Adam

[Job 33:6]

I've expanded my last post. I would just say that "the first man" can absolutely mean completely different things dependent on what book of the Bible your in, just as "my son" can as per the example above.

It's not really about what we believe. It's about how the Bible was written. And there is nothing that either of us can do to change this about the Bible, even if we wanted to. It's a logical issue, not a theological dispute.

@David Lamb if we know that the NT authors often use the same words as in the OT, and if we know that the NT authors often use them in radically different ways that mean different things, and this is a fact about scripture,

Then it's no longer a matter of theology, as to whether or not someone can rightfully correct an old testament understanding by citing the NT that is communicating in a different context.

It's just a plain issue of being out of context.

And beliefs can't force that logic to change. I can't simply "believe" that Hosea 11:1 was about Jesus just because Mathew is talking about Jesus in Mathew 2:15. Because in fact, Hosea isn't about Jesus, it's about Moses.

Beliefs can't change the way the Bible was written.

And likewise, beliefs along cannot make 1 Corinthians reflect the original context of Genesis because of course 1 Corinthians 15 has basically nothing to do with Genesis, rather it's all about the resurrection. Adam is briefly referenced typologically when expounding on Jesus, and that's about it.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

I always find this interesting in that, if the whole of the Bible is 'symbolic', then nothing in the bible really happened.

There are so many people who say the earth wasn't created in 6 days, Jesus didn't really fast for 40 days and nights, the earth wasn't REALLY flooded, it doesn't really have a firmament (or the word doesn't mean what we think it means) because it was all symbolism. It's all context. It was all how 'they' talked, believed and wrote and is nothing to do with reality.

That being the case, everything we read in the bible is 'symbolic' and shouldn't be believed at all but we don't believe that really, do we?

No. Because we all believe Jesus when He said He was the Son of God and He rose from the dead in 3 days.

So, I always sit in bewilderment when people pick and choose 'Hebrew' translation over what we have as a bible today and then decide for those who read in English, what is truly symbolic vs reality.

If the whole Hebrew bible is symbolic then the English translation is false because the translation makes things literal and we all should be reading a fable in Hebrew.

Did Jesus die, knowing the world would argue about symbolism, linguistics and ancient texts and did He realize the convoluted implications of this but thought, "Ah well, they'll figure it out....?"

 

[Job 33:6]

I always find this interesting in that, if the whole of the Bible is 'symbolic', then nothing in the bible really happened.

There are so many people who say the earth wasn't created in 6 days, Jesus didn't really fast for 40 days and nights, the earth wasn't REALLY flooded, it doesn't really have a firmament (or the word doesn't mean what we think it means) because it was all symbolism. It's all context. It was all how 'they' talked, believed and wrote and is nothing to do with reality.

That being the case, everything we read in the bible is 'symbolic' and shouldn't be believed at all but we don't believe that really, do we?

No. Because we all believe Jesus when He said He was the Son of God and He rose from the dead in 3 days.

So, I always sit in bewilderment when people pick and choose 'Hebrew' translation over what we have as a bible today and then decide for those who read in English, what is truly symbolic vs reality.

If the whole Hebrew bible is symbolic then the English translation is false because the translation makes things literal and we all should be reading a fable in Hebrew.

Did Jesus die, knowing the world would argue about symbolism, linguistics and ancient texts and did He realize the convoluted implications of this but thought, "Ah well, they'll figure it out....?"

I think the catch here is that symbolic doesn't mean "not true". The Bible contains truth in a variety of layers and meanings and ways. And not all are just plainly blunt literal scientifically accurate history.

And something everyone agrees on, by an example, is that the parables are not historically accurate, yet they are true.

And so when you read the Bible, your have to discern what kind of story you're reading. And to do that, you need to look at the context of the original authors and audience.

And english translations don't make stories historical. The parables are in English but that doesn't make them historical. Context is what is used to discern scientifically accurate historicity from theological history.

So for example, in the ancient near east, as the original contextual background of the old testament, the firmament was conceived of as a solid or hard sky of a sort.

Job 37:18 ESV
18 Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?

But that's not a scientifically accurate or historical concept. That's just how ancient peoples used imagery to describe the sky. And there are hundreds or perhaps thousands of historical records from various nations about this even up through the time of Jesus. And this is just how it was in many ancient cultures of the ancient near east.

It's not something that someone should be worried about running into while flying an airplane. It's more phenomenological than it is literal.

Kind of like how in the 21st century we talk about how when it rains hard it is "raining cats and dogs". We have culturally relevant ways of talking to each other based on our context. And the Isrealites had culturally relevant ways of talking to each other based on their context.

And so it would be as if someone from the year 5,000 picked up our writing and saw "it's raining cats and dogs" and got confused about how that is possible.

You have to know about the culture of the time in which it was written, to discern if "raining cats and dogs" is to be understood "historical" or not. Simply reading the text plainly doesn't clarify on meaning. You need to know about their cultural context.

Another example:
I like eating biscuits.

If you live in the US (buttery and bready goodness) this means something different than if you live in the UK (possibly something more like an American cookie).

So the words alone aren't sufficient to extract meaning. You need to review the context of those words.

Or sports like the NFL. The bears destroyed the Falcons. Is this about bears eating birds? Or is it about 21st century football? If you lived 100 years ago and didn't know anything about football, you would probably imagine a wild animal bear eating a bird.

Words are fluid and change meaning with time, so you need to know something about the context of words to identify their meaning amongst a plethora of meanings of those words.

You can translate "it's raining cats and dogs" literally. But if you want to know what that actually means, if it's about pet animals falling from the sky or if it is about hard rain, you need to consult the original context in which it was written.

And that is at least partially why you can't assume meaning of the OT simply based on how NT authors of later commentators speak about it.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think the catch here is that symbolic doesn't mean "not true".

And there are many layers of genre in the Bible. The further back we go in time the more legend and myth we find. To force literal historical reading on everything in the Bible, especially the Pentateuch, is to abuse it.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

I think the catch here is that symbolic doesn't mean "not true". The Bible contains truth in a variety of layers and meanings and ways. And not all are just plainly blunt literal scientifically accurate history.

And something everyone agrees on, by an example, is that the parables are not historically accurate, yet they are true.

And so when you read the Bible, your have to discern what kind of story you're reading. And to do that, you need to look at the context of the original authors and audience.

And english translations don't make stories historical. The parables are in English but that doesn't make them historical. Context is what is used to discern scientifically accurate historicity from theological history.

So for example, in the ancient near east, as the original contextual background of the old testament, the firmament was conceived of as a solid or hard sky of a sort.

Job 37:18 ESV
18 Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?

But that's not a scientifically accurate or historical concept. That's just how ancient peoples used imagery to describe the sky. And there are hundreds or perhaps thousands of historical records from various nations about this even up through the time of Jesus. And this is just how it was in many ancient cultures of the ancient near east.

It's not something that someone should be worried about running into while flying an airplane. It's more phenomenological than it is literal.

Kind of like how in the 21st century we talk about how when it rains hard it is "raining cats and dogs". We have culturally relevant ways of talking to each other based on our context. And the Isrealites had culturally relevant ways of talking to each other based on their context.

And so it would be as if someone from the year 5,000 picked up our writing and saw "it's raining cats and dogs" and got confused about how that is possible.

You have to know about the culture of the time in which it was written, to discern if "raining cats and dogs" is to be understood "historical" or not. Simply reading the text plainly doesn't clarify on meaning. You need to know about their cultural context.

Another example:
I like eating biscuits.

If you live in the US (buttery and bready goodness) this means something different than if you live in the UK (possibly something more like an American cookie).

So the words alone aren't sufficient to extract meaning. You need to review the context of those words.

Or sports like the NFL. The bears destroyed the Falcons. Is this about bears eating birds? Or is it about 21st century football? If you lived 100 years ago and didn't know anything about football, you would probably imagine a wild animal bear eating a bird.

Words are fluid and change meaning with time, so you need to know something about the context of words to identify their meaning amongst a plethora of meanings of those words.

You can translate "it's raining cats and dogs" literally. But if you want to know what that actually means, if it's about pet animals falling from the sky or if it is about hard rain, you need to consult the original context in which it was written.

And that is at least partially why you can't assume meaning of the OT simply based on how NT authors of later commentators speak about it.

With respect, I don't think 'everyone agrees' on many things and I don't believe that all of us care about science, or trust it etc. to the same degree or at all.

So, no, I think there is a lot of disagreement and part of the reason for that is a)the fracturing of Christianity due to 'denominations' b) bible 'versions' c) the lazy thinking or trusting of institutions to decipher, translate and teach the bible to us instead of us learning for ourselves the historic language and refusing to accommodate a 'translation' to appease ignorant masses.

Fables, are by definition, not true. Parables were used by Jesus but He made it clear where He used parables.

I just find it baffling that we're all supposed to pretend that half the bible is fable and half is literal, or maybe more or less to the former and latter, depending on our view, translation, context, wishes, desires, language, knowledge set, skill set, educational level etc. Something is either true or false. There is not degrees of truth depending on the narrative unless it's not true in the first place.

 

[Job 33:6]

And there are many layers of genre in the Bible. The further back we go in time the more legend and myth we find. To force literal historical reading on everything in the Bible, especially the Pentateuch, is to abuse it.

Yea.

It feels like, as 21st century Americans, we just put so much emphasis on really plain and direct communication. And I don't know if it's a western thing, but we just like our information very plain and blunt and direct.

And that way of communication is just so different than the...almost mystical or heavily theological and phenomenological and genre multiplicity of scripture. It's just so different. Especially or particularly Genesis 1-11.

People debating over how plants could live without the sun in Genesis 1. It's just silly. Questions that ancient peoples most certainly weren't debating. Because we can't get past our own cultural rigid and plain ways of thinking.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

And there are many layers of genre in the Bible. The further back we go in time the more legend and myth we find. To force literal historical reading on everything in the Bible, especially the Pentateuch, is to abuse it.

Like I said, where do we start 'abusing' and putting everything down to fable?

Many would say that Jesus didn't really die and raise from the dead. It was 'symbolic'. Yet, the tenet of Christianity is that He literally died and literally was raised from the dead.

I think we need to all regroup and really listen to what we're saying and telling others and really understand if we believe what we're saying and the implications of that whichever side it lands.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Yea.

It feels like, as 21st century Americans, we just put so much emphasis on really plain and direct communication. And I don't know if it's a western thing, but we just like our information very plain and blunt and direct.

And that way of communication is just so different than the...almost mystical or heavily theological and phenomenological and genre multiplicity of scripture. It's just so different. Especially or particularly Genesis 1-11.

People debating over how plants could live without the sun in Genesis 1. It's just silly. Questions that ancient peoples most certainly weren't debating. Because we can't get past our own cultural rigid and plain ways of thinking.

Actually, I think we are arrogant and think we are very much smarter than ancient people and we aren't.

Our ancestors weren't all drooling and incapable of thought before science came along.

1 Timothy 6:20-21 states:

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Turn away from empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and thus swerved away from the faith. Grace be with you all.”

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually, I think we are arrogant and think we are very much smarter than ancient people and we aren't.

Our ancestors weren't all drooling and incapable of thought before science came along.

1 Timothy 6:20-21 states:

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Turn away from empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and thus swerved away from the faith. Grace be with you all.”

I'm not saying that ancient people weren't smart. I'm just saying that, they lived in an age of time in which they hadnt traveled the earth to know what shape it was. They didn't have future mathematical models to demonstrate heliocentrism either. They didn't have nuclear power or space shuttles or the internet.

It doesn't mean that they were not smart. It just means that when we interact with their literature, we shouldn't anticipate it to speak about things that were outside of their historical frame of reference.

Expecting Genesis to explain historical geology and the age of the earth is like expecting Deuteronomy to explain capitalism and artificial intelligence. Some things are just not in their cultural background that they're communicating through.

When they talk about the firmament, you have to consider what that concept meant to ancient peoples. And if you read ancient literature, it had nothing to do with astronomy. It was more symbolic and phenomenological and theological.

Job 37:18 ESV
[18] Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?

Nobody reads Job 37:18 and thinks "man, we better be careful when we take an airplane to Jamaica this weekend, we might hit a metal plate in the sky.

No, we have to understand that their context is just different, ancient texts often have metaphors and symbolic imagery and various genres and that's just how it is in the old testament.

At the end of the day, the Bible contains a mix of symbolic and literal historical literature and many genres, and we just have to take that on a case by case basis. Its just not all one or the other.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

I'm not saying that ancient people weren't smart. I'm just saying that, they lived in an age of time in which they hadnt traveled the earth to know what shape it was. They didn't have future mathematical models to demonstrate heliocentrism either. They didn't have nuclear power or space shuttles or the internet.

It doesn't mean that they were not smart. It just means that when we interact with their literature, we shouldn't anticipate it to speak about things that were outside of their historical frame of reference.

At the end of the day, the Bible contains a mix of symbolic and literal historical literature and many genres, and we just have to take that on a case by case basis. Its just not all one or the other.

I think if you read more about ancient history, and take less at face value from what we're taught to believe, you may be surprised at how intellectual they actually were. As I said, they very much valued education and thought and we are arrogant in our placement of ourselves above them just because we have been told we are 'advanced'.

We're so advanced, we leave true history and God behind. The bible is very plain and we try to overcomplicate it to make sense of what we've been told i.e. we're intelligent and they weren't etc.

Ok, you say the bible is a mix, but my point is what level of mix is so mixed that it is all meaningless? We can't seem to come to an agreement, as Christians about this, which is why we're divided and our belief is mocked.

Well done, Satan, causing chaos. A house divided cannot stand.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think if you read more about ancient history, and take less at face value from what we're taught to believe, you may be surprised at how intellectual they actually were. As I said, they very much valued education and thought and we are arrogant in our placement of ourselves above them just because we have been told we are 'advanced'.

We're so advanced, we leave true history and God behind. The bible is very plain and we try to overcomplicate it to make sense of what we've been told i.e. we're intelligent and they weren't etc.

Ok, you say the bible is a mix, but my point is what level of mix is so mixed that it is all meaningless? We can't seem to come to an agreement, as Christians about this, which is why we're divided and our belief is mocked.

Well done, Satan, causing chaos. A house divided cannot stand.

I think that's why it's important to focus on the gospel. Things like the beatitudes. Core doctrines. And remember that it's ok to have different positions on tertiary topics of the old testament. Especially things like the age of the earth or evolution. Most people don't really care about these topics.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

I think that's why it's important to focus on the gospel. Things like the beatitudes. Core doctrines. And remember that it's ok to have different positions on tertiary topics of the old testament. Especially things like the age of the earth or evolution. Most people don't really care about these topics.

Right. But, if the gospel is based on myth, and mythology, and mysticism, then why focus on it? Or did people suddenly become intellectual in the New Testament? Was 1 A.D. the year of enlightenment that stood apart from all previously recorded history?

Understand, if you will, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, in the main. But, what I have issue with is assigning myth to the OT with no real reason to ascribe truth to the NT.

For example, Moses went to Mt Sinai for 40 days, the earth flooded for 40 days, Jesus fasted for 40 days. Where does the myth of '40 days' begin and end?

I care greatly about all topics in the bible. Truth is truth and if it's not truth it's a lie. I don't want to be taught a lie, believe in a lie or teach a lie.

There are implications to the answers of these questions by fellow Christians.

If the foundations of our faith are lies, i.e. myth, mysticism, symbolism etc, than what are we professing to actually believe?

Thanks for your patience. I hope this makes sense. Text makes it challenging to demonstrate sincere questions and humility in learning and discussion.

God bless.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right. But, if the gospel is based on myth, and mythology, and mysticism, then why focus on it? Or did people suddenly become intellectual in the New Testament? Was 1 A.D. the year of enlightenment that stood apart from all previously recorded history?

Understand, if you will, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, in the main. But, what I have issue with is assigning myth to the OT with no real reason to ascribe truth to the NT.

For example, Moses went to Mt Sinai for 40 days, the earth flooded for 40 days, Jesus fasted for 40 days. Where does the myth of '40 days' begin and end?

I care greatly about all topics in the bible. Truth is truth and if it's not truth it's a lie. I don't want to be taught a lie, believe in a lie or teach a lie.

There are implications to the answers of these questions by fellow Christians.

If the foundations of our faith are lies, i.e. myth, mysticism, symbolism etc, than what are we professing to actually believe?

Thanks for your patience. I hope this makes sense. Text makes it challenging to demonstrate sincere questions and humility in learning and discussion.

God bless.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to recognize mythological or symbolic elements in parts of the Old Testament while still affirming the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels. They are different books, different collections, genres, and purposes, and the truth of the Gospel does not depend on whether every Old Testament passage is read as literal history or scientific description.

Scripture itself uses vivid, mythic imagery: Psalm 74 speaks of a multi-headed sea monster; Job describes Leviathan breathing fire; Isaiah 14 portrays the king of Babylon descending into an underworld where spirits greet him. These texts aren’t focused on literal zoology or geography, they use imagery to communicate God’s authority, judgment, and sovereignty.

Stories can convey truth without being historically or scientifically literal. Parables are the clearest example of this, and mythic language functions in a similar way. Having mythological elements does not make a text false; it means the truth is being communicated through genre and symbolism, not modern historiography.

This is also how numbers function in Scripture. Moses fasting forty days without food or water, Lamech living 777 years, seven-day temple inaugurations, or Jesus’ command to forgive “seventy-seven times” are not about precise arithmetic. They communicate completeness, testing, or boundlessness, not numerical limits. Jesus wasn’t asking Peter to forgive exactly 490 times, he was abolishing the idea of keeping count altogether.

Rigid literalism creates unnecessary problems and misses the point. These details are secondary to the message, and the Gospel does not stand or fall on treating every symbolic element as literal history.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Like I said, where do we start 'abusing' and putting everything down to fable?

Many would say that Jesus didn't really die and raise from the dead. It was 'symbolic'. Yet, the tenet of Christianity is that He literally died and literally was raised from the dead.

I think we need to all regroup and really listen to what we're saying and telling others and really understand if we believe what we're saying and the implications of that whichever side it lands.

I can agree with that. It takes careful discernment to sift through it all.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to recognize mythological or symbolic elements in parts of the Old Testament while still affirming the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels. They are different books, different collections, genres, and purposes, and the truth of the Gospel does not depend on whether every Old Testament passage is read as literal history or scientific description.

Scripture itself uses vivid, mythic imagery: Psalm 74 speaks of a multi-headed sea monster; Job describes Leviathan breathing fire; Isaiah 14 portrays the king of Babylon descending into an underworld where spirits greet him. These texts aren’t focused on literal zoology or geography, they use imagery to communicate God’s authority, judgment, and sovereignty.

Stories can convey truth without being historically or scientifically literal. Parables are the clearest example of this, and mythic language functions in a similar way. Having mythological elements does not make a text false; it means the truth is being communicated through genre and symbolism, not modern historiography.

This is also how numbers function in Scripture. Moses fasting forty days without food or water, Lamech living 777 years, seven-day temple inaugurations, or Jesus’ command to forgive “seventy-seven times” are not about precise arithmetic. They communicate completeness, testing, or boundlessness, not numerical limits. Jesus wasn’t asking Peter to forgive exactly 490 times, he was abolishing the idea of keeping count altogether.

Rigid literalism creates unnecessary problems and misses the point. These details are secondary to the message, and the Gospel does not stand or fall on treating every symbolic element as literal history.

Thanks for responding.

I guess it's just where the imagery ends and the actuality begins.

Take for instance my situation, where I'm trying to teach my husband about the Bible and he, inherently, doesn't believe a lot of the OT ever happened.

How does someone like me, who only ever went to church but was self taught, in the main, answer questions that he has about the history and truth of the bible?

If we didn't have anyone to refer to, and we took the bible as it is written, we'd be having a different conversation than we are now. And, the frustration lies with the inability for a lay person to understand ancient text, intent of passages re: history versus symbolism etc.

He wants to know about the beginning of humanity. So, for him, his belief hinges on if Adam existed, the fall of man actually happened, Eve actually had any part in it, was there a tree? did God plant it there? if so, why? Do I go back and tell him there was no Adam, no Eve, no tree or is only Adam symbolic? How do we know? This is not what the bible we read says so why are we reading to it or referring to it?

I don't mean to derail your thread. But, hopefully you can see why statements do matter and the context in which they matter to some people.

My faith doesn't hinge on the OT but my husbands lack of faith does so where do we go from here?

 

[Job 33:6]

Thanks for responding.

I guess it's just where the imagery ends and the actuality begins.

Yes, these are hard questions I think. But I also think that it's ok to have hard questions.

Take for instance my situation, where I'm trying to teach my husband about the Bible and he, inherently, doesn't believe a lot of the OT ever happened.

How does someone like me, who only ever went to church but was self taught, in the main, answer questions that he has about the history and truth of the bible?

Regarding historicity, I think it depends on what part is being read.

A lot more of the old testament, I tend to think of as history blended with motif and polemic, or moreso than I think a lot of people are aware. It's a mix of historical events clothed in mythic language and theology.

I'd recommend John Walton's Lost World of Adam and Eve.

Tremper Longman III is also a really good resource for opening up concepts of Genesis and questions around Adam.

An Introduction to the Old Testament, Tremper Longman III

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

youtube.com

It takes a lot of patience and study for these kinds of topics.

I would also recommend something like the unseen realm for examples of how to think about the Bible in its more supernatural/mythic qualities:

Among married couples, it's common to have some differences in interpretation. As long as people keep an open mind and are comfortable studying and wrestling with the text, it tends to be fine. Everyone has questions, and that's ok.

Having questions is just an honest part of the Christian walk.

If we didn't have anyone to refer to, and we took the bible as it is written, we'd be having a different conversation than we are now. And, the frustration lies with the inability for a lay person to understand ancient text, intent of passages re: history versus symbolism etc.

The Bible is a deeply layered text, written over centuries in different languages and cultures, making it complex, especially the Old Testament, which scholars study their whole lives and still only scratch the surface of. The Gospels are simpler in comparison.

Bible translations are continually updated, not because of progressive agendas, but because scholars learn more about ancient cultures and language, helping convey meaning in modern terms. Even experts often disagree on details.

For understanding Genesis 1–2, I recommend the following book presenting five different conservative evangelical scholarly approaches, which highlights the nuance in interpretation, a link to it on Amazon:

Reading Genesis 1 and 2: An Evangelical Conversation

Amazon.com

Some conservative evangelical scholars believe that Adam was historical, others do not. But regardless, the text contains many truths that extend beyond that question. And I think it's ok to wrestle with these things. It's normal to have these kinds of questions.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

He wants to know about the beginning of humanity. So, for him, his belief hinges on if Adam existed, the fall of man actually happened, Eve actually had any part in it, was there a tree? did God plant it there? if so, why? Do I go back and tell him there was no Adam, no Eve, no tree or is only Adam symbolic? How do we know? This is not what the bible we read says so why are we reading to it or referring to it?

Even the most well read scholars still have unanswered questions. Too often we feel we must have the only right answer. And then we argue to defend it. It is ok to still have questions. When reading something like Genesis it is good to simply ask ourselves, “What does this mean to me? What does it tell me about God and me?”