Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They are allegories. It doesn’t mean they are untrue, it means they didn’t physically happen. I’ve said it before, why can’t you get that?It is if you say they NEVER happened...need me to go find your quote!?
Ah, more love from you.I am noting that you claimed that the creation of Adam and Eve was not true. Whether you or anyone else thinks that is a christian position, sorry I could not care less.
They are allegories. It doesn’t mean they are untrue, it means they didn’t physically happen. I’ve said it before, why can’t you get that?
Ah, more love from you.
There is no sense in carrying this on, but God loves you and so so I.
I gave the Hebrew definition of the word and the first on the list was rib. The issue is not how big a bone you think God took to make Eve, or whether the rib is on the side or whatever. The issue is whether you believe God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man He created, and then took from inside that man some bone and made a real woman with it.
The Bible in no ways teaches evolutionism.
Problem is they ALL must reexplain the fall and our sin nature.
What? Now the Bible is not fully the word of God, only Genesis is??Solomon may have thought God ought to help man see that are beasts. Ha. The way he went through pagan women, we can forgive the poor guy for getting a little confused at times. God does not agree and never said anything of the sort! God made it clear man was special and a separate creation than animals. Jesus made it clear we are of much greater value than animals.
Great! So now stop your "worshiping demon science" chant when somebody does not read Genesis literally.People who believe Scripture are not literalists. I never met anyone that thought Jesus was a lamb.
Claiming simple child like faith is 'arrogance' shows that all you have is unbelief and attitude. Good news I am here to adjust it.
The difficulty here is that the text itself is the only evidence we have for making a judgement on that question.So, what indications are there that confirm that it is allegorical?
Oh...great....The fact that it didn’t happen is a pretty good indication. The fact that there are two stories in which the order differs is another.
You stop reading text as literal history when you have enough evidence (in the text, in the culture of writers, in the style and in historical events - "science") that it did not happen literally.Oh...great....
It didn't happen because it's allegory...and..
It's allegory because it didin't happen....
So...
What about Jesus walking on water, feeding the 5000, turning water to wine, stopping wind and rain and coming back from dead?
Where do you start... where do you stop......?
The difficulty here is that the text itself is the only evidence we have for making a judgement on that question.
The text is ancient, but clearly not as ancient as the events it purports to relate.
Its authorship and date of production is debatable and has been debated ever since it was regarded as Holy Scripture by Hebrew scholars and the early church. It is almost certainly not the work of a single individual and contains story elements which have been incorporated from other ancient legends and other religions, but the story as it now appears is uniquely Hebrew and establishes a view of God's creative supremacy in a radically distinctive manner which, in its time, was unusually monotheistic. It has a long history of being regarded as 'inspired' literature.
Both can be regarded as 'poetry' or 'prose' in genre but both are more appropriately categorised as 'mythic'. Here is the problem! the word 'myth' has a number of different meanings and the common one is now regarded as indicating something is 'untrue' or 'faked'. This is not the meaning intended when categorising Genesis ch. 1-5 as 'myth'.
Mythic literature is a technical theological term used to describe narrative which derives from Hebrew religion and culture and had probably a liturgical connotation.The Hebrew writers made use of myths not only in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, but elsewhere in the Bible as well.
In the first place though, I have to agree that it is true that myth is not history, that is, it is not, and does not profess to be, a record of events which happened at a particular place and at a particular time. But historical truth, as important as it is in its own way, is not the only kind of truth, and a myth can, and often does, represent a kind of truth which cannot be expressed in historical categories.
When we call the story of the fall, a myth, we don't deny its truth; we imply rather that its truth lies deeper than the kind of historical truth which rests on dates and documentary evidence. Hence, in order to get the term 'myth' in proper perspective we need to enquire into the origin and function of myths in the ancient civilisations which form the background of Hebrew religion and culture.
Not having any knowledge of that background, and treating the Genesis text as if it is an ancient newspaper report of current events is not only unlikely to reveal a true understanding of it, it is impossible to reach a correct conclusion as to its actual meaning. This is a serious problem for believers and non believers alike. Before a text can be either believed or rejected it has to be understood, and most people do not have the knowledge to do that. They have not studied ancient cultures and their motivations, but just assume they thought and wrote just as we do today. They did not. They thought very differently, wrote very differently and believed very differently from us today.
Now to answer your question in more detail:
Gen.Ch.2:4- ch.5, contains a number of 'themes' which appear in other ancient 'mythic' literature pre dating the Genesis narrative. Stories had a distinct function in Hebrew society, as in all other mid eastern civilisations. They were not primarily used to convey 'facts'. They were primarily used to unite people and produce a commonality of purpose and social cohesion.
Indications that confirm that it is allegorical.
(1) Nearly all ancient texts of this genre are allegorical and full of symbolism. They speak often of foundation events that no human being could have been an eye witness to. They are therefore 'revelational', not witness testimony.
What?(2) Man names the animals, (What other creature on earth has categorised species?) A. Only mankind.
As has been explained.... Adam was made and Eve did not exist.. So, we have male without female and female was made from this male.. part of his side, while the creator put him in a deep sleep.(3) Rib is a poor translation from the Hebrew which actually meant a whole side. Indicating that woman and man are equally important to God and exist together as 'humanity' both created by God with God's nature and motivated by God's (Breath - Spirit). Also here a very early hint and warning that it is inappropriate for human beings to copulate with anything other than human beings. Gen.2:20.
(4) The Hebrew play on words 'Adam', 'Eve', 'Woman', all having meanings in themselves apart from being the names of the characters in the story.
(5) Trees which have names and can 'magically' confer attributes such as 'knowledgeableness', 'life' etc.
(6) The serpent theme, which appears in many other ancient myths.
(7) The nakedness theme, indicating fear and vulnerability. A common nightmare scenario.
(8) The inclusion of so many archetypes. i.e. Toil, clothes, painful childbirth, fear, guilt, death, exclusion etc (All 'firsts', very appropriate for a genesis story), and all "Just So" explanations for the way things are now, in life as experienced today.
All very typical of the type of stories told within cultures to explain in simple, rememberably entertaining terms, important tribal customs and standards of acceptable behaviour.
Add then to all this that the narrative has survived millennia and the church believes it to be inspired by God, we should treat it with the respect it deserves and not merely take it at face value, either idolising or denigrating it by either insisting it is historical or rejecting it as nonsense.
Such black/white thoughtlessness is the epitome of ignorance.
How and what is your Christianity supported by, if the canon cannot be taken as truth?You stop reading text as literal history when you have enough evidence (in the text, in the culture of writers, in the style and in historical events - "science") that it did not happen literally.
Truth does not equal to "literal".How and what is your Christianity supported by, if the canon cannot be taken as truth?
The wisdom of men will be shown to be foolish. You cannot go wrong taking the word of God as truth.. but.. you will be deceived if you follow everything that men say.
And what "evidence" of mankind can trump the words of the creator? That is the problem...You stop reading text as literal history when you have enough evidence (in the text, in the culture of writers, in the style and in historical events - "science") that it did not happen literally.
Still having trouble with simple concepts?Truth does not equal to "literal".
Jesus is a door - its truth, but not literal.
We are from dust - its truth, but not literal.
Etc.
And what "evidence" of mankind can trump the words of the creator? That is the problem...
Romans 1:22 King James Version (KJV)
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Truth does not equal to "being literal". The only ones having problem with it are people who accepted Ellen White's authority on reading Genesis, pushed forward by the SDA.Still having trouble with simple concepts?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?