What do these Scriptures have in common? A little quiz

[Vance]

Just a little quiz for fun. What do these verses all have in common?

Exodus 4:11
Numbers 12:3
Numbers 16:29
Dueteronomy 4:28
I Kings 4:31
Job 7:20
Job 14:1

 

[Vance]

Anyone figured it out?

 

[Vance]

OK, I will wait until this afternoon (my time) before I give the answer.

 

[Vance]

Here is the answer:

They all use the Hebrew word "adam" to refer to Mankind in general.

 

[California Tim]

Nice play. So am I now to accept that "mankind" named the animals, sin entered by one "mankind", "mankind" and his wife Eve were naked and unashamed and that "mankind" later hid from God in the garden?

 

[PaladinValer]

It isn't a play at all. Vance is linguistically correct; the Hebrew word is a neuter; it conotates neither gender. Being genderless, it implies both.

Unless it is used with a specific article, it doesn't mean the person Adam at all.

 

[Vance]

Nice play. So am I now to accept that "mankind" named the animals, sin entered by one "mankind", "mankind" and his wife Eve were naked and unashamed and that "mankind" later hid from God in the garden?

Very possibly, yes!!

 

[California Tim]

It isn't a play at all. Vance is linguistically correct; the Hebrew word is a neuter; it conotates neither gender. Being genderless, it implies both.

Unless it is used with a specific article, it doesn't mean the person Adam at all.

Think of what you've just insinuated regarding the verses I referred to. A different word is used in the same sentence where both Adam and Eve are named. Is Eve wedded to "mankind" or to a "neuter"? Was Eve created as a helper to "mankind" including women? It just doesn't add up in these cases.

 

[PaladinValer]

I'll repeat my post. Note what I say in bold, as it seems it was missed.

"It isn't a play at all. Vance is linguistically correct; the Hebrew word is a neuter; it conotates neither gender; it implies both.

Unless it is used with a specific article, it doesn't mean the person Adam at all."

 

[Vance]

My view (which is actually one held by many Jewish and Christian theologians and scholars) is that the author (please always read "inspired by God" in all such references) used the Hebrew word for "mankind" and made it into a proper name for the purpose of the story. Thus the named character "Adam" becomes a type or symbol for all of Mankind. All those events which happen to him, as an individual character in the story, happened to Mankind in some literal manner, or happen to Mankind in some literal manner.

If you are developing a figurative story about great truths that happen to mankind as a whole, would it not be a good idea to give that character a proper name that can mean "Mankind"?

So, Mankind was created for direct communion with God, but gave in (gives in) to their selfish nature and is generally disobedient to the guidelines God has given us (gave them). God created women for men as helpmates. Mankind often temps each other and equally blames each other for our own shortcomings. Satan tempts (tempted) Mankind. Mankind is in charge of all of the animals. And, most importantly, because of our fallen, sinful nature (which IS true whether the story is typological and figurative referring to Mankind, or whether it refers to a single Adam), is in need of redemption.

And there are many other teachings of God to us about ourselves and our relationships with each other and with Him in these accounts. And they are simply TRUE, whether referring to a single historical Adam, or to a multiple historical Mankind, or to all of Mankind for all of time.

The questions you ask are still predicated on the story being literal history. I provide evidence that a particular part of the story may be figurative. You respond (whether seriously or not) "ah, but how could that figurative X fit in with the rest of the literal, historical story?!" The point is, of course, that ALL of the particular story is figurative, so it all fits together just fine.

Not all of Scripture is figurative, of course, we have to take each text on its own terms. No one said this stuff was meant to be easy, as your quote elsewhere pointed out! :0)

 

[California Tim]

If you are developing a figurative story about great truths that happen to mankind as a whole, would it not be a good idea to give that character a proper name that can mean "Mankind"?

Unfortunately, that geneaologies conundrum resurfaces. Or would you have us understand that "mankind" fathered Cain and Abel?

 

[Vance]

A figurative Cain and Abel, very possibly. Cain and Abel have, by many theologians and Christian scholars been seen as "types", which is a very common literary device in ancient literature. We also have the common practice of tying literal, historic figures to figurative, or semi-historic figures in genealogies. If this is what was going on, then the question would be which characters are which. I would submit that it really doesn't matter. The idea of the genealogy would be to establish the figurative "connection" between those characters and the rest of us, showing that "they" are "us".

OR, it is possible that Adam and Eve were actual ancestors of the Israelites who wrote the text, but the stories about them are figurative. This is also very common, taking historical characters and using them as characters to tell great truths about who we are. This would mean that the genealogies are correct (although the ages may still not be accuratve, given the different number systems being used in ancient times, as even my trusty Zondervan Bible suggests).

Again, I completely agree with what C.S. Lewis says, and I wonder the degree to which you think it is possible that his approach could be correct:

I have therefore no difficulty in accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical. We must of course be quite clear what "derived from" means. Stories do not reproduce their species like mice. They are told by men. Each re-teller either repeats exactly what his predecessor had told him or else changes it. He may change it unknowingly or deliberately. If he changes it deliberately, his invention, his sense of form, his ethics, his ideas of what is fit, or edifying, or merely interesting, all come in. If unknowingly, then his unconscious (which is so largely responsible for our forgettings) has been at work. Thus at every step in what is called--a little misleadingly--the "evolution" of a story, a man, all he is and all his attitudes, are involved. An no good work is done anywhere without aid from the Father of Lights. When a series of such retellings turns a creation story which at first had almost no religious or metaphysical significance into a story which achieves the idea of true Creation and of a transcendent Creator (as Genesis does), then nothing will make me believe that some of the re-tellers, or some one of them, has not been guided by God.

Thus something originally merely natural--the kind of myth that is found amongst most nations--will have been raised by God above itself, qualified by Him and compelled by Him to serve purposes which of itself would not have served. Generalising this, I take it that the whole Old Testament consists of the same sort of material as any other literature--chronicle (some of it obviously pretty accurate), poems, moral and political diatribes, romances, and what not; but all taken into the service of Gods word. Not all, I suppose, in the same way. There are prophets who write with the clearest awareness that Divine compulsion is upon them. There are chroniclers whose intention may have been merely to record. There are poets like those in the Song of Songs who probably never dreamed of any but a secular and natural purpose in what they composed. There is (and it is not less important) the work first of the Jewish and then of the Christian Church in preserving and canonising just these books. There is the work of redactors and editors in modifying them. On all of these I suppose a Divine pressure; of which not by any means all need have been conscious.

 

[California Tim]

A figurative Cain and Abel, very possibly. Cain and Abel have, by many theologians and Christian scholars been seen as "types", which is a very common literary device in ancient literature.

Paraphrased Geneaology of Genesis 4 & 5:

And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch
And unto Enoch was born Irad
Irad begat Mehujael
Mehujael begat Methusael
Methusael begat Lamech. Lamech took unto him two wives: Adah, and Zillah.
Adah bare Jabal - his brother's name was Jubal
Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain - the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth
Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos
Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan
Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel
Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared
Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch
Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah
Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech
Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: Noah
Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth

Would you be willing to draw a line between the figurative people (types) mentioned in the above geneaologies and those that ultimately were literal historical figures? It might help me understand what you are trying to say. It would also help me if the need to mention the father's age at time of conception could be explained (not to mentioned the entire lifespan which I omitted for brevity's sake).

 

[Vance]

Oh, gosh, no. I would have no idea where the line would be drawn, and I am not sure that this could be known. What I do know is that in Celtic genealogies (something I know about as historian for my Scottish Clan Society), most of them connect their historical forbears to legendary heroes and even gods. They were every bit as fastidious about the accuracies of their genealogies and a bard would have to train for decades before he was entrusted as the person who could accurately pass down that lineage. I could look at those lineages and I would not be able to tell you when it merged into non-historical characters. But it DID at some point.

This was also the case in Greek and Roman noble families. They all traced their family with great detail back to legendary figures and/or the gods. I doubt they could tell you when the "break" took place, even when they themselves did not actually believe the lineage was completely literal history.

Same with the Egyptians, and Sumerians.

Or, it could be the second option I mentioned.

The point is that it doesn't matter. Honestly, it really doesn't matter. What matters is the truth of the message, regardless of the historicity.

To base a belief about the method and timing of God's Creation process on an absolute surety about these historicity issues is, I would suggest, a tenuous position. Basing your faith on the truth of the messages God is giving us regardless of historicity is Rock Solid and eternal.

But, I really am interested in your thoughts on Lewis' approach.

 

[California Tim]

To base a belief about the method and timing of God's Creation process on an absolute surety about these historicity issues is, I would suggest, a tenuous position.

Surely by now we can conclude we agree on salvation apart from this issue and move onward to discuss the issue itself. I can't help feeling like we keep putting the car in "reverse" then "drive" repeatedly to run over the same speed bump. Let's get on without this same strawman argument surfacing unnecessarily. Let's shelf it - I know where you're coming from and I am confident you know from whence I come when discussing this issue. If someone happens to engage one of us on where we stand on that issue - then we can answer it. Meanwhile the preemptive nature of this kind of supposition is non-productive to our discussions.

As for your question of my take on C.S. Lewis: I disagree almost 100% with any POV that opens with this line:

"I have therefore no difficulty in accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical."​

I don't discredit his faith, or his genius on many issues of our faith, of which this is NOT one.

 

[Vance]

I said nothing about the salvation issue. I just said that

" To base a belief about the method and timing of God's Creation process on an absolute surety about these historicity issues is, I would suggest, a tenuous position."

And I think this is true. I think the various possibilities regarding the historicity issue should cause one to pause before basing an opinion on these issues on such an absolute surety of one position. Especially since, as we agree, this is not a salvation issue. As such, we should have the same humbleness Augustine had about the proper interpretation of Genesis.

As I point out, this does not mean we (meaning either one of us) are weak in our faith or "wishy-washy" in our Christian foundation since we both base those on the true messages of God, which are rock solid and eternal.

 

[California Tim]

I see now I misuderstood your statement. Hopefully you'll forgive my banter thereafter. It was based on my own ignorance.

 

[Vance]

No problem at all.

And I can respect your position on Lewis. It is never a good idea to just accept EVERYTHING any one person says, even if they are someone you generally respect. The importance of this quote is to highlight the fact that honest, sincere, Bible-believing and theologically sound Christians can and do hold different interpretation of Scripture than modern fundamental literalists. I think that it is important to show the breadth of thoughtful exegesis on these Scriptures by Spirit-led Christians.

Sometimes I get the impression that many modern fundamentalists are really not aware of this diversity of opinions on such matters, and honestly believe that most Christians believe as they do. They often seem shocked to hear that so many Christians read early Genesis as Lewis does. And I am shocked that they are shocked! No Christian should be so isolated from the diversity of opinions on these matters both in the present and throughout history.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I think it is possible that the Hebrew word for Adam became synonymous for mankind because of the important role played by an actual person of that name. By the time the Torah was written down, the story of Adam was probably very well told and had taken on "legendary/mythical" characteristics (which is not the same as false or untrue).