Jump to content
IGNORED

Debate on Interpretation


Matthitjah

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357
First of all let us hear from the mouth of the author how important the issue of paganism was:

I did not say that the Torah did not stand against paganism or that paganism was not an important issue in the Torah. But for the Torah to be a "polemic" against preexisting pagan mythologies, it would have to address them, which it doesn't. The Torah's theme is freedom/redemption. That is the central, main idea in the Torah. It is not a polemic against pagan mythology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  34
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  828
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/28/1980

First of all let us hear from the mouth of the author how important the issue of paganism was:

I did not say that the Torah did not stand against paganism or that paganism was not an important issue in the Torah. But for the Torah to be a "polemic" against preexisting pagan mythologies, it would have to address them, which it doesn't. The Torah's theme is freedom/redemption. That is the central, main idea in the Torah. It is not a polemic against pagan mythology.

The Torah has more than one theme- certainly this tale of redemption is a common motif throughout scripture

but the literature has other purposes as well that were very important to the Jews at that time. To preserve them and teach them about God.

During the Eucharistic meal the celebrant breaks the bread above his head - this has two purposes -a symbolic and a practical purpose - symbolic of Christ giving himself on the cross "breaking" and practical because the bread has to be broken so that we may all partake.

This duality of meaning is throughout scripture - even looking at our basic elements that God used in making us- dust and the

breath of God.

We have two very different creation accounts - the first not only creates a polemic against all the pagan images systematically refuting the claims made that the creation preexisted or is a deity. But it paints a picture of a God of order and sets the sabbath aside as a day of rest. God says it was "good" - which then begs the question why if it is good does evil exist? That is answered in the next creation story and we see a new side of God portrayed a God who seeks relationship with man - but man tempted by sin succumbs - and it sets up the need for man for redemption. Man went from unconscious not knowing what was right and wrong to becoming conscious of right and wrong - this proverbial apple (symbol of sin) puts man on a plane that on one hand Satan says will make you like God however makes you responsible for all the

evil in the world. Here we see the parent/child relationship between God and man - God creates man in his image but man "grows up" and rebels against his father - so much imagery here who of us hasn't done the

same thing as Adam and Eve we grow up in innocence in our Eden only to rebel against our Father needing redemption that only through Christ is accomplished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
The Torah has more than one theme- certainly this tale of redemption is a common motif throughout scripture
No, that is the central theme and is really the only real focus and theme. There are subordinate issues that are incidental to that theme, but the THE theme of the Torah is redemption.

but the literature has other purposes as well that were very important to the Jews at that time. To preserve them and teach them about God.
More accurately, it was to point man to the Messiah/Redeemer.

We have two very different creation accounts -
No, there is only ONE creation account.

the first not only creates a polemic against all the pagan images systematically refuting the claims made that the creation preexisted or is a deity.
Thatisreally nothing more than an assumption on your part. Genesis does not address any other creation accounts, much less set itself against them in any way. For it to be polemic AGAINST pagan images or preexisting creation mythologies, those mythologies would have to be addressed. Whenever God's purpose is to magnify Himself against pagan deities, He says so such as in Exodus 12:12.

But it paints a picture of a God of order and sets the sabbath aside as a day of rest. God says it was "good" - which then begs the question why if it is good does evil exist? That is answered in the next creation story and we see a new side of God portrayed a God who seeks relationship with man - but man tempted by sin succumbs - and it sets up the need for man for redemption. Man went from unconscious not knowing what was right and wrong to becoming conscious of right and wrong - this proverbial apple (symbol of sin) puts man on a plane that on one hand Satan says will make you like God however makes you responsible for all the

evil in the world. Here we see the parent/child relationship between God and man - God creates man in his image but man "grows up" and rebels against his father - so much imagery here who of us hasn't done the

same thing as Adam and Eve we grow up in innocence in our Eden only to rebel against our Father needing redemption that only through Christ is accomplished.

Your position that there are two creation accounts is faulty and reflects sloppy hermeneutics. For one thing, Genesis 1 is a general account of creation. Genesis 2 is not a new or second account of creation but a summation of the creation account already provided chapter 1. The focus of Genesis 2 is the creation of Adam and Eve already intimated in chapter 1. It is a summation that draws the focus to God's redemptive relationship with man that existed prior to the fall of man. It is why in Gen. 2:14 that God relates to man YHVH, while relating to the rest of creation as "Elohim." YHVH is God's redemptive Name. It is often translated as "Jehovah" in English and is often accompanied by redemptive attributes (Jehovah Rophe, Jehovah Yireh, Jehovah Shalom, etc.)

Next, your attempt at drawing symbolism from a story is indicative of the kinds of problems I have pointed out that exist within your interprative process. There is no symbolism offered in the text of Genesis 1-3 for sin. You are assigning symbolism to a "proverbial apple" that the text does not allow for. The sin is not symbolized in the fruit, as the Bible tells us that it was the disobedience of Adam and not the fruit itself that was the problem. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not evil nor sinful in and of itself and was not assigned any such value.

The sin did not need to be symbolized as it was actually committed. The disobedience was real, not symbolic. You are trying to read symbolism into the text when the text does not indicate such symbolism is intended by the author. You are in violation of proper hermeneutics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  34
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  828
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/28/1980

Sorry about not responding I forgot about it

peace

"Your position that there are two creation accounts is faulty and reflects sloppy hermeneutics. For one thing, Genesis 1 is a general account of creation. Genesis 2 is not a new or second account of creation but a summation of the creation account already provided chapter 1. The focus of Genesis 2 is the creation of Adam and Eve already intimated in chapter 1. It is a summation that draws the focus to God's redemptive relationship with man that existed prior to the fall of man. It is why in Gen. 2:14 that God relates to man YHVH, while relating to the rest of creation as "Elohim." YHVH is God's redemptive Name. It is often translated as "Jehovah" in English and is often accompanied by redemptive attributes (Jehovah Rophe, Jehovah Yireh, Jehovah Shalom, etc.) "

If the focus is different in a retelling of a story and the

writing style is different and told from a diferent Pov then it is another account.

This general account tells us alot about God , the fall tells us about man- our need for redemption.

Trees with magical powers, a perfect garden, a forbidden fruit, a talking snake, angel with a flaming sword, immortality, dust, breath of God, a rib,- none of which seem to have symbolic importance to you. And you think there is no symbolism here? No prophetic foreshadowing? No implicit warning of the dangers of paganism to the Hebrews ? Drawing on imagery familiar to paganism- the snake and the apple- ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
If the focus is different in a retelling of a story and the writing style is different and told from a diferent Pov then it is another account.

This general account tells us alot about God , the fall tells us about man- our need for redemption.

The problem is that it is not written differently. The focus is on one aspect of creation account and is therefore not a separate creation account. It is not an attempt at retelling the origins. It is styled as a summation and not separate account of creation.

Trees with magical powers, a perfect garden, a forbidden fruit, a talking snake, angel with a flaming sword, immortality, dust, breath of God, a rib,- none of which seem to have symbolic importance to you. And you think there is no symbolism here?
I don't know where you come up with the "trees with magical powers" nonsense. That is not part of the account. But no there is no symbolism there. The text does not supply any symbolic indicators. You need to remember that interpration, especially where figurative devices are concerned is not arbitrary. YOU do not get to assgn symbolism to the text at your leisure. You are only allowed to work within the Bible's framework of symbolism where the text indicates that symbolism is being used.

No prophetic foreshadowing?
Yes, there is prophetic foreshadowing. But we know that it is there because the Bible indicates such. But prophetic foreshadowing is a far cry from figurative devices.

No implicit warning of the dangers of paganism to the Hebrews ? Drawing on imagery familiar to paganism- the snake and the apple- ?
AGain, you are trying to assign meaning the text that the text does not supply. You are assigning values to text and then reading them retroactively and molding the Bible around your views, which is inadequate means of reading the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  34
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  828
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/28/1980

"I don't know where you the the "trees with magical powers" nonsense. That is not part of the account. But no there is no symbolism there. The text does not supply any symbolic indicators. You need to remember that interpration, especially where figurative devices are concerned is not arbitrary. YOU do not get to assgn symbolism to the text at your leisure. You are only allowed to work within the Bible's framework of symbolism where the text indicates that symbolism is being used. "

Well let's take a look at a possible symbol in this story. The snake. Let's see if the text supplies indicators that this is a symbol. A symbol is an object, action, place or event that in addition to it's literal meaning, suggests a more complex meaning. We see that the "snake" is crafty, and that it speaks both are indicative of symbolism - supplying human attributes to a nonhuman being. The snake is a symbol that is used in pagan literature as well. Revered and worshipped. Viewing the snake as a symbol with several meanings gives the text a deeper meaning -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
Well let's take a look at a possible symbol in this story. The snake. Let's see if the text supplies indicators that this is a symbol. A symbol is an object, action, place or event that in addition to it's literal meaning, suggests a more complex meaning. We see that the "snake" is crafty, and that it speaks both are indicative of symbolism - supplying human attributes to a nonhuman being.

No, that is not symbolism. Giving human characteristics/attributes to a nonhuman entity is called an "anthropromorphism." That is not symbolic. Again, YOU are trying to assign symbolism to the text. The text does not indicate a more complex meaning that what is presented. You are simply trying to manufacture mre complexity than the text allows for.

The snake is a symbol that is used in pagan literature as well. Revered and worshipped. Viewing the snake as a symbol with several meanings gives the text a deeper meaning -

Again, it doesn't matter what the snake means in other literaure. We are dealing with other literature. If the author is not using the snake symbolically, YOU have no right to impose symbolism upon it. The reader is servant to the author. Your job to ascertain what the author means, not what YOU want the text to mean.

The snake symbolizes evil, Satan.
No, in the text of Genesis the snake WAS Satan. Nothing symbolic about it at all.

Viewing this symbol as satan creates the prophetic judgement that God gives the snake (whose seed will strike your heel and you will crush his head) new meaning and much deeper than the God of the midrash supplies-
Again, no symbolism is being used.

God spoke directly to satan about his demise and ultimate defeat. He prophesyed of the coming Messiah who would crush His head. It is prophetic, but not symbolic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  34
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  828
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/28/1980

Where n the text does the author of Genesis refer to the snake as Satan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  34
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  828
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/28/1980

No, that is not symbolism. Giving human characteristics/attributes to a nonhuman entity is called an "anthropromorphism." That is not symbolic. Again, YOU are trying to assign symbolism to the text. The text does not indicate a more complex meaning that what is presented. You are simply trying to manufacture mre complexity than the text allows for.

anthropromorphism is an indicator of myth, allegory and symbolism. I am not assigning symbolism the author does but he leaves clues to figure out the meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
No, that is not symbolism. Giving human characteristics/attributes to a nonhuman entity is called an "anthropromorphism." That is not symbolic. Again, YOU are trying to assign symbolism to the text. The text does not indicate a more complex meaning that what is presented. You are simply trying to manufacture mre complexity than the text allows for.

anthropromorphism is an indicator of myth, allegory and symbolism. I am not assigning symbolism the author does but he leaves clues to figure out the meaning.

Symbolism means, "this stands for that." That is what you have to prove. You are assigning symbolism that is not given in the text. I am sorry, but interpretation is not arbitrary. You cannot just call something symbolic because you want it to be. The Bible does not ascribe any symbolism to Genesis 1-11. The account in Genesis is real history, not a symbolic story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...