the idea that the Old Testament is only metaphorical

[BobRyan]

Assuming the writer's intention is sketchy business, especially since the human writers were being guided by the Holy Spirit.

So we don't assume it - we read the document and take into account the point of reference of the primary audience.. in this case newly freed slaves from Egypt - not a large group of "creative writers"

A basic fact that even the non-Christian scholarship in all world-class universities clearly accepts. Even your own "well then ignore the intent of the author" solution would trash every single fact accepted in the Bible.

We have text and context;

And use objective principles of exegesis to get to the most accurate rendering of intent as possible as in the case of the virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection of Christ and bodily ascension of Christ... no "news" here.

Given that Paul appeals to "the very details" of that historic account - instead of avoiding literal details and sticking only with symbolic generic "concepts" - give even further evidence that even "the minute details" in the historic account are accepted by the later "inspired" Bible writers.

We see "the appeal to details" of what the text calls "the account" in Gen 2 .. being specifically highlighted in "legal code" in Ex 20:11

Ex 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Legal code in the Bible does not appeal to the "least true" aspect to establish it's point. (A lot of scripture bend-and-wrenching is needed to escape this fact regarding legal code)

We don't know if Paul believed Adam and Eve were literal

Until we read what he wrote and notice his appeal to "accuracy even in tiny details" in the account.

A lot of scripture bend-and-wrenching is needed to escape this point.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not counted against anyone when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the violation committed by Adam.

15 But the gracious gift is not like the offense. For if by the offense of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many.

The "IF" in that statement above is literally shouted to be "the most untrue" of the Genesis account since it never happened at all and so the "IF" is in fact "false".

1Tim 2:13 "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." (treats this minor detail of Gen 2 as unquestioned fact to give force and logic to a command about rules for modern behavior)

1 Tim 2: 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer."

None of these minor details are true or remotely "Compelling" -- in the "not really literal fact" setting.

===================

Which is also way that sort of bend-and-wrenching of the text cannot be done with the virgin birth, the incarnation, the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ and get the Gospel to "survive it".

 

[public hermit]

Even your own "well then ignore the intent of the author" solution would trash every single fact accepted in the Bible

That's not what I said. I said we don't know it, can't know the writer's intent. We can guess, and we do. Your claim that all scholars everywhere agree concerning the writer's intent, or agree with the need to know the intent, is bogus. Have you ever read commentaries? Do they all agree on the writer's intent? Ha! No. This is why I say the whole notion is vacuous. You can call your interpretation the writer's intent, and so can someone who disagrees with your interpretation. Who is right? We don't know because we don't have access to other minds. We interpret scripture; that's all we do.

Scholars are often concerned with discovering the Sitz in Leben of a text, and maybe we can imagine that is the writer's intent, but if you're familiar, then you know even that approach can yield disagreement between scholars. Even Augustine understood knowing the writer's intention was sketchy business because he knew the scriptures can have meanings not intended by the author, and he encouraged multiple interpretations of a given passage so long as they did not contradict church doctrine (On Christian Doctrine Book III.27.38).

Consider the multiple interpretations Augustine gives for the opening words of Genesis. I bet you would disagree with him because I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't hold to the same metaphysical structure that Augustine held when he wrote the Confessions. That's the other thing you're doing but not acknowledging: your own metaphysical and hermeneutical assumptions inform your reading, and there is no way to escape that. But, yeah, you can know the writer's intention and that's what matters.

Augustine’s two rules for reading the Bible

Consider also Jesus's interpretation of the serpent Moses held up as foreshadowing his cross/resurrection. Did the writer of Numbers intend that meaning? If not, does that mean it isn't a genuine interpretation? You see, if you claim the writer intended that meaning you have no way to show it. Such a claim would amount to an ad hoc assertion meant to support your position, at best. If it wasn't the intended meaning, oh well, God intended it and that's all that matters

If you need the primordial history of Genesis to be historical fact for your faith, I won't try to talk you out of it. Still, if you're going to claim one must believe it's literal to have faith then I will say, again, that it is simply wrong.

 

[lifepsyop]

That's not what I said. I said we don't know it, can't know the writer's intent. We can guess, and we do. Your claim that all scholars everywhere agree concerning the writer's intent, or agree with the need to know the intent, is bogus. Have you ever read commentaries? Do they all agree on the writer's intent? Ha! No. This is why I say the whole notion is vacuous. You can call your interpretation the writer's intent, and so can someone who disagrees with your interpretation. Who is right? We don't know because we don't have access to other minds. We interpret scripture; that's all we do.

With this approach, we might not even know how to interpret the Resurrection. Was it real? Was it only metaphorical? Maybe when the apostles described themselves as eyewitnesses, they simply meant they were "witnesses in the spirit" of a symbolic resurrection? Who can know?

I do not think that is right. There are some difficult things to understand in scripture, as even the apostles admit, but there is a whole lot that is not hard to understand, and I would say when the word says God performed a work on the earth (such as the accounts surrounding the Exodus), it is clearly, and very clearly, intended to be read as something that really happened on the earth in history. One clue is the way God is continuously urging his people to remember and celebrate such events, that they themselves were accounted witnesses of.

Does this mean that believing in the historicity of the Exodus is a salvation issue? I don't think so, but I also think there is a real spiritual issue here that can be summed up in a question. Why doesn't one simply believe God did what he says he did? And what else is so important that is causing one to disbelieve what the scripture says?

If you need the primordial history of Genesis to be historical fact for your faith, I won't try to talk you out of it. Still, if you're going to claim one must believe it's literal to have faith then I will say, again, that it is simply wrong.

I used to think the Bible historicity debate was primarily centered around the Genesis creation account and the flood, but have since learned that the events of Exodus are likewise denied as real history, even though they are clearly written as a series of linear historical events, and we find the word repeatedly urging Israel to celebrate their actual salvation on the earth at this time.

So I've learned that this isn't really a debate about the supposed ambiguity of the text... it seems there is a reluctance to believe these events (such as the Exodus) really happened, that cannot be blamed on any confusion in the scripture.

 

[chad kincham]

I have been listening to a popular Bible scholar who is very knowledgeable on the types and patterns found throughout scripture that tie all of the books together into one repeated theme and story of God's judgment and salvation. This person's teachings are edifying and reveal the magisterial beauty of how Jesus came to fulfill what was foreshadowed in so many accounts of ancient Israel.

I recently found this person making the statement that He does not actually believe the events of the Old Testament really happened, particularly the Pentateuch, putting him in the same camp that I've found many other highly knowledgeable Bible scholars residing in. These teachers' message is that the accounts of Genesis, Exodus, etc. did not really happen in history and that you're "missing the point" if you try to defend them as such. Their truth is only to be found in the symbolic story or metaphorical expression of God's salvation. But it would be folly to actually believe they happened.

When I hear learned Bible scholars making this claim, I keep saying to myself, Why not both? Why not the beauty of the metaphor and the power of the actual event? Why not give God all the glory by both believing in the power of His judgment and salvation in real history, and also realizing that they are symbolically pointing to greater fulfillment?

Listening to these scholars, I sometimes get the sense of almost a veneration they seem to have for the *non-historicity* of the Bible, as if the idea of Old Testament events actually occurring would somehow diminish the great spiritual power derived from the symbolism of the text. This seems totally backwards to me, as discovering the reality of the events described in Genesis, Exodus, etc. would only serve to emphasize God's real power and glory in His works upon the earth.

This "Scripture only as metaphor" idea seems completely at odds with what the scripture itself says loudly and repeatedly about giving God glory because of the works he has done on the earth in the sight of Israel. It seems to be in direct contradiction with Peter's letters, who directly warns of the error of disbelief in God's real and actual judgments upon the earth, as a warning of the judgment to come. (2 Peter 3)

As a final consideration... Peter, Paul, and Jesus himself all speak of the God's wrath upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

According to modern day Bible scholars, this judgment is supposed to be metaphorical or symbolic. And yet just last year, researchers have discovered overwhelming evidence of a "cosmic airburst" that literally destroyed these cities on the Dead Sea with fire raining down from the heavens, in the approximate Abrahamic time period.

So this is an awkward position to be in. The Genesis account of Sodom and Gomorrah seems to have actually happened. And yet esteemed Bible scholars claim the account was only ever meant to be a spiritual metaphor. Perhaps only just a few Genesis accounts real and then the rest metaphors? Even more awkward.

This is the article published in Nature:
A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

Sodom and Gomorrah: Biblical Archaeology - YouTube

It is my hope that Bible scholars finally come to believe that God did what He said He did... He really brought Israel out of Egypt as it is described in the Exodus... and that the reality of the actual event in history just makes the symbolism and metaphor foreshadowing God's ultimate fulfillment of prophecy that more powerful. God gets all the glory!

Thanks for reading

The Bible says many are ever learning, but unable to come to the truth. Those type of so-called scholars are semi-apostates as far as I’m concerned.

Jesus taught Adam and Eve, the creation, the fall, the worldwide flood, and even Jonah in the fish belly as literal - in fact He made Jonah in the belly of the fish for three days, the SGN of His own death, burial, and resurrection after three days and nights.

Jesus also said that conditions on earth just before His return would be the same as they were in the days of Noah, just before the flood came.

If you want a fabulous bible teacher, Chuck Missler has dozens of teaching videos that are now on YouTube, such as the 24, 1 hour videos on understanding the Bible:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRj8AJuzeJRwHdeFua3pzmwPB_JCS0mIq

 

[chad kincham]

I am sometimes bemused by believers who have no problem accepting the historicity and miracles of the New Testament, and then cannot seem to accept the historicity and miracles of the Old Testament.

Those same types also deny that miracles, healing, and gifts of the spirit are for today.

 

[chad kincham]

With this approach, we might not even know how to interpret the Resurrection. Was it real? Was it only metaphorical? Maybe when the apostles described themselves as eyewitnesses, they simply meant they were "witnesses in the spirit" of a symbolic resurrection? Who can know?

I do not think that is right. There are some difficult things to understand in scripture, as even the apostles admit, but there is a whole lot that is not hard to understand, and I would say when the word says God performed a work on the earth (such as the accounts surrounding the Exodus), it is clearly, and very clearly, intended to be read as something that really happened on the earth in history. One clue is the way God is continuously urging his people to remember and celebrate such events, that they themselves were accounted witnesses of.

Does this mean that believing in the historicity of the Exodus is a salvation issue? I don't think so, but I also think there is a real spiritual issue here that can be summed up in a question. Why doesn't one simply believe God did what he says he did? And what else is so important that is causing one to disbelieve what the scripture says?




I used to think the Bible historicity debate was primarily centered around the Genesis creation account and the flood, but have since learned that the events of Exodus are likewise denied as real history, even though they are clearly written as a series of linear historical events, and we find the word repeatedly urging Israel to celebrate their actual salvation on the earth at this time.

So I've learned that this isn't really a debate about the supposed ambiguity of the text... it seems there is a reluctance to believe these events (such as the Exodus) really happened, that cannot be blamed on any confusion in the scripture.

Anyone who believes Jesus is their savior and the Son of God, and who is a Christian, would be expected to believe Jesus’ very own words that show He taught that Moses writing, and the law and the prophets accounts are literal truth.

And Moses got the creation account straight from God.
He didn't spend those 40 days with Yahweh on the mountain just sitting around.

That creation account that says the universe had a sudden beginning in a moment of time was, accurate for the thousands of years before science finally accepted the BB theory as the correct cosmological model - which agrees with Genesis.

All those “ignoramuses” like me, who believed the creation account was accurate because it came from God, had it right all along, all during the time that the standard cosmology was the steady state (uniformitarian) model, that the universe always existed.

And genesis was right when it has God creating light before the sun - because in the BB model, the energy released by the explosion, cooled and turned into photons and then into hydrogen, that coalesced eventually into stars - thus God indeed created photons, aka light, before the sun - so the criticism by science “geniuses” that the Genesis creation account was not right - were wrong.

 

[chad kincham]

Consider the multiple interpretations Augustine gives for the opening words of Genesis. I bet you would disagree with him because I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't hold to the same metaphysical structure that Augustine held when he wrote the Confessions. That's the other thing you're doing but not acknowledging: your own metaphysical and hermeneutical assumptions inform your reading, and there is no way to escape that. But, yeah, you can know the writer's intention and that's what matters.

Augustine is not my hero - he’s a zero - as in effect he was the first Calvinist ( since Calvin was so influenced by him that Augustinian Calvinist is a category of theology today), and one of the first to allegorize scriptures, and thus egregious error crept in through him.

 

[public hermit]

Augustine is not my hero - he’s a zero - as in effect he was the first Calvinist ( since Calvin was so influenced by him that Augustinian Calvinist is a category of theology today), and one of the first to allegorize scriptures, and thus egregious error crept in through him.

No, he was not one of the first to use allegorical interpretation. You don't know your own history.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have been listening to a popular Bible scholar who is very knowledgeable on the types and patterns found throughout scripture that tie all of the books together into one repeated theme and story of God's judgment and salvation. This person's teachings are edifying and reveal the magisterial beauty of how Jesus came to fulfill what was foreshadowed in so many accounts of ancient Israel.

I recently found this person making the statement that He does not actually believe the events of the Old Testament really happened, particularly the Pentateuch, putting him in the same camp that I've found many other highly knowledgeable Bible scholars residing in. These teachers' message is that the accounts of Genesis, Exodus, etc. did not really happen in history and that you're "missing the point" if you try to defend them as such. Their truth is only to be found in the symbolic story or metaphorical expression of God's salvation. But it would be folly to actually believe they happened.

When I hear learned Bible scholars making this claim, I keep saying to myself, Why not both? Why not the beauty of the metaphor and the power of the actual event? Why not give God all the glory by both believing in the power of His judgment and salvation in real history, and also realizing that they are symbolically pointing to greater fulfillment?

Listening to these scholars, I sometimes get the sense of almost a veneration they seem to have for the *non-historicity* of the Bible, as if the idea of Old Testament events actually occurring would somehow diminish the great spiritual power derived from the symbolism of the text. This seems totally backwards to me, as discovering the reality of the events described in Genesis, Exodus, etc. would only serve to emphasize God's real power and glory in His works upon the earth.

This "Scripture only as metaphor" idea seems completely at odds with what the scripture itself says loudly and repeatedly about giving God glory because of the works he has done on the earth in the sight of Israel. It seems to be in direct contradiction with Peter's letters, who directly warns of the error of disbelief in God's real and actual judgments upon the earth, as a warning of the judgment to come. (2 Peter 3)

As a final consideration... Peter, Paul, and Jesus himself all speak of the God's wrath upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

According to modern day Bible scholars, this judgment is supposed to be metaphorical or symbolic. And yet just last year, researchers have discovered overwhelming evidence of a "cosmic airburst" that literally destroyed these cities on the Dead Sea with fire raining down from the heavens, in the approximate Abrahamic time period.

So this is an awkward position to be in. The Genesis account of Sodom and Gomorrah seems to have actually happened. And yet esteemed Bible scholars claim the account was only ever meant to be a spiritual metaphor. Perhaps only just a few Genesis accounts real and then the rest metaphors? Even more awkward.

This is the article published in Nature:
A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

Sodom and Gomorrah: Biblical Archaeology - YouTube

It is my hope that Bible scholars finally come to believe that God did what He said He did... He really brought Israel out of Egypt as it is described in the Exodus... and that the reality of the actual event in history just makes the symbolism and metaphor foreshadowing God's ultimate fulfillment of prophecy that more powerful. God gets all the glory!

Thanks for reading

So what you are complaining about is called Alexandrian exegesis, from the Catechtical School of Alexandria, whose most famous scholar was Origen Adimantius, who also founded his own exegetical school. The rival school, which interpreted scripture in a strictly literal-historical way, is the School of Antioch, whose most famous exegete is Theodore of Mopsuestia, although St. John Chrysostom also doubtless studied there, having been made a priest in Antioch before becoming Bishop of Constantinople.

However, St. Chrysostom and the rest of the church, actually with some pioneering work by the Western church and the Cappodacian fathers, soon realized that this was a false dichotomy, and that a mixture of Alexandrian metaphorical/allegorical and typological prophecy and Antiochian literalism works best, with the degree to which we use the Antiochene and Alexandrian methods varying from book to book. So, all of the New Testament except of necessity Acts, which must be read at least in part as prophecy, is the exclusive domain of Antiochene literalism, whereas in the Old Testament, books like the Song of Solomon are the exclusive province of Alexandrian metaphorical interpretation, and the most important books in the Old Testament usually should be interpreted using both the Alexandrian and Antiochene techniques, with the emphasis on one or the other depending on context. So for example, the Pentateuch clearly has a real history, and it also clearly is typological prophecy (for example, the Eucharist-like sacrifice to Melchizedek, the mysterious Christ-like figure), which also I believe happened, so its not just Abraham having a vision of Melchizedek by any means. Rather, the actual historical events in many cases predicted Christ and our salvation.

In other cases, particularly where science had not advanced, Genesis offers us the only description of creation in any religion that can function as an allegory for what science tells us God did, and I wrote an article on this miracle on my CF.com blog: The Startling Accuracy Of Genesis

 

[The Liturgist]

No, he was not one of the first to use allegorical interpretation. You don't know your own history.

St. Augustine made balanced use of literal and allegorical interpretation, and Calvinists, not Calvin himself, @hedrick has warned me the danger of conflating the two, and reawakened the enthusiasm for Calvin I had in my first years at seminary before I learned about his conspiracy to lure Servetus, admirredly a heretic, to Zurich for execution, which turned me off to him, even the better points he made, and thus I threw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.*

*Given the horror of abortion we really need a new cliche for this; I am thinking “throw the fries (or chips, for Brits, Bermudans, Kelpers, Aussies, Africans, Kiwis and all other faithful and loyal subjects of the glorious Commonwealth of Nations) out with the grease”, but a metaphor that would not require alteration depending on which side of the Atlantic (or Pacific) we were standing on would do better.

 

[public hermit]

With this approach, we might not even know how to interpret the Resurrection.

This seems to treat the scriptures like a house of cards: if the primordial history isn't actual history, the whole thing falls apart. That kind of slippery slope thinking is fallacious. And, yes, I have kept my critique in this thread strictly to the primordial history, despite the OP. I would never claim all the OT should be taken as metaphorical.

Does this mean that believing in the historicity of the Exodus is a salvation issue? I don't think so, but I also think there is a real spiritual issue here that can be summed up in a question. Why doesn't one simply believe God did what he says he did? And what else is so important that is causing one to disbelieve what the scripture says?

I think the main reason scholars question the Exodus account is lack of archeological and extra biblical evidence, particularly since we have so much regarding Egypt's antiquity. Personally, I'm not convinced that lack tells us anything. We all know the quip "history is written by the winners." Well, if we assume for the sake of argument that the Exodus account is tracking similar historical events, why would any Egyptian Pharoahs allow for a record of their defeat by slaves and a slave's God? Of course, they wouldn't. So, that lack of record, particularly on the Egyptian side, doesn't tell us much. It doesn't prove anything, but nothing has been disproved, either

There are a number of reasons why I think it's a mistake to take the primordial history as a one-for-one correlation with actual events. Of course, there could be historical events that informed the primordial history, I just don't think believing it is history matters for reasons I have already given.

When it comes to the Abraham saga on, I see no reason why they could not be related to historical persons and events. But, again, expecting one-for-one correlations throughout is a high bar, and it is one that even the gospels don't always achieve. The synoptic gospels are notoriously problematic, which is why harmonizations were popular in the early centuries. Does that mean nothing in the gospels is true since there are problems in some parts with historicity? No, and it's a failure of good reason to assume so.

More to the point, if your (rhetorical "your") faith rests on the perfection of the scriptures, and assuming your idea of perfection is historical accuracy, then don't read too closely because you're going to finds problems that Christians have been aware of for centuries. And if those problems start a crisis of faith, because your faith was placed in the book and not sufficiently in the One who transcends language and concepts, don't act like you haven't been warned.

The scriptures are a means to faith, not an end in themselves. The scriptures are necessary for faith (in a practical sense, not logical). However, they are not sufficient for faith. One must also have the Holy Spirit, and if the account of Philip and the Ethiopian teaches us anything, one must interpret them in the context of the community of faith that already exists.

The Reformation placed the word of God above the Word of God. That was not officially stated nor intended but a practical outcome, so now the scriptures have become an object of faith instead of a means for faith. Add to that, fundamentalists who reacted badly to the deliverances of science, who have relied on scripture to defend their unjustified fear, and now people feel they need a perfect book to have faith.

What should we do? Use the scriptures, because that is what they are-a means for faith in the living Christ. The scriptures did not die for you, they don't love you, they cannot save you. Only Jesus Christ can do that. If the scriptures are spiritual writings that communicate God, then what is found in them not only transcends them, but is significantly not them. The difference between word of God and Word of God can not be overstated at this point in Christian history, imo.

 

[lifepsyop]

The Bible says many are ever learning, but unable to come to the truth. Those type of so-called scholars are semi-apostates as far as I’m concerned.

Jesus taught Adam and Eve, the creation, the fall, the worldwide flood, and even Jonah in the fish belly as literal - in fact He made Jonah in the belly of the fish for three days, the SGN of His own death, burial, and resurrection after three days and nights.

Jesus also said that conditions on earth just before His return would be the same as they were in the days of Noah, just before the flood came.

I think one of the biggest problems with 'allegorizing' the OT (and stripping it of its historicity), is that one is negating the reality of God's judgment and wrath. If we are saying God's judgment over the world in the Old Testament are only fables and myths, then the reasonable conclusion is that any future prophecy of God's judgment over the world is of the same character.

But, of course, the judgments on the earth accounted in the Old Testament were never meant to be only metaphors or allegories, because they were first real and actual historical events. Real consequences for real sin against a real holy and righteous God. (researchers have only recently discovered that Sodom and Gomorrah was actually destroyed by fire from heaven, or a cosmic airburst, just as Genesis describes)

The apostle Peter drives this point home in 2nd Peter chapter 2 and 3. Those who do not take seriously reality of the wrath cast down on the world before our time, run the risk of failing to be ready for the final judgment to come. And Jesus of course says the same thing referring to the days of Noah.

However, the pride of human civilization refuses to acknowledge an earth under such judgment and wrath. As natural rebels against God, we cling to ideas of uniformity and billions of years because it makes us feel more in control of our destiny here.

 

[Thera]

I have been listening to a popular Bible scholar who is very knowledgeable on the types and patterns found throughout scripture that tie all of the books together into one repeated theme and story of God's judgment and salvation. This person's teachings are edifying and reveal the magisterial beauty of how Jesus came to fulfill what was foreshadowed in so many accounts of ancient Israel.

I recently found this person making the statement that He does not actually believe the events of the Old Testament really happened, particularly the Pentateuch, putting him in the same camp that I've found many other highly knowledgeable Bible scholars residing in. These teachers' message is that the accounts of Genesis, Exodus, etc. did not really happen in history and that you're "missing the point" if you try to defend them as such. Their truth is only to be found in the symbolic story or metaphorical expression of God's salvation. But it would be folly to actually believe they happened.

When I hear learned Bible scholars making this claim, I keep saying to myself, Why not both? Why not the beauty of the metaphor and the power of the actual event? Why not give God all the glory by both believing in the power of His judgment and salvation in real history, and also realizing that they are symbolically pointing to greater fulfillment?

Listening to these scholars, I sometimes get the sense of almost a veneration they seem to have for the *non-historicity* of the Bible, as if the idea of Old Testament events actually occurring would somehow diminish the great spiritual power derived from the symbolism of the text. This seems totally backwards to me, as discovering the reality of the events described in Genesis, Exodus, etc. would only serve to emphasize God's real power and glory in His works upon the earth.

This "Scripture only as metaphor" idea seems completely at odds with what the scripture itself says loudly and repeatedly about giving God glory because of the works he has done on the earth in the sight of Israel. It seems to be in direct contradiction with Peter's letters, who directly warns of the error of disbelief in God's real and actual judgments upon the earth, as a warning of the judgment to come. (2 Peter 3)

As a final consideration... Peter, Paul, and Jesus himself all speak of the God's wrath upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

According to modern day Bible scholars, this judgment is supposed to be metaphorical or symbolic. And yet just last year, researchers have discovered overwhelming evidence of a "cosmic airburst" that literally destroyed these cities on the Dead Sea with fire raining down from the heavens, in the approximate Abrahamic time period.

So this is an awkward position to be in. The Genesis account of Sodom and Gomorrah seems to have actually happened. And yet esteemed Bible scholars claim the account was only ever meant to be a spiritual metaphor. Perhaps only just a few Genesis accounts real and then the rest metaphors? Even more awkward.

This is the article published in Nature:
A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

Sodom and Gomorrah: Biblical Archaeology - YouTube

It is my hope that Bible scholars finally come to believe that God did what He said He did... He really brought Israel out of Egypt as it is described in the Exodus... and that the reality of the actual event in history just makes the symbolism and metaphor foreshadowing God's ultimate fulfillment of prophecy that more powerful. God gets all the glory!

Thanks for reading

Yup. These people deliberately deceive themselves. We still practice circumcision today from Abraham's time, so that takes us all the way back to Genesis 17.

If you look at other cultures, all of them have a worldwide flood story, so that takes us back to Genesis 6.

And if you look further, we still have a 7 day week, taking us back to Genesis 1 and 2. The scholars who deny the Old Testament are picking and choosing what they want to believe or not, and have no justifiable reason for doing so.

There are plenty of things still around today that evidence what the bible states is accurate and true. This is without looking at the archeological evidence, which is likewise damning for unbelievers.

 

[Thera]

[Double-post].

 

[Thera]

[Triple post].

 

[BobRyan]

Your claim that all scholars everywhere agree concerning the writer's intent, or agree with the need to know the intent, is bogus.

I don't recall ever making a statement about "all scholars everywhere" -- though I do claim quite a few of them admit to the need for exegesis when getting to "accuracy"

 

[BobRyan]

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."​

No doubt highly educated individuals coming along 2000 to 2500 years later could possibly "read a great deal " into what the text calls "the account of the creation of heaven and Earth". I don't think anyone would challenge that possibility.

But when it comes to "the kind of literature that it is" and the fact that the slaves newly freed from Egypt were not inclined to "read into" a historic account the kind of creative fictions imagined by a few commentators coming along 2000 years later... James Barr notes "the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know." where those professors are "professors of Hebrew or Old Testament at world-class universities".

My point is that the above is "instructive" for the unbiased objective Bible student

 

[public hermit]

I don't recall ever making a statement about "all scholars everywhere" -- though I do claim quite a few of them admit to the need for exegesis when getting to "accuracy"

That's fair. There are some.