God breathed? Is this literal?

[Eluzai]

Why did He not just explain to us exactly what He did in its strictly historically and scientifically accurate detail? Why use a figurative description? Surely God could have found a way to describe it in a literal way we could all understand over all time, right? Is it "lying" to us to say He breathed when He did not breathe? No, of course not. And, sure, God is God and could have chosen to convey exactly what He did in a historically and scientifically accurate way. But He chose to tell it in a single, powerful, evocative figurative phrase. I happen to think it works pretty well. We don't need to know the details, we all get the important point. Good job, God.

I don't really know what my 'label' would be here, but I'm probably a 'literalist'. I happen to really dislike using labels cause it just makes stereotypes and they are just wrong.

For me, when God breathes into Adam the breath of life. This does not mean God doesn't breathe. It means that when God breathes into dust its very much different from when I breathe into dust. I don't know what God is like physically, he could have taken the form of a man, he could have taken the form of a penguin, he could have breathed the air into Adam using the wind, (how do I know how God breathes? Who does?), but whatever happened he breathed into Adam, like Susana says, air filled his lungs. I don't know how.

But that doesn't seem to really be what you are asking. To say that God breathed into Adam doesn't mean God needs oxygen to live. This is like you say very similar to the whole 'resting on the seventh day' thing. We both know God doesn't get tired and God won't die without oxygen, does that mean He can't stop from constantly doing things and take a pause? does that mean he can't fill Adam's lungs with air? No.

Maybe again this is a question for a Hebrew schollar (sp?) to answer.

The only further thing I have to say is you are in danger of saying God can't breathe. If you are to limit what God can do like that you will need a lot more justification than: 'surely this makes more sense metaphorically'.

You are right though: more people should have commented on this. I hope I have given you the alternate opinion you were looking for

 

[Vance]

Yes, I do appreciate your response! But no, I am not in any way saying that God can not choose to take on human form and use actual breath. It is entirely possible for God to do anything He likes. But to read it in a way that God actually "breathed" in its LITERAL sense (ie, not wind or some other process) is to read into the Scriptures even MORE that isn't there than simply accepting a figurative reading. And, indeed, this does become a problem for many strict literalists, they end up reading a lot more into the text than is necessary in order to maintain strict literalism.

But the real point is that most people who call themselves literalists DO read this as figurative, I believe. They know that God is spirit, without physical form, and don't think God became physical for the purpose of this act. But they just go along and read the rest literally, and even more oddly, cry out against figurative readings elsewhere.

 

[KleinerApfel]

we know that God did not actually "breathe" Himself, because He does not have lungs, etc. Yes, He DID something, but the words used to describe that action are figurative rather than literal. It SAYS God breathed, but God did NOT breathe. Not literally. He did something and CALLED it "breathing".

"We know"? I'd say this is a matter of belief, not knowledge. We were not there, and we do not know.

I believe that if God CALLED something that He did "breathing" that means it was breathing.

Why do you believe God did not breathe?
It doesn't mean He needs to breathe, but that He can choose to do so for a purpose.

Do you also believe that because He does not physically have lungs, diaphragm, larynx and tongue, God cannot speak?

I believe God speaks, and His words are powerful, and that he spoke all that is, was, or ever will be into existence.

God bless, Susana

 

[Vance]

Susana, you have it right when you said that God did SOMETHING and called it breathing. That is what figurative means!! This means it was not literal, it was not breathing as you and I know breathing. It was something else, which He CALLS breathing. Maybe something we could not comprehend. Very likely something we could not comprehend.

To us, breathing is something very specific. It has a particular meaning. But do you think that God used that particular process we call breathing? Or do you think He did something else that He then called breathing for our understanding? If so, then you are reading it figuratively, and not literally.

And, yes, speaking is the same way. God DOES speak in the FIGURATIVE sense, and not the literal sense. Now, you are getting it.

So, if God is using figurative terms for breathing, speaking and resting, why not "six days" being figurative as well?

 

[MAC]

Well if we continue to learn from God about Genesis 2:7, my question would be also is there anything that we can learn from {Act 2:4 And they were all filled of the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them utterance.}

We know that God gave this man and woman life for there where walking, so what kind of {filled} this mean. Is it another breath beside the first breath of life back in Genesis?

 

[KleinerApfel]

Susana, you have it right when you said that God did SOMETHING and called it breathing. That is what figurative means!! This means it was not literal, it was not breathing as you and I know breathing. It was something else, which He CALLS breathing. Maybe something we could not comprehend. Very likely something we could not comprehend.

To us, breathing is something very specific. It has a particular meaning. But do you think that God used that particular process we call breathing? Or do you think He did something else that He then called breathing for our understanding? If so, then you are reading it figuratively, and not literally.

And, yes, speaking is the same way. God DOES speak in the FIGURATIVE sense, and not the literal sense. Now, you are getting it.

So, if God is using figurative terms for breathing, speaking and resting, why not "six days" being figurative as well?

I just don't see the need to complicate what God said.
He said He breathed, He said He spoke.
Unless there is a particular reason to believe these statements to be figurative, I'll take them as literal.
Why can you not believe they might be literal?

If God didn't mean literal breathing, He could have come up with another word which described what he did. He's not trying to be obscure!

Blessings, Susana

 

[MAC]

Susana, you have it right when you said that God did SOMETHING and called it breathing. That is what figurative means!! This means it was not literal, it was not breathing as you and I know breathing. It was something else, which He CALLS breathing. Maybe something we could not comprehend. Very likely something we could not comprehend.

To us, breathing is something very specific. It has a particular meaning. But do you think that God used that particular process we call breathing? Or do you think He did something else that He then called breathing for our understanding? If so, then you are reading it figuratively, and not literally.

And, yes, speaking is the same way. God DOES speak in the FIGURATIVE sense, and not the literal sense. Now, you are getting it.

So, if God is using figurative terms for breathing, speaking and resting, why not "six days" being figurative as well?

This is what Jesus calls Parables!

 

[Vance]

I just don't see the need to complicate what God said.
He said He breathed, He said He spoke.
Unless there is a particular reason to believe these statements to be figurative, I'll take them as literal.
Why can you not believe they might be literal?

If God didn't mean literal breathing, He could have come up with another word which described what he did. He's not trying to be obscure!

Blessings, Susana

Wait a second. Are you saying it is more likely that God actually took some physical form in order to literally breathe than that this phrase is being used figuratively? I am afraid I, and almost all of Christians (from what I have seen) would disagree with you.

Why do you think that a figurative reading is "complicating" anything? I can guarantee you that you read dozens of passages of Scripture figuratively rather than literally. Do you believe all of those are "complicating" your understanding of Scripture?

Could He have come up with a phrase that better expresses His work? Remember, He is dealing with limited human knowledge, and must use words, phrases and even concepts that we can understand. Do you think we could possibly understand HOW God does things? God's working is often so far beyond our comprehension that God MUST use figurative words and phrases to express His messages to us.

Further, the phrase "breathing" is very evocative, it provides a mental image and a sensibility that we can grasp and hold on to, and one, I am sure that conveys the true "essence" of what happened. Do you think God is intent on us understanding the actual mechanics of how that life, that soul, got into Adam, or on us understanding that it was GOD who put it there?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

wow
our discussion really shows how strongly a literal ideal has over the minds of many Christians.

to breath is a metaphor, in particular an anthropomorphism. God is accommodating His revelation to our frail frame. Likewise God speaking, God with hands, feet, wings, back etc. Even the word "Spirit" itself is a metaphor- ruah/pneuma mean 'moving wind/air'.

We have a scientific notion of air- particular, material, we even break down the components into O2, N2, etc. The ancients did not, wind was effective through its force, unseen, unknown, not material. It is a metaphor for, an image of, figurative language to describe the immaterial, the spirit, the Other.

God spoke the universe into existence. It is a METAPHOR, no molecules existed to vibrate, no air existed to transmit force waves to ears. It is FIGURATIVE, to discuss how God caused sound without a voicebox and lips to form the words is nonsense, no. worse than nonsense for this effort diverts some from the meaning and significance of the words. majoring in minors and swallowing camels while straining at gnats.

To some, their interpretative grid is so strongly modern, historical, scientific that they can not even see the Bible as literature, using common techniques like metaphors and anthropomorphisms to transmit meaning to us.

i guess i am just surprised and saddened, for i find the extended metaphor of breathing/breath/spirit/wind so important that i am loath to discuss the mechanism of God's inbreathing of Adam in any scientific or historical manner. and in doing so miss the great important ideas that God so beautifully presents to us.

...

 

[Vance]

Amen and amen. Sorry, you are all repped out on my system!

I think the diversion from the true message is something very true. Even St. Augustine pointed this out, as I showed in another thread.

 

[andy153]

Ah, sorry for taking your post as an example of a strict literalist, but you were reading that one strictly literally, even when most strict literalists don't.

But, as for Jesus, did not Thomas touch His hands? The exact nature of Jesus' resurrected body has been the subject of much debate, but I don't think anyone says it was spirit.

John 20:25 Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

John:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Jesus did indeed have a body but it was of flesh and bone not flesh and blood. It was spiritual life that Jesus breathed in the apostles the same as the father had done with Adam. The breath that was in the father was breathed into Adam, Jesus and then the apostles.

with love and respect, andy153

 

[Vance]

The "breath" that came into Adam may, indeed, have been the same "substance" that Jesus breathed into the Apostles, but it was not the same means of conveyance. Jesus could perform the physical act of breathing, thus providing a visual and physical action for the Apostles to see and feel. You are right, though, what entered was not "breath" itself, but the Spirit. So, again, figurative language.

 

[andy153]

The "breath" that came into Adam may, indeed, have been the same "substance" that Jesus breathed into the Apostles, but it was not the same means of conveyance. Jesus could perform the physical act of breathing, thus providing a visual and physical action for the Apostles to see and feel. You are right, though, what entered was not "breath" itself, but the Spirit. So, again, figurative language.

So seem to be saying that Jesus who was a glorified, resurrected, exalted being had a different form to that of his fathers. We are created in the image of God the same parts and passions as the father himself. Jesus was raised with the same bodily appearance that the father has. God is a Spirit ! this does not mean he has no body.

with love and respect, andy153

 

[Vance]

So seem to be saying that Jesus who was a glorified, resurrected, exalted being had a different form to that of his fathers. We are created in the image of God the same parts and passions as the father himself. Jesus was raised with the same bodily appearance that the father has. God is a Spirit ! this does not mean he has no body.

with love and respect, andy153

Well, yes, I do believe that Jesus even resurrected, while still on this earth, had a body that God the Father does not have. God is spirit, there are many Scriptures that state this point. How can a spirit have physical form? And why would you think God does have a physical body? I have never even heard this seriously posited before. As for being created in the image of God, most Christians do not see this as referring to the physical image, but the intellectual and spiritual nature. We have a soul, unlike the other parts of God's Creation.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Regardless of whether or not God has a physical form, (personally I believe not), He is still able to cause air to be transferred from Himself, (from where all air comes anyway), into Adam.
He calls this activity "breathing."
If God gives something a common, everyday name, why would I question if that's what he really meant?

God bless, Susana

 

[Vance]

Yes, exactly! He called something "breathing" that was not really breathing as we understand it! That is figurative use of language.

And that is even if you see it as causing actual air to be transferred from God to Man. Most do NOT think that this type of process is necessarily meant. All we know is that God used some process to infuse a spirit or soul into Man, and He called this process "breathing" even though it was not the process of breathing that we understand.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Yes, exactly! He called something "breathing" that was not really breathing as we understand it! That is figurative use of language.

And that is even if you see it as causing actual air to be transferred from God to Man. Most do NOT think that this type of process is necessarily meant. All we know is that God used some process to infuse a spirit or soul into Man, and He called this process "breathing" even though it was not the process of breathing that we understand.

You claim "most" Christians agree with you, but I don't see how you can possibly say that. Maybe most on this part of the forum do, but that's far from most Christians!

Why do you believe it is figurative? Why not actual air? It makes no sense to me to say God said this, but really He meant something else.
He could easily have said "God gave life and spirit to the man in a mysterious way" if that was what he meant.

Adam, and those living shortly after his creation, must have been extremely intelligent by today's standards. They were closer to the original plan than we who come thousands of years after the effects of the fall, the flood, the general deterioration of creation.
God didn't have to use "dumbed down" language for them.

God bless, Susana

 

[Vance]

Why do you think figurative language is somehow "dumbed down"? This part I don't get at all. Again, God spoke to us using figurative language many, many times throughout Scripture, and you accept the rest of those, I assume. Are those passages "dumbed down"? Do they imply a lack of understanding on the part of the reader? Could not God just be using the most evocative phrase, one which conveys His meaning in a very powerful way? Why the preference for literalness? This part I don't get at all. It is as if you think that somehow God speaking literally is "better" or more "true" than speaking figuratively. Why?

As for how many believe that God is not speaking of literal "air" being placed into Adam's body, why don't you check out some commentaries on this Scripture, or even ask your pastor. I have been exposed to most religious beliefs on these Scriptures and I have never seen ANY who actually thought literal air was being discussed. First of all, most view this as God infusing His Spirit or a Soul into Man, so we know we are not just talking about "air".

 

[andy153]

Well, yes, I do believe that Jesus even resurrected, while still on this earth, had a body that God the Father does not have. God is spirit, there are many Scriptures that state this point. How can a spirit have physical form? And why would you think God does have a physical body? I have never even heard this seriously posited before. As for being created in the image of God, most Christians do not see this as referring to the physical image, but the intellectual and spiritual nature. We have a soul, unlike the other parts of God's Creation.

I do not worship an ethereal God who is a whisp of spirit floating in the firmament. I worship the God who created man in his own image. My God has parts, face, hands, heart etc. Jesus was raised into heaven with a body, a glorified body. I believe that one day I will receive a glorified body, like Christ, like his Father. God sits on a throne and Jesus sits at his right hand. They are both spiritual beings and they are alike in form. To say the father is different from the son in my humble opinion is not good scripture.

with love and respect, andy153

 

[gluadys]

I just don't see the need to complicate what God said.
He said He breathed, He said He spoke.
Unless there is a particular reason to believe these statements to be figurative, I'll take them as literal.
Why can you not believe they might be literal?

If God didn't mean literal breathing, He could have come up with another word which described what he did. He's not trying to be obscure!

Blessings, Susana

But did it never occur to you that figures of speech are used just for that reason---to keep complicated ideas uncomplicated.

What God really did we don't know and can't conceive. So God explains it in a figure that we can understand: breath, speech.

Even science does that all the time. The "big bang" is not something that literally happened. It is a metaphor for what really happened and which is too difficult to explain in words. Physicists describe it in advanced mathematical terms.

But they coined this metaphor, this image, to uncomplicate this for non-scientists.

Same goes for string theory. No one is really saying the universe is literally made of little strings. But its a handy image that can be used to talk about something virtually indescribable.

Even gravity is an image. Literally the word only means "heaviness". People used to explain that things fell down to earth because they had "heaviness" aka "gravity". We know that is not the case now, but we still use the term.

Why wouldn't God make something complicated and obsure and way above our heads plain and simple by using a figure based on our daily experience that we do understand?