 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Do YOU believe in an literal Adam and Eve? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/24/2003 12:28 PM (GMT -6) |   | MephEternal
But what I'm saying is that the INCARNATION is much, much, MUCH more absurd than any type of young earth idea. So, how is it that you will swallow the CAMEL of the Incarnation, but strain at the relative GNAT of an actual Adamic couple?
Iconoclast
There is a huge amount of credible evidence for Jesus coming back to life.
There is also a huge amount of credible evidence for the earth being very old.
Based on the evidence it would be absurd for Jesus NOT to be the son of God and based on the evidence it would absurd for the earth to be 6006 years old. The existence of a duck-billed platypus may seem absurd in the abstract but it doesn't seem at all absurd after you see some credible evidence for its existence.
If there was an actual Adamic couple that would be fine. Big deal, who cares. It has zero meaning to me. What DOES have meaning is the story. To interpret it as a literal story is to lose the meaning of the story. If God literally put the knowledge of good and evil into a tree and then told us not to eat it but we did then our interpretation, the meaning is based on this literal account. My experience is that those who see it this way have a very impoverished understanding of the deep truth that God is seeking to convey. However, when we realize that the tree is really a metaphor for our ability to become a judge of others then suddenly we realize that we are eating from the tree all the time. Suddenly Jesus saying "do not judge lest ye be judged" and "for the judgement you make is the judgement you shall receive" comes into focus as being absolutely central to overcoming the Satan (the accuser) within ourselves and to start loving others.
My experience is that once it becomes clear what the metaphorical richness of the Adam and Eve story really contains it seems absurd to think of it as some literal historical account.
Also, the story as a whole has all the marking of a mythical account. Balaam's ass talking is just one oddity within the context of a story that has all the markings of a literal historical account. I am much more inclined to believe that Balaam's ass literally talked than I am to believe that there really was a serpent who talked. Why, because the serpent itself has deep metaphorical meaning that if it were a literal serpent would be lost.
My experience is that the literal interpretation of all this leads to more judgement and accusation. That it leads to the legal view and exacerbates the problem rather than helping it.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 8/25/2003 3:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
But please answer this question for me. If Adam and Eve were really the first people then what was that whole bit about Cain being concerned that other people would kill him? Seemed to me there was a whole civilization at that point. Was that a whole bunch of brothers and sisters of Cain? Did they come about before or after Seth? Why don't we get a genealogy of them?
Adam lived to be 930 years old and had other sons and daughters. Gen 5:4,5
Seth, his son, lived to be 912 years old. With them having lots of kids, guess what? Do the exponential math and see how many people you're getting. Plenty of wives for Cain, civilizations are developing.
The genealogy was listed for the direct line from Adam-->Jesus, no need to clutter scripture with other branches.
And in Sweden, Anderson begat Anderson who begat Anderson who begat Anderson who begat Anderson who, uff da, went and married a Bergstrom over in Norway. 
Why would a metaphorical figure as Adam, have this kind of data listed?
quote:
4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.
5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
That's one of the distinctions between legend and truth. Legend doesn't list such mundane facts.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/25/2003 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika
Adam lived to be 930 years old and had other sons and daughters. Gen 5:4,5
Seth, his son, lived to be 912 years old. With them having lots of kids, guess what? Do the exponential math and see how many people you're getting. Plenty of wives for Cain, civilizations are developing.
Iconoclast
Gen 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD."
Gen 4:2 And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground.
Gen 4:3 In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground,
…
Gen 4:13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me this day away from the ground; and from thy face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me."
Gen 4:15 Then the LORD said to him, "Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him.
Gen 4:16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
…
Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, for Cain slew him."
…
Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.
Gen 5:2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.
Gen 5:3 When Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
Gen 5:4 The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
Gen 5:6 When Seth had lived a hundred and five years, he became the father of Enosh.
Gen 5:7 Seth lived after the birth of Enosh eight hundred and seven years, and had other sons and daughters.
It seems to me that a literal reading of the story suggests that there were no other children besides Cain and Abel when Cain slew Abel. And it is at the point that Cain slew Abel (which is clearly before Seth was born) that we see the fact that there is some whole civilization out there. Seth was born as a replacement for Cain and was clearly born when Adam was 130 years old.
Also, notice that Seth lived to be 105 years old before he had his first born Enosh. This is a recurring pattern so it seems reasonable to presume that Adam lived many years before having Cain – why would there be a difference?
So, a literal reading leaves no room for Adam and Eve to have had enough children (especially when they didn’t have kids till so late in life) by the time Cain slew Abel to have created a civilization. Also, wouldn’t these people in Nod have been Cain’s brothers and sisters? Why does the story talk about “the land of Nod” some distant place rather than Cain’s brothers and sisters? If this is a literal story “the land of Nod” means some distant (not conjugal family) group of people.
Laika
Why would a metaphorical figure as Adam, have this kind of data listed?
quote:
4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.
5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
Iconoclast
To make the story fit into the genealogy. If it was not legend it would be full of extraneous details but notice it only has the extraneous details related to genealogy.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 8/25/2003 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon,
You sure assume a lot. 1) Adam was created as a mature man and didn't have lost years of productivity as Seth would have had. 2) I have already pointed out Eve's name means "the mother of all living" and was given to her prior to being expelled from the garden. 3) Sin entered by one man, therefore, no one is exempted from the penalty (death) 4) The very existence of Nodites would indicate there were other children 5) No matter if there weren't Nodites, Cain still would have had to marry a sister. | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/25/2003 1:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Just in case anyone is interested:
I suspect the apostle Paul believed in a historical Adam and Eve, and that essentially all of his Jewish contemporaries and predecessors did as well. So I answered "yes" to that survey (see companion thread).
But I do not believe Paul, or Jesus, or anyone else recounted in scripture, specifically taught - in passages recounted in scripture to which we are bound - the historicity of Adam and Eve. I do not believe such historicity is an essential of the faith or requisite for understanding back-references to the Adamic couple on the part of Paul, Jesus, or etc. Rather, I believe there is good literary reason to see the genre of legend, and a wealth of inspired theological meaning, behind the story of the Adam and Eve. And I further believe that the only well-supported scientific evidence generally disproves the historicity of the Adam and Eve account. So I answered "no" to this survey.
Do my votes seem inconsistent? Not really. People of Paul's culture and time (and earlier) lacked the epistemological tools that would lead them to doubt the historicity of the story: ie, they lacked modern critical methodology, including scientific method (let alone knowledge of specific scientific evidences) and literary-critical method (by which literary genre is discerned). Beyond this, they also lacked the modern positivist value system: in which it is considered important to segregate history from legend and believe in nothing any further than concrete supporting evidence permits.
So naturally the ancients were open to incorporating into their earliest accounts certain cultural legends, co-opting them (under inspiration, I believe) to serve the purpose of teaching basic right theology regarding God, man, sin, judgement and mercy. That they further generally believed the accounts to be literally true was of no import in an age that lacked both the tools and the concern to surgically separate actual history from legend. God was only being true to their cultural context when doing inspiring the accounts in this way, and we are anachronistic to project our philosophically-modern expectations of historicity back upon them.
Even so, the teaching point behind each passage of scripture which refers to Adam and Eve still stands as valid for us today, since those passages (to my knowledge) never make their teaching point as such to be Adam-and-Eve-as-historical-persons, but rather employ them pedagogically to teach theological truths (such as Paul teaching Christ the savior for all, etc). Just as with the parables, Adam and Eve are employed to teach something very real, despite their literal non-historicity.
This, at least, is my considered view, and I mean no offense to those who believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve (indeed, my wife is one of you). Yours is a well-considered view, certainly a traditional one, and though I simply disagree I honor your view nonetheless.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 2:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Good answer, Scott. Mad respect.
Question: What happens to the doctrine of original sin? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott:
quote:
So naturally the ancients were open to incorporating into their earliest accounts certain cultural legends, co-opting them (under inspiration, I believe) to serve the purpose of teaching basic right theology regarding God, man, sin, judgement and mercy. That they further generally believed the accounts to be literally true was of no import in an age that lacked both the tools and the concern to surgically separate actual history from legend. God was only being true to their cultural context when doing inspiring the accounts in this way, and we are anachronistic to project our philosophically-modern expectations of historicity back upon them.
But this is what I find problematic, Scott. When dealing with SIN, the only things that I personally would be able to get from the Adamic couple as non-historical is the following:
At some point in time, God created human beings in a way different from the rest of Creation and related to them differently. SOMEHOW, SOMEWHEN, human beings fell out with God. Because of THAT fallout, ALL HUMANITY is separated from God.
Cool. Fine. I suppose this would work for dealing with sin. If I chose to be vague enough. I suppose we could use this for Romans 5. Paul, believing this to be true, used it pedogogicaly (like I hinted at in my Mythical Tale) And of course, I suppose we should say that Paul did this under inspiration. But how does this work out with 1 Tim 2?
1 Tim. 2:8
I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Did Paul co-opt the Adamic couple thing for THIS too…UNDER INSPIRATION? What about Jude? Did HE do it too?
[Note: for those of you who don’t think 1 Tim 2 is important, check out the ongoing drama between the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Christians for Biblical Equality!]
Do you see the issue now? It gets very deep. Once we go down this road, we now have to really decide WHAT things were inspired WHEN...WITHIN the writings of legitimized biblical authors? And by what METHOD could we ever discern this? Look at the issue that Empiress brought up on that other thread. You end up having to try and figure out WHICH things were more human and WHICH things were more divinely inspired. I guarantee you that many people would LOVE to say that Romans 5 was divinely inspired even if the historicity of the Adamic couple is not there. But oh MY, would they say that about 1 Timothy 2??? I just don’t think so. Too sexist or patriarchal. See the issue?
Even though we can say that the Adamic couple is not-historical, I don't see how we can say that this view does NOTHING about our doctrine of Scripture...and our PARTICULAR views on sin and humanity.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/25/2003 7:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika
So Noah heard a second hand account of Adam, from Lamech and lots of others. That's an incredible overlap.
Iconoclast
How many generations with what overlap from Noah to Moses?
Laika
I just don't see a problem with Cain finding a wife.
quote:
especially when they didn't have kids till so late in life
Adam had Seth at age 130, which is 14% of the way to 930 years.
That would be comparable to a 75 year old having his first child at age 10 1/2.
Iconoclast
Seth was born when Adam was 130.
Cain slew Abel before Seth was born.
Cain was afraid of the people of Nod before Seth was born.
Therefore, there was a whole civilization by the time that Adam was 130.
Seth had his firstborn when he was 105.
Seth lived until he was 912.
Seth had his firstborn at 11.5% of the way to 912 years.
If Adam had his firstborn at 11.5% of the way to 930 years then he would have had Cain at 107 years.
Thus Cain slew Abel when Cain was 23 years old.
And, there was a civilization called Nod 23 years after the firstborn of Adam.
In this scenario would you agree that there was no time for a whole civilization to exist that was populated by Adam and Eve’s offspring?
Let’s look at a more lenient scenario where Adam was created as a mature adult and thus had children when he was 20 years old.
This would mean that there was 110 years between Cain being born and the civilization of Nod being in existence.
The problem with this is that you would have to argue that ALL of the people of Nod were brothers and sisters of Cain and Abel. Why?
1. Cain clearly did not have offspring yet or surely Cain would have brought them up when trying to negotiate with God. Also, it clear from the text that Cain “knew his wife” and had children AFTER going to Nod. Which also implies that his wife was a Noddite.
2. There is also the problem of people having their firstborn around 100 years old or older so none of the children of Adam and Eve would have started to have children.
Thus, ALL of the people of Nod would have had to be the direct children of Adam and Eve BEFORE Seth was born and AFTER Abel was born. But the text suggests that Adam and Eve had a bunch more children AFTER Seth was born NOT before.
Best case, you have to argue that the people of Nod were made up of Adam and Eve’s direct children between having Abel and Seth. How many children do you think they had in this limited time? And what is your logic for saying that it makes sense in the text to refer to these children, this civilization, as “the land of Nod.”
Also, Eve made big deal of saying that Seth was given to her by God to replace Abel.
Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, for Cain slew him."
Why would Eve say this if she had a whole bunch of other children? Doesn’t this strongly imply that Seth was their third child.
Also look at Gen 5:4:
The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters.
And then:
Gen 5:6 When Seth had lived a hundred and five years, he became the father of Enosh.
Gen 5:7 Seth lived after the birth of Enosh eight hundred and seven years, and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:8 Thus all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.
Gen 5:9 When Enosh had lived ninety years, he became the father of Kenan.
Gen 5:10 Enosh lived after the birth of Kenan eight hundred and fifteen years, and had other sons and daughters.
Notice the pattern? The first born at age XXX followed by “other sons and daughters”.
Seth fits this pattern! Seth is considered the NEW firstborn of Adam since Abel was killed and Cain was banished. Why would Seth be considered the NEW firstborn of Adam if there were a bunch of other children? Why wouldn’t it simply fall to the next in line. Remember, the first born was a BIG deal in this culture. The people doing the genealogy would have been very sensitive to this issue. But we see no indication that there is ANY issue regarding a birthright claim by someone else. Abel is dead and Cain is banished. Seth is next born. Seth therefore gets the birthright claim. Case closed.
The whole idea of the “land of Nod” coming in any way from the offspring of Adam and Eve just doesn’t make any sense given the literal interpretation of the story.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 8/26/2003 4:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika said:
"Nod" comes from the Hebrew word for "wandering". Cain goes to the land of "wandering". You're assuming a civilization there, I'm not.
I could make an assumption that 9 months after Cain kills Abel, Adam and Eve have Seth, nine months later a girl is born, the girl ends up in Nod as Cain's wife. Within 15 years of Abel's death, Cain is having kids of his own. It's not so far-fetched.
Semeia:
Sorry, Laika, but this does not explain where the people of Nod came from. The issue is not how Cain got a wife, the issue is where did all these other people come from? And, as I point out in the scripture below, some of the people of Nod (before Seth was born) were men, as the scripture explicitly states.
Laika:
Another idea is that since the lineage was patriarchal I could assume this:
Abel born
Cain born
daughter(s) born
Cain kills Abel
Cain leaves with sister
Adam and Eve have Seth to replace the missing heir
Semeia:
So you're saying that Cain was afraid of a bunch of girls? Little sisters no less?
How do you explain this:
Gen 4:13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me this day away from the ground; and from thy face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me."
Gen 4:15 Then the LORD said to him, "Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him.
Gen 4:16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Who is the Lord talking about here when he says that vengeance will be taken "on him" who slays Cain? If there were other sons, why wouldn't the oldest of them be mentioned as Cain and Abel's replacement?
If sons aren't mentioned because there ARE NO other sons, who would the sisters have mated with to provide some males for Cain to have been afraid of? And furthermore, it has already been established by Iconoclast that no grandchildren would have been born yet. So none of these males that Cain was afraid of could have come from Adam and Eve.
If there were males, then there would already be a next-in-line as firstborn, and Seth wouldn't have had to be specially conceived.
As a mythological story it works great to explain some of the deepest truths about our origins and the human condition. As a literal historical account it is full of holes and absolutely unbelievable on the face of it. Setting aside the talking serpent and the fruit of the tree that contains the Knowledge of Good and Evil, there is no explanation within the story to support the existence of people in the land of Nod - in fact, for one to believe that there WERE people in the land of Nod one would have to say that other parts of the story were INCORRECT.
Why disregard any of the story due to its inconsistencies and mythopoetic elements? Why not see it as a beautiful and profound allegory of our origins and our relationship with God and each other? Nothing to lose, everything to gain.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/26/2003 6:03 AM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal
1 Tim. 2:8
I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Did Paul co-opt the Adamic couple thing for THIS too…UNDER INSPIRATION? What about Jude? Did HE do it too?
...
I guarantee you that many people would LOVE to say that Romans 5 was divinely inspired even if the historicity of the Adamic couple is not there. But oh MY, would they say that about 1 Timothy 2??? I just don’t think so. Too sexist or patriarchal. See the issue?
Iconoclast
No. I don't see the problem.
1. Paul is simply saying that "male/female spiritual authority relations ARE male/female creational relations". This is his metaphorical mapping. Would you agree with this?
2. It matters NOT one iota whether the male/female creational relations logic is true because Adam and Eve were literal or whether the story was an allegory meant to give us the truth about male/female creational relations. Now, the ONLY argument I can see with this is that one might argue that the logic has MORE authority if it was a story meant to convey truth BECAUSE those aspects of the story MUST be in there to teach rather than just being extraneous details that do not have authoritative value.
So what exactly is the problem? Please be explicit.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/26/2003 6:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Why do I feel like you are reading a COMPREHENSIVE understanding of “Metaphors We Live By” back into Paul and Jesus’s minds? [ | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/26/2003 7:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
quote:
Now, the ONLY argument I can see with this is that one might argue that the logic has MORE authority if it was a story meant to convey truth BECAUSE those aspects of the story MUST be in there to teach rather than just being extraneous details that do not have authoritative value.
YES. THAT’S what I’m saying. I’ll give you an example.
Someone says to me:
“I permit no person to teach that there is no afterlife. For Jesus was raised from the dead.”
Now, let’s just imagine that, for whatever reason, I believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a METAPHOR for how God-saturated love can triumph even death. (Just go with me on this, ok?) I believe that people are WRONGFULLY interpreting the resurrection as an ACTUAL event, when it doesn’t need to be so. What argumentative power with this person’s line of reasoning HAVE for me? None. None at all. Why? Because the divinely applied metaphor doesn’t SUPPORT the claim the person is trying to implicitly make.
In LIKE manner, if someone says:
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
and I, hearing this, don’t believe that Adam and Eve were actual beings, but METAPHORS for the special place of humanity in God’s creation…what argumentative power does this person’s line of reasoning HAVE for me? AGAIN, none.
See what I’m saying?? I believe that Paul was a masterful arguer. That much seems clear from the writings. And one of the things that he does often is cite AUTHORITATIVE ideas to back his claims. What could be more authoritative, in this context, than the NATURAL order as it was laid down from the ACTUAL, not metaphorical, Adamic couple? See?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/26/2003 7:43 AM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal
“I permit no person to teach that there is no afterlife. For Jesus was raised from the dead.”
Now, let’s just imagine that, for whatever reason, I believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a METAPHOR for how God-saturated love can triumph even death. (Just go with me on this, ok?) I believe that people are WRONGFULLY interpreting the resurrection as an ACTUAL event, when it doesn’t need to be so. What argumentative power with this person’s line of reasoning HAVE for me? None. None at all. Why? Because the divinely applied metaphor doesn’t SUPPORT the claim the person is trying to implicitly make.
Iconoclast
I don’t see this.
The whole purpose of the metaphor is to demonstrate the logic that “love can triumph even death”. Doesn’t “triumph even death” imply that there is an afterlife? As long as I accept the metaphorical logic that “love can triumph even death” then I would be convinced that there IS an afterlife.
It seems to me that what you are really claiming is that literal historical accounts are more credible / more believable. That if some logic comes from a metaphor or a story that is not literally true that it lacks authoritative power.
Is this what you mean by “the divinely applied metaphor doesn’t SUPPORT the claim the person is trying to implicitly make”?
What do you mean by SUPPORT. Do you mean it is not credible because it is a metaphor or do you mean that BECAUSE it is a metaphor it does not logically entail an afterlife? If so, please be clear why “triumph even death” does not logically entail an afterlife – to me it seems self-evident that it does – else it has no meaning.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/26/2003 7:53 AM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
and I, hearing this, don’t believe that Adam and Eve were actual beings, but METAPHORS for the special place of humanity in God’s creation…what argumentative power does this person’s line of reasoning HAVE for me? AGAIN, none.
Iconoclast
Notice that you say here "METAPHORS for the special place of humanity". I think the problem is what I mean by "metaphor". If you think that Adam and Eve being non-literal then means that the story ONLY entails this particular logic then I can see why we are mis-matching. I don't see it that way. To me whether Adam and Eve are literal or not the story still entails the same basic logic.
In my view the story is non-literal but the relationship of Adam to Eve (Adam coming first) is STILL meaningful. That relationship still has meaning even though it is a story. The story as a whole is thus allegorical - each aspect of the story embodies logic that can be lifted and applied elsewhere. The story line that Adam was created first and that Eve came from Adam and that Eve was deceived first is thus "grist for the mill" when it comes to applying the logic of the story to another situation. The story relates these relationships BECAUSE they have meaning. In a literal historical account why would the fact that Adam came first neccessarily have any meaning at all. It could be just like happening to mention that I had a bowl of wheaties for breakfast. Myself having a bowl of wheaties for breakfast doesn't have any real logic value that could be applied elsewhere. If it was literal then so what if Adam came first - wouldn't Paul first have to demonstrate this this was a SIGNIFICANT MEANINGFUL historical fact? But he doesn't - he presumes that the whole story - every detailed relational aspect has MEANING. Furthermore - he assumes that everyone in the audience agrees with him that every detail has MEANING. Which suggests that everyone thought it was a teaching story and NOT just some detailed literal historical account.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/26/2003 8:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
quote:
In my view the story is non-literal but the relationship of Adam to Eve (Adam coming first) is STILL meaningful. That relationship still has meaning even though it is a story. The story as a whole is thus allegorical - each aspect of the story embodies logic that can be lifted and applied elsewhere. The story line that Adam was created first and that Eve came from Adam and that Eve was deceived first is thus "grist for the mill" when it comes to applying the logic of the story to another situation. The story relates these relationships BECAUSE they have meaning. In a literal historical account why would the fact that Adam came first neccessarily have any meaning at all. It could be just like happening to mention that I had a bowl of wheaties for breakfast. Myself having a bowl of wheaties for breakfast doesn't have any real logic value that could be applied elsewhere. If it was literal then so what if Adam came first - wouldn't Paul first have to demonstrate this this was a SIGNIFICANT MEANINGFUL historical fact? But he doesn't - he presumes that the whole story - every detailed relational aspect has MEANING. Furthermore - he assumes that everyone in the audience agrees with him that every detail has MEANING. Which suggests that everyone thought it was a teaching story and NOT just some detailed literal historical account.
I understand what you mean. Just like when Jesus would do something like this…
John 10:31
The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” 39 Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands.
or when Paul does something like this…
Gal. 3:15
Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person’s will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, “And to offsprings,” as of many; but it says, “And to your offspring,” that is, to one person, who is Christ.
They took actual statements from the Scriptures but infused them with meaning that OBVIOUSLY wasn’t intended by the author. What they did was a apply a type of interpretive framework still based on the authority of their lynchpins being God’s word.
HOWEVER…
Notice something very important. Both of these cases are grounded on the fact that God ACTUALLY DID say those words! To be sure, the original intention was not what Jesus and Paul were talking about, but there was presumed to be ACTUAL WORDS by God that could be infused with the meaning. It’s not like that thought those words weren’t ACTUALLY spoken! And to say that God didn't actually say those words would completely depower both Jesus' and Paul's respective arguments. Now, let’s look at the Adamic couple with Paul. SAME THING. To be sure, the order of Creation was NOT intended to be prescriptive for anything. So, when Paul does what he does in 1 Tim. 2, he’s doing something like what he did in Galations 3. HOWEVER, the idea is still based on an ACTUAL OCCURANCE perceived by Paul! Bottom line: To Paul, Adam WAS made first, and Eve DID sin first. He uses these actual occurances to make his point.
YES! Do you see how this is working? Do you see why Paul’s argument in 1 Tim 2 seems so VERY evidently based upon his belief in the ACTUALITY of the Adamic couple?
| | Back to Top | | |
| 109 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:45 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|