" is not the point.

Jesus' parables have a "real" meaning, the parables themselves, are not real, they are fiction.

Just baffling as to why people are intent on confusing these ideas over and over.

 

[Mallon]

Just baffling as to why people are intent on confusing these ideas over and over.

It's always frustrating when the rest of the world is nuts and you're the only one who knows what you're talking about.

 

[busterdog]

And if no seven-headed monster ever comes in the end times? Does that make the meaning of the passage less real? Perhaps the monster is never real, but if one does not ignore the symbolic meaning of the monster, then they are fully accepting the reality of it's symbolic place in redemptive history.

You're playing rather silly symantic games yourself if you argue that the literal existance of a symbolic figure has any bearing on the reality of the concept, event or object the figure symbolizes!

My understanding of redemptive history revolves around the idea that every human (besides the obvious exception) has sinned. Since we all reject God in some way, we are all in need of salvation. I do not need salvation because of another man's sin, but because of my own. The point is that the reality that the story of the fall symbolizes is no less real, and no less a part of what you call "redemptive history" because it is not a historical account!

In each of these cases, that the details never happened does not in any way detract from the reality of the teaching that these details are meant to convey. Of course, if you define reality as only what has happened, then you automatically remove all sorts of things from reality, like love or compassion or beauty -- concepts that cannot be defined solely in terms of historical existance.

The references in Daniel are helpful, I think:

Dan 7:6
After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
Dan 7:7
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it [was] diverse from all the beasts that [were] before it; and it had ten horns.
It is clear from the context that these things are neither figures of expression nor are they simple representations of tyranny in general. They are not literal animals but there is deadly seriousness regarding the realities that these things are to represent.

There is some content in these figures. The four heads would appear to represent the divided Greek empire following the death of Alexander. Other theories exist. But it would appear the animals are intended to represent specific bodies politic.

As for the generality of these "metaphors", there is a ruthless "law of the jungle" that is the result of the fall and sin. It is particularly evident in tyranny. Part of redemptive history is to put that to rights as well.

 

[gluadys]

You've just proven my point.

You just stated that one can reject the literal description and still accept the "real meaning". Therefore, the "literal description" must necessarily not be the "real meaning". Which mean they aren't real, according to evolutionists.

What does the "they" refer to in your final sentence? What is it that is not "real". Is it the event of creation? Is it the meaning of Eve being created from Adam's rib? Or is it the description of Eve being created from Adam's rib?

If the description is not real, does it follow that the first two (event and meaning) are not real?

 

[shernren]

Apples and oranges.

Once again, "meaning" is not the point.

Jesus' parables have a "real" meaning, the parables themselves, are not real, they are fiction.

Just baffling as to why people are intent on confusing these ideas over and over.

Genesis 1-11 has a "real" meaning, the stories themselves are "not real" (which is really an overly strong judgment, considering how real stories often are). We do not reject the redemptive history behind the stories, but take the historicity of the stories themselves with a grain of salt - just as you do not reject the truth behind the parables but treat the parables themselves as fiction.

Simple analogy here.

 

[laptoppop]

So by what basis do you judge that 1-11 are myth, but 12+ are historical? Did Lot's wife become a pillar of salt? Did Abraham live to 175? What about the exodus and the miracles of Egypt? It is a slippery slope when we put ourselves as judge over Scripture and take it on ourselves to determine what really happened and what did not. Fortunately the physical evidence we have is consistent with a straightforward reading of Scripture. We can read as a child, with accepting faith, and be totally right. Yes, there are depths and messages and wonderful meanings -- they are not *just* true stories, they also contain wisdom for us in many ways, and show how God has worked in real ways throughout history.

There's nothing in the text to indicate a break between myth and history. Rather, specific details, such as ages and times when offspring are born are given to establish a reality - a true history. To say the spiritual message is true but the details are false is to apply a modern dichotomy to the text.

The Hebrew people were a unique people. Over and over God established specific particulars, and had them commemorate them with altars, wells, piles of rocks, festivals, etc. The message to the kids was - See? God did this. It really happened. God specifically did not want the Hebrew people to be corrupted by other people mixing history with mythology.

The legends around them which are similar to Scripture are corrupted versions of the Scriptural true histories. For example, around the globe there are literally hundreds of flood stories, many of which agree in various details with the Scriptural account.

 

[Deamiter]

So by what basis do you judge that 1-11 are myth, but 12+ are historical? Did Lot's wife become a pillar of salt? Did Abraham live to 175? What about the exodus and the miracles of Egypt? It is a slippery slope when we put ourselves as judge over Scripture and take it on ourselves to determine what really happened and what did not. Fortunately the physical evidence we have is consistent with a straightforward reading of Scripture. We can read as a child, with accepting faith, and be totally right. Yes, there are depths and messages and wonderful meanings -- they are not *just* true stories, they also contain wisdom for us in many ways, and show how God has worked in real ways throughout history.

There's nothing in the text to indicate a break between myth and history. Rather, specific details, such as ages and times when offspring are born are given to establish a reality - a true history. To say the spiritual message is true but the details are false is to apply a modern dichotomy to the text.

You might be interested to realize that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. If we take the passages that talk about the sun moving around the Earth figuratively, would that not lead to a similar slippery slope? Where should one stop?!?

You've correctly identified a false dichotemy, but you've missed another inaccurate application of our modernist point of view onto the Genesis texts. Quite simply it is nonsense to ask where Genesis is historical and where it is mythological. The cultures in the ancient near east didn't make such a distinction, and I recently went over how the Egyptian and Assyrian empires would inflate ages with deep meaning.

Quite frankly I find it confusing that you claim a TE interpretation here is judging scriptures more than any other interpretation. You've done precisely the same thing in picking different bits of scripture and interpreting them in different ways. Every single verse in the Bible must be interpreted, and it's a rather dishonest ploy to claim that taking Genesis 1 as historical is any less "judging scripture" than concluding that it is primarily mythological. The only reason you resist a mythological component to Genesis is that you are using a modernist lens that insists that literal history is somehow more true or more accurate than mythology. None of the cultures existing at the time of the writing of Genesis thought such a thing!

The Hebrew people were a unique people. Over and over God established specific particulars, and had them commemorate them with altars, wells, piles of rocks, festivals, etc. The message to the kids was - See? God did this. It really happened. God specifically did not want the Hebrew people to be corrupted by other people mixing history with mythology.

Do you have one shred of evidence for this? Certainly, many monuments were left to attest to the power of God, but is there ANY evidence that God would consider expression of his inspiration through mythology somehow corrupted as compared to a modernist newspaper-type history? Did Jesus teach with history only as you claim God finds non-historical accounts to be corrupted?

Here you are making claims that are utterly unsupported in your attempts to defend your interpretation of scripture.

The legends around them which are similar to Scripture are corrupted versions of the Scriptural true histories. For example, around the globe there are literally hundreds of flood stories, many of which agree in various details with the Scriptural account.

It is fascinating that so many cultures that center around sources of fresh water would have flood stories. What is perhaps even more amazing is the nomadic cultures in Asia and Africa that are not based around flooding sources of water do not have flood stories. Floods are certainly an important part of many cultures, but not all cultures, and it's a bit conspicuous that cultures that did not regularly encounter floods don't have any accounts of some global flood!

 

[laptoppop]

You might be interested to realize that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. If we take the passages that talk about the sun moving around the Earth figuratively, would that not lead to a similar slippery slope? Where should one stop?!?

Good try - but you still have not said why chapters 1-11 should be treated differently than text *immediately* following.

You've correctly identified a false dichotemy, but you've missed another inaccurate application of our modernist point of view onto the Genesis texts. Quite simply it is nonsense to ask where Genesis is historical and where it is mythological. The cultures in the ancient near east didn't make such a distinction, and I recently went over how the Egyptian and Assyrian empires would inflate ages with deep meaning.

You are ignoring the way that the Hebrew culture was unique in the ANE. There was a huge difference. They worshipped a single true, real God, who interacted directly in history. Yes, they had some corruption from outside cultures -- but that's what it was, corruption, and God warned them about it, etc.

Quite frankly I find it confusing that you claim a TE interpretation here is judging scriptures more than any other interpretation. You've done precisely the same thing in picking different bits of scripture and interpreting them in different ways. Every single verse in the Bible must be interpreted, and it's a rather dishonest ploy to claim that taking Genesis 1 as historical is any less "judging scripture" than concluding that it is primarily mythological. The only reason you resist a mythological component to Genesis is that you are using a modernist lens that insists that literal history is somehow more true or more accurate than mythology. None of the cultures existing at the time of the writing of Genesis thought such a thing!

Except the Hebrew culture. Their faith was based on reality, not mythology.

Do you have one shred of evidence for this? Certainly, many monuments were left to attest to the power of God, but is there ANY evidence that God would consider expression of his inspiration through mythology somehow corrupted as compared to a modernist newspaper-type history? Did Jesus teach with history only as you claim God finds non-historical accounts to be corrupted?

Here you are making claims that are utterly unsupported in your attempts to defend your interpretation of scripture.

Read the Scriptures! Time after time after time the acts of God and communication with God was memorialized and remembered. The actual, true acts of a real God.

The Lord called His people out to be a special people, seperated unto Him, different than the surrounding cultures.

It is fascinating that so many cultures that center around sources of fresh water would have flood stories. What is perhaps even more amazing is the nomadic cultures in Asia and Africa that are not based around flooding sources of water do not have flood stories. Floods are certainly an important part of many cultures, but not all cultures, and it's a bit conspicuous that cultures that did not regularly encounter floods don't have any accounts of some global flood!

I don't have time right now to go through the 400+ flood legends to confirm what you are saying, but to put it mildly I doubt it. Also, the point is not that "all" cultures have a flood legend, but that it is a common part of history *worldwide*.

 

[Deamiter]

There are many ways in which the Hebrew culture was unique, but it's utterly baseless to say that recording an ultra-accurate history as we value today was one of those ways. Nothing in the Bible even hints that historical narrative is to be valued above true myths. Quite the opposite, when the prophets and even Jesus himself sought to teach about spiritual matters, they turned to symbolism and imagery just as we find in Genesis 1-11.

Genesis 1-11 should not be treated qualitatively differently than those passages immediately following. Throughout Genesis there is clear influence by the type of accounts found in Assyria and Egypt and nowhere is there the slightest suggestion that (as an example) using sacred numbers to honor one's ancestors by recording these numbers as their ages is somehow corrupt or less accurate. In the ANE, it was actually considered MORE accurate as it said something worthwhile about the ancestor rather than just recording a meaningless age.

As the Bible progresses, the accounts are less and less influenced by the oral telling and retelling, but there is no chopping point beyond which everything is history and before which everything is true myth. That you'd look for such a chopping point suggests that you don't understand the values of the culture in which these accounts were written.

 

[laptoppop]

I was responding to the "chopping point" from the previous post. I don't see any chopping point. I see a unique, called out people of a real God acting in history in real ways.

 

[shernren]

The Hebrew people were a unique people. Over and over God established specific particulars, and had them commemorate them with altars, wells, piles of rocks, festivals, etc. The message to the kids was - See? God did this. It really happened. God specifically did not want the Hebrew people to be corrupted by other people mixing history with mythology.

Actually, there's a pretty interesting way to divide them, for who do Jews trace their national history back to? Back to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. They can locate Jacob's well, or Beer Lahai Roi, or Beersheba. Abraham is mentioned 40+ times in the Old Testament outside of Genesis.

Adam is mentioned exactly twice by comparison: once at the very start of 1 Chronicles, and once in Hosea (where it might even refer to the place Adam rather than the man/Man). And who knows where the Garden of Eden or the Tower of Babel or Noah's Ark is?

 

[gluadys]

So by what basis do you judge that 1-11 are myth, but 12+ are historical?

I hate to say it, given the bad reputation it seems to have among certain supporters of literalism, but the basis is extra-biblical evidence.

No, we cannot establish from archeology that Abraham ever lived. But beginning with Abraham, the OT is replete with names of places we can identify, with kings and peoples whose existence we can confirm (including the Habiru), and with references to laws and customs for which we have documentary evidence.

So it is much more probable that Abraham was indeed a historical personage than people from the earlier chapters of Genesis who are not tied to identifiable places and times.

Did Lot's wife become a pillar of salt? Did Abraham live to 175? What about the exodus and the miracles of Egypt?

The likelihood that we are dealing with historical personages does not imply that every story told about them is history.

There's nothing in the text to indicate a break between myth and history.

Why would there be in a culture which did not distinguish between myth and history?

The Hebrew people were a unique people. Over and over God established specific particulars, and had them commemorate them with altars, wells, piles of rocks, festivals, etc. The message to the kids was - See? God did this. It really happened. God specifically did not want the Hebrew people to be corrupted by other people mixing history with mythology.

How does this make them unique? Other peoples also set up commemorative objects. Does that make their legends history?

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, everything in John's revelation is part of our redemptive history.

The fact that some of it hasn't happened yet does not contradict my statement. God said it's going to happen, His word can not be broken, so it may as well already be considered historical fact. And the fact that some of it is imagery doesn't contradict my statement, as shown in my last post.

I, personally, though, wouldn't have chosen to belittle it with Godzilla posters, but that's just me.

I thought the three headed Ghidorah particularly appropriate. The poster was also a good illustration for not taking Revelation monsters literally.

Can you explain again why Revelation figures can have a real, but non literal, meaning and still be part of redemptive history, but that could not possibly apply to the figures in Genesis 2&3? Especially when the seven headed dragon in Revelation is specifically identified as the Serpent in Genesis?

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.