On Interpretation of Scripture

[HumbleThinker]

.No, there is no such thing as a metaphorical interpretation.  That is where your understanding is deficient.   A metaphor is a literary device that has a literal meaning behind it.   This is true with figurative device.   The reader's responsbility is to ascertain the literal meaning behind the metaphor.

 

Poetry uses imagery and metaphorical devices to convey a understanding the author wants to convey.  To interpret a poem literally means that I take into account the figurative devices in the process of intepreting the text.   In this case, a poetic text in Psalms that claims the earth is fixed, flat an immovable requires a different set of rules than a historical narratives because there are different rules that apply for different forms or genres of literature.

 

In addition a familiarity with the language, and the connotations that certain words and the thought patterns that flavor the text is helpful.  For example the use of "earth" in English isn't the same as in Hebrew.   The word transated "earth" in Heberw is eretz and refers exclusively to dry land.  The word "earth" in English includes the whole planet including the water.

 

So it may not occur to the uniformed person such as yourself that if the Heberw Bible refers to the "earth" as flat that it is referencing the dry land portion of what we call, "earth."   Thus it is not claiming that the whole planet is flat, but is refering only to the dry land.  But then you don't understand how interpretation works and are thus liable to such mistakes.   "Four corners of the earth" in Hebrew would refer to the dry land not to some kind of ancient cosmology.

From my perspective, you are simply speaking from the viewpoint of theory. Yes, perhaps in theory there is no metaphorical interpretation, but in practice there certainly is. You cannot tell me that those I have interacted with who have explicitly juxtaposed literal interpretations with metaphorical one are not speaking of metaphorical interpretations. Even if they are falsely speaking of metaphorical interpretations, it doesn't change the fact that they are talking about them. Thus to focus solely on the theoretical here is not addressing the issue at hand but another topic entirely. It is also reinforcing the view that our issues are more semantic than structural.

So whether we agree with our usage of terms or not, the main issue as I see it as it relates to Genesis 1 specifically is whether recognizing it as written predominantly in the style of an historic narrative means that we need to interpret it historically, making definitive historical claims, or whether it is written predominantly in the style of an historical narrative for another reason. I find the former, what in my experience is termed literal by others, as presumptuous and needlessly putting Scripture in conflict with Creation, whereas you see it as correct. I find the latter, what in my experience is termed metaphorical or non-literal by others, is more sensible as it is less dogmatic than the former and does not needlessly put Scripture in conflict with Creation.

 

It doesn't conflict with God's creation at all.

I'm glad you agree. Our difference is that you force an interpretation of the Bible, a spiritual work, to dictate how we should interpret Creation on natural matters, whereas I force Creation, a natural work, to dictate how we interpret the Bible on natural matters. And you can throw out interpretations of Creation by labeling them as "lenses," but unless you can deal with the evidence presented by those who hold views about Creation, then you will rightly be seen as one who is forcing his interpretation of the Bible onto Creation needlessly, but that is another thread. It would be as meaningless as just labeling others' interpretations of the Bible as lenses without interacting with the reasons others hold their positions.

Jesus was employing hyperbole to make a point.  Jesus was teaching a course in botany.  The Bible uses phenomenolgocial language and not the modern scientific precision we are used to.   So it really isn't a problem and there is no reason for you to try to make an issue out of a non-issue.

And you determined Jesus was using hyperbole how? And I assume you meant "wasn't" teaching a course in biology. If so, you are using my exact reasoning for not taking other parts of the Bible as scientifically or historically accurate: it's not trying to give science or history courses but make a point, and that point is spiritual.

 

The Bible sin't a science book but the spiritual purpose of the book is closely tied the natural world that God created.   You keep trying divorce what you think the spiritual purpose of the book is (and you are wrong about its purpose) from the world that God created.   The fact is that the Bible has authority on all matters it speaks of including creation because its authority is rooted in God's authority.   So to claim it has no authority in matters of creation is a major theological error on your part.

But one need not know much of anything about the natural world to understand and benefit from the Bible's spiritual purposes, so in this way they are divorced. The natural world can be used metaphorically to make a spiritual point, sure, but this does not always work, is highly subjective, and is mainly just taking something concrete to make the abstract, spiritual point more easily understandable. Additionally, what spiritual points we can draw out of natural phenomena has no impact on how these natural phenomena should be understood scientifically, nor do these natural phenomena have any intrinsic spiritual meaning to them. You seem to want your cake and eat it too by claiming on the one hand that the Bible is not a science text or giving science courses, but then on the other hand claiming that it is authoritative on spiritual matters such that it should supersede all interpretations of Creation. To me, this reads as hypocritical.

[enoob57]

Well I have decided in my heart to allow what God Says about His Word to be what 'IS' in my mind about it...

there is a huge mess outside of the established foundation of the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture

That doesn't change anything, though. It's simply a restatement of your point. Unless God Himself reveals to us how we should interpret what it says, then we are left to figure out for ourselves what "God Says about His Word." Words on a page are just words on a page. We can decode them to pronounce what they say, but until we interpret them, they only have potential meaning. Words do not have inherent meaning, since all languages are arbitrarily created by humans.

God does reveal what He calls His Word in the study of it and that is what I said.

Jesus verified the OT as His Word period ; it is a studied fact without question to those who study!

The idea that we are left to figure out for ourselves is your lack of commitment and belief in God to

His Word of promise2Tim 3:16

John 14:26

26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will

teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

NKJV

This we know- the Disciples used the OT, verified by Christ to them, that it was His Word of

authority and taught from it 'the Who of Jesus'; yet as they did this they also taught

of His life here that they were witnesses of= the Gospels fulfilling the above verse in part

and the whole is those who have been born of His Spirit and Have His tutoring within themselves.

God's Living Word is His Son and through Him Created all things and Genesis - Malachi teaches

us what Jesus will be like when He Comes-first in Grace(which few understood) then in Judgment.

The New Testament is the clear and precise light of all God is going to do and combining them all

together gives us intimate knowledge of Who God 'IS'; all of what we are is stationed upon this

rock of ages...

Your assessment of languages is incorrect to that of God's Word see the historicity of Babel!

 

The sole purpose of Scripture is to develop a objective truth for His Children and those who throw it away do so at their own peril....

It is really a no brainer as the world in which we have been born into is darkness and filled with error. So anyone believing that which

is born out of that can be trusted to determine truth is really in a hurt locker of inconsistencies of reason an logic... why do you think

God tells us to renew our minds by washing it with His Word?

And what context of Ephesians 5:26 tells you that "the word" is speaking of Scripture? I personally see none. To me, it seems like with the other verses that you are starting with your conclusion that just about any mention of "God's words" or "the word" or "Word of God" is speaking about Scripture, then reading that into these verses, which is of course unnecessary and hasty hermeneutics.

I believe in the canon of Scripture to be Genesis-Malachi=OT and Matthew-Revelation=NT

and I agree 100% with how the canon was formed http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html#ixzz2nSdkv3nG

As faith is the reasoned trust of where we place our hope mine has come from His Canon

'The Word of God' as I study it,believing this, my life is being changed into an assurance

that I Know The Lord and more importantly He Knows me and He verifies that with supernatural

happenstances in my personal witnesses of answered prayers so personal an subjective that I

will not mention any in this objective discourse... When you do literal interpretation of

Scripture you then take it through and exegetical response of the entire Word of God- How

does this fit into the systematic realities of God and what He has proclaimed elsewhere on

this truth...

 

God In The Person of Jesus Christ taught us that The Jewish Scripture was His Word. At age 12 He amazed the

Jewish scholars. He defeated satan at His temptation with the use of those very Scriptures. He taught them and quoted them.

The last written The Revelation put a seal upon the completed canon

Rev 22:18-19

18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things,

God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of

the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the

things which are written in this book.

NKJV

By God placing the inspired seal on the last Book of what would become the canon of Scripture He 'IS'

clearly showing the verbal, plenary inerrancy of Scripture in original writings as a unified Word from God...

I live everyday in assurance of this and I grow by it into a living hope that God's Word is the final authority

of this life and what is done in it... I do not interpret Scripture but Scripture interprets me and I adjust

myself accordingly... Love, Steven

What part of Scripture says He did this? You seem to be, from my perspective, reading your own understanding into verses that are saying saying it at plain reading, something you claim to deplore. Just because you think it is a foundational belief does not justify reading it into Scripture. All the verses you have supplied so far have been talking about the contents of Scripture, the words God Himself spoke directly or through His prophets or that supernatural element that has been with God and is God since the beginning.

It is in The Scripture where our foundational beliefs must come and your doubt of them being of

God completely is where you must answer to God for your lack of study! Let me show you a truth

that is happening in you-> involving all this we have been speaking of about His Word as His-

Job 23:1-12

Then Job answered and said:

2 "Even today my complaint is bitter;

My hand is listless because of my groaning.

3 Oh, that I knew where I might find Him,

That I might come to His seat!

4 I would present my case before Him,

And fill my mouth with arguments.

5 I would know the words which He would answer me,

And understand what He would say to me.

6 Would He contend with me in His great power?

No! But He would take note of me.

7 There the upright could reason with Him,

And I would be delivered forever from my Judge.

8 "Look, I go forward, but He is not there,

And backward, but I cannot perceive Him;

9 When He works on the left hand, I cannot behold Him;

When He turns to the right hand, I cannot see Him.

10 But He knows the way that I take;

When He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold.

11 My foot has held fast to His steps;

I have kept His way and not turned aside.

12 I have not departed from the commandment of His lips;

I have treasured the words of His mouth

More than my necessary food.

NKJV

If you will follow the ramification of this dialogue God has

given us-> is this- with your own strength and ability you will not

be able to find God... here in just this short witness you have in

the spoken Word of God being verified by written format unto the living

format of Jesus Himself in His Temptation

Deut 8:3

3 So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which

you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know

that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that

proceeds from the mouth of the Lord

NKJV

Matt 4:1-4

4 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted

by the devil. 2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights,

afterward He was hungry. 3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said,

"If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."

4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread

alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"

NKJV

Job considered by study to be the patriarchal period where God spoke directly

to heads of households; written down by Moses for us as examples; verified by the

Law of God; used by Christ to overcome satan we see the unity of God's Word in

different forms yet all by God considered as His Own Word!

overlaying the NT teaching you must have the

resident truth teacher The Holy Spirit and you can only gain that by

being born again

1 Peter 1:23-25

23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible,

through the word of God which lives and abides forever, 24 because

"All flesh is as grass,

And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass.

The grass withers,

And its flower falls away,

25 But the word of the Lord endures forever."

Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.

NKJV

Once again reiterated by God through Peter the Living format of God's Word

which has come to us in different ways -Spoken by God, written down by the chosen

writers, Seen as His Son-> all chosen to verify God's unique salvation of fallen man

by His Word alone unto faith of living hope in His Son alone... Love, Steven

[Guest Butero]

We know that the Genesis account of creation is to be taken literal by New Testament scriptures.  Adam and Eve are spoken of as real people.  Sin and death came into the world through the sin of Adam.  We are all effected by that sinful choice.  In order to take things less than literal, we have to come up with a less likely explaination for where mankind came from, like Adam and Eve were only representations of sinful man.  There are so many holes in that theory, I can't take it serious. 

 

Then there is the question over evolution, and if there is so much evidence showing it to be true, we need to consider a crazy theological twist on Genesis to make sense of things?  I don't believe there is.  It makes far more sense to me to take Genesis at face value, and only if there is absolute proof evolution is true, consider an alternative. 

[rebbell]

What about the interptation of scripture "HOLY GHOST" style?

The only true Teacher

There is too many fleshly interptation of God's word (lies) Lean not to thine own understanding.

When the Holy Spirit speaks the Word of Truth to your heart, the storms can not shake the foundation of your house because the spirit that lives in you knows HIS voice.

God bless

[missmuffet]

What about the interptation of scripture "HOLY GHOST" style?

The only true Teacher

There is too many fleshly interptation of God's word (lies) Lean not to thine own understanding.

When the Holy Spirit speaks the Word of Truth to your heart, the storms can not shake the foundation of your house because the spirit that lives in you knows HIS voice.

God bless

Yes....

[HumbleThinker]

God does reveal what He calls His Word in the study of it and that is what I said.

And that we have to study, and therefore interpret it and decide what it says for ourselves with our fallible means, is what I've been saying. You cannot study language without interpreting it, and there is no method known to man that will give any statement's intended meaning with 100% certainty. When we study Scripture, either God reveals the meaning directly to us without any natural method (ie. hermeneutics) as an intermediary or He grants us knowledge through the use of fallible methods where we have to decide for ourselves through these methods what Scripture says.

Jesus verified the OT as His Word period ; it is a studied fact without question to those who study!

The idea that we are left to figure out for ourselves is your lack of commitment and belief in God to

His Word of promise2Tim 3:16

John 14:26

26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will

teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

NKJV

This we know- the Disciples used the OT, verified by Christ to them, that it was His Word of

authority and taught from it 'the Who of Jesus'; yet as they did this they also taught

of His life here that they were witnesses of= the Gospels fulfilling the above verse in part

and the whole is those who have been born of His Spirit and Have His tutoring within themselves.

God's Living Word is His Son and through Him Created all things and Genesis - Malachi teaches

us what Jesus will be like when He Comes-first in Grace(which few understood) then in Judgment.

The New Testament is the clear and precise light of all God is going to do and combining them all

together gives us intimate knowledge of Who God 'IS'; all of what we are is stationed upon this

rock of ages...

Your assessment of languages is incorrect to that of God's Word see the historicity of Babel!

Yet people "receive" different or even contradictory conclusions. And how do most people decide that person X didn't actually received a revelation from God and they did? By assuming that they did receive a revelation from God and using their own position as the measure by which all other people are judged as having been granted revelation or not. So we're back to fallible humans using fallible means to make fallible judgments.

 

I believe in the canon of Scripture to be Genesis-Malachi=OT and Matthew-Revelation=NT

and I agree 100% with how the canon was formed http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html#ixzz2nSdkv3nG

As faith is the reasoned trust of where we place our hope mine has come from His Canon

'The Word of God' as I study it,believing this, my life is being changed into an assurance

that I Know The Lord and more importantly He Knows me and He verifies that with supernatural

happenstances in my personal witnesses of answered prayers so personal an subjective that I

will not mention any in this objective discourse... When you do literal interpretation of

Scripture you then take it through and exegetical response of the entire Word of God- How

does this fit into the systematic realities of God and what He has proclaimed elsewhere on

this truth...

Ok, but you keep going off on these tangents that don't actually answer my questions when I'm questioning your use of Scripture. What you believe or don't believed compared to what I believe or don't believe doesn't change what's written in Scripture. If you have a position, fine. But don't inaccurately represent which Scriptures support your position and don't just throw Scriptures out there and then move to a different subject when your use of Scripture is questioned. The rightness or wrongness of your position is independent of whether your use of Scripture is right or wrong.

 

It is in The Scripture where our foundational beliefs must come and your doubt of them being of

God completely is where you must answer to God for your lack of study! Let me show you a truth

that is happening in you-> involving all this we have been speaking of about His Word as His-

Job 23:1-12

Then Job answered and said:

2 "Even today my complaint is bitter;

My hand is listless because of my groaning.

3 Oh, that I knew where I might find Him,

That I might come to His seat!

4 I would present my case before Him,

And fill my mouth with arguments.

5 I would know the words which He would answer me,

And understand what He would say to me.

6 Would He contend with me in His great power?

No! But He would take note of me.

7 There the upright could reason with Him,

And I would be delivered forever from my Judge.

8 "Look, I go forward, but He is not there,

And backward, but I cannot perceive Him;

9 When He works on the left hand, I cannot behold Him;

When He turns to the right hand, I cannot see Him.

10 But He knows the way that I take;

When He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold.

11 My foot has held fast to His steps;

I have kept His way and not turned aside.

12 I have not departed from the commandment of His lips;

I have treasured the words of His mouth

More than my necessary food.

NKJV

If you will follow the ramification of this dialogue God has

given us-> is this- with your own strength and ability you will not

be able to find God... here in just this short witness you have in

the spoken Word of God being verified by written format unto the living

format of Jesus Himself in His Temptation

Deut 8:3

3 So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which

you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know

that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that

proceeds from the mouth of the Lord

NKJV

Matt 4:1-4

4 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted

by the devil. 2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights,

afterward He was hungry. 3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said,

"If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."

4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread

alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"

NKJV

Job considered by study to be the patriarchal period where God spoke directly

to heads of households; written down by Moses for us as examples; verified by the

Law of God; used by Christ to overcome satan we see the unity of God's Word in

different forms yet all by God considered as His Own Word!

overlaying the NT teaching you must have the

resident truth teacher The Holy Spirit and you can only gain that by

being born again

1 Peter 1:23-25

23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible,

through the word of God which lives and abides forever, 24 because

"All flesh is as grass,

And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass.

The grass withers,

And its flower falls away,

25 But the word of the Lord endures forever."

Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.

NKJV

Once again reiterated by God through Peter the Living format of God's Word

which has come to us in different ways -Spoken by God, written down by the chosen

writers, Seen as His Son-> all chosen to verify God's unique salvation of fallen man

by His Word alone unto faith of living hope in His Son alone... Love, Steven

Again, going on tangents instead of answering some very direct and easily answerable questions makes me think you are just reading what you want into Scripture. If you feel your position is strong and feel that I need to accept it as well, I'd suggest answering questions when they are asked. Not answering them is just giving me the impression that you have made your doctrine and then read it into Scripture irrespective of whether I also accept these doctrines or not.

[Guest shiloh357]

From my perspective, you are simply speaking from the viewpoint of theory.

 

No, I am speaking from the viewpoint of the standard, universally accepted and conventional process and rules that govern literary analysis.   My viewpoint is well supported and used by literary critics all over the world have been used by them for centuries.  This is not a theory by any stretch of the imagination.  For that reason, your perspective is both wrong and irrelevant.

 

Yes, perhaps in theory there is no metaphorical interpretation, but in practice there certainly is. You cannot tell me that those I have interacted with who have explicitly juxtaposed literal interpretations with metaphorical one are not speaking of metaphorical interpretations.

 

I am saying that those people and your included are wrong.  There is NO such thing as a metaphorical interpretation except in one's own imagination.   Interpretation as an act of literary criticism always literal and only literal.  If you say otherwise you are wrong, period.

 

So whether we agree with our usage of terms or not, the main issue as I see it as it relates to Genesis 1 specifically is whether recognizing it as written predominantly in the style of an historic narrative means that we need to interpret it historically, making definitive historical claims, or whether it is written predominantly in the style of an historical narrative for another reason.

 

Historical narratives are always read as history and interpeted as historical.  I realize that puts a crimp your need for Genesis 1 not to be historical even if it is written that way.  I realize that you are on a desparate campaign to weasel around having to accept a piece of literature on its own merits as a piece of literature and you are grasping for anything that will justify your need to make the Bible anything but what it is because in all of the emtpy intellectual musings that seem to fill your posts, the ulimtate reality is that Genesis, read as is, doesn't fit the evolutionary model.

 

What I see in your posts is someone who is needing to redefine what "interperetation" means in order to get around the obvious problems that Genesis 1 creates for.you.    Interpretation is not a subjective acitivity.  There are rules to follow but you can't follow those rules to get where you want to go, so you feel the need to make up your own rules.   It shows that this is not an intellectual pursuit on your part even though you try to cloak your rebellion agianst God with the facade of intellectualism. 

 

Your posts reveal a person who doesn't believe the Bible and doesn't believe God.  This is not "creation vs. the Bible.   It is the authority of science vs. the authority of God.   You are trying to pit God agasint himself, accusing Him of creating a world that contradicts what He claims in the Bible.  It is less than clever and rather foolish.

 

Our difference is that you force an interpretation of the Bible, a spiritual work, to dictate how we should interpret Creation on natural matters,

 

No, our difference is that I don't look a the Bible as a spiritual work.  Anyone can write a spiritual work. I view the Bible as the inerrant, inspired and immutable word of an all-knowing God.  And I am not forcing intepretation to be anything.  I am working from the correct view of interpetation and you are working from an incorrect and invalid view of interpretation that is pretty much the empty musings of your own mind.

 

whereas I force Creation, a natural work, to dictate how we interpret the Bible on natural matters. 

 

and that is why your position is wrong at every turn and in every way.

 

And you determined Jesus was using hyperbole how?

 

I am educated in the field of literary analysis, unlike you.  I recognize an exaggeration used to make a point when I see it.  Jesus was using a figurative expression and anyone who has any sense can see it.  If I go to a restauraunt say, "wow that the biggest hamburger in the world,"  there's good chance it isn't. I wasn't make a definitive  claim, I was using hyperbole.   Jesus was comparing the seed to the size of the plant it produces in order to make a didactic point. It is what hyperbole is used for.  

 

But one need not know much of anything about the natural world to understand and benefit from the Bible's spiritual purposes, so in this way they are divorced.

 

Not true.  The Bible uses the natural world in a plethora of ways to get its point across so they can't be divorced.

 

But what you say is wrong for another reason.  Assuming that I accept your premise that the Bible's purpose is to bring man in communion with God, how do you deal with Adam and Eve's historicity in light of redemption?   What I mean is that you are already of opinion that they are not historical and that the account of Eve being tempted and Adam and Eve eating of forbbiden fruit which brought about the fall as a myth and not an historical occurance at all.

 

The Bible, in Rom. 5:12-21 makes a definite causal link between the sin of Adam and the death of Jesus in an attempt to restore man back to God.   The sin that you think never happened in Genesis is the very thing the NT claims necessitated Jesus having to go to the cross and recitify.  So why would Jesus need to rectify an event that never happened?   If Adam never sinned, there was never any fall, thus no sin for man to be redeemed from.  It would make the death of Jesus on the cross a meaningles act since the Bible clearly links Jesus with Adam.   How do you account for that?

 

How do you account for Adam being mentioned in Jesus' physical genealogy?  Why would Adam be included as an actual physical person, if he never existed?  How do you account for Jesus in Matt. 19 referring to Adam and Eve as literal, historial people?

 

My point is that you have a lot more to deal with than just Genesis because even the NT treats Genesis as literal history and you, claiming to be a Christian depend on the claims of the NT to be true for salvation.   Yet the NT makes claims about salvation that depend on Genesis being literal history.   Your argument is that the Bible has no authority in these matters, so you are in the u,nenviable position of having to discredit the very words of Jesus whom are depending on for salvation.  

 

If Jesus got it wrong about Adam and Eve if Jesus can't be trusted to get those facts straight, how can be trusted in terms of what He said about salvation?

[HumbleThinker]

We know that the Genesis account of creation is to be taken literal by New Testament scriptures.  Adam and Eve are spoken of as real people.  Sin and death came into the world through the sin of Adam.  We are all effected by that sinful choice.  In order to take things less than literal, we have to come up with a less likely explaination for where mankind came from, like Adam and Eve were only representations of sinful man.  There are so many holes in that theory, I can't take it serious. 

 

Then there is the question over evolution, and if there is so much evidence showing it to be true, we need to consider a crazy theological twist on Genesis to make sense of things?  I don't believe there is.  It makes far more sense to me to take Genesis at face value, and only if there is absolute proof evolution is true, consider an alternative.

See now this is what I'm talking about. This we can have a fruitful discussion about. Are we going to come to an agreement on the correct interpretation? Absolutely not save for God Himself coming down and straightening both of us out. But now we're past dogmatically talking about our positions at least for the moment. I assume you are referencing such Scriptures as Luke 3:38 and Romans 5. He's mentioned directly multiple times, including as a theological comparison and juxtaposition to Christ and in the genealogy of Christ, so he is at least important as a concept. I personally though do not see a reason to definitively declare one way or another that Adam was or wasn't an historical figure. I can certainly see why one would, but Adam could just as easily be believed to be historical by the people of the time or he could be intentionally used as a theological device despite not existing just as we can speak of supposedly historical accounts as if they were real just to make a point. Either way, I don't see the spiritual message of the Bible being affected one way or the other, so i am simply skeptical.

As far as absolute proof, there is no "absolute proof" that Genesis should be taken at face value, so what reason would justify demanding "absolute proof" to dissuade you from this idea?

[HumbleThinker]

What about the interptation of scripture "HOLY GHOST" style?

The only true Teacher

There is too many fleshly interptation of God's word (lies) Lean not to thine own understanding.

When the Holy Spirit speaks the Word of Truth to your heart, the storms can not shake the foundation of your house because the spirit that lives in you knows HIS voice.

God bless

The Holy Spirit is certainly important in us gaining any sort of knowledge, particularly about spiritual matters. But people have always claimed different and sometimes conflicting revelations from the Holy Spirit, so it does not appear to be particularly useful when discussing topics. There is simply no way of confirming for certain that someone claiming to be taught by the Holy Spirit is not lying or deluding themselves, though some are easier to spot than others. This is why I do not use the revelations the Holy Spirit has given to me in discussion; they simply do not affect anyone but myself but then I guess that is the nature of personal revelations. Thanks for the reply.

[Guest Butero]

 

We know that the Genesis account of creation is to be taken literal by New Testament scriptures.  Adam and Eve are spoken of as real people.  Sin and death came into the world through the sin of Adam.  We are all effected by that sinful choice.  In order to take things less than literal, we have to come up with a less likely explaination for where mankind came from, like Adam and Eve were only representations of sinful man.  There are so many holes in that theory, I can't take it serious. 

 

Then there is the question over evolution, and if there is so much evidence showing it to be true, we need to consider a crazy theological twist on Genesis to make sense of things?  I don't believe there is.  It makes far more sense to me to take Genesis at face value, and only if there is absolute proof evolution is true, consider an alternative.

See now this is what I'm talking about. This we can have a fruitful discussion about. Are we going to come to an agreement on the correct interpretation? Absolutely not save for God Himself coming down and straightening both of us out. But now we're past dogmatically talking about our positions at least for the moment. I assume you are referencing such Scriptures as Luke 3:38 and Romans 5. He's mentioned directly multiple times, including as a theological comparison and juxtaposition to Christ and in the genealogy of Christ, so he is at least important as a concept. I personally though do not see a reason to definitively declare one way or another that Adam was or wasn't an historical figure. I can certainly see why one would, but Adam could just as easily be believed to be historical by the people of the time or he could be intentionally used as a theological device despite not existing just as we can speak of supposedly historical accounts as if they were real just to make a point. Either way, I don't see the spiritual message of the Bible being affected one way or the other, so i am simply skeptical.

As far as absolute proof, there is no "absolute proof" that Genesis should be taken at face value, so what reason would justify demanding "absolute proof" to dissuade you from this idea?

 

I will give you another scripture that shows Adam and Eve were real people.  1 Timothy 2:12-14 says the following:

 

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the trangression. 

 

I have brought this up before.  This makes no logical sense if Adam and Eve were not real people, and if you don't accept that the story of eating the forbidden fruit was true.  Why do I need absolute proof for evolution when Genesis cannot be proved?  Because you are asking me to reject things I already believe.  You are asking me to go from the most logical interpretation of Genesis to accept something that makes little or no sense to me.  You want me to do that based on what I consider to be flimsy evidence, not proof.