 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Did PAUL believe in a literal Adam and Eve? | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/24/2003 10:47 AM (GMT -6) |   | Let's work it this way, Iconoclast and DLW. I think this'll be easier.
Give me YOUR INTERPRETATION of what Paul is trying to argue in Romans 5 and 1 Timothy 2. Actually, do 1 Timothy 2 FIRST. This means, show me how Paul, truly believing the Adamic couple to be METAPHORICAL rather than actual, is using the metaphor to undergird his point.
Be thorough please. I want to see how this works out.
I'll start you off...
1Tim. 2:8
I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; 9 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, 10 but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 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; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
(Remember when you said that Paul didn't recognize the ORDER of the deceit? Hmmm...it appears that he DID. )
Cool.
"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 8/24/2003 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal
1Tim. 2:8
I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; 9 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, 10 but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 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; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Would this argument make any sense for Paul to make if he AND THE REST OF HIS AUDIENCE really did believe that the Adamic couple were figurative creations? Sheesh. Would Jesus’s argument from the creation story about marriage or His reference to Jonah and Ninevah make any sense if Jesus and his listeners really believed both stories to be JUST a bunch of metaphor?
Iconoclast
First off this argument makes no sense whether Adam and Eve are literal or not. It only makes sense in a culture where men thought it was just fine to subjugate women. Notice that our culture doesn't think this anymore so Paul's logic is not compelling to those who think Adam and Eve are literal (at least I sincerely hope so) and those who do not.
Second, of course it would still hold force if everyone thought the story was metaphorical. The whole point of a teaching story is that it contains truth. Imagine if Paul was making some point referencing the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Wouldn't he do basically the same thing. He would map the logic of the story to the particulars of some situation. As long as people accepted the LOGIC of the story and the SITUATIONAL MAPPING (Major Premise, Minor Premise) then they would accept the conclusion.
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 8/24/2003 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal
Give me YOUR INTERPRETATION of what Paul is trying to argue in Romans 5 and 1 Timothy 2. Actually, do 1 Timothy 2 FIRST. This means, show me how Paul, truly believing the Adamic couple to be METAPHORICAL rather than actual, is using the metaphor to undergird his point.
Be thorough please. I want to see how this works out.
I'll start you off...
1Tim. 2:8
I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; 9 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, 10 but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 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; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
(Remember when you said that Paul didn't recognize the ORDER of the deceit? Hmmm...it appears that he DID. )
Iconoclast
So Paul recognized the order of deceit here and yet says that ONE MAN brought sin into the world. This suggests that ONE MAN is metaphorical speech that Paul was well aware of.
A metaphor is when you take the logic of some source domain and map it to a target domain. In this particular instance the source domain Paul is using is the Adam and Eve story. The target domain is how men and women should order themselves in church.
What is important to note is that the logic of the source domain is LOGIC. The LOGIC can come from literal reality OR from a previous metaphorical mapping. Thus, it is impossible to tell only by the usage of some source domain logic whether the source domain itself is literal or not. In short - you CANNOT use the fact that Paul uses the Adam and Eve story as a source domain to extract logic from as any sort of evidence that the Adam and Eve story is literal historical truth. And it absolutely matters NOT whether the sender or receiver BELIEVES the source domain to be an actual literal historical account as to the efficacy of the logical mapping. It ONLY matters whether they accept the source domain logic as being true logic - however they may have come to believe 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 | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/24/2003 11:31 AM (GMT -6) | | This doesn’t answer my question. Give me YOUR INTERPRETATION of Paul’s argument. What was his intention? What truth was he trying to convey via the metaphor? Given his knowledge of the METAPHORICAL nature of Adam and Eve, how did he intend to use this metaphor to JUSTIFY his claim about women not having authority over men? What would have been the argumentative power of the metaphor in this situation? Did his HEARERS also understand the Adamic couple as metaphor? If so, how did you figure that out?
You DO have some commentaries...right?  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/24/2003 12:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
This doesn’t answer my question. Give me YOUR INTERPRETATION of Paul’s argument. What was his intention? What truth was he trying to convey via the metaphor? Given his knowledge of the METAPHORICAL nature of Adam and Eve, how did he intend to use this metaphor to JUSTIFY his claim about women not having authority over men? What would have been the argumentative power of the metaphor in this situation? Did his HEARERS also understand the Adamic couple as metaphor? If so, how did you figure that out?
You DO have some commentaries...right?
I think you are missing my argument. I am not trying to use this example to show that Paul did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I am arguing that it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell based on the nature of metaphorical speech whether the source domain (Adam and Eve in this case) is believed by the speaker (or hearers for that matter) to be a literal historical account or not.
I am denying your argument that it makes one wit of difference whether Paul believed that Adam and Eve was literal or not. Moreover I am denying your argument that anyone can tell whether Paul believed it to be literal or not based on how Paul uses the story in his speech (which is metaphorical speech). Now, if Paul had a conversation with someone about whether Adam and Eve were literal beings and said they were then this would be evidence. Also, if you have some evidence that at that time there were different schools of thought about the literal nature of scripture and Paul clearly belonged to this school then that would be evidence.
The only evidence I offered up to suggest that Paul did not believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve is that He said that ONE MAN brought sin upon the world. This, of course, is not good evidence either. Why? Because Paul could use a metaphorical mapping for Adam and Eve as ONE MAN but still believe in their literal existence.
The only really decent shred of evidence I have heard on this board so far is how one particular Jewish person thinks about these stories today. But you just dismissed that without even addressing it. It is also my experience that the two Jewish people who I have talked to about this stuff also see the stories as just that - stories meant to convey deep truth. Like DLW said - they don't seem to have any hang-ups about whether it is literal or not.
Perhaps the problem is that I am saying that Paul is speaking metaphorically in the above verse. Metaphorical speech is when you take something whether it be a previous metaphor or some literal historical account and you extract logic from that something and apply it to something else. I am saying that when someone does this it is impossible to tell whether that something was (or is believed to be) a literal historical account or not. The language would be exactly the same which ever it was. Thus, whether Paul believed Adam and Eve to be a literal historical account or not he would use exactly the same speech to extract the logic from the situation / story and apply it to some other situation.
Another way of saying this is that based on the "surface structure" of Paul's speech you cannot ascertain his "deep structure" unless it is explicitly revealed. Now, we all try and do this all the time with people but let's call it what it is - it is called "mind reading". I see nowhere in scripture where Paul's mind on this is explicitly revealed.
thanks,
Iconoclast
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 8/24/2003 12:41 PM (GMT -6) | | If literal historicity somehow carries more weight - is more true than metaphor, why is it that Jesus himself (The Truth, The Way, and The Light) spent so much of his time telling stories and parables? If the "literal" is more powerful than the "metaphorical", wouldn't God, who is perfect, always choose the BEST form of communicating truth? Why did Jesus constantly tell stories and parables, if they are somehow (or in ANY way) inferior in their capacity to convey truth?
Jesus regularly told more stories than Ronald Reagan, or any other politician for that matter. It seems to me that we would crucify any politician who spent so much time telling paradoxical stories and parables, and so little time focusing on history and law and justice.
Jesus doesn’t “announce” that he is telling a story or a parable, as opposed to sharing a historical event – but we interpret certain things as non-literal based on recognizable patterns in his language – we hear “There was a wealthy landowner who went out to his field…” and we know we are hearing a story.
When Jesus said (and I'm paraphrasing here, its 101 degrees and no air conditioning so I'm not looking it up) "I came so that the blind would see, and that those who say they can see would become blind" his point was entirely missed by the Pharisees present, BECAUSE they interpreted him literally.
Does this mean that he never referred to anything in a literal way? Of course not. But Jesus often spoke with highly metaphorical language, because that is how human beings think and remember and learn.
Does the metaphorical nature of the parables in any way erode the truth value of the message that they convey? I would argue in the opposite direction: that "literalizing" something that was never meant to be a scientific document, or a history of the world, or a "how-to" manual, DISTORTS the profound spiritual message into a legalistic history.
If it is history, and God guided every word, then it is seriously flawed, because God neglected to edit out the part about the sun going around the earth.
But if it is a mix of history, parable, poem, memory, legend - all pointing at the same truth about our origins, ourselves, and God - and it cannot be grasped through something as lifeless as words on a piece of parchment, but only through actual relationship and the Holy Spirit - then we can let go of the idea that anything at all hangs on the literal truth of 90% of the Bible.
Unlike the Creation story, Job, Jonah and the whale, and countless other parts of the Bible, the Gospels are very convincing as history. One sees variation in the different eyewitness accounts which would very much be expected for people witnessing such intense events. Greg has preached convincingly on the topic of why one should believe that the gospel accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection are literally true. I have no problem at all in believing that Jesus lived, died and was resurrected. The gospels read very differently than much of the Old Testament. It is, in my opinion, totally coherent to view the gospels as a fairly accurate depiction of the literal life of Jesus. (I say fairly accurate, because to the extent that the gospels do not agree with each other they cannot be completely accurate.) If the gospels read like Genesis, or Job – with highly formulaic, structured language characteristic of poetry and myth, I would have a lot of trouble believing in their historical accuracy. But they are not; they are written with different viewpoints and styles and filled with the kind of extraneous details that characterizes most historical writings.
But there is nothing in the Genesis story to suggest that the literal scientific origin of the world and of human beings is being described. Quite the opposite. The language is highly formalized and poetic which is in keeping with creation myths common throughout the ancient world. But all that means is that God isn't so much interested in telling us of our scientific origins; he is interested in telling us how we have become SEPARATED from him, and how we can find our way back.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/24/2003 1:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Semeia:
quote:
If it is history, and God guided every word, then it is seriously flawed, because God neglected to edit out the part about the sun going around the earth.
But if it is a mix of history, parable, poem, memory, legend - all pointing at the same truth about our origins, ourselves, and God - and it cannot be grasped through something as lifeless as words on a piece of parchment, but only through actual relationship and the Holy Spirit - then we can let go of the idea that anything at all hangs on the literal truth of 90% of the Bible.
What I’m basically hearing from this is that the only HISTORICAL, ACTUAL thing that really makes any significant difference is the resurrection of Christ. EVERYTHING ELSE BEFORE THAT(the 90%) like Job, Esther, the Creation story can be myth, story, legend or whatever. And it doesn’t affect anything about our theology, ideas of sin, or biblical authority.
Is this what you are saying?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 8/24/2003 5:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Icon,
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 1, Section 1 tells us quite a bit about the thinking of the Jewish people toward the historical aspects of Adam and Eve. Even though he says, “Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over, begins to talk philosophically,” Josephus gives an account substantially the same as the Genesis account and even expounds on the red earth that is the basis for Adam’s name (Chapter 1, Section 2). Josephus does not consider Chapter 1, Section 1 to be philosophical and the sixth day was “the same day he also formed man”.
I see no indication that Josephus entertained an idea of long periods for that process or anything allegorical about the events. So, I guess you have a 1st century witness that contradicts the idea of allegory or metaphor being the understanding Paul would have of the creation events. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/25/2003 5:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Question for Iconoclast:
The Creation story(s) seems to be largely myth, right? (I’m using a very NUANCED understanding of “myth”, not just the popularized understanding) Cool. So, understanding how myths work, especially when related to deities and primordial figures, is there a possibility that Paul, a Pharisee coming MANY, MANY years after the origin of this story, didn’t understand the Creation story or its characters as METAPHORS or explanations for origins...but as ACTUAL beings and happenings...just like his wise ancestors before him from whom he learned?
If so, is it probable that Paul would take THAT understanding of cosmology and tie it DIRECTLY to Christ, the redeemer of all sin! (Use all the texts we've been mentioning as your basis.)
Think VERY HEAVY on this, Iconoclast. 
"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 | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/25/2003 5:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Tag team time! 
quote:
MephEternal
The very power of the arguments Paul uses lie in his belief in the ACTUALITY of Adam and Eve. Especially the one's dealing with SIN. Think about it.
Iconoclast
Thought about it - don't see it. To me this is like saying that the very power of the story of the prodigal son lies in Jesus' belief in the ACTUALITY of it being a literal historical account.
and Semeia,
quote:
Does the metaphorical nature of the parables in any way erode the truth value of the message that they convey? I would argue in the opposite direction: that "literalizing" something that was never meant to be a scientific document, or a history of the world, or a "how-to" manual, DISTORTS the profound spiritual message into a legalistic history.
OK. Guess I gotta do this. Sit down Meph Man. Take a breather. My turn. 
First, I have to say that I like how Iconoclast and Semeia have done this and the IMPLICATIONS that flow from it. Pretty cool. Don’t agree with it. But still pretty cool. Iconoclast, you sure you aren’t a preach’r cut from the United Methodist mold?
Alrighty. There is a HUGE difference between the parable of the prodigal (and other stories) and Adam and Eve in terms of what it does to other areas of theology. Take for example, the image of God that was brought forth. You cannot even posit the biblical concept of the “image of God” without there being a distinct ACTUAL being as central to the narrative of Genesis for this concept. What this means is that THERE IS A TEMPORAL BEGINNING to humankind. That being the case, (that at some point in time the origin of humans take place) God has a PURPOSE FOR HUMANS…
SidebarTalk about implications for other areas of theology. This is important for eschatological reasons!End Sidebar
in such a way that he does not have for the rest of Creation. That is to say, that in the CREATION of Adam, GOD’S PURPOSES REACH A PLANE WITH “ADAM,” of which will be fully realized at some future eschatological period. Which is to say that God is at work in a SPECIAL WAY in the earth for HE HAS DETERMINED A UNIQUE DESTINY FOR ADAM and Adam’s offspring. This means that humans appeared at a specific point in time in the history, namely with the appearance of Adam.
Now why do I say this? Because with Adam AND ADAM ONLY, God enters into a special relationship or COVENANT. It is in this covenant that God declares a new intention for creation, namely that his creation—ADAM and his offspring—fulfill a special destiny being RELATED to God in a way that differs from all other aspects of God’s creation. Hence, it is IMPERATIVE to the story that an ACTUAL being existed.
The question of HOW this being came about is a totally different question altogether (which, IMHO is what is the underlying assumption that is partly driving this. That is, Iconoclast and Semeia are partly reading the HOW question into the text. Which is to say that if we don't know HOW God made Adam, it is possible [probable?] that he was not an actual being! Notice her comments 'bout the "scientific text." Though I believe it is not Meph Man who is doing the reading but the husband and wife tag team ). Either way, do you see the HUGE difference between the Genesis narrative and Jesus' use of parables such as the prodigal? HUGE difference.
You’re on Meph Man.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 8/25/2003 6:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon,
I was trying to remember where there is ever a parable in which the characters have names. The prodigal son is an example of an unnamed individual who is used to teach certain aspects of the gospel. Lazarus and the rich man might be debatable as to whether it is fact or fiction, unless the eternal destiny of a particular rich man is concealed for reasons known only to God (IOW, who he was is none of our business!).
Anytime a parable or “story” is used as a teaching devise, there are certain aspects that don’t hold true. That’s why it is called a parable, where the characters and events have parallels in reality, instead of a factual account, where everything is true. Interpretation and discernment are necessary parts of dealing with parables and “stories”, but factual events speak for themselves.
Luke recognizes the historicity of Adam when he lists the genealogy in 3.38, but some may say it is only because of his close ties with Paul that he does this. However, the same case cannot be made against Jude, who makes reference to Adam as the origin for Enoch's place in history in verse 14.
I Cor. 15.45 says, The first man Adam which is a specific reference to that first man, who’s name was Adam. There is no reason to identify the first man by name, if that wasn’t his name, when just stating “the first man” would have been sufficient to let the reader know who Paul was referring to. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 9/2/2003 2:41 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:57 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 |
|
|