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.

Yeah, I mean, personally, I don't see it as unreasonable to observe mythological aspects of the Old Testament while still holding things like Jesus and the gospel as historical accounts. They're two different books. Or two different collections of books. And the historicity of the gospel doesn't depend on the question of whether or not Genesis 2 contains mythology about Adam. Psalm 74 talks about a multi-headed sea dragon, or the book of Job, for example, talks about Leviathan breathing fire. Why there would be a fire breathing dragon living in the ocean is a mystery to me if taken literally. Or Isaiah 14 has the King of Babylon descending into an underworld where spirits are cheering as he arrives. But these kinds of stories aren't really about those particular details; rather, they're ultimately used in ways that point toward God's authority or sovereignty, among other things.

I guess in short, stories can still contain truth even if they aren't historically or scientifically literal, and the gospel doesn't depend on the literal scientific concordism of Old Testament stories.

Also, if something contains mythological aspects, that doesn't make it a lie or untrue either. It just means that the style or genre of the story is revealing a different kind of truth aside from one that is just plain history. As noted before, kind of like how parables can be true even if they arent history.

Just my opinion but at the end of the day, these finer details are ultimately about something more important than some of the mythological details themselves. Same with the 40 days. Exodus says that Moses went 40 days in the desert without food or water. A man in the desert, 40 days without water? The story isn't about a literal number of days. It's about a deeper meaning behind just numbers.

Or Lamech lived to be 7 7 7 years old. Well, it's not about literally living that long. 7 is a number denoting completion. And we see this with temple inaugurations being 7 days long and 7 day feasts and Solomon's temple being built in 7 years and completed on the 7th month and things like this. It's just not about literalism though. As if King Solomon was pausing the work of tens of thousands of servants so that they could finish the temple at exactly the right time. Or Lamech avenging cain 70 * 7 times.

Or here is a good one:
Matthew 18:21–22:
Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?”
Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times (or seventy times seven).”

Was Jesus really asking Peter to forgive someone 77 or 77*7 times? Exactly 490 times? It's often just thought of as an expression of unbounded forgiveness. Not about the number but about what's in your heart.

Rigid literalism raises odd questions such as these and more. But these really are side details to the gospel.

 

[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 either that. It takes careful discernment to soft through it all.