Poll: Myth versus historical account

[rmwilliamsll]

And he linked Adam to Abraham through genealogies.



Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.


how is Adam the son of God in the same way that Seth is the son of Adam?
isn't the "son of "relationship for Adam to God different than for Seth to Adam?
isn't that Adam to God relationship figurative when compared to Seth to Adam?
where is the linguistic or grammatical marker to show us that these are not exactly the same literal relationships?

it appears to me that the links themselves vary from literal sonship to figurative sonship in the same verse, without any transition or warning.

if you look at the Greek for this section of Luke, you will see that the word son only appears in Luke 3:23 where it is describing the son of relationship of Jesus to Joseph, modified by nomizo which is translated as "supposed" or "in the custom of", all the rest of the list is the names of son and father connected by "tov" which is translated as "of". There is only one indicator of a difference "supposed" connecting Jesus and Joseph. but we know that Adam was not the physical son of God. Yet there is no indicator that the name God here is anything but another man as father, bearing the same relationship as all the rest. You have to know that Theos is a proper name for God.

 

[shernren]

So you believe any passage can be interpreted figuratively? Can Jesus' resurrection be interpreted figuratively? After all, He used metaphors quite often. He called him self a vine, bread, etc. If not, why not?

Except that Jesus is the perfect and complete revelation of God in history, yes. As the Incarnate God Jesus' actions must have had historical significance. As a historical event His resurrection was witnessed physically by credible witnesses, throughout the whole of Acts that is exactly the claim the disciples make to being Christian.

I see no similar historicity regarding the account of the creation.

But you do so with no proof Moses didn't believe creation was a week long event. In fact he stated.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them....

I think we'll never get anywhere. My argument is essentially "He didn't call it a history, so what's wrong with him thinking of it as a myth?" And your counterargument is "He didn't call it a myth, so he must have been thinking of it as history!"

Without further external evidence there is simply no way to decide.

You are right. But they didn't compare these to the creation days. Had they, we could conclude creation took seven years. Instead he compared creation to the work week.

And yet when periods of seven years are called "weeks" in Daniel, nobody thinks that a literal Bible year lasted 24 hours.

Well, Moses linked Adam to Noah and Noah to Abraham. So why would you not believe him about Noah? What I’m trying to do is find out what methods you used to determine that Adam and Abraham are literal, but Noah isn’t.

Science. The same thing that makes most Christians believe the Bible has no problem with the earth going 'round the sun.

 

[Calminian]

And he linked Adam to Abraham through genealogies.



Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.


how is Adam the son of God in the same way that Seth is the son of Adam?
isn't the "son of "relationship for Adam to God different than for Seth to Adam?
isn't that Adam to God relationship figurative when compared to Seth to Adam?
where is the linguistic or grammatical marker to show us that these are not exactly the same literal relationships?

it appears to me that the links themselves vary from literal sonship to figurative sonship in the same verse, without any transition or warning.

if you look at the Greek for this section of Luke, you will see that the word son only appears in Luke 3:23 where it is describing the son of relationship of Jesus to Joseph, modified by nomizo which is translated as "supposed" or "in the custom of", all the rest of the list is the names of son and father connected by "tov" which is translated as "of". There is only one indicator of a difference "supposed" connecting Jesus and Joseph. but we know that Adam was not the physical son of God. Yet there is no indicator that the name God here is anything but another man as father, bearing the same relationship as all the rest. You have to know that Theos is a proper name for God.

I have no idea what this post means.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I have no idea what this post means.

then ignore it and skip over to those messages you can understand.

just as the delete button is the most important button on your mail reader, reading the first line of a message, sizing up both your interest and your abilities with respect to the content, then either reading the rest or skipping it is the most important skill you can learn reading the discussion boards.

i certainly sympathize with you for i often try to read webpages that are simply too difficult for me to understand or presuppose knowledge that i don't have. I've come to the conclusion that there is no shame in ignorance and inability, if i try over time to learn more and become less ignorant, the shame is in trying to exceed your grasp.

sometimes it is the writer's fault, for they are obtuse or demonstrate convoluted thinking that i find difficult to understand. however that is not the case with this post because i wrote it.

thank you for your comment, i appreciate everyone who reads and talks about my postings, it guess it is just the vain author in me.

 

[Calminian]

Except that Jesus is the perfect and complete revelation of God in history, yes. As the Incarnate God Jesus' actions must have had historical significance. As a historical event His resurrection was witnessed physically by credible witnesses, throughout the whole of Acts that is exactly the claim the disciples make to being Christian.

So you don't believe Moses was a credible witness? Jesus said,

John 5:46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me.

I see no similar historicity regarding the account of the creation.

But you haven't explain why. Do you reject the entire Pentateuch or just Genesis or just half of Genesis? So you don't believe Adam was historical. I thought you said otherwise.

I think we'll never get anywhere. My argument is essentially "He didn't call it a history, so what's wrong with him thinking of it as a myth?" And your counterargument is "He didn't call it a myth, so he must have been thinking of it as history!"

But I thought you said it was history. You said earlier that Adam was a literal man. Now you are confusing me. Do you believe part of the creation story was historical and part not. Please explain.

Without further external evidence there is simply no way to decide.

What external evidence are you looking for to determine the author's intent?

And yet when periods of seven years are called "weeks" in Daniel, nobody thinks that a literal Bible year lasted 24 hours.

Why would they? Moses said the creation was in 6 days, in accordance with six days. The days are defined beyond any reasonable doubt.

Science. The same thing that makes most Christians believe the Bible has no problem with the earth going 'round the sun.

The earth orbits the sun, but the term "goes around" is different. All movement is relative to one's point of view. From our point of view the heavens go around us. The writers were not making any claims about orbiting patterns. When you tell your kids to be still in the backseat, you are not telling them to be still relative to the road the car is traveling on, and certainly not relative to the sun our planet is orbiting. You are speaking relative to the cab of the car.

We are told in scripture not to move ancient boundaries (Prov. 22:28). But since the earth is moving at high speeds relative to the Sun, I suppose you take this to be scientifically inaccurate? We can dismiss that passage as figurative then based on science, right?

 

[Calminian]

then ignore it and skip over to those messages you can understand.

just as the delete button is the most important button on your mail reader, reading the first line of a message, sizing up both your interest and your abilities with respect to the content, then either reading the rest or skipping it is the most important skill you can learn reading the discussion boards.

i certainly sympathize with you for i often try to read webpages that are simply too difficult for me to understand or presuppose knowledge that i don't have. I've come to the conclusion that there is no shame in ignorance and inability, if i try over time to learn more and become less ignorant, the shame is in trying to exceed your grasp.

sometimes it is the writer's fault, for they are obtuse or demonstrate convoluted thinking that i find difficult to understand. however that is not the case with this post because i wrote it.

thank you for your comment, i appreciate everyone who reads and talks about my postings, it guess it is just the vain author in me.

I'm usually pretty good at this stuff. That was one of the most confusing posts I've ever read. I suppose if I were smarter I would have recognized the logic immediately. I’ll trust it’s over my head.

 

[Assyrian]

Jesus was figuratively called the lamb of God. Does that mean lamb's are figurative? Does this mean the gospels are figurative. I'm trying to see what method you use to determine how something is to be interpreted. The Devil is real. The crushing of the head is figurative for his defeat.

Lambs aren't figurative, neither is bread and neither are snakes. But there wasn't an actual young sheep that was 'the lamb of God', only Jesus, who wasn't a sheep. And while bread is real, there isn't any literal 'bread of life'. Snakes are real but Jesus did not step on any. Genesis was talking about the Devil, there was no snake.

But you do so with no proof Moses didn't believe creation was a week long event. In fact he stated.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them....

He was using the creation as an illustration of the Sabbath rest. We see another illustration Moses used in Deuteronomy.

Deut 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

If the days of God's creation have to be literal days since they are used to illustrate the Sabbath command, does that mean God had to have literal hands and arms? Or is this can be an anthropomorphism, why can't the days in Exodus 20:11.


Do you think God really was refreshed after his rest?

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.


Did the rest refresh him? Was he tired after creating for six days? I cannot believe that. God does not get tired. Isn't it another metaphor?

I think we'll never get anywhere. My argument is essentially "He didn't call it a history, so what's wrong with him thinking of it as a myth?" And your counterargument is "He didn't call it a myth, so he must have been thinking of it as history!"

Without further external evidence there is simply no way to decide.

I think the fact that that Moses used other metaphors to illustrate the same command (God's arm and hand) the six day occur in the middle of a metaphor about God resting and being refreshed is a pretty strong indication it isn't history.

That's nice. But Moses didn't say, "ya know that Abraham was a real Adam!"

No but he said it about Ishmael. Gen 16:11 ...You shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has listened to your affliction. 12 He shall be a wild donkey of an Adam.

 

[Calminian]

Lambs aren't figurative, neither is bread and neither are snakes. But there wasn't an actual young sheep that was 'the lamb of God', only Jesus, who wasn't a sheep. And while bread is real, there isn't any literal 'bread of life'. Snakes are real but Jesus did not step on any. Genesis was talking about the Devil, there was no snake.

You missed the point. There is no story in the N.T. about a lamb talking to his disciples. "Now the Lamb was more gentle than the beasts of the field." There's no story of a talking lamb persuading men. In genesis we have a snake that is compared to animals.

Jesus is called a metaphorical lamb as a description. The Devil is called a lion for descriptive purposes. The snake was called the Devil for identification purposes.

He was using the creation as an illustration of the Sabbath rest. We see another illustration Moses used in Deuteronomy.

Deut 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

If the days of God's creation have to be literal days since they are used to illustrate the Sabbath command, does that mean God had to have literal hands and arms? Or is this can be an anthropomorphism, why can't the days in Exodus 20:11.

No because there is nothing there saying, just as God has hands, so you have hands. Moses explicitly compares the days of creation to the work week.

If we start allowing for this kind of interpretative license do you realize how confusing all of scripture will become?

Do you think God really was refreshed after his rest?

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

Sure, why not? Divine refreshment certainly must be different from human refreshment, but why would I not believe the text?

Did the rest refresh him? Was he tired after creating for six days? I cannot believe that. God does not get tired. Isn't it another metaphor?

It does not say God got tired? And if you believe it is metiphorical, then what is it metaphorical of?

I think the fact that that Moses used other metaphors to illustrate the same command (God's arm and hand) the six day occur in the middle of a metaphor about God resting and being refreshed is a pretty strong indication it isn't history.

Actually it proves just the opposite. If hands really didn't exist, how would that be a useful metaphor? The analogy doesn't follow. The fact that God is described in anthropomorphic terms in no ways suggests that there really aren't any real humans. This is tortured logic.

No but he said it about Ishmael. Gen 16:11 ...You shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has listened to your affliction. 12 He shall be a wild donkey of an Adam.

I'll trust from the wink there's no need to respond.

 

[Assyrian]

You missed the point. There is no story in the N.T. about a lamb talking to his disciples. "Now the Lamb was more gentle than the beasts of the field." There's no story of a talking lamb persuading men. In genesis we have a snake that is compared to animals.

No but you have Jesus telling us about the Good Shepherd, but he wasn't telling us about a literal shepherd, he was talking about himself. But he wasn't actually a shepherd.

Jesus is called a metaphorical lamb as a description. The Devil is called a lion for descriptive purposes. The snake was called the Devil for identification purposes.

What do you mean by 'for identification purposes'? Are you saying the snake was the devil? In the story it is an animal, but Satan is a fallen angel, not a reptile. If Satan was the serpent in Eden, as for example the book of Revelation tells us, then the snake wasn't a real snake. No reptile was punished by having to slither on its belly, eat dust, and have its head crushed by the Messiah. It is all talking about Satan's downfall.

No because there is nothing there saying, just as God has hands, so you have hands. Moses explicitly compares the days of creation to the work week.

God is Spirit and fills the universe. We have hands, but when it talks about God's hands, it is a metaphor.

If we start allowing for this kind of interpretative license do you realize how confusing all of scripture will become?

Yes, it will require wisdom and the Spirit of God in our hearts.

Sure, why not? Divine refreshment certainly must be different from human refreshment, but why would I not believe the text?

So God's refreshment is different from human refreshment, but God's days have to be the same?

Actually Moses uses a word that only occurs a few times in the OT and refers to someone utterly exhausted getting their breath back (see Exodus 23:12 and 2Sam16:14).

It does not say God got tired? And if you believe it is metiphorical, then what is it metaphorical of?

God's identification with the weary labourers, migrant workers and children slaving in the fields in desperate need of a day's rest Exodus 23:12 and ultimately the incarnation when Jesus took on human weakness, and the resurrection where he 'got his breath' back after a Sabbath in the tomb. It refers to God's Sabbath rest that was not a 24 hour break but continues today and we are called to enter into in Hebrews 3&4.

Actually it proves just the opposite. If hands really didn't exist, how would that be a useful metaphor? The analogy doesn't follow. The fact that God is described in anthropomorphic terms in no ways suggests that there really aren't any real humans. This is tortured logic.

So there really must be 7 headed monsters?

No God describes himself to us in human terms because we are human and understand them. Our hands are real, but God's aren't.

I'll trust from the wink there's no need to respond.

A bit cheeky alright, but a serious point too. The Hebrew word adam is over 500 times in the OT, including Gen 16:11, and it means man or men.

 

[Calminian]

God's identification with the weary labourers, migrant workers and children slaving in the fields in desperate need of a day's rest Exodus 23:12 and ultimately the incarnation when Jesus took on human weakness, and the resurrection where he 'got his breath' back after a Sabbath in the tomb. It refers to God's Sabbath rest that was not a 24 hour break but continues today and we are called to enter into in Hebrews 3&4.

Your still trying to use metaphors to prove the creation days were metaphors. The analogy doesn't fit. Which do you believe is the metaphor, the work days or creation days.

No God describes himself to us in human terms because we are human and understand them. Our hands are real, but God's aren't.

I keep agreeing with this. You still don't understand what I'm saying. If God used real humans to describe real qualities about Himself, why do you believe he used fake days to tell us about the work week? What metaphorical message does the creation day tell us about the work week? Try to focus.

A bit cheeky alright, but a serious point too. The Hebrew word adam is over 500 times in the OT, including Gen 16:11, and it means man or men.

Yes, Hebrew names have a lot of meanings. What do you believe this proves?

 

[Assyrian]

Your still trying to use metaphors to prove the creation days were metaphors. The analogy doesn't fit. Which do you believe is the metaphor, the work days or creation days.

The metaphor is the use of the word 'day' to describe God's works of creation, but then day is a common biblical metaphor for a much longer period of time.

Your problem is there are only two verses in the whole bible which say God created the world in 6 days, and they occur in the middle of a metaphor describing God as a weary labourer. This is no basis for saying the six days are literal.

I keep agreeing with this. You still don't understand what I'm saying. If God used real humans to describe real qualities about Himself, why do you believe he used fake days to tell us about the work week?

The same reason he used 'fake hands' to describe liberating the Israelites. Human hands are real, 24 hour human days are real. God uses real human days and real human hands to metaphorically describe his actions to us. It doesn't mean God actually has hands, or that the creation took place over literal 24 hour days.

What metaphorical message does the creation day tell us about the work week?

Metaphorical message? I am not sure that is the way to describe it. The message was real, that the Israelites were to have a Sabbath rest every six human days. The message was conveyed through a metaphor, God was a labourer too, weary after six 'days' work.

However it is also true to describe the message itself as metaphorical as you did. The Sabbath law was a shadow of the heavenly things Heb 8:5. The real rest we need to enter is God's seventh day rest which is still going on in the spiritual realm, Heb 3 & 4.

Try to focus.

Yes, Hebrew names have a lot of meanings. What do you believe this proves?

Most Hebrew names are statements Elijah, MyGodIsYah, or are taken from words Naomi from no'am, pleasant, but Adam is the word adam, 'man', itself. Not only that, there isn't a single name in the whole bible that causes as much difficulty translation it as adam. Even in Genesis translations can't agree when it means Adam or 'man'. Does Gen 5:2 say Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created, or He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam in the day when they were created? Does Job 31:33 say, If like man I have covered my transgressions, or, if like Adam I have covered my transgressions?
What about Zech 12:1 Thus says the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him, any reason not to translate this 'formed the spirit of Adam within him'?

You had said:

Moses didn't say, "ya know that Abraham was a real Adam!"

I simply gave an example where Moses used 'adam' to describe Ishmael Gen 16:12 a wild donkey of an Adam.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Most Hebrew names are statements Elijah, MyGodIsYah, or are taken from words Naomi from no'am, pleasant, but Adam is the word adam, 'man', itself. Not only that, there isn't a single name in the whole bible that causes as much difficulty translation it as adam. Even in Genesis translations can't agree when it means Adam or 'man'. Does Gen 5:2 say Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created, or He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam in the day when they were created?

I noticed that the article "the" is used before 'adam in these verses with "man" as a seperate word.
Also, it almost appears as if the LORD took a whole side of the adam to build Eve. Any idea what the word "tsela' signifies? Pretty interesting.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Genesis 2:21 And Yahweh Elohim is causing to fall stupor on the 'adam, and he is sleeping and he is taking one of from on side-wall/tsela`of him and he is shutting up flesh under her.
22 And Yahweh Elohim is building/banah [with] the side-wall/tsela` which he takes from the 'adam to/into [a] woman and he is bringing her to the 'adam.
23 And the 'adam is saying: "this one/step/foot, the once bone/`etsem from bones of me, and flesh from flesh of me, to this he shall call woman/'ishshah, that from man/'iysh he took her, this one,

 

[Assyrian]

I noticed that the article "the" is used before 'adam in these verses with "man" as a seperate word.

In the first chapters of Genesis adm by itself is usually translated as Adam, but throughout the rest of the bible it is usually translated 'man'. With the definite article ha'adam is translated 'the man'. However, older translations like the King James tend to translate ha'adam as Adam in Genesis while modern translations say 'the man'. So in Genesis the AV has Adam 18 times while the RSV has 8, as has the World English Bible (WEB), while the CEV has only 5.

With some verses there is real inconsistency between the different translations. The versions which use Adam are highlighted.

Gen 3:20 with article: The man called his wife's name Eve
CEV ESV GNB JPS KJV LITV NASB NIV RSV WEB YLT
Gen 4:1 with article: And the man knew Eve his wife
CEV ESV GNB JPS KJV LITV NASB NIV RSV WEB YLT
Gen 5:2 no article: He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam
CEV ESV GNB JPS KJV LITV NASB NIV RSV WEB YLT

Gen 1:26 says adam, no article,Then God said, "Let us make adam in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion, which in the context of the creation should surely read 'Adam', but every version translated it 'man' or 'human beings'.

In Gen 6:1-2 & 4-7 we have ha'adam which should read 'the man' as they do in the first part of Genesis, but instead it is translated 'man' or 'men'

Also, it almost appears as if the LORD took a whole side of the adam to build Eve. Any idea what the word "tsela' signifies? Pretty interesting.

Isn't he the guy who invented that high voltage electrical coil? The word seems to mean rib, (either wood or bone), plank or side. I haven't seen any significance drawn from the actual word used, more from the bigger picture presented, seeing the wood instead of the trees as it were.

There is the old:

God created the Woman
Not from the dust of the earth to be a competitor with him*, but from his own rib - that he should love her as his own body.
Not from his Feet, that he should walk over her,
Nor from his head, that she should rule over him,
Nor from his hand, that she should be his servant, waiting on him hand and foot,
But from his rib - that she should be beside and held close to his heart.
God did not make him a pet, but a mate, to share life with together.

While Genesis itself sees it as a picture of the unity of marriage, 'become one flesh', 'bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh'

http://www.scripture4all.org/

An interlinear OT? Now that is a really cool. Is there much more in the software itself or should I just download the interlinear pdfs?

Genesis 2:21 And Yahweh Elohim is causing to fall stupor on the 'adam, and he is sleeping and he is taking one of from on side-wall/tsela`of him and he is shutting up flesh under her.
22 And Yahweh Elohim is building/banah [with] the side-wall/tsela` which he takes from the 'adam to/into [a] woman and he is bringing her to the 'adam.
23 And the 'adam is saying: "this one/step/foot, the once bone/`etsem from bones of me, and flesh from flesh of me, to this he shall call woman/'ishshah, that from man/'iysh he took her, this one,

Is this your literal translation or is it more stuff on the website?