Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[ByFaithAlone]

 

 

In regards to Galations 4, Paul was referring to a section of Genesis not written in nearly the poetic style of the early chapters of Genesis and characters which have never to my knowledge (from a historical view) been treated as allegorical so of course he specified. However, linking that to Adam is a weak argument and a strawman as Adam is found in the poetic early chapters of Genesis and from a historical view he was treated as allegorical. Your attempt to link the two fails as they do not share enough in common with regards to historic interpretation. 

 

 

That misses the point.  The point is that when the Bible DOES use allegory, it uses it for didactic purposes.  In addition, the Bible tells us when allegory is being employed.   Paul doesn’t use allegory to deny the historicity of Hagar and Sarah.  He is not using allegory to claim that they were not real people and the events that surrounded them didn’t really happen.

 

The difference here is that Paul uses allegory correctly.  You are trying to use allegory to supplant the historicity of Genesis 1-3 and in doing so you are misusing allegory.  You are using allegory as an interpretative method, which is not what it is designed to be or do.   It is an excellent teaching tool, but it is not a reliable means of interpretation.

 

By the way, if Genesis 1-3 is allegorical, who gets to determine what it is allegorical of?  Who’s “interpretation” has the final say on what it is allegorical of??   Why is one guy’s allegorical “interpretation”  any less valid than a scholar’s allegorical “interpretation?”  It is a highly subjective and thus unreliable approach to the Bible.

 

No I don't think I have missed the point at all. You provide a strawman to compare with the early chapters of Genesis. You provide chapters that as I said before to my knowledge have no history of being treated as allegorical. As compared to Genesis which does have this historical precedent. In regards to allegorical and metaphorical text, I strongly disagree that the Bible always clearly states before it uses allegory or metaphor. Isaiah does not say that he will use it nor does he describe things in a plain manner to the Jews but rather the prophecies he makes are in poetic form making strong allegorical and metaphorical inferences. 

 

 

 

 

In regards to Adam being allegorical and the Fall you mistake the position of the allegorical interpreter. We still believe that humanity is Fallen so after you say, "Why, If the story of Adam was allegorical and the fall of man never really happened and had nothing to do with origin of sin" you have already lost me and are not talking about my position. 

 

 

 

Yes, I understand that you still believe humanity to be fallen.  My question would be, why is the Bible’s explanation of fall unsatisfactory for you?   Why the need to introduce the text as allegorical and why is the notion of it being historically factual such a problem for you?

 

If the story of Adam was merely allegorical then we are forced to accept the fallen nature of man, the presence of sin, the need for redemption in a vacuum.  We simply accept those things as true with no real reason to accept them.   It comes from the fallacy that you can separate redemption from Genesis 1-3.  The literal death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is precipitated and made necessary by the literal fall of Adam in the Garden.  That is what the Bible says to an honest and objective reader.

 

Why introduce an allegorical interpretation? Three reasons: the style of Genesis, the historical nature of its interpretation and the scientific knowledge we have that shows that a YEC view is blatantly wrong. Those are the reasons I support allegory. One textual, one historical and one scientific. In regards to the fallen nature of man, there is reason to accept the validity of this without a historic Adam. We can examine the world in which we live and realize that it is not the most perfect it could be in regards to morality. We can recognize that man creates atrocities against one another and sins against brothers. That is how we accept our fallen state and that is why we still need a Savior who will represent us in front of God. 

 

 

[ByFaithAlone]

 

 

This last statement angers me the most.

 

In regards to intellectual merit I have provided the following:

1. My textual criticism of the text

2. The textual criticism of Jews that were contemporaries of Christ 

3. The textual criticism of the early Christian church

4. The textual criticism of modern scholars ranging from the liberal Marcus Borg to the conservative NT Wright 

 

 

None of which are actual textual evidence of the nature requested.  You supplied what others think, or thought, but your answer didn’t really engage the text at all.  You can’t engage the text, because you know that the text doesn’t really provide us with anything cliaming that is an allegorical account.  Nor does any other text of the NT.   So you have to pretend that quoting Borg and Wright and claiming that some Jews and Christians viewed the text as allegorical counts as “textual criticism.”  That is a really sorry line of argumentation.

 

In regards to textual evidence see post 125 and above once again.

 

So you would hold the position that Genesis is written in a poetic form yet is somehow still historical, was viewed as allegorical by the earliest followers of Christ taught by the apostles themselves and still believe it literal and is judged false in the scientific community (in the YEC interpretation) and yet judge it as a scientific explanation of the existence of the cosmos? 

 

Now that would be a sorry line of argumentation.

 

 

 

BFA: "In regards to liberal scholarship I would like to address a few issues. First of all, how in the world do you somehow always manage to drag homosexuality into this? I mean, I am somewhat in awe of you on this issue. Whenever the water gets choppy threatening to wreck your literalism boat, you say that somehow it will bring about the end of all conservative Christianity holds dear and that the very Bible itself will be reduced to a big Jesus Loves You Hallmark card. How do you make this leap in logic?"

 

Every person I have met that shares this nonsensical “allegorical” or “metaphorical” approach to Genesis has consistently:

 

·        Denied Genesis as a factual account and thus promotes Evolution

·        Shows favor and acceptance to the homosexual lifestyle and rejects the Bible’s authority to define such a lifestyle as sin.

·        Rejects the inspiration of Scripture.

 

And yes, those types of things do spell the doom of Christianity if the church becomes universally corrupt enough to support any of them. 

 

Good for everyone you have ever met that hold the allegorical interpretation. However, they are not me nor should you make assumptions or bring up irrelevant information. The only relevant point you make here is evolution which is important as it as a scientific theory is successful at explaining how life came to exist in the present state and has a much better record then the "scientific" attempts of Kent Hovind and the YEC "scientists".  

 

 

 

 

In regards to accepting the Bible as written, I agree. However, you are assuming that the Bible in this case Genesis, is written in a literalistic manner when historical interpretation and textual criticism, from my perspective, are against you. If the early chapters of Genesis are intended in an allegorical manner, then accepting the Bible in the way it is written would entail believing in an allegorical understanding of the text. 

 

 

Historical and textual criticsm from your perpsective is rather laughable, to be honest.  The text is clearly written in a literalistic form to an honest and objective reader.  The problem is that there are elements in the church that understand that the Bible as written can’t accommodate sin and cannot accommodate a view that supplants God as Creator.  Enter the allegorical approach as a means of making room for sin and supplanting the authority of the Bible to define sin and the authority of God to judge sin and hold man accountable.  

 

Once again you ignore my argument and place a strawman in its place to define me as someone who desires to destroy the church and Christianity from the inside. Once again, if the text was intended as allegorical no authority or innerency has been harmed. I am sure we can both agree on this point even if we do not agree on if it was allegorical or not.

 

 

 

And the issue regarding the corruption of the church. If the church was corrupted by allegorical interpretation, then your Bible is corrupt as are your creeds. The very men who formed the canon with the guidance of the Spirit and who wrote the Nicene Creed provided the basic doctrine for the Church also held to the allegorical view. If you think these men are corrupt, then the very basis of your faith is also corrupt. Those who hold an allegorical view would never seek to corrupt the church. We merely seek a historical and traditional understanding of what Genesis meant.  

 

 

The early was very corrupt.  I am not a fan of the early fathers.  Many of them were virulent racists and anti-Semites.   They allegorized everything God said about Israel to apply to the Church in order to supplant the Jews as God’s chosen people and to provide a theological justifcation for 1,700 years of church sponsored persecution of the Jews.  Allegorization didn’t work too well for the Jews.

 

You seem to put a lot of weight on extra-biblical writings.  You put a lot of faith in fallible men.  That is where we differ.  I believe the Bible and my trust is in Scripture and I believe it as written, because I believe God.

 

My faith does not rest on them but on the pure Word of God.  The Bible is foundation of my faith, not creeds.  My faith is built on Scripture and Scripture treats the fall of man in Genesis as a literal and historical event.   Others seek to subvert the Word of God to accommodate their corrupt and false doctrines. 

 

 

Yes the early church had flaws as does the modern church. Strawman regarding the Jews and attacking the character of the early church fathers is irrelevant to the debate. Additionally, please note the Jewish scholars and contemporaries of that time who held to the allegorical view most notably Philo who wrote extensively on it. You somehow fail to address him while calling the early church anti-Semetic which I will note is true of some not all of the early church. 

 

You trust in the canon developed by the very men whose writings you for some reason despise. These men, under the guidance of the Spirit, literally formed the Bible we know today. I do not treat their words as canon or without error. However, I recognize that they had the closest access to the teachings of Christ anyone could have - first and second hand accounts from the apostles and as the Bible does not go out of its way to spell out dogma or theology they set up, defined and defended the ideas of the Trinity, etc. in addition to defining canon itself. 

 

Your faith rests on the Word and I agree that is where we should go first. The Word will never be supplanted by outside writings. However, with that being said, let me remind you of my three reasons for believing in an allegorical Genesis: 1. Textual reasons, style, etc of Genesis (The Word) 2. The writings of the Church Fathers indicating allegorical interpretation (Historical Precedent and Church Tradition) 3. The advancement of scientific evidence which proves a YEC view to be false (Scientific Evidence and the Use of the Minds God has Given Us). The second two reasons, although after the Word are important. 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

You say interpretation is always "literal" and in this lies the basic flaw of your position. Interpretation, even biblical interpretation is not always literal. Is Jesus a literal lamb, bright morning star, root of a tree named Jesse? No of course not. These passages are not taken literally but metaphorically representative of Christ's nature.

 

You are confusing “literal” with “face-value.”  A literalistic approach takes metaphors and other figures of speech into account and looks for the literal meaning behind figurative devices.  

 

The face-value approach is a wooden approach to Scripture that I do not endorse.  I think the problem is that you don’t understand what “literal” means in a literary sense and are applying a false value to that term.

 

Interpretation is based on the writing of the text. If the text is written in the nature of a prophecy we will interpret to account for it. If the text is written in the nature of a letter to an early church we account for this too. However, most evangelical fundamentalists seem to have a very difficult time applying this principal to Genesis which appears to be written in the poetic style of an epic poem. 

The problem here is that you are trying to make the argument that first few chapters of Genesis are nothing more than allegory on the basis that they have a poetic form and that simply doesn’t hold water.  Even if you can make the case for a poetic form of writing, that is insufficient to make a case for the text being allegorical.   Poetry is a style of writing, but allegory is not.  Allegory, used properly is a teaching tool.  You are misusing allegory in your treatment of Genesis.

You claim that Paul and Matthew believed Adam as literal and historical not on the basis that you find anything in the text that indicates that but rather due to an a priori assumption that Genesis is intended in a literal manner without providing evidence for that opinion either.

Absent any non-literal information, the default understanding of the text is liteal.  The literal understanding of the text is the status quo.  You can’t provide any information from the author to show that he intends his account to be understood as anything other than a literal, historical account.   As a result, the ONLY option available due to the lack of evidence to the contrary is a literal, historical understanding of the text. 

I am not the one who has the burden of proof..  You are the one arguing for a change in the status quo.  The burden of proof falls to you, not me.  If you can’t demonstrate that we need to alter our understanding of the text away from the default, literal position, then your argument fails.

Meanwhile, the allegorical interpretation is supported by writing style, science and contemporaries of Christ and the apostles.  

 

It doesn’t matter how other people interpret it.  They are not infallible and truth is not arrived at by who believes this or that.  The important person in this debate is the author of Genesis, who is Moses.  Did he take the text he wrote as being nothing but an allegory?   If he did, where does he say so anywhere  in the Pentateuch?  Where does any of the prophets make a case for an allegorical approach to Genesis?  Where does the NT treat Genesis 1-3 as an allegory?

You make the case that the contemporaries of Jesus and the apostles interpreted Genesis as allegorical.  So far, you have not provided anything to support that claim.   But more to the point, even if that is case, why does that mean that Paul saw Adam as allegorical?   Why doesn’t ANY of Paul’s writings reflect that?    Where do you derive the right to assign values to Paul simply because some of his contemporaries believed that Genesis was an allegory?   Are Paul and Jesus slaves to what those around them believed?   Are we supposed to use their contemporaries as the standards by which to judge what Paul thought and or believed?   Are we  supposed to filter Jesus’ teachings through what others believed at that time? 

You somehow manage to ignore the plain differences and apparent contradictions that exist between the accounts of the genealogy of Matthew and Luke. This does not make sense if both accounts are as you claim completely literal. One of them has to be wrong in terms of a purely historical account of Christ's genealogy.

Nope, no contradictions at all.  As stated, the one glaring difference between them is that we have Joseph as the descendent of David who was descended from Solomon and Jeconiah.   Mary is descended from David through Nathan and not Solomon. Jeconiah’s line would not produce a King.  If Joseph was really the father of Jesus, Jesus could not be the Son of David to sit on the throne (Jer. 22:24-30)

Matthew provides us with the legal right of Jesus to the throne of David as the divine Messiah and Luke provides us with Jesus’ natural right to the throne as a son of David through the correct lineage. 

There is no contradiction between them.   They both emphasize different aspects of Jesus right to be One who sits on David’s throne.   They compliment each other by demonstrating that Jesus was both the natural and legal heir to the throne, both of which are necessary to demonstrate that Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Son of David propheised as far back as Genesis 21.

You are trying to manufacture a problem where none exists.

Or perhaps a more fitting explanation is that the genealogies are intended to show the sinful generations that have come before Christ, noting important figures of history of note within the Jewish faith which shows the need for a Savior and reminds the Jewish people of the covenant God gave there ancestors. 

No that is not it at all. Stop trying to pencil in what is not there. The genealogies serve a specific purpose as outlined above.

See my response above to the fallacious argument you present here, once again an a priori assumption that does not take into account the genre or writing style. 

None of that gives any impetus at all to an allegorical approach to the text, as demonstrated above, as well.  You simply cannot make a very strong case for your allegorical argument.  

Language and writing style have a lot to do with whether or not a text should be taken as allegorical. If it is poetic in nature rather than historical, as I contend the early chapters of Genesis are (written in an epic poem style), then it is more reasonable to believe the allegorical view.

  Poetic does not equal allegorical. You are making an unwarranted leap in that line of argumentation.  Something can be written in a poetic style and still be entirely historically accurate.

Textual indicators such as metaphors and symbols used within the text such as the snake for Satan something widely agreed on by most if not all Christians were provided to you before but you provided no counterargumentation but merely say they don't hold water for no reason then your own a priori assumptions. 

Where does the text tell us that the serpent was not a literal creature in that story?  You are the one assigning symbolism where the text doesn’t provide it.  You seem to think that you have a right to arbitarily assign symbolism and figurative devices to the text and that is simply incorrect.  I also don’t buy into the notion that most if not all Christians believe the serpent to be non-literal.  I would accept that most if not all liberal Christians who don’t believe the Bible is the inerrant, wholly inspired and immutable Word of God would believe such.  But I have never met anyone who applied an objective, competent textual approach to the Scriptures that believes as you do.

[quotge]So internal notes of symbols, metaphors, etc do not count as textual indicators in your book? Nor the poetic language of the original language? 

[Guest shiloh357]

No I don't think I have missed the point at all. You provide a strawman to compare with the early chapters of Genesis. You provide chapters that as I said before to my knowledge have no history of being treated as allegorical. As compared to Genesis which does have this historical precedent. In regards to allegorical and metaphorical text, I strongly disagree that the Bible always clearly states before it uses allegory or metaphor. Isaiah does not say that he will use it nor does he describe things in a plain manner to the Jews but rather the prophecies he makes are in poetic form making strong allegorical and metaphorical inferences. 

 

yeah, you did miss the point.  I was not comparing the texts.  I was demonstrating how the Bible ususally handles things like allegory.  What we have in Gal. 4 is the proper way to handle allegory.  In actually both are historical narratives.  That one has been treated as allegorical is irrelevenat to the truth that both are historical narratives.  The only difference between Genesis 1-11 and the rest of Genesis is that chapters 1-11 cover an immense amount of human history in 11 chapters.  From Adam to Abraham is roughly 2,500 years in a very short 11 chapters and when we get  to chapter 12, it slows down to a near stop.

At any rate, Gen. 1-11 are just as historical as Sarah and Hagar and Paul allegorizes Sarah and Hagar to make a didactic point, to teach a lesson.  That is the proper use of allegory.  You are misusing allegory in order to supplant literal history and thus you are misusing allegory to serve a misguided purpose.

 

Why introduce an allegorical interpretation? Three reasons: the style of Genesis, the historical nature of its interpretation and the scientific knowledge we have that shows that a YEC view is blatantly wrong. Those are the reasons I support allegory. One textual, one historical and one scientific.

 

So why does Genesis as a historical narrative demand a YEC view?  The truth is that you support evolution which is why you support the allegorical view.  The allegorical view is an attempt to make room for Evolution in a Christian worldivew which is rather oxymoronic.

 

In regards to the fallen nature of man, there is reason to accept the validity of this without a historic Adam.

 

But why would you want to accept the fallen state of man and reject the Bible’s explanation for man’s fallen state?  Why is the Bible’s account of man’s fall unsatisfactory?  When we look at the atrocities and evil in the world, the fall of man is completely satisfactory explain that.  Why would you want to create a vacuum in that area?

Why would Jesus die to rectify the sin of Adam if Adam was not an historical figure?  Why is Romans 5:12-21 wrong?

 

So you would hold the position that Genesis is written in a poetic form yet is somehow still historical, was viewed as allegorical by the earliest followers of Christ taught by the apostles themselves and still believe it literal and is judged false in the scientific community (in the YEC interpretation) and yet judge it as a scientific explanation of the existence of the cosmos? 

 

Where did you get that tripe from what I said??  Maybe you should try reading what I actually said instead of trying to assign things to me I never intended or implied.  That would be an honest approach to debate.

  I hold that the biblical writers, all of them hold to Genesis 1-3 as literal history.  They viewed it as literal and that is evidenced in the way they referenced that part of the Bible numerous times in the NT. 

I don’t offer Genesis as a scientific explanation of anything.  I judge it as an historical explanation of the existence of the cosmos.  

 

Good for everyone you have ever met that hold the allegorical interpretation. However, they are not me nor should you make assumptions or bring up irrelevant information. The only relevant point you make here is evolution which is important as it as a scientific theory is successful at explaining how life came to exist in the present state and has a much better record then the "scientific" attempts of Kent Hovind and the YEC "scientists".  

 

Given what I have seen in your posts in this thread and others, all three are relevant to you.

 

Once again you ignore my argument and place a strawman in its place to define me as someone who desires to destroy the church and Christianity from the inside. Once again, if the text was intended as allegorical no authority or innerency has been harmed. I am sure we can both agree on this point even if we do not agree on if it was allegorical or not.

 

Oh, I don’t think that you are trying to corrupt the church.  You are simply and naively repeating the words of those who do.  In fact, you are championing arguments that most unbelievers who are hostile to the Christian faith can get behind.

Yes the early church had flaws as does the modern church. Strawman regarding the Jews and attacking the character of the early church fathers is irrelevant to the debate. Additionally, please note the Jewish scholars and contemporaries of that time who held to the allegorical view most notably Philo who wrote extensively on it. You somehow fail to address him while calling the early church anti-Semetic which I will note is true of some not all of the early church. 

 

 

You trust in the canon developed by the very men whose writings you for some reason despise. These men, under the guidance of the Spirit, literally formed the Bible we know today. I do not treat their words as canon or without error. However, I recognize that they had the closest access to the teachings of Christ anyone could have - first and second hand accounts from the apostles and as the Bible does not go out of its way to spell out dogma or theology they set up, defined and defended the ideas of the Trinity, etc. in addition to defining canon itself. 

 

Your faith rests on the Word and I agree that is where we should go first. The Word will never be supplanted by outside writings. However, with that being said, let me remind you of my three reasons for believing in an allegorical Genesis: 1. Textual reasons, style, etc of Genesis (The Word) 2. The writings of the Church Fathers indicating allegorical interpretation (Historical Precedent and Church Tradition) 3. The advancement of scientific evidence which proves a YEC view to be false (Scientific Evidence and the Use of the Minds God has Given Us). The second two reasons, although after the Word are important. 

 

The anti-Semitism is not irrelevant as it goes to their lack of aptitude at correctly dividing the word of God.   They used allegory to support their anti-Semitism.  Most if not all of the early church fathers were anti-Semites coming right down to the days of Martin Luther and Calvin.  Church theology from Constantine to the 1940’s, especially in Europe was virulently anti-Semitic and for that reason,  I hold them in contempt.  They employed the allegorical approach as well to support their antagonism of the Jews and allegorized “Jersualem” to be “the church.”  They allegorized the OT and all of the blessings of Israel to refer to the Church age.  So I don’t have any confidence in their use of allegory anywhere else.

As for your three reasons:

 

1.      You have no actual textual reasons.  Style has nothing to do with allegory.  Allegory is a teaching style, not a writing style.  Poetry and allegory are not synomous.

2.      The Early church fathers got a lot of stuff wrong.  Just because they were closer to the original disciples doesn’t mean that their theology was correct.  You are assuming that older means more accurate and that is not the case.  We don’t use tha standard or line of reasoning in any other context.

3.      The historicity of Genesis has nothing  to do with YEC. There are OEC proponents who hold to Genesis 1-3 as completely historical.

[Guest shiloh357]

There are a couple things that suggest to me that the Genesis account is not meant to convey historically actual facts. For one thing, we have an account of what God was doing and saying before anyone was around to witness.

 

And why cannot an all-knowing, all-powerful God correctly relate accurate historical information to us?  Why can't he inspire someone to write down what He did?

 

The other thing is that we can question what the point of the account is. It doesn't seem to be about passing on sophisticated scientific knowledge at all. If that were the case then our understanding the truths in it would depend on scientific progress, and that makes no sense to me. If the truths are accessible to all throughout history, there is a reason to at the very least downplay the  centrality of the factual sorts of claims that may rely on scientific findings for full explication.

 

This is an historical account, not a scientific account.  it answers the questions of who and why.  It doesn't answer how and when.

 

That being said, Jesus can still fulfill events reported whether those events were exactly as they said in history, or presented as metaphor or allegory or something else. Because I came to the gospel by believing in Jesus' resurrection, by looking at the NT as a disparate collection of historical witnesses, i don't see to have the same hang ups as understanding different parts of the Bible in different ways as you do. I don't know how else to explain the fact that I'm repeating myself again here. I'm able to have doubts that the creation account ought to be taken as a literal historical account, and believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, and I have yet to run into any dissonance over that.

You are still living in same simplistic view of the resurrection and the Scripture as a whole as you did when you were saved.  You don't have to know how the Bible is constructed in order to be saved, but at some point it would seem that you would mature in your understanding of Scripture.  You are still trying to reason like you did before you became a believer it seems. 

 

You are applying the same logical standards that make sense to an unbeliever instead of growing into a more mature understanding of Scripture.  You seem to want to remain in that old way of thinking.  The lack of dissonance stems from your lack of any real solid theological base.   That is why you can hold to two things that cannot be held and be internally consistent.

[Guest shiloh357]

I think part of it is that Gen. 1-11 has some weird stories that don't make a whole lot of sense when you interpret them as factual history in the modern sense. And it only gets weirder when you bring in history and science. I honestly don't think that people who view it figuratively suppose that it was meant to teach history in the modern sense. In my experience even non-believers don't see the Bible as trying to dish out a literal history in the modern sense. In that regard it's not that the Bible didn't get history right, but the Bible wasn't even trying to impart history to us, at least in the modern sense of historical scholarship. 

 

We have an historical account that is couched in a supernatural environment that science cannot detect.  Just because science cannot detect the supernatural realm doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  What doesn't make sense in the natural world makes perfect sense in a supernatural environment.

 

My point was that people use fictional stories with fictional characters, yet the story can also be, in a sense, more true than what a rendition of a nonfictional story can impart to us. The actual story in of itself may never have happened as described, however the imparting wisdom of how the world works may be greater.

 

Yep.  Those are called parables and they are all over the Bible, especially the Gospels.  The Bible tells us when those types of stories are being employed.  Genesis doens't give us any such indicators.

 

Does everyone have genealogies stretching all the way back to Adam? I understand the genealogy of Jesus as having nothing to do with property rights, but establishing spiritual truths and fulfilling prophesy. 

 

I don't know if everyone's genealogy went back to Adam.   Jesus' did and that fact alone torpedoes the silly notion that Adam was not a real person in history.  The fact is that Jesus' genealogies establish his right to the most important piece of real estate on the planet:  The throne of David.  He will return to rule on that throne from Israel.

 

It is only literal by default according to the paradigm of Biblical literalism.

 

 

It is literal by every standard of literary analysis.  It doesn't matter what text you are reading, you naturally address your understanding to conform to the type of literature you are reading.  You don't read a newspaper the same way you read a biography, you don't read a  novel the same way you read a cook book.  The fact is that "literal" interpretation is employed every time you read.  "Literal" in this sense means reading in the light of the object the author has in view.

 

 

And I don't see non-literalists as trying to make the Bible say what they want, at least no more than literalists do. The way I see it both camps are attempting to determine the original meaning and intent of a given passage, but they have come to different conclusions, at least in regards to Genesis. I think part of it has to do with how to weight evidence and what is and isn't important to determine said conclusion. From what I've seen non-literalists generally favor evidence that is more open to things like the historical culture and is more focused on how a given piece of writing would have been viewed by a contemporary audience. While I'll agree literalists do some of this, it is not as prominent and focus a lot on "textual indicators" as you put it; unless it is explicitly stated and not an overtly obvious figurative device, it is literal. And of course no one is completely free from bias. 

 

All non-literalists do is try to arrive at a different conclusion than the author supplies if they don't like what the author of of scripture has to say.  Non-literalists treat the Bible like a breakfast buffet and they get to arbitarily choose what they like and don't like.  The Bible doesn't work that way.  Literalists are the ones who employ objective measures to interpret Scripture.  They are the ones who use the historicall cultural context, grammar and syntax.   Non-literalists don't.

 

Again this talk of figurative equals wrong is sort of missing the point about figurative interpretations within the faith entirely. Much how you, as a literalist, recognize that the Bible uses literary devices such as metaphors (Jesus is a lamb) and see it clearly, others look at certain passages and can't help but notice indicators that suggest a non-literal reading of said passage should be implemented.

 

There is no such thing as a "figurative" interpretation.  That makes no sense.  Interpretation is about getting to the meaningn the author intends to convey. The notion of figurative only applies to certain devices in the text and even then we are to seek the literal meaning behind those devices.  Interpretation is always literal.

 

I don't know where you get the idea that it downplays sin, or it suggests that we are not accountable for our sins before God. I've never heard a non-literalist preach such to my recollection.

Not in so many words, but if the Bible says that something you enjoy is a sin and you don't want to be accountable for it, then the best defense is to destroy the Bible's ability to define sin which is establsihed in Genesis.  If Genesis is not to taken literally, then any notion in Genesis that God is our moral lawgiver  and judge can be summarily discarded.

 

I said it before once upon a time and I'll say it again, if you want to get rid of Biblical authority the best way to do so would be to accept a literal interpretation of Genesis as the very foundation of the faith and methodically destroy its claims based on modern science and rational thought.

That's because you don't understand literalism and what it means to understand the Bible literally.  Like most people when you hear "literal" you think "face-value."

 

 I truly believe that without "liberal" theology Christianity would have been reduced to nothing more than a fringe element of society, assuming it would still exist, once modern science got a foot in the door.

Without liberal theology we would have more genuine followers of Jesus and fewer people infiltrating the church as enablers for sin.   Liberalism is bad for the church and for America. 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

God could, I have no reason to think God  inspired someone to write down what happened in a factual way.

 

 

You have no reason to think that God inspoired someone to write down what happened in a factual way???  What about this:

 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

(2Ti 3:16-17)

 

And this:

 

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

(2Pe 1:21)

 

 

The Bible claims it is inspired by God.  So right there, you deny the inspiration of Scripture.

 

Yeah, 24 hrs I did this, 24 hrs later I did that. Why? 24 hrs before the sun is even created. there is a reason right there for me to suspect this is not a historical account of creation happenings. I do believe God wants us to know things through this, but the specific details? I don't even see how that matters.

Why would that be a problem for an all-knowing, all powerful God?   The problem is that are forgetting who we are dealing with, here.  We are dealing with a God who can operate that way without the need of the sun.  

 

It is exactly an historical account and it is written as an historical account and any objective, honest reader can see that.

 

The whole reason I have this view is because I know something about how the Bible is constructed.

You know nothing  about how the Bible is constructed hermeneutically, and that is what we are dealing with, here.  This is a hermeneutic issue and that requres some skill in literary analysis.  The problem is that you are not really dealing how the Bible is constructed.   This is not about scholars or canonization.  We are dealing with textual issues and the Bible's textual integrity.  That is where your argumentation fails.  You cannot hermeneutically defend this notion that Genesis is allegorical because you know nothing about hermeneutics and literary analysis. 

 

It's more convenient to change the subject and talk about canonization and the views of scholars, isn't it?   When I ask for internal textual indicators that the text is allegorical, that the author wanted us to see the story as allegorical, neither you, nor D-9, nor BFA can produce.   All you can do is change the subject.  You can't provide the needed information.   You need to show me the author's intent agrees with your position.  I don't care what scholars say or what someone else believes.   The all important person is the author, as he is the one who supplies the only REAL meaning of the text.

 

 

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

I do not think it is meant to be a historical account. Science is certainly a capable option to demonstrate that Genesis is not factual history, if it is indeed meant to read as history, however I don't think you need science to demonstrate that Genesis isn't meant to be read historically. For most people I think it is enough to scratch the surface of Genesis' poetic/prolific writing style, along with the history and culture surrounding the text. 

 

 

 

It is nothing but a historical account.  It is not meant to be scientific, but it reads like a historical narrative.  To deny that is simply absurd.

 

Being poetic doesn’t mean it is not historical.  Writing styles  do not indicate what is or is not historical.  I have read poems of the revolutionary war that were entirely historically accurate and tell factually accurate stories in poetic form.  You are confusing genre with style. 

 

There is nothing about history or culture that denies that this is a historical account.

 

I think the writing style is an indicator, as is the cultural/historical context. If you're looking for an explicit big sign and heading that says "non-literal story here", well, Genesis obviously doesn't have one. But I don't think that such an explicit statement in the text itself is a necessary condition. 

 

 

 

Sorry but you have demonstrated that you don’t understand what historical/cultural context is.  You can throw around terms, but in previous debates, your understanding of what amounts to historical/cultural context is woefully inaccurate.

 

From a historical/cultural standpoint, had the Bible simply been written by men, the story we read in Genesis would never have existed.  The God we see in the Bible is unlike any deity of the ancient world.  They had no point of reference for the God of the Bible.  Their gods were more like humans and had the same human failings and characteristics.  They could only write from what they knew.  It’s like no one in 1400’s every thinking of a cell phone.  They had no point of reference for a cell phone and thus no one wrote about or thought about a cell phone at that time.  The same applies to God.  That is why the allegory stuff that BFA and others promote has no historical veracity.  Even if they wanted to create an allegory, it would not have looked like Genesis 1.

 

Writing style has nothing to do with whether a text is actual history or not.  That is a genre issue and the story is written as history.

 

I'm not convinced that the genealogies of Jesus are meant to be historically factual. I know you see no contradictions etc in the Bible, but most people do, and one of them is the two genealogies that most people cannot reconcile into a coherent system. To me that indicates the genealogies were not important as factual histories for those that put them side by side (so to speak) in the Bible. There are many inconsistencies brought up by others which I'm sure you are aware of so I'll save my breath. 

 

 

 

People who see contradictions in the Bible don’t know the Bible very well and usually what they call contradictions aren’t.  I have been down that road with people who blather on about contradictions and usually they prove they don’t know what they are talking about.

 

Genealogies are ALWAYS meant to be historically accurate.  There is no reason that the Matthew or Luke would create inaccurate genealogies in the first place.  There is no contradiction between them as I demonstrated to BFA who made the same silly argument.  Neither of you know what you are talking about.

 

A "literal" interpretation is obviously not read every time. Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder, and ultimately we each interpret what we are exposed to through our own brain. There could be a "correct" interpretation which is supplied by the author, but this is not necessarily so. I am not moved by your rendition of how non-literalists work. I'll admit non-literalists are biased, but the other side of the coin is that literalists are biased too. We all warp whatever we hear and experience to conform to our pre-set beliefs, and none of us can escape that reality no matter how hard we try or how big and loud and often we say that we are free from such biases. 

 

 

You don’t understand what literalism is in a literary context.   Every time you “interpret” you are looking for the literal meaning supplied by the author.  People like you who lack obvious skills and knowledge in the area of literary analysis. The act of interpretation is ALWAYS an attempt to ascertain the true and literal meaning of a given text.   We don’t read a newspaper article and then start assigning our own ideas to the article. We seek to understand what the author is trying to say.   But evidently those rules go out the window where the Bible is concerned.

 

I genuinely see non-literalists in the scholarly sphere, as well as BFA and Bary, to genuinely be interested in the original intention and meaning of scripture. However there appears to be major philosophical differences in how to treat the text and how to ultimately determine what the original intent was. Say it all you want, but I am not persuaded that you are objectively interpreting scripture more so than liberals who take a "buffet" approach. 

 

 

 

No, they are not interested in the intent and meaning of Scripture.  They are interested in supplanting what the Bible says actually happened with a view that treats the Bible’s account as a man-made allegory meant to teach something else and that what the Bible says happened never really happened.

 

It is direct assault on the integrity of the text and the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture.

 

When I say I am objective, it means that I take the text as is, and I approach it from the vantage point of what the author is trying to say.  How can you get more objective than that.  I am far more  objective and fair to the text than a bunch of  shallow liberals who know just enough about the Bible to be dangerous.

 

You can have a figurative interpretation in the sense that you can read a passage as figurative rather than literal. The literal interpretation of a metaphor is not the meaning conveyed by the author when it comes to normal usage of language. I really have never heard of "literal" as meaning the intention of the author before I met you, and I think it is a definition relegated to Biblical Literalism, as I can find no usage of such a definition outside thereof. From what I can tell, by definition outside that used by Biblical Literalists, in order to understand a metaphor you must read it (or interpret it) figuratively and not literally. 

 

 

 

You can try to read a passage as figurative IF the author gives you permission.  The author, not you, supplies the meaning, the only TRUE meaning of the text. 

 

Your problem, D-9, is that your version of “literal” refers to a wooden face-value approach to the text.    A literalist would not take Jesus at face-value, when he says “if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off.”   Your of  how literalism works would mean that Jesus expects us to maim ourselves when we sin.   A literalist recognizes that that Jesus is referring to sinful influences and associations and we need to “cut off’ or remove anything in our life  that is an impediment to walk with the Lord.   See, literalism looks for the literal meaning behind the figurative text.   Just as I demonstrated.

 

I understand what you mean by literalism, sort of. However I find the idea really quite bizarre, counter-intuitive on so many levels, that I can't help but use "literal" in my own writings as meaning "literal" in the sense that everyone on the street understands the word. 

 

 

 

But the problem is that like you, there are a lot of people who don’t understand literary analysis and don’t have a proper understanding of what literalism is.   They have the same wrong “face-value” understanding of literalism that you do.

 

Your argument against literalism only works so long as you can paint literalism as a facepvalue approach to the text that doeson’t take cultural idioms, figures of speech, symbols, hyperbole and so forth into account.  You have to paint literalism a certain way in order to have an argument against it. 

 

 

We are kind of going in circles, I honestly think you are butchering the belief and though-process of liberals. I considered myself liberal, I know liberals, and none of what you say relates to the mindset I've encountered in any way shape or form. It doesn't even make sense, really. If you want to subvert the authority of Christianity, why go through this meandering and quite pointless exercise of liberalizing the scripture when you can just attack it head on. Seriously, it almost feels like I'm reading a conspiracy theory when you talk about liberals, and I'm not into conspiracy theories. 

 

 

 

The reason is that liberalizing Scripture is so important to liberals is because there are certain things the Bible calls sin, that liberals don’t see as sinful.  Liberals endorse ideals, values and notions that are in direct opposition to Scripture. 

 

When the Bible exposes sin our lives and in our society, we have a decision to make.  We can either repent or continue living in our sin.  When you don’t want to be accountable to God, then you must destroy his authority to hold you accountable for sin.  So if the parts of the Bible like Genesis that present God as our moral Lawgiver and eternal Judge are “allegorized” and viewed as non-literal, then His authority to define sin and hold us accountable for sin are also removed.  That is why liberals can look at the Scriptures that forbid homosexuality and other immoral issues and deny that they are relevant or applicable for today.  The Bible has no authority, in their view, to define morality nor does God have any authority to hold us accountable for it.

[ByFaithAlone]

Ok so I am going to try to condense the major points of difference between our positions. 

 

Firstly, we have to address this idea of literalism as you clearly seem to have a different approach to the word then I do. When I say literalism, I mean that you believe that the text of Genesis is not allegorical in nature and in fact happened at some finite time in the past. You believe that Adam literally existed a historic time ago in the context of a YEC universe which is less than 10000 years old. In other words you hold that Scripture is completely plain and straightforward in regards to describing creation and the origins of life and sin. If you do not hold to any or some of these points please let me know.

 

Secondly, we must address the issue of the burden of proof with regard to interpretation. In regards to this issue I provide the quoted text below. 

 

 

You claim that Paul and Matthew believed Adam as literal and historical not on the basis that you find anything in the text that indicates that but rather due to an a priori assumption that Genesis is intended in a literal manner without providing evidence for that opinion either.

Absent any non-literal information, the default understanding of the text is liteal.  The literal understanding of the text is the status quo.  You can’t provide any information from the author to show that he intends his account to be understood as anything other than a literal, historical account.   As a result, the ONLY option available due to the lack of evidence to the contrary is a literal, historical understanding of the text. 

I am not the one who has the burden of proof..  You are the one arguing for a change in the status quo.  The burden of proof falls to you, not me.  If you can’t demonstrate that we need to alter our understanding of the text away from the default, literal position, then your argument fails.

 

 

You state that the literal interpretation should be the default understanding of the text. The first question I would put to this is why do you make this assumption? Thankfully, you answer my question in your next sentence by saying that the literal understanding of the text is the status quo. Unfortunately, this is very problematic for your position. After all, the original status quo (let's say at the beginning of the church) was that of an allegorical Genesis. You however seem to only want to use the modern fundamentalist status quo. I would argue that this argumentation is not only flawed but that you have no basis for calling biblical literalism the status quo. In fact quite the opposite. Based on the interpretations of the past, biblical literalism is the new kid on the block and thus it holds the burden of proof. However, I regard myself as a relatively fair person so I have presented my case for an allegorical interpretation of Genesis despite the fact that it is the original status quo. I just want equal treatment from the true bearer of the burden of proof. I want reasons that you hold your a priori assumptions. Are there historical reasons for your interpretation? Scientific ones? Perhaps it is the writing style of Genesis which indicates the historical nature of the creation account? Please provide your reasoning. 

 

Next, in regards to textual indicators of allegory, I would like to note several things. The style of writing in the early Genesis chapters is never associated with the historic books of the Bible (1 Kings, etc) but is more similar to the epic poems of the ancient world (examples include the Odyssey or Iliad) in which major themes are given but actual history is not the goal of the writing. How do we explain this? If we recognize the conservative position of Mosaic authorship, why is it different from the historical writing style of Exodus for example. The literalist has no explanation for this. Next, we move on to the idea of symbols. The literalist can only assume that a talking snake caused Adam and Eve to sin. There is no reason to believe that Satan was the tempter. Similarly, we cannot even assume that God promises a Savior to Adam and Eve. All that is given to the literalist is a historic enmity between snakes and people. Even conservative fundamentalists recognize that Genesis prophecies a Savior and is allegorical in regards to the snake representing Satan. Other points often seen in allegory I have posted before in post 125 which you simply dismiss without reason. So the question I am forced to ask is why all these characteristics of allegory and metaphor exist in Genesis when other works regarded as historical do not have these issues. 

 

Now we have reached an interesting moment. My next points will regard your statement below. 

 

 

 

Why introduce an allegorical interpretation? Three reasons: the style of Genesis, the historical nature of its interpretation and the scientific knowledge we have that shows that a YEC view is blatantly wrong. Those are the reasons I support allegory. One textual, one historical and one scientific.

 

So why does Genesis as a historical narrative demand a YEC view?  The truth is that you support evolution which is why you support the allegorical view.  The allegorical view is an attempt to make room for Evolution in a Christian worldivew which is rather oxymoronic.

 

 

First let me address your question. A historic narrative of Genesis implies that what happens in Genesis should be regarded as historic fact. Historical facts are truthful statements regarding how something occurred in the finite past. In the case of Genesis these historical facts would not only have to include Adam as a historic character but the creation as historical as described in Genesis or else we have some sort of special pleading. Thus, the YEC method of creation must be regarded as historic fact. In regards to evolution, yes I support it but the allegorical view is older then the theory of evolution so no it was not designed to make room for evolution. You also make the claim that evolution and Christianity are oxymoronic. Please substantiate this claim.

 

In regards to original sin you ask why I regard your position regarding the Fall unsatisfactory and why did Jesus die for the sins of an allegorical man. I have answered both questions before but I will answer them again. In regards to your position on the Fall, I do not believe it to be a proper understanding of the Genesis account from a textual, historic or scientific view. My reasons for this have been outlined above. In regards to the death of Christ, the lack of a historic Adam does not mean that man is without sin or is not fallen. Christ died to pay for our sins and our fallen nature. 

 

 

In regards to the issue below: 

 

 

 

Good for everyone you have ever met that hold the allegorical interpretation. However, they are not me nor should you make assumptions or bring up irrelevant information. The only relevant point you make here is evolution which is important as it as a scientific theory is successful at explaining how life came to exist in the present state and has a much better record then the "scientific" attempts of Kent Hovind and the YEC "scientists".  

 

Given what I have seen in your posts in this thread and others, all three are relevant to you.

 

Other threads are irrelevant to this debate as is my position on other issues. Debate the topic not me. Thanks. 

 

 

 And lastly we address the Church Fathers. You can call them anti-Semites, etc. (despite lacking proof in regards to this point) but you ignore the bulk of the argument here. The issues are as follows:

 

The vast majority of contemporaries of Christ both Jews and Christians held to an allegorical view of Genesis. On this issue, they seem to concur. Just as they concurred at the Council of Nicaea when forming the basic church doctrines, just as they formed the doctrine of the Trinity, the historical nature of the Resurrection, and the very canon itself you recognize as Scripture today. It would be much more reasonable to hold that Christ himself held to this view rather than any other view. If you do not trust the consensus of the early Church in regards to certain issues why do you trust the Scripture that the early Church formed? What reasons do you have for trusting the Bible if you do not trust the men who developed canon?

 

Note that I am not saying that these men were perfect nor should we treat their words as canon. I am merely saying that when they all seem to reach a consensus or majority opinion regarding something in addition to the Jews of that era, it may be very much worth our time to consider their opinions as a  historic and accurate representation of orthodox theology.  

 

 

P.S. If I missed anything of vital importance you want me to address let me know. I was trying to consolidate our ideas as best as possible. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

God could, I have no reason to think God  inspired someone to write down what happened in a factual way.

 

 

You have no reason to think that God inspoired someone to write down what happened in a factual way???  What about this:

 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

(2Ti 3:16-17)

 

And this:

 

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

(2Pe 1:21)

 

 

The Bible claims it is inspired by God.  So right there, you deny the inspiration of Scripture.

 

 

 

Yeah, 24 hrs I did this, 24 hrs later I did that. Why? 24 hrs before the sun is even created. there is a reason right there for me to suspect this is not a historical account of creation happenings. I do believe God wants us to know things through this, but the specific details? I don't even see how that matters.

Why would that be a problem for an all-knowing, all powerful God?   The problem is that are forgetting who we are dealing with, here.  We are dealing with a God who can operate that way without the need of the sun.  

 

It is exactly an historical account and it is written as an historical account and any objective, honest reader can see that.

 

 

 

The whole reason I have this view is because I know something about how the Bible is constructed.

You know nothing  about how the Bible is constructed hermeneutically, and that is what we are dealing with, here.  This is a hermeneutic issue and that requres some skill in literary analysis.  The problem is that you are not really dealing how the Bible is constructed.   This is not about scholars or canonization.  We are dealing with textual issues and the Bible's textual integrity.  That is where your argumentation fails.  You cannot hermeneutically defend this notion that Genesis is allegorical because you know nothing about hermeneutics and literary analysis. 

 

It's more convenient to change the subject and talk about canonization and the views of scholars, isn't it?   When I ask for internal textual indicators that the text is allegorical, that the author wanted us to see the story as allegorical, neither you, nor D-9, nor BFA can produce.   All you can do is change the subject.  You can't provide the needed information.   You need to show me the author's intent agrees with your position.  I don't care what scholars say or what someone else believes.   The all important person is the author, as he is the one who supplies the only REAL meaning of the text.

 

 

Alright. My first response to this was eaten and so, out of pure frustration, I have to make skeletal... 

 

First, inspired doesn't equate to 'inspired with historically accurate facts about happenings'.

 

Second, you are assuming that proper hermeneutic, textual integrity, leads to interpreting things in your way. That's question begging. I haven't seen how 'textual integrity' is seriously threatened by what I have proposed. It's clear to me that you think it is, yes, but that is insufficient as an argument.

 

Problem #1   We are talking about being inspired by an eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful God who doesn't lie or make mistakes.  Thus when we say that He inspired the text to be written, we automatically understand that He superintended the text without mixture of error to the human writers tasked with writing down that information.  It would make no sense to claim God inspired an errant text.   Inspired by God = inerrancy.

 

Problem #2 You  are misttating what I said.  Interpretation is always an objective process meant to lead out the meaning the author has in a given text.  That is what hermeneutics are.  The principles of exegesis (which means "to lead out") are aimed at studying the text in order to understand it in the light of the author's intent.  It is objective because it employs historical and literary context, literary devices, grammar, syntax, cultural traditions as as well as textual idioms that would have been common to a contemporary audience.  Interpretation is all about the literal meaning of the text supplied by the author. 

 

Allegory is not an interperatative method.  Allegory is a method used to teach a moral lesson.  The problem is that we have people trying skew what interpretation means.  The interpretation of a text is not supplied by the reader.  The reader doesn't have permission to make the text accomodate the perceptions of reality he/she brings to the text.  But that is what is going on here.  Some people don't like or agree with the text of the first few chapters of Genesis so they try to argue tha the historical narrative isn't historical at all and try to conjure up any kind of understanding of the text except what it actually purports to be.  Genesis is the history of the early part of world history, and that is consistent with what the author intends to convey.