Science is great, but... How about we discuss some scripture?!

[Melethiel]

Christ is reigning now, and will reign forevermore.

 

[Deamiter]

Maybe Jesus is just symbolic of a flower that grows best on a nice grave. It reigns over the grass. Its metaphorical.

I can't believe this thread.

Hey, when people start claiming that heaven will have a particular form of government based on descriptions of God based on human governments... then you know people are reading into scripture.

 

[hithesh]

I had never heard of him or this book until yesterday when I had a rare opportunity to browse through a bookstore and noticed it. I was tempted to buy it, but didn't. Maybe I will next time I see it.

We know that historically, the church became more mysogynist with time, forcing women out of leadership roles they had in the early centuries, choosing translations and interpretations that obscured the importance of women in the apostolic church. Rechristening the female apostle, Junia, whom Paul mentions in Romans, Junias, to make her look male, for example. Or translating "presbyterai" as "older women" rather than "female elders" when every use of the masculine form is translated "elder" with the context showing that it is an office of the church, not age per se, that is being referenced.

Ehrman goes over this as well, in his book. You should check it out, it's quite well written, and researched, and it received a lot of attention when it first came out.

The interesting thing to note, Ehrman was once a believer in the inerrancy of scripture, but his work as a Biblical scholar, led him to see that this position was false, he lost his faith as a result, and considers himself now an agnostic.

But he has been fair towards Christianity through out, he even went on to debunk the Da Vinci code. The book "Misquoting Jesus" is perhaps one of his better works, where he notes the various interpolations through out the manuscripts, and explains the historical positions of the time, that led to many of them.

One interesting one that he had pointed out, is that in the earliest manuscripts, Mark 6:2-3, refer to Jesus as the Son of a carpenter, and not a carpenter himself.

Ehrman uses history to argue that "Jesus was a carpenter", and that the manuscript was changed, because of critics of christianity, that mocked the idea of a carpenter savior. I guess the position seemed too lowly for a figure who is said to be a "King"

 

[cory533]

One interesting one that he had pointed out, is that in the earliest manuscripts, Mark 6:2-3, refer to Jesus as the Son of a carpenter, and not a carpenter himself.

Ehrman uses history to argue that "Jesus was a carpenter", and that the manuscript was changed, because of critics of christianity, that mocked the idea of a carpenter savior. I guess the position seemed too lowly for a figure who is said to be a "King"

Or perhaps it is assumed by the tradition of the time Jesus would have taken his father's trade and or when he left His fathers trade to become a teacher or Rabi that he was no longer working as a carpenter.
Sometimes the answers are just that simple.

 

[hithesh]

Or perhaps it is assumed by the tradition of the time Jesus would have taken his father's trade and or when he left His fathers trade to become a teacher or Rabi that he was no longer working as a carpenter.
Sometimes the answers are just that simple.

Well, it could possibly be.

But there was actually a response in I believe in the writings of Origen, in which he responds to one of the detractors that Jesus is was not carpenter.

It's more than possible that a scribe would have altered the text, as they often did, to suit a Jesus that was not a carpenter, to ward off any carpenter savior criticisms.

But regardless, I was just mentioning another persons interpretation of why the difference in manuscripts concerning Mark 6.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't get it. the early church is supposed to have been ashamed of Jesus being a carpenter so they changed the earlier manuscripts that said 'son of a carpenter' to ones that say he was a carpenter?

Apart from the fact that there is no more royal glory being either a carpenter or son of a carpenter, it is a very easy scribal error to mix up a passage in Mark 'the carpenter' which you are copying, with the wording from Matthew 'carpenter's son' you might be more familiar with. It's Hanlon's razor again: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[busterdog]

Christ is reigning now, and will reign forevermore.

I appreciate your affirmation. Obviously, your recognition is essential. Perhaps it is somewhat less essential than a particular interpretation of the following:

Psa 132:11 The LORD hath sworn [in] truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.
Isa 9:7 Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
Isa 16:5 And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness.

At least for the time being, maybe we can have latitude to argue the point.

However, the concept of an earthly throne of Jesus will be more essential at another time. God is certainly on his throne in heaven. If Jesus is on an earthly throne now, its not so's you'd notice.

Regardless, this concept is rather above our particular likes and dislikes. I am just astounded at the lack of caution with which it is approached.

 

[Assyrian]

I am sure we will all bow the knee on that day and throw down our pet interpretations in the dust, no matter what form his throne takes. But seriously Busterdog, surely it is the Pre Mid and Post Trib Futurists that make up the bulk of YEC who throw caution to the wind in utterly dogmatic declarations of what is going to happen?

 

[busterdog]

I am sure we will all bow the knee on that day and throw down our pet interpretations in the dust, no matter what form his throne takes. But seriously Busterdog, surely it is the Pre Mid and Post Trib Futurists that make up the bulk of YEC who throw caution to the wind in utterly dogmatic declarations of what is going to happen?

Respectfully, I don't think you all are quite reading what I am writing.

In fact, I think if I were to declare that all of you are nonchristians because you embrace replacement theology (re: Israel) and refuse pre-mil. and pre-trib rapturism, I will have made your day. (And assuming this crowd believes any of these things would also apparently help make the case that others want to make against my rather narrow proposition on literalism.)

I don't understand why it is so hard to distinguish between the foregoing and my very clear statements that amny are confidently chucking surface text apparently without reservation and without well reasoned positions. Its the confidence the blows me away, not the conclusions I disagree with.

The BIble is "just a book" -- said with such confidence. Incredible.

St. Paul is very clear in what he says. From the beginning of the thread, we had stuff like "Adam means man" as supposedly being suffcient reason to reject what was said. That proves nada. Its not even based upon scholarship. Its just one arguable minority position on what Adam means to Paul. If someone wants to chuck St. Paul over because he is not modern in his views. Go ahead. But don't pretend the text supports you in the least.

The idea of "in the beginning" as in when they were made "male and female" is probably debatable. But, I am saying that. No one else. The TEs apparently worry not in the slightest about what Jesus thought about "in the beginning", but rather, are confident.

Is there to be a monarchy? That is a rather general view of the future. It is entirely less detailed and dogmatic that apparently my detractors would like.

Apparently some of us agree upon the idea of heaven. First of all, I don't know how anyone can come to the conclusion that there is a heaven without a measure of literalism. But, since Jesus isn't much of an authority on what "in the beginning" means, how could he have a grip on "Abraham's bosom"?

Apparently heaven must be in the surface text somewhere, because there is no proof that even exists, outside of the Bible. And where in the Bible would that be? Perhaps somewhere near the concept of kingship on earth. Now, as a fairly broad concept, might we also wonder whether kingship on earth is even possible and pause over that possibility rather than taking a shot at Tim Lehaye, which certainly wasn't relevant to anything I suggested.

So where does "heaven" come from. Why even accept that small measure of literalism? I doubt a case can be made that does not conflict with a TE view of things noted in the OP.

Of if you do, why the extreme reaction to a kingship of God on earth, in its most general, but literal, sense?

 

[mark kennedy]

Adam was the name Adam and Eve were called by but only because they became one, it's still a common practice for the Bride to take the Grooms name. In the Old Testament often the descendants of certain people became the name of those people like Israel was Jacob's new name given at Bethal.

Adam can mean mankind but we would not be called by his name if not for the fact that we all descended from him.

 

[busterdog]

Adam was the name Adam and Eve were called by but only because they became one, it's still a common practice for the Bride to take the Grooms name. In the Old Testament often the descendants of certain people became the name of those people like Israel was Jacob's new name given at Bethal.

Adam can mean mankind but we would be called by his name if not for the fact that we all descended from him.

Exactly. And in Greek, as in the texts referenced by the OP, man is "anthropos." In the NT, "Adam" is transliterated and used as a proper name, as is Seth, which was the point of Fury's post, but he was disproportionately resisted in his rather clear and simple observation.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Tell me, why would the order of Adam and Eve being made have anything to do with the relationship of a man and his wife today or even 2000 years ago? If it is a case of who was born first then my wife is a year older than I am. Paul is not talking about the logical consequence of a literal Adam and Eve but the allegorical meaning of Adam and Eve as an illustration of God's plan for marriage.

Why is it that you insist that because Adam and Eve illustrate God's plan for marriage they aren't real? That is one thing that bugs me about all of this. Many TEs are taking the right symbolic meaning of the scriptures and then saying because they are symbolic they aren't real and factual also. Why?

Why do YECs always seem to leave out the next verse?
1Tim 2:15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Salvation though childbirth? Hazard free maternity? No, Paul is still looking at his allegorical exegesis of the Genesis story. Eve was deceived, and because she stood for women in the story, Paul was worried about newly converted Pagan women assuming positions of leadership and authority over their own husbands. But Genesis is it not all bad news for women. It is through Eve, through women, that God promised the Saviour.

That phrase "saved through childbearing" can also be translated "saved by the birth of the Child." You even mention it in your last sentence. TEs always seem to ask, "Does it matter if it wasn't real or these people didn't exist?" I'll ask the same question. Does it matter if they were real? Does it take away from the message?

Paul didn't realise the serpent was actually Satan? He must have. Rom 16:20 And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Look at the context. 2Cor 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Paul is comparing one allegorical marriage, the church as the virgin bride of Christ to another more ancient allegorical marriage, the story of Adam and Eve and the allegorical serpent.

But remember, Paul told us about his approach in Romans 5:14. He saw Adam as a figure of Christ: Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. We should not be surprised if the same allegorical comparison of Adam and Christ comes up elsewhere in his epistles.

I agree to everything you said except for the implications you are making.

Isn't Christ a real and factual person, yet still symbolic? The Lion, the Lamb, the Bridegroom (sounds like a C.S. Lewis book). Why can't Adam and Eve be the same way?

 

[mark kennedy]

Exactly. And in Greek, as in the texts referenced by the OP, man is "anthropos." In the NT, "Adam" is transliterated and used as a proper name, as is Seth, which was the point of Fury's post, but he was disproportionately resisted in his rather clear and simple observation.

The word for Adam is Ἀδάμ in Romans 5:14 but in verse 13 it's men is ἄνθρωπος. It's straight forward enough and Paul never entertained the idea of a figurative Adam, there is nothing in the OT or the NT to suggest any such thing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Deamiter]

Why is it that you insist that because Adam and Eve illustrate God's plan for marriage they aren't real? That is one thing that bugs me about all of this. Many TEs are taking the right symbolic meaning of the scriptures and then saying because they are symbolic they aren't real and factual also. Why?

I've never seen a TE claim that because Adam is symbolic, he is not historical. The fact that he may not be historical for the text to have the same meaning is the primary argument. In fact, I've met precious few TEs who dogmatically claim that Adam did not exist -- usually they may have an opinion and they will argue that it is not necessary, but I've seen few TEs argue that Adam could not (or even did not) exist.

That phrase "saved through childbearing" can also be translated "saved by the birth of the Child." You even mention it in your last sentence. TEs always seem to ask, "Does it matter if it wasn't real or these people didn't exist?" I'll ask the same question. Does it matter if they were real? Does it take away from the message?

Does it matter? I suppose it might if you're obsessed with historical details but the Bible wasn't and I certainly am not. Does it take away from the message? Not one bit.

I agree to everything you said except for the implications you are making.

Isn't Christ a real and factual person, yet still symbolic? The Lion, the Lamb, the Bridegroom (sounds like a C.S. Lewis book). Why can't Adam and Eve be the same way?

Perhaps they are! However, when you start to argue that they MUST be the same way and use that to contradict what we can see in God's creation (namely that the earth is a bit older than 6000 years) then you're making equally erronious assumptions.

 

[Assyrian]

Respectfully, I don't think you all are quite reading what I am writing.

In fact, I think if I were to declare that all of you are nonchristians because you embrace replacement theology (re: Israel) and refuse pre-mil. and pre-trib rapturism, I will have made your day. (And assuming this crowd believes any of these things would also apparently help make the case that others want to make against my rather narrow proposition on literalism.)

I don't understand why it is so hard to distinguish between the foregoing and my very clear statements that amny are confidently chucking surface text apparently without reservation and without well reasoned positions. Its the confidence the blows me away, not the conclusions I disagree with.

The BIble is "just a book" -- said with such confidence. Incredible.

St. Paul is very clear in what he says. From the beginning of the thread, we had stuff like "Adam means man" as supposedly being suffcient reason to reject what was said. That proves nada. Its not even based upon scholarship. Its just one arguable minority position on what Adam means to Paul. If someone wants to chuck St. Paul over because he is not modern in his views. Go ahead. But don't pretend the text supports you in the least.

The idea of "in the beginning" as in when they were made "male and female" is probably debatable. But, I am saying that. No one else. The TEs apparently worry not in the slightest about what Jesus thought about "in the beginning", but rather, are confident.

Is there to be a monarchy? That is a rather general view of the future. It is entirely less detailed and dogmatic that apparently my detractors would like.

Apparently some of us agree upon the idea of heaven. First of all, I don't know how anyone can come to the conclusion that there is a heaven without a measure of literalism. But, since Jesus isn't much of an authority on what "in the beginning" means, how could he have a grip on "Abraham's bosom"?

Apparently heaven must be in the surface text somewhere, because there is no proof that even exists, outside of the Bible. And where in the Bible would that be? Perhaps somewhere near the concept of kingship on earth. Now, as a fairly broad concept, might we also wonder whether kingship on earth is even possible and pause over that possibility rather than taking a shot at Tim Lehaye, which certainly wasn't relevant to anything I suggested.

So where does "heaven" come from. Why even accept that small measure of literalism? I doubt a case can be made that does not conflict with a TE view of things noted in the OP.

Of if you do, why the extreme reaction to a kingship of God on earth, in its most general, but literal, sense?

Given that heaven in English, Greek and Hebrew comes from words that mean 'sky' or 'clouds', we cannot talk about heaven without speaking in metaphor, however long the metaphorical meaning has taken root as its main inference. We only know and understand the world we see around us, anything beyond that we know through a mirror darkly from metaphor and symbol and parable. It does not mean heaven isn't real. But the description are not literal. Personally I do not understand the millennium and what Christ's rule on earth is all about. I can understand you frustration with our a-mil brothers and sisters here, but it is mild compared to dogmatism of preTribs claims I have come across.

Why is TE confidence that Genesis days are not meant literally so horrifying in you eyes. What about the YEC confidence that of course they are supposed to be literal? Is everything in the bible literal? Doesn't Moses himself, who told us about the creation days, not also tell us he didn't take God's view of a day literally?

TEs are confident about what Jesus says about 'in the beginning' because the text simply does not give the six day creation proof text YECs claim. Jesus wasn't even talking about the creation of the world, he was talking about marriage. You should be much more disturbed by the proof texts YECs throw up all the time that simply do not say what they claim. 'Jesus taught a global flood he said as it was in the days of Noah'. It mentions nothing about the flood being global, of course TEs can be confident this is bad exegesis.

 

[Assyrian]

St. Paul is very clear in what he says. From the beginning of the thread, we had stuff like "Adam means man" as supposedly being suffcient reason to reject what was said. That proves nada. Its not even based upon scholarship. Its just one arguable minority position on what Adam means to Paul. If someone wants to chuck St. Paul over because he is not modern in his views. Go ahead. But don't pretend the text supports you in the least.

It is hardly 'chucking Paul' to try to understand what he is saying. It would be much better to address the stuff we said, and there is a lot of it, rather than take one phrase and claim it is insufficient.

Adam was the name Adam and Eve were called by but only because they became one, it's still a common practice for the Bride to take the Grooms name. In the Old Testament often the descendants of certain people became the name of those people like Israel was Jacob's new name given at Bethal.

Isn't it slightly anachronistic to read our practice of wives taking the the husband's name and claiming it went on back then? Without evidence anyway?

The fact is, in the story Eve got a name from being 'one flesh' with Adam. he called her Ishshah, Woman. Genesis tells us Adam was God's name for the human race, but you simply don't want to believe it. Genesis explains Adam and you really should listen to what it says.

Adam can mean mankind but we would not be called by his name if not for the fact that we all descended from him.

No. Even in the story of the garden Adam is more often called ha'adam 'the man' than he is called by the name Adam. In other words the meaning of the word adam existed at the time of the story. Adam was hardly called the man because he was descended from the first Adam. Adam was named after the word for mankind not the other way around

Exactly. And in Greek, as in the texts referenced by the OP, man is "anthropos." In the NT, "Adam" is transliterated and used as a proper name, as is Seth, which was the point of Fury's post, but he was disproportionately resisted in his rather clear and simple observation.

In 1Cor 15 Paul uses anthropos and Adam interchangeably. Of the two references to Adam in the OP quotes, 1Cor 11 calls him 'man' aner while 1 Tim 2 uses Adam. But generally references to Adam in the NT need to use the transliterated name rather than a translation or we would miss the point.

 

[Assyrian]

Why is it that you insist that because Adam and Eve illustrate God's plan for marriage they aren't real? That is one thing that bugs me about all of this. Many TEs are taking the right symbolic meaning of the scriptures and then saying because they are symbolic they aren't real and factual also. Why?

I don't insist any such thing. What I am saying is that you can't quote a passage where Paul is using the story of Adam and Eve allegorically and use it as evidence the story was literal.

The problem is I don't know any passages I can confidently say are literal. Paul was very fond of the old allegory

That phrase "saved through childbearing" can also be translated "saved by the birth of the Child." You even mention it in your last sentence.

'The birth of the Child' is a bit of a cumbersome translation, it is a single word in Greek and equivalent to 'childbirth'. And why is it only the women Paul says will be saved through the birth of this child? No Paul is talking about the promise to Eve here.

TEs always seem to ask, "Does it matter if it wasn't real or these people didn't exist?" I'll ask the same question. Does it matter if they were real? Does it take away from the message?

No, It doesn't matter if Adam and Eve were real or not. Many TEs take them as literal figures. I just don't see the evidence when there is so much in the garden story that is figurative and so many of the references to them in the NT are clearly allegorical (clearly to me anyway).

I agree to everything you said except for the implications you are making.

Isn't Christ a real and factual person, yet still symbolic? The Lion, the Lamb, the Bridegroom (sounds like a C.S. Lewis book).

Why can't Adam and Eve be the same way?

I would say Adam is more on the lines of the Bride, a whole lot of people summed up in one symbolic character.

 

[Assyrian]

The word for Adam is Ἀδάμ in Romans 5:14 but in verse 13 it's men is ἄνθρωπος. It's straight forward enough and Paul never entertained the idea of a figurative Adam, there is nothing in the OT or the NT to suggest any such thing.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him who was to come. Paul certainly didn't have a problem treating Adam figuratively.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Alright, I have a question, and it's mainly directed towards Deamiter because he brought up the subject, but I think other TEs might be able to answer also.

If you believe that Adam was a real person, as you say most of you do, and yet believe that most of the ages were given sacred numbers rather than real ages, how do you see Adam as the first human? With all these records of man's writing dated back to much much farther back. Is Adam the first human that God gave a soul? If he's real, but not the first human, why is he credited as such? Do the genealogies have holes in them?

I guess what I don't see is how Adam could be the first human (what makes him the first?), and if he is the first, how is he older than most historic texts and wall paintings and other things that have been dated past just the genealogies. Plus even the genealogies should be much shorter if you assume they're all closer to 70 years old. Where does Adam fit into the human time line?

I know this is kinda jumbled and not formulated as neatly as it could, but I just don't see the pieces fitting into the puzzle and I don't even know the right questions to ask. I'm just gonna stop.

 

[shernren]

Many TEs are taking the right symbolic meaning of the scriptures and then saying because they are symbolic they aren't real and factual also. Why?

I would word it slightly differently: since they are symbolic, they need not be historically factual also. (The word "real" can be quite ambiguous: there are many fictional stories which are very real to me because they heavily influence my personality and character, and I am surely not the only person with such experiences.) The historicity of a character cannot be determined from a use of him/her as an allegory or analogy.

For example, suppose I say "Mother Teresa was a Good Samaritan". It may be that Mother Teresa was historical or symbolic, and it may be that the Good Samaritan was historical or symbolic. My statement would make a lot of sense with either of those choices. But why is it that when you read my statement you immediately think of Mother Teresa as a historically factual figure, and the Good Samaritan as a fictional analogue? After all, nothing in my statement demands such an interpretation. But you know from outside my statement that Mother Teresa is a historically factual figure while the Good Samaritan is not. In the same way, since as you noted TEs have the correct symbolic meanings of these passages, it is up to information from outside these passages to determine whether or not the characters were historically factual or not.

I don't understand why it is so hard to distinguish between the foregoing and my very clear statements that many are confidently chucking surface text apparently without reservation and without well reasoned positions. Its the confidence the blows me away, not the conclusions I disagree with.

The Bible is "just a book" -- said with such confidence. Incredible.

I recommend to you the difficult, but humbling, exercise of believing that people who disagree with you actually have brains in their heads and use them frequently. It is as difficult for me as it is for you, but at least I don't brag about the difficulty of the endeavor.

Over the past two or three weeks there have been three threads (if not more) on what Scripture actually means when the emphasis on literalism is removed:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5216210-of-redemptive-history.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t520...is-not-meant-literally-what-does-it-mean.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t5177272-what-do-6-days-really-mean.html

I think it should be fairly obvious that it is difficult to disagree on the figurative interpretations of a text no matter how one treats the historicity and literality of the figures used. Christians may disagree with you on how God created the universe but never that God is the Creator.

I make no apologies for knowing firmly where I stand. These propositions, opinions, and facts have been wrestled into place over long nights, intense discussions, and simple prayers, and don't think it surprising that my opinions are not shaken easily. Are you admitting that there is no way you can change our minds?

Is there to be a monarchy? That is a rather general view of the future. It is entirely less detailed and dogmatic that apparently my detractors would like.

Apparently some of us agree upon the idea of heaven. First of all, I don't know how anyone can come to the conclusion that there is a heaven without a measure of literalism. But, since Jesus isn't much of an authority on what "in the beginning" means, how could he have a grip on "Abraham's bosom"?

But of course the question about monarchy was an absolutely inappropriate tangent in the first place. It had absolutely nothing to do with the post I made which you (or laptoppop - I can't remember) replied to. And Jesus referred to Abraham's bosom only in the context of the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Will you consider us heretics if we think that Lazarus (of the parable) and Dives were not historically factual either?