Any old verse that talks about the Sun rising, since the Sun isn't actually moving like that at all. How about this one:
The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar. Genesis 19:23
The Sun doesn't rise on the Earth, the Earth turns to look at the Sun. There is no metaphor or simile or figurative language in that part of Genesis. It isn't poetry. But it isn't factual either. A purely mechanical reading of this passage makes the Bible wrong. So you have to offer some concessions to the Bible's phrasing of things to at least some degree. You just disagree with how much of a degree.
It's an expression, nothing more. We still call it sun rise not earth rotation.
I find his explanation convincing. You don't, and that's great, because it only helps my case. Adam and Eve didn't die that day like God said, so the Bible must be wrong based on a completely mechanical reading of the text. He didn't say, "You will begin to die" or anything of the sort. If you think it means that day then tell me, why didn't they die that day?
This is yet another example of how exegesis yields the meaning from the original language if you know how to look for it:
Variants of the phrase “dying you shall die” occur 49 times in the Old Testament.3 Of these, two are involved in the story of the fall of man—one in
Genesis 2:17 and the other in
Genesis 3:4.4
Texts in Genesis. This same idiom appears twice more in Genesis. In chapter 20, Abimelech takes Sarah as a wife thinking that she was not married. Before he consummates the relationship, God intervenes to prevent Abimelech from committing a moral blunder. The Lord appears to Abimelech in a dream, announcing a sentence on him, “ ‘You are a dead man’ ” (v. 3)—for unlawfully taking a married woman. Abimelech’s plea of innocence shows he understood himself as standing before a judge on trial. After acknowledging Abimelech’s moral innocence, God warns Abimelech that if he consummates with Sarah anyway, he will
certainly die (v. 7). Dying You Shall Die: (The meaning of Genesis 2:17. Stephen Bauer, PhD)
Your interpretation of things is too binary, it isn't as simple as saying whether that entire account was literal or figurative. Did Satan literally tempt Jesus by offering Him reign over all of those kingdoms? Yep. What else should I take from that part of the story?
Binary code is actually logic, symbolic logic represented by either an '0' or a '1'. If by binary you mean true or false your right, whether or not the historical narratives are true or false it absolutely matters. The promise of the gospel is inextricably linked to what God has done throughout redemptive history, going forward what God can do now, and what God promised to do in the future.
mark kennedy said:
First of all the importance of Adam being the first parent of humanity is inextricably linked to original sin, the church has always taught that:
- But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....(ST. IRENAEUS c. 180 AD)
- And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM (TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)
- 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)
- how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin [committed no personal sin], except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old Death from his first being born. (Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)
I don't care how other people interpreted scripture. That isn't evidence you're right.
You don't care what the early church fathers say, based on what Christ and the Apostles say, based on the clear testimony of Moses. We are not really talking about an interpretation here and never were. The message is clear, you either believe it or you don't.
Yes, I know that Paul talked about Genesis as if it was literal (Jesus too). That doesn't answer my question. Why is it significant to scripture that it was one man and not a group?
According to Paul:
Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).
Again, imagine I changed the story in Genesis to a group of people instead of two people. Paul and Jesus would phrase things differently later, but what else would have to change? What is this enormous impact on scripture that I keep hearing about? That's the context of the discussion Aiki and I were having that you jumped in on. Which is totally fine, by the way, you can respond to any of my posts that I make to anyone else, but you need to stick to the topic of those posts and not try to spin it towards something else.
Obviously and inescapably the Genesis account and the New Testament witness does not mean a group of people but Adam, the first parent of humanity. When the New Testament writers mention Adam they speak of him as the first man and the reason why all of us are under the curse of sin and death. Paul tells us that 'by one man sin entered the world' and 'by one man's offense death reigned'. (Rom 5:12-19). Paul ties Adam directly to the need for justification and grace in his exposition of the Gospel in his letter to the Romans. Luke lists Adam in his genealogy calling him 'son of God' indicating he had no human parents but rather was created (
Luke 3:23-28). Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law.
I've never deviated from the core question of a literal vs. figurative understanding of Genesis 1. Repeatedly you have been shown what proper exegesis will give you a literal exposition and that there is no figurative language in Genesis 1. The context may shift but the context of Genesis, as confirmed by the New Testament witness is that the historical narratives therein are literal just as the gospel is in doctrine and it's sacred history.
Again, your understanding is too binary. I mentioned this one much earlier in the thread:
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. John 6:52-59
No "like" or "as" there. There's no loaf of bread or pitcher of wine around that He is comparing Himself to. Even when He explained further to His disciples He never said He wasn't speaking literally. The doubters there took a purely mechanical interpretation of His words, and they were wrong to do so. But He did tell them to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. But that isn't what He meant for them to do. So it isn't a simple matter of, "is it literal or is it figurative?".
This is yet another equivocation fallacy, the construction of the two texts are not a comparison of apples to apples. Again, there is a basis of comparison in the immediate context of
John 6:52-59, the equivalent of 'like' or 'as'. You have none of this in the Genesis accounts of original creation or original sin. These passages are literal historical narrative from a cursory reading to an in depth exegetical break down. What you are doing isn't an exposition, it's a rationalization that simply doesn't reconcile what you are saying to the clear meaning of the text.
Grace and peace,
Mark
I'll just drop this.
