Spot the error!!!

[miamited]

Hi Ted, I am completely aware of that. Don't worry I'm not a geocentric or anything like that. This was how Philo understood a day though, and even today, because of how we see things relatively, we talk of the sun rising and setting, even though it never moves.

My point was that someone suggested that all the ancients read Genesis literally. That statement is untrue, Philo being an example of a 1st century Jew who had no problem in saying that it was foolish to read Genesis literally; even with a more correct understanding of the motion of the planets, his argument is the same. When Jesus was alive it was an acceptable position to hold to that the creation account is not an historical account of how the world came to be but a story conveying greater truths within the style of a narrative.

Hi Dave,

I'm in need of some definitions here. When you use the term 'ancients', are you speaking of those who participated in the writing and delivering the holy Scriputres to us. In other words, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Daniel, Isaiah, Malachi, etc.? Or are you rather just speaking of pretty much all Jews who lived in old covenant times? Just so we're on the same page, I have never considered people since the new covenant as 'ancients' and so I ask does your definition also include, say, those of the early church? And if so, how far into the present do you consider the 'ancients' to have lived? 300AD, 600AD, or what?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Continued.

Also, when you speak of 'acceptable position', what exactly does that mean? That there was even one person who believed something or that it was the normative position?

Finally, are you in agreement with Philo?

Again God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Mr Dave]

Hi Dave,

I'm in need of some definitions here. When you use the term 'ancients', are you speaking of those who participated in the writing and delivering the holy Scriputres to us. In other words, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Daniel, Isaiah, Malachi, etc.? Or are you rather just speaking of pretty much all Jews who lived in old covenant times? Just so we're on the same page, I have never considered people since the new covenant as 'ancients' and so I ask does your definition also include, say, those of the early church? And if so, how far into the present do you consider the 'ancients' to have lived? 300AD, 600AD, or what?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

You've got a point, Ancients was an inaccurate term. I was using it as a catch-all phrase to those writing in ancient or classical antiquity. Late antiquity is generally taken to be up to the 6th century. Philo was writing in the Graeco-Roman world, comprising Ancient Greece and the Ancient Roman world, so 'ancients' seemed applicable but I agree that some clarity would have been useful.

Continued.

Also, when you speak of 'acceptable position', what exactly does that mean? That there was even one person who believed something or that it was the normative position?

Finally, are you in agreement with Philo?

Again God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

By 'acceptable position', it need be remembered that this was an era when writing wasn't widely practised and it wasn't possible to just write anything. The fact that Philo wrote what he did and felt it able to suggests that there were others who shared his views. His wasn't a position that upon producing his works would involve repercussions of heretical views.
The very fact that he wrote this text and could write it suggests that his wasn't a lone voice.

 

[miamited]

Hi Dave,

You responded: By 'acceptable position', it need be remembered that this was an era when writing wasn't widely practised and it wasn't possible to just write anything. The fact that Philo wrote what he did and felt it able to suggests that there were others who shared his views. His wasn't a position that upon producing his works would involve repercussions of heretical views.
The very fact that he wrote this text and could write it suggests that his wasn't a lone voice.

Thanks for your quick reply. I think you may be making some assumptions that are not in evidence, but that isn't really my issue. I agree that writing wasn't as copious as we find today, but I just want to make sure that that isn't trying to make some inference that the general population couldn't read and write.

As to 'others who shared his views', I have no doubt, but that neither makes his view the truth. Consider that in the days of our Lord's visitation to us there was a fairly large and important group of Jews called the Sadducees. It is reported in the Scriptures themselves that they didn't believe in the resurrection. So, let's clarify the picture. A fairly sizable group of Jews who held to a belief that I think the Scriptures prove is obviously wrong and yet are we not able to find other writing that condemns them as heretical? So, this idea that you have that because Philo wrote what he wrote and there don't appear to be any attacks leveled against him in that day that we have any written historical evidence of must, therefore, mean that it was accepted, may not really be a good indicator that it is the truth. After all, as born again believers we do seek the truth, right?

Historically, Philo is known as a Jewish philosopher who spent most of his life trying to harmonize Jewish philosophy with Greek philosophy. Kind of like christians today who want to harmonize God's account of creation with the scientific account. Consider that the very idea of 'harmonizing' is that you give a little bit here and you get a little bit there and you twist this around to fit here and you pull that out of there so that everything fits better there, etc. Until finally one is able to say, "Ah-haa! See! It all fits together just fine!" But for the born again believer we must return to the original question, "But is it the truth?" Great we got it all to fit now and everybody's in agreement, ...but is it the truth?

So, let's look at some more evidence that just claiming that a Jew said something or believed something or wrote something can't be taken as support that the claim must therefore be true. Isaiah opens up his wonderful book of propecy with these words:

The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner's manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand."

God raised up a nation of people from the loins of Abraham and had nurtured them and carried them out of harms way and protected and loved on them and had shown them some of His most amazing miracles, and yet, here is God telling Isaiah some several hundred years later, my people do not understand.

Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of being born again and Nicodemus' first question to him was, "How is it possible for a man to return to his mother's womb?"

My point, friend, is be very, very careful who and what you believe. It will have eternal consequences. I know, that for myself, one of my greatest anxieties is that I would ever stand before my God and Creator and be told, "Ted, in this, you did not teach others the truth."

Friend, I fully understand and agree that Philo believed and taught that this issue of the Scriptures regarding the creation of all things should not be taken literally, but rather more metaphorically or allegorically. I'm sorry, but I am firmly convicted by the Spirit of truth that lives within me that that is not the truth. Our God is a great and powerful and wise and majestic God. He has told us the truth in all things. He is able to do what man calls impossible with the greatest of ease. By the words of His mouth He can speak every star, every planet and every heavenly body from one end of the universe to the other into existence in mere moments. That, friend, is the God I serve.

For me, it comes with understanding God's purpose. I find that in studying the Scriptures God has clearly revealed that this entire realm of existence was created by Him so that this creature that He would create to love and to serve Him and be loved and served by Him, man, is why He created this universe. All of it!! From one end to the other was so that this creature, He called man, would have a suitable place to live that would last forever and ever. In the end friend, the last two chapters of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, tell us that God will achieve His ultimate purpose for which He created this realm. He will wipe away every tear and there will no longer be any pain or sorrow and He will declare, "Now, the dwelling of God is with men and He will be their God and they will be His people." You see, if you take the first couple of pages in Genesis and fold them over to the last couple of pages in the Revelation you can see the working out of God's plan.

The question for you today is: Did Philo understand and teach the truth any more than any of the other Jews who lived in Jesus' day?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Philo, Legum Allegoriae 1

It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make. But the sun is a portion of heaven, so that one must confess that time is a thing posterior to the world.

While I do not dismiss the allegorical interpretations of this Hellenistic Jewish scholar I do not regard his line of interpretation as compatible with the Apostle Paul's. Indeed, some take a figurative view of many things in Genesis, not because of the language of the narrative but because they simply don't believe it. Time and space are the dimensions by which we measure the physical world, it is absurd in the extreme to dismiss time as 'posterior' to the world. I think what your attempting here is a dialectical unification of Genesis with the naturalistic assumptions of evolution. It may go over well with evolutionists but I know what you are doing and it won't work on any watching bird. (Proverbs 1:17)

Therefore it would be correctly said that the world was not created in time,

Stop! Now compare that statement to this one and tell me: Did the incarnation happen 'in time'? Answer this one and we can move on. Try to ignore it and you will be seeing it again and again until you do:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; (Nicene Creed)​

but that time had its existence in consequence of the world. For it is the motion of the heaven that has displayed the nature of time. (3) When, therefore, Moses says, “God completed his works on the sixth day,” we must understand that he is speaking not of a number of days, but that he takes six as a perfect number.

Nonsense, 7 is the number of divine perfection. The rule of thumb is that the significance of a word or phrase goes back to the first mention of it in the Bible. The significance of the number six goes back the sixth day of creation.

What is far more important is that these are not mystical numbers, there is no pagan mystery to unravel. The use of numbers in Genesis 1 are ordinal, in other words, the are numbers counted in succession (1, 2, 3...) the way you would count the days of a month, a year or...what else...oh yea....an actual week!

Your attempting to get all philosophical and it's fun to watch. The problem is that when you trying to deal with Genesis philosophically you must define your terms. You can start with the incarnation, in fact you will reference your definition to time as you have defined it here or you will keep seeing it. Then we can talk about the clear meaning of Scripture with regards to the ordinal numbers associated with the days of creation.

...it need be remembered that this was an era when writing wasn't widely practised and it wasn't possible to just write anything. The fact that Philo wrote what he did and felt it able to suggests that there were others who shared his views. His wasn't a position that upon producing his works would involve repercussions of heretical views.
The very fact that he wrote this text and could write it suggests that his wasn't a lone voice.

Neither was Paul's understanding of Adam as the first parent of humanity, his certainly was not a lone voice. I have no major issues with Hellenism or exploring what ancient philosophers have to share with us. I do question a mystical interpretation of Genesis and some search for the 'deeper meaning' of Genesis since it negates the book as an historical narrative. What of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Joseph, shall we dismiss them as mysteries and figures of speech as well?

...I think you may be making some assumptions that are not in evidence, but that isn't really my issue. I agree that writing wasn't as copious as we find today, but I just want to make sure that that isn't trying to make some inference that the general population couldn't read and write.

Did you really just accuse someone of false assumptions? The Law was taught to the populations by the Levitical priests who were responsible for communicating God's word to them. When Israel rejected the Law of God through unbelief God sent prophets who warned of impending judgment, these warning were largely unheeded. Finally God sent his Son to them and was crucified, resurrected and ascended to the right hand of the Father. Paul, brought the Gospel to the Gentiles and we as Christians must give ear to the teachings of the Apostle before we consider the rationalizations of the Hellenistic scholar who did not know the Gospel and consequently could not examine Genesis in light of the New Testament witness regarding Creation.

Before you belabor Phillo, I would ask, what do you think of Paul's interpretation of Adam?

As to 'others who shared his views', I have no doubt, but that neither makes his view the truth. Consider that in the days of our Lord's visitation to us there was a fairly large and important group of Jews called the Sadducees. It is reported in the Scriptures themselves that they didn't believe in the resurrection. So, let's clarify the picture. A fairly sizable group of Jews who held to a belief that I think the Scriptures prove is obviously wrong and yet are we not able to find other writing that condemns them as heretical? So, this idea that you have that because Philo wrote what he wrote and there don't appear to be any attacks leveled against him in that day that we have any written historical evidence of must, therefore, mean that it was accepted, may not really be a good indicator that it is the truth. After all, as born again believers we do seek the truth, right?

You need to learn your history, the Jews did not accept his blending of Hellenistic philosophy. They favored a literal interpretation and he dismissed them as ignorant and simple minded. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Philo used philosophical allegory to attempt to fuse and harmonize Greek philosophy with Jewish philosophy. His method followed the practices of both Jewish exegesis and Stoic philosophy. His allegorical exegesis was important for several Christian Church Fathers, but he has barely any reception history within Judaism. "The sophists of literalness," as he calls the literalist Jews,[1] "opened their eyes superciliously" when he explained to them the marvels of his exegesis. He believed that literal interpretations of the Hebrew Bible would stifle mankind's view and perception of a God too complex and marvelous to be understood in literal human terms. Philo, Wikipedia​

Historically, Philo is known as a Jewish philosopher who spent most of his life trying to harmonize Jewish philosophy with Greek philosophy. Kind of like christians today who want to harmonize God's account of creation with the scientific account. Consider that the very idea of 'harmonizing' is that you give a little bit here and you get a little bit there and you twist this around to fit here and you pull that out of there so that everything fits better there, etc. Until finally one is able to say, "Ah-haa! See! It all fits together just fine!" But for the born again believer we must return to the original question, "But is it the truth?" Great we got it all to fit now and everybody's in agreement, ...but is it the truth?

I couldn't agree more...

So, let's look at some more evidence that just claiming that a Jew said something or believed something or wrote something can't be taken as support that the claim must therefore be true. Isaiah opens up his wonderful book of propecy with these words:

The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner's manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand."

God raised up a nation of people from the loins of Abraham and had nurtured them and carried them out of harms way and protected and loved on them and had shown them some of His most amazing miracles, and yet, here is God telling Isaiah some several hundred years later, my people do not understand.

Just one question, if I can't take Genesis 1 literally why should I take Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses or even Isaiah literally?

Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of being born again and Nicodemus' first question to him was, "How is it possible for a man to return to his mother's womb?"

Being born again is to become a new creation, that's why the incarnation and new birth are so closely related to the creation. Bear that in mind and we can move on with your exposition.

My point, friend, is be very, very careful who and what you believe. It will have eternal consequences. I know, that for myself, one of my greatest anxieties is that I would ever stand before my God and Creator and be told, "Ted, in this, you did not teach others the truth."

Ted can defend himself in this, I see no difficulty in doing so for him.

Friend, I fully understand and agree that Philo believed and taught that this issue of the Scriptures regarding the creation of all things should not be taken literally, but rather more metaphorically or allegorically. I'm sorry, but I am firmly convicted by the Spirit of truth that lives within me that that is not the truth. Our God is a great and powerful and wise and majestic God. He has told us the truth in all things. He is able to do what man calls impossible with the greatest of ease. By the words of His mouth He can speak every star, every planet and every heavenly body from one end of the universe to the other into existence in mere moments. That, friend, is the God I serve.

That is the God that the naturalistic assumptions of evolution reject.

For me, it comes with understanding God's purpose. I find that in studying the Scriptures God has clearly revealed that this entire realm of existence was created by Him so that this creature that He would create to love and to serve Him and be loved and served by Him, man, is why He created this universe. All of it!! From one end to the other was so that this creature, He called man, would have a suitable place to live that would last forever and ever. In the end friend, the last two chapters of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, tell us that God will achieve His ultimate purpose for which He created this realm. He will wipe away every tear and there will no longer be any pain or sorrow and He will declare, "Now, the dwelling of God is with men and He will be their God and they will be His people." You see, if you take the first couple of pages in Genesis and fold them over to the last couple of pages in the Revelation you can see the working out of God's plan.

As long as you take it all figuratively?

The question for you today is: Did Philo understand and teach the truth any more than any of the other Jews who lived in Jesus' day?

The question for you is did he teach it any differently then the pagan world regarding the origin of the universe and life on this planet? More importantly, did he really reject the Apostle Paul as ignorant and simple minded because Paul was one of those Jewish literalists he despised so much.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

I'm well aware of the three-fold interpretation approach thanks.

Of course you are aware of it, you are the one who brought it up in post 14. But saying you are aware of it doesn't actually address my point.

5.1.31 Regarding Rom 5:12-14 For that tyrant, who is called death, was exercising dominion from Adam, who was the first to give entrance to him by his own collusion, so that he could pass through to all men....​

Short snippets like that are not a good way to tell if a writer is speaking literally. A quote from a sermon on the parable of the Prodigal Son could easily sound as though the preacher thought the Prodigal was a real person. But look at how Origen starts off this chapter:

Therefore it seem to me that in these matters the apostle is describing death as if the hostile entrance of some tyrant who wanted to invade the dominion of a rightful king…
​

'As if' should tell you Origen is describing the 'tyrant death' in as simile.

5.5.9 “So then Adam offered sinners a model thorough his disobedience; but Christ, in contrast, gave the righteous a model by his obedience..... It is also on this account that he “became obedient unto death,” (Phil 2:8) in order that those who follow the example of his obedience might be made righteous by righteousness itself, just as those others were made sinners by following the model of Adam's disobedience.”​

Notes on Origen on Romans

Look at the word 'model' here, this is the Latin word forma, mainly used in the Latin bible to translate the Greek tupos. Remember this is Origin's commentary on Romans 5, forma is the word a few verses before to describe Adam as a figure of Christ. To use this passage to claim Origin is speaking literally you would really need how he is using forma/tupos. What is interesting though is that Origin is applying forma/tupos in verse 14 to the comparison of Adam and Christ throughout the rest of Romans 5.

He is not talking about humanity, he is talking about the person, Adam. This is the proper way to speak of Adam in a New Testament context and the context of the creation account.

It is in Genesis that Origen said the Hebrew was speaking about Adam as humanity. Origin wasn't talking about Adam as an individual in his Commentary of Romans either, he was talking about Adam as a figure, tupos.

When dealing with skeptics he simply suggested that you dismiss their objections but emphasizing the philosophical aspects.

Much easier to dismiss the skeptics by pointing out they completely misunderstood the passage, taking it literally when it was really speaking allegorically.

Your right, he had no problem with a figurative interpretation but clearly he regarded Adam as the first parent of humanity and the originator of sin in the human context.

If he did see Adam as the first parent and the first to sin, which you haven't shown, he didn't seem to see the literal meaning as having any relevance, the account was written figuratively to tell the story of mankind.

Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars--the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that any one eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it.
Origen de Principiis​

That's just not how the passage reads, there was a sky, it was just dark. The progression of the narrative is from the surface of the earth and whatever interpretation you take hold of there is only one real doctrinal issue. Sin.

It is not just the day in Genesis 1 Origen didn't take literally, which is very relevant in itself, and rejects the idea the first chapter in Genesis is history, but he is also dismissing the literal meaning details in Genesis 2&3.

What he is saying is that there is a deeper meaning, that's exactly what he is saying. He is not making the figurative and literal meaning mutually exclusive but is instead looking into the mysteries associated. No, he didn't favor a rigid literal interpretation but he wasn't sold out to a figurative reading of the text either.

No he is saying some literal interpretation are just plain silly. "Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding... who is found so ignorant as to suppose... No one, I think, can doubt..."

The issue isn't that Origen was referring to 1Cor 15:22, it is how he was interpreting it. If Origen is interpreting Adam as the earth to fit the Jeremiah quote ("for it is written regarding Adam, You are earth"), then he is not talking about us all dying in Adam the individual, but everyone in the whole earth (Adam) dying.

This is the quote and it's self-explanatory:

IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)​

It only seems self explanatory to you because you try to take everything literally even if the writer is speaking figuratively. I have shown you how this quote is based on Origen's figurative interpretation of Adam as 'earth' which he explains in the beginning of the homily.

It was not invented by Augustine, it's a Pauline doctrine from Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 and Genesis 3. There is nothing dated about the narrative and if you don't want to believe it that's your business but it's what the Scriptures say and the ECF believed. Rationalize it anyway you like, original sin is a New Testament doctrine and the eight times Adam is mentioned in the New Testament it refers to Adam, the first parent of humanity.

Paul doesn't mention Original Sin or that Adam's sin was passed on to the whole human race, neither does Genesis mention anything about it. If you could support the doctrine from the NT you might have a case, but it simply isn't there. We get the doctrine of Original Sin from Augustine who came up with it to contradict Pelagius. Trying to read the doctrine back into statements made two hundred years before by someone who never heard of Augustine or Original Sin is simply anachronistic.

I'm not arguing with you in circles again over this, if you don't believe it I really don't care but I don't need you to tell me what the Scriptures teach or what the ECF taught. You have proven unreliable in the past with nearly perfect consistency.

You never have been able to show the doctrine from scripture so it is pretty clear who is unreliable here.

I need to do nothing of the sort. Origen speaks of Adam as the first parent of humanity and the source of original sin. Yes, he entertained the figurative approach and that's his prerogative but clearly he took Adam literally.

Of course you don't need to do anything of the sort. You can simply keep making unsupported claims if you like, and I will keep pointing out they are unsupported. When I said you would need to show all that, I mean if you wanted to have a solid argument. You don't actually need to do it.

I would need to see the original argument Philis is referring to to know if it was a straw man or not, but I was replying to your response to her first point, that the church fathers had different interpretations of the creation account. Pointing out literal interpretations of Adam and the fall does not take from the figurative interpretation of the creation days and even if figurative interpretations of Adam were rarer than for the creation days, we still have at least one church father, Origen who interpreted him figuratively.

You keep telling me what I need to do as if simply not believing the Genesis account of creation makes you some kind of an authority. Philis is using a strawman argument, that is the error in the argument. She is making a straw man argument that you are defending by begging the question of proof.

I don't know where you get the nerve to pontificate to me as if I were subservient to you or somehow less informed. The TEs on here are blatant in their fallacious arguments and consumed with their own private interpretations that are contrary to the clear testimony of Moses and Paul on this matter.

I've no idea what all this has to do with my point.

Origen took Adam literally because Paul did, it's as simple as that. When dealing with skeptics he complained that the room for a figurative interpretation is never made. Yes, he warned against a rigid literalism that he regarded as ignorant but with regards to the sin of Adam he is not speaking of him as a figure of humanity. He is speaking of him as the Scriptures present him, the first parent of humanity.

I'm dizzy chasing this one for the umpteenth time around the mulberry bush. Thanks for the exchange, if you get some fresh material let me know.

Have a nice day
Mark

I think we have looked at a lot of fresh material here. I have certainly enjoyed a deeper examination Origen and his writings. Your problem is you haven't been able to get your head around new material any more than you did with the old.

 

[miamited]

hi Mark,

Just a couple points for clarification for other readers. You posted:

Originally Posted by miamited

...it need be remembered that this was an era when writing wasn't widely practised and it wasn't possible to just write anything. The fact that Philo wrote what he did and felt it able to suggests that there were others who shared his views. His wasn't a position that upon producing his works would involve repercussions of heretical views.
The very fact that he wrote this text and could write it suggests that his wasn't a lone voice.
​

Neither was Paul's understanding of Adam as the first parent of humanity, his certainly was not a lone voice. I have no major issues with Hellenism or exploring what ancient philosophers have to share with us. I do question a mystical interpretation of Genesis and some search for the 'deeper meaning' of Genesis since it negates the book as an historical narrative. What of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Joseph, shall we dismiss them as mysteries and figures of speech as well?

I was not the original poster of that statement. I had copied it from another's previous post. I would appreciate that you would strive to be more careful in these things because all the rest of your post seems to be directed at me and what I'm reading clearly indicates that it isn't. For example:

...I think you may be making some assumptions that are not in evidence, but that isn't really my issue. I agree that writing wasn't as copious as we find today, but I just want to make sure that that isn't trying to make some inference that the general population couldn't read and write.
​

Did you really just accuse someone of false assumptions? The Law was taught to the populations by the Levitical priests who were responsible for communicating God's word to them. When Israel rejected the Law of God through unbelief God sent prophets who warned of impending judgment, these warning were largely unheeded. Finally God sent his Son to them and was crucified, resurrected and ascended to the right hand of the Father. Paul, brought the Gospel to the Gentiles and we as Christians must give ear to the teachings of the Apostle before we consider the rationalizations of the Hellenistic scholar who did not know the Gospel and consequently could not examine Genesis in light of the New Testament witness regarding Creation.

Before you belabor Phillo, I would ask, what do you think of Paul's interpretation of Adam?

This is a quote from me, but it is making the very point that you are, at the last, asking to be explained. The writer I was responding to was making assumptions about others who may have believed Philo's philosophical wanderings as some sort of 'proof' that this was a valid and possibly truthful concept, seemingly based on just the fact that Philo was a Jew. I, like you, disagree. Since you started by copying under my post name I would ask, are you wanting an answer from me about Paul's interpretation of Adam, or the person I was addressing?

Anyway, you might want to go back and reread your post and clarify who said what and who you are asking all of your questions of.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[Assyrian]

You've got a point, Ancients was an inaccurate term. I was using it as a catch-all phrase to those writing in ancient or classical antiquity. Late antiquity is generally taken to be up to the 6th century. Philo was writing in the Graeco-Roman world, comprising Ancient Greece and the Ancient Roman world, so 'ancients' seemed applicable but I agree that some clarity would have been useful.

By 'acceptable position', it need be remembered that this was an era when writing wasn't widely practised and it wasn't possible to just write anything. The fact that Philo wrote what he did and felt it able to suggests that there were others who shared his views. His wasn't a position that upon producing his works would involve repercussions of heretical views.
The very fact that he wrote this text and could write it suggests that his wasn't a lone voice.

Josephus was a priest in Jerusalem, (but not a Sadducee) he seemed to interpreted the story of Adam and Eve allegorically too, though unlike Philo he took the days of Genesis 1 literally. If you have representatives of first century Judaism from the Hellenistic Philo in Alexandria to a priest in Jerusalem with figurative interpretation of Genesis it seems like the allegorical interpretation of Genesis was widespread in first century Judaism. Jesus took the Sadducees head on over the resurrection as did Paul, if the literal interpretation of Genesis is so important why wasn't the issue dealt with in the NT? Instead we see Jesus using the creation of male and female as a lesson teaching us about divorce, the kind of moral figure or type Philo used, while Paul describes Adam as a figure or type of Christ. Sounds like either the figurative interpretation of Genesis is really the right one, or it simply doesn't matter whether you take these chapters literally or not, as you put it, it was an acceptable position both among first century Jews and in the church.

 

[mark kennedy]

Look at the word 'model' here, this is the Latin word forma, mainly used in the Latin bible to translate the Greek tupos. Remember this is Origin's commentary on Romans 5, forma is the word a few verses before to describe Adam as a figure of Christ. To use this passage to claim Origin is speaking literally you would really need how he is using forma/tupos. What is interesting though is that Origin is applying forma/tupos in verse 14 to the comparison of Adam and Christ throughout the rest of Romans 5.

Have you no shame? Where is the quote from Origen where he perverts the meaning of 'tupos' from the Koine Greek in the fashion?

It is in Genesis that Origen said the Hebrew was speaking about Adam as humanity. Origin wasn't talking about Adam as an individual in his Commentary of Romans either, he was talking about Adam as a figure, tupos.

No he is not.

If he did see Adam as the first parent and the first to sin, which you haven't shown, he didn't seem to see the literal meaning as having any relevance, the account was written figuratively to tell the story of mankind.

No it wasn't.

It is not just the day in Genesis 1 Origen didn't take literally, which is very relevant in itself, and rejects the idea the first chapter in Genesis is history, but he is also dismissing the literal meaning details in Genesis 2&3.

That's quite enough of that. I know your tactics and they are pointless. You have shamelessly manipulated the clear meaning of Scripture:

Strong's G76 ( Adam Ἀδάμ "the red earth") Adam, the first man, the parent of the whole human family

Strong's G5179 - (typos τύπος )
1) the mark of a stroke or blow, print
2) a figure formed by a blow or impression

a) of a figure or image
b) of the image of the gods​

3) form

a) the teaching which embodies the sum and substance of religion and represents it to the mind, manner of writing, the contents and form of a letter​

4) an example

a) in the technical sense, the pattern in conformity to which a thing must be made
b) in an ethical sense, a dissuasive example, a pattern of warning
1) of ruinous events which serve as admonitions or warnings to others
c) an example to be imitated
1) of men worthy of imitation
d) in a doctrinal sense
1) of a type i.e. a person or thing prefiguring a future (Messianic) person or thing​

A direct example of how the word you are fraudulently pretending means 'figure of speech' simply means a type or example, it's the idea of a pattern no an analogy:

There are 16 examples of how it is used in the New Testament, this is the only exact form of the word used elsewhere:

Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity. (I Tim 4:12)​

Timothy is to be an 'example' (typos) to other believers. A literal Timothy being an example to literal believers.

You have been shown this repeatedly and refuse to acknowledge the clear meaning of Scripture. Your debate tactics are shameful and I won't cast my pearls before this kind of blatant skepticism again. I had given up the practice of blocking evolutionists because I was sure they simply didn't understand the Scriptures.

I won't do this with you anymore, you have went too far too often. I know for a fact that you understand the clear meaning of Romans 5 because you have been shown it too many times to be convinced otherwise. I could have helped take a Biblical stand on the issue but you choose instead to twist the meaning of the Scriptures and I won't dignify these shameful distortions with another response.

 

[mark kennedy]

Try learning how to do a quote wrap, this format is far too chaotic. I'll try to sort this out but it's a time consuming practice and I'm starting to lose patience with the forum.

Neither was Paul's understanding of Adam as the first parent of humanity, his certainly was not a lone voice. I have no major issues with Hellenism or exploring what ancient philosophers have to share with us. I do question a mystical interpretation of Genesis and some search for the 'deeper meaning' of Genesis since it negates the book as an historical narrative. What of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Joseph, shall we dismiss them as mysteries and figures of speech as well?

That's a quote wrap, there is a tool for it at the top of the posting box. I added my name with an equal sign to separate it as a block quote. Learn how to do this and you will have a lot less confusion in your posts. If your doing this from a cell phone app I don't know what to tell you unless you want to type out the code and do it manually.

actual quote

hi Mark,

This is a quote from me, but it is making the very point that you are, at the last, asking to be explained. The writer I was responding to was making assumptions about others who may have believed Philo's philosophical wanderings as some sort of 'proof' that this was a valid and possibly truthful concept, seemingly based on just the fact that Philo was a Jew. I, like you, disagree. Since you started by copying under my post name I would ask, are you wanting an answer from me about Paul's interpretation of Adam, or the person I was addressing?

I think I understand what your saying, you were cut and pasting a quote.

Anyway, you might want to go back and reread your post and clarify who said what and who you are asking all of your questions of.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

I'm happy with what I posted, unless there is a problem with the content of my discussion I see no real reason to review. I don't have any problem with this Hellenistic Jewish scholar but clearly Paul was a literalist. What ever the confusion regarding the quotes they could be readily fixed with block quotes. When you simple cut and past a quote from someone else and I respond to it the post you made becomes a block quote from you. Unless you block off who you are quoting I have no way of knowing that the statement is from someone else except for whatever formatting you use.

I don't do that, unless it's in a block quote I consider it the statement of the poster. If there is some problem with the post I was responding to then I think you need to go back and put what your were quoting in block quotes and that will fix that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Have you no shame?

That's not actually an argument

Where is the quote from Origen where he perverts the meaning of 'tupos' from the Koine Greek in the fashion?

I have shown you before what tupos meant in first and second century Koine Greek, but that isn't the issue here. It isn't whether Origen though a type had to be taken from a literal OT passage or not. It is the fact that Origen was interpreting Adam as a tupos/forma in Romans 5.

5.1.38 “For as death came through one man, so also is the resurrection of the dead though one man.” (1Cor 15:21) And again, “For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one, many will be made righteous.” (Rom 5:19) But if we understand that the Apostle was saying the Adam is a type of that which is to come, from the time he was writing these things, then it should be understood all the more that, just as death exercise dominion in this age through one man, Adam, and that the whole human race became mortal, so also in the future age life shall reign through Christ (Rom 5:17) and the whole human race will be bestowed immortality.

5:2:2 And he begins with this expression, just as if explaining in what sense he might call Adam a type of Christ. He says “For If the many died through the trespass of the one” i.e., in Adam obviously, “much more will the grace of God and the gift of in the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, abound for every many.” (Rom 5:15-16)...For when judgment come from Adam's single act of transgressing (Rom 5:17) the result is that condemnation came to all men. In contrast, however, justification was given to all through Christ from many transgressions, in which the whole human race was being held so that, just as death had exercised its dominion in transgressions through the one, so also through the obedience of the one, life would reign through righteousness (Rom 5:21). It is therefore not without profound skill in speaking that the Apostles calls Adam a type of Christ. (Rom 5:14).
Origen Homily on Romans
​

It is interesting that Origen not only interpreted Adam as a figurative picture of Christ in Romans 5, he also did it with the comparison of Adam and Christ in 1Cor 15.

No he is not.

No it wasn't.

Those aren't really arguments either.

That's quite enough of that. I know your tactics and they are pointless. You have shamelessly manipulated the clear meaning of Scripture:

Have you forgotten we are taking about Origen here? It is the meaning of Origen's statement I was talking about, not scripture. If Origen was dismissing the literal interpretation of those passages, blame him for 'manipulating the clear meaning of scripture' not me. The issue here is simply whether the church father Origen interpreted Genesis figuratively or not, and he clearly did.

Strong's G76 ( Adam Ἀδάμ "the red earth") Adam, the first man, the parent of the whole human family

Strong's G5179 - (typos τύπος )
1) the mark of a stroke or blow, print
2) a figure formed by a blow or impression

a) of a figure or image
b) of the image of the gods​

3) form

a) the teaching which embodies the sum and substance of religion and represents it to the mind, manner of writing, the contents and form of a letter​

4) an example

a) in the technical sense, the pattern in conformity to which a thing must be made
b) in an ethical sense, a dissuasive example, a pattern of warning
1) of ruinous events which serve as admonitions or warnings to others
c) an example to be imitated
1) of men worthy of imitation
d) in a doctrinal sense
1) of a type i.e. a person or thing prefiguring a future (Messianic) person or thing​

A direct example of how the word you are fraudulently pretending means 'figure of speech' simply means a type or example, it's the idea of a pattern no an analogy:

The root meaning may be a mark from a blow, which is how it is used in a number of places in the NT, but the word had a wider range of meanings than that, you cannot simply restrict it arbitrarily to 'pattern'. It was used as an example positive or negative as your lexicon description points out, and we see in your quote from 1 Timothy. It was also used much more allegorically in what was later called typology. Stories and characters from the OT interpreted as pictures of Christ and the new covenant. We see that in Peter's interpretation of baptism as the antitype of the Ark, or Paul's interpretation of crossing the Red Sea and the rock the Israelites drank water from as types or figurative pictures of baptism and of Christ.

There are 16 examples of how it is used in the New Testament, this is the only exact form of the word used elsewhere:

You should probably learn some NT Greek before you try to argue about the different inflections of Greek words which deal with the grammatical structure of a sentence, not the definition of the word.

Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity. (I Tim 4:12)​

Timothy is to be an 'example' (typos) to other believers. A literal Timothy being an example to literal believers.

Yes you could have a literal person used as a type, but in the first and second centuries types could be take from metaphorical pictures too. Apocalyptic visions were 'types', you could think Genesis was an allegory and still describe your interpretation of the different characters as tupoi. It was only later that typology defined types as being restricted to literal characters and events.

You have been shown this repeatedly

You have shown me this repeatedly and each time when I took you arguments apart, you were unable to respond.

and refuse to acknowledge the clear meaning of Scripture. Your debate tactics are shameful and I won't cast my pearls before this kind of blatant skepticism again. I had given up the practice of blocking evolutionists because I was sure they simply didn't understand the Scriptures.

You were probably closer to the truth there. It is not that we don't understand scripture (though there is much we don't understand), but that we understand it differently from you. From your point of view, we are misunderstanding scripture. Simply not understanding would be much simpler for you to deal with. What you need to do is show us from scripture (grammar, linguistics and exegesis) that a) our understanding of scripture is wrong and b) that your is right. Simples If you are right and we are wrong, you should be able to show us. Of course there is always the possibility you are the one who misunderstands what God has said.

I won't do this with you anymore, you have went too far too often. I know for a fact that you understand the clear meaning of Romans 5 because you have been shown it too many times to be convinced otherwise. I could have helped take a Biblical stand on the issue but you choose instead to twist the meaning of the Scriptures and I won't dignify these shameful distortions with another response.

I know what you think is the clear meaning of Romans 5 and have shown you that it isn't actually what the passage says. Right now we are discussing what Origen thought of Romans 5. But you seem to have as much of a problem understanding what he says as you do with scripture itself. I don't think you are purposely twisting or distorting scripture or Origen. Is it possible you are starting from what you think scripture or Origen should say and can't get past that to look at what is actually being said?

 

[gluadys]

hi Mr. Dave,

Just so you know that position isn't correct according to the physical definition of the time of a day. A day is one rotation of the planet earth, or any planet, upon its axis, period. There is no need of sun or moon or any other heavenly body in all of the universe in order for the time of a day to pass upon the earth. All that is necessary is that the earth is, and it is spinning. Feel free to look up how the length of a day is determined in the EB (encyclopia britannica) or any other qualified teacher.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

That is a correct modern definition of a day, but it is not the one the biblical writers or early interpreters were working from.

For example: Mark cited this passage from Philo: (bold added)

Philo, Legum Allegoriae 1

It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make. But the sun is a portion of heaven, so that one must confess that time is a thing posterior to the world.

If, as Philo believed, the earth stands still and does not spin, then "day" and "night" are necessarily defined by the motion of the sun "as he passes over the earth and under the earth", and we can take it that this is the meaning wherever the term is used literally in scripture.

Otherwise we are reading into scripture our own modern understanding, not what the writers are actually trying to say.

 

[miamited]

That is a correct modern definition of a day, but it is not the one the biblical writers or early interpreters were working from.

Hi Glaudys,

Unless you know the mind of God, through whose Spirit the Scriptures were written and according to the early apostles was the author of the Scriptures, I'm not sure you're qualified to explain the author's working definition of day. Just so you know, God didn't write His Scriptures just for the people of 'that' day, but for all generations for all time.

Did the Hebrews in the desert define a day as a rotation of the earth? Well, day, is one of those words, like thousands and thousands of others that can have different meanings depending on the context. It can mean the time of one rotation of a planet. It can mean a period of time defined by some other parameters, such as in that 'day', which is how you would have used it in your reply to me had you said, 'it is not the one the biblical writers or early interpreters were working from, in that day.'

The Egyptians certainly knew that the earth spins on its axis. Job even knew, whenever he lived, that the earth spins on its axis and there really isn't any reason to believe that there wasn't an understanding that a 'day' meant one rotation of the planet when the Hebrews came out of Egypt and Moses wrote the Penteteuch. Babylonian astronomers had long since developed techniques to map out the stars and measure the rotation of the earth. What word do you think they used when they were referring to the time it took for some point in the heavens to reappear in the same place approximately 24 hours later?

Of course, part of this argument will rest on what you believe about the Scriptures and who is really the author thereof. So, unless you can provide evidence beyond your own or someone else's 'opinion', then I am satisfied to know that God meant 'yom' and by defining each 'yom' as consisting of an evening and a morning, which by the way are merely 2 equal divisions of a day from midnight to noon and then noon to midnight, that He was in fact, and all the Hebrews understood that God was, speaking of a complete day, or one full rotation of the planet.

That's my understanding, but you are free to understand it as you see fit.

God bless you,.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Oh, and BTW, Philo was a philosopher who spent most of his life trying to realign Jewish biblical truth with Greek philosophy, so I don't really put much faith in his explanations of things as being from the Spirit of God who gives all knowledge of truth. Notice that Philo says that the sun passes over and under the earth and we know that the sun doesn't much move in relation to it's position with the earth. So, I'm not swayed much by Mr. Philo's great 'wisdom'.

Again, God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[gluadys]

That is a correct modern definition of a day, but it is not the one the biblical writers or early interpreters were working from.

Hi Glaudys,

Unless you know the mind of God, through whose Spirit the Scriptures were written and according to the early apostles was the author of the Scriptures, I'm not sure you're qualified to explain the author's working definition of day.

Just as qualified as you are. Maybe more so.

Just so you know, God didn't write His Scriptures just for the people of 'that' day, but for all generations for all time.

God did not write the scriptures. God inspired people to write them. I am sure he worked with people as they were and not as if they were people of the far future.

Did the Hebrews in the desert define a day as a rotation of the earth?

They couldn't have, since as far as they were aware, the earth did not rotate. They defined a day in reference to their perception of the movement of the sun.

Well, day, is one of those words, like thousands and thousands of others that can have different meanings depending on the context. It can mean the time of one rotation of a planet.

For us, yes. For the writers of the bible, no.

The Egyptians certainly knew that the earth spins on its axis.

What is the documentation which supports this claim?

Job even knew, whenever he lived, that the earth spins on its axis

What is the documentation that supports this claim?

Babylonian astronomers had long since developed techniques to map out the stars and measure the rotation of the earth.

They certainly mapped out the stars. They may even have ascertained that the earth is a sphere (as the Greeks did).

But what documentation supports the claim they even knew of a rotation of the earth?

So, unless you can provide evidence beyond your own or someone else's 'opinion', then I am satisfied to know that God meant 'yom' and by defining each 'yom' as consisting of an evening and a morning, which by the way are merely 2 equal divisions of a day from midnight to noon and then noon to midnight, that He was in fact, and all the Hebrews understood that God was, speaking of a complete day,

This, of course, does not tell us that those who described a day in this way were referring to a rotation of the earth rather than to a movement of the sun. And it actually describes a 'day' as a period of darkness (evening to morning) followed by a period of light (morning to evening). Even in the present, Jews set the beginning of the new day at sunset, not at midnight.

Oh, and BTW, Philo was a philosopher who spent most of his life trying to realign Jewish biblical truth with Greek philosophy, so I don't really put much faith in his explanations of things as being from the Spirit of God who gives all knowledge of truth. Notice that Philo says that the sun passes over and under the earth and we know that the sun doesn't much move in relation to it's position with the earth. So, I'm not swayed much by Mr. Philo's great 'wisdom'.

Whether you agree with Philo's philosophy is irrelevant. It is still a fact that he described a "day" in terms of the movement of the sun. He did not know what we now know about the relative positions and movements of the sun and earth. And he was one of the best-educated individuals of his time. Ergo, no one in his culture knew what we now know about the relative positions and movements of the sun and the earth.

Therefore, they did not define a day in terms of the rotation of the earth on its axis, since, as far as they knew, there was no such movement.

 

[miamited]

Hi glaudys,

Well, just so you know. The first sin came about because of a desire for more education.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[gluadys]

Hi glaudys,

Well, just so you know. The first sin came about because of a desire for more education.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

The first sin came about because of a desire to be like God (which, I grant, included being wise).

In any case, it says nothing one way or another of what the biblical writers actually knew about the structure of the universe.

 

[miamited]

Hi glaudys,

Well, while we trying to defend what we believe apart from what is given in evidence...

Here's what the Scripture says was Eve's reason for eating the fruit:

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Now, we do know that the serpent did tell Eve that God didn't want them to eat of the fruit because '...you will be like God, knowing good and evil...". The evidence doesn't tell us that it was this desire for being 'like' God that had any bearing on Eve's decision. Just that she understood that it was, good for food; pleasing to the eye; and desirable for gaining widsom. Anything beyond that which the reader might assume was Eve's reason would be exactly that...merely an assumption.

My assumption in this is that Eve knew God personally and just like you and I, while someone might tell us that doing something will make us 'like' God, we know that that just isn't true. So, I choose to believe the Scriptures that Eve ate the fruit because she believed, and ultimately it was true, that doing so would give her greater wisdom.

With that wisdom came the knowledge that she was naked. How simple, yet how profound, that she has been walking around in the garden all this time naked and thinking nothing of it. Yet, with one bite all that innocence fell away. So, my caution is just that we be careful that we don't allow, like Eve, that greater knowledge, wisdom, education doesn't actually draw us away from God and the innocence, like unto a little child, that we must have to love Him.

Have you ever considered that we would live with a more innocent and glad and satisfied soul, if we trusted that God would give us all that we need...even in our knowledge? Eve was perfectly happy being naked, until she realized that she should know better.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted