Hebrew Professor and the Gap Theory

[a-seeker]

I can no longer find the exact post but the quote is this:

 

There are people out there for whom this is a real problem.  Why should they trust the Bible at all?   If the first eleven chapters are nothing more than a myth or at best is a lot of stories with incorrect information about man’s origins, why should they trust the Bible in any other claim it makes?  In some cases they are thinking,  "If God is wrong about my origins, why should I believe Him when He tells me about my sin?"

 

 

I believe it was from Shiloh; if not, I apologize.  Here are my thoughts

 

“Nothing more than myth.” We need to define myth a little more closely.  There are myths (like the best of the Greeks’) which tell an unhistorical truth in the guise of a historical narrative: these “truths” are often either a universal phenomenon or a universal experience.  Thus the perennial alternation between summer and winter is explained by the story of Demeter and Persephone: that happened only once, yet the reality it captures is (according to the Greeks) infinite.  The story of Orpheus losing his wife by looking back for her just as they were reaching the exit from Hades tells a similar experience: what it means to hold on to something too tight that you lose it.

 

When it is said that Genesis is “nothing more than a myth” I believe something like that kind of myth is in mind; I believe this because no one who understood the full range of myth could possibly say “nothing more”.  “Mere myth” is what is in mind.  Of course Genesis has been explained as mere myth: that the story of the fall records nothing of the past but rather sets up as history what is really a universal experience in every man—the rise and fall of every man.  Some parables approximate this kind of genre by giving a universal moral truth in the form of a short narrative.

 

No one on this site (to my knowledge) is claiming Genesis is “mere myth”, in the sense that nothing of historical value is being conveyed.  Here is how I see the mythopoeic element at work in Genesis.  Genesis 1 conveys history—that is, it teaches historical, concrete truths:  God did create the universe, He did create man as no other creature on earth, man was made in harmony with God, and man did sin thereby losing those privileges—but it is history told through a particular lens: that lens is experience of the Hebrews, both cultural and immediate: the chief cultural elements at work being the temple ideology prevalent in those days; the immediate experience chiefly being the Exodus event with special significance given the parting of the Red Sea and the construction of the tabernacle—(as to the first, note how important “separation of water” is in both Genesis 1 and the flood narrative). No one with intimate knowledge of the Bible and its culture could miss (except by deliberate obscurantism) the parallels.  The fact is, myth remains one of the most powerful genres of literature; it brings to mere narrative what mere narrative could never generate on its own.  “Nothing more than myth”?  I would say “nothing less”.  Myth, this kind of myth, is far more powerful than "a bunch of stories".  It is far more powerful than a mere scientific description of creation.

 

So much for the definitions of myth.  Other problems arise here.

 

There is what might be called an empirical problem. I am in a Bible study; I have presented my ideas to the men in my group.  They have no problem with it—in fact, they have all (18 or so) said their appreciation of Scripture has deepened.  They continue to believe in Jesus and his resurrection; they believe that God speaks through Genesis.  They hail Scripture as God’s word.   But how can this be?  On the above reasoning they should abandon it?  Why don’t they? The reason is, people do not fall away from the faith merely because of a logical jump from a non-chronological, non-literal, reading of Genesis to the conclusion that the Bible as a whole is false.  The cracks were already there long before they met these notions.   The fear that anything but YEC can produce rock-solid faith is exposed as chimerical by the mere existence of Christians who revere God’s word, believe in Jesus, and yet are not 6-day creationists.  YEC is not necessary to salvation; if it were, He would have told us (note, I am saying he would have told us it was necessary for salvation: Paul, or someone, would have said, “If you believe in your heart….that Christ is Lord….and OEC is false….then….saved”.  If YEC is the only obstacle standing between reverence for Scripture and the claims of science, then I and numerous others are walking contradictions.  Whether YEC is better exegesis is a different question.  But refutations against OEC or other readings must then be made by exegesis; not on the pragmatic grounds of potential spiritual abandonment.

 

There is a logical difficulty here as well:  the question posed above is, “why should I believe this (say, the resurrection) if that (say, creation, flood etc.) is mythical or anything other than pure history?”  The implied answer to this question seems to be, “We shouldn’t.”  The implied conclusion, “Therefore, everything must be purely literal.” There are two problems with this kind of reasoning.  First, why shouldn’t we believe the resurrection, or the reign of David, or the multiplication of bread by Jesus, was intended as purely literal?  Why should the mere fact that one section in Scripture contains mythic elements suddenly render everything else mythical as well?

 

 Do not get me wrong.  I can appreciate the emotional fear that asks the question.  I can even sympathize with the emotion that clings to the answer.  But my intellect cannot embrace it as rational. No honest thinker could. The space between the premise, “Genesis 1-11 is mythical” to the conclusion “everything else therefore must be mythical” is so great that no turn of logic could ever cross it.  And yet people are crossing the gap in a single leap.  Why?  I propose that fear is the driving force, not reason.  Here is the real logic that I see operating.  The real premises are 1) Everything but a chronological reading of Genesis rattles my faith; 2) I don’t like my faith being rattled.  Therefore (the conclusion) Genesis must be chronological and literal, for only that reading will put my nerves at ease.  You see of course the problem. The logic is based entirely on fear and is therefore vitiated from the start.  We call Genesis 1 literal because we can’t deal with the problems that arise if it were not.  It is like claiming a ladder is safe because we are afraid of falling; we claim Genesis 1 is mere narrative because we do not like the doubts that arise when it is suggested otherwise.  Our apparent “trust” in Scripture turns out to be nothing more than a kind of incantation; we have lulled ourselves into a dogmatic, and self-induced, hypnosis.  Genesis becomes objectively literal because our subjective “trust” requires it.  In a word, we are saying, “Hey Genesis! My faith in Scripture as a whole depends on your literalness; therefore you are literal!”

 

However, there may be a deeper spiritual problem involved here: note that the Bible above is equated with God.  OF course, it is God-inspired.  But God’s word is intended to bring us into a relationship with Him.  There will be no Scripture in the Kingdom of God to come.  The answer to the hypothetical question above, “….why should I believe him when he tells me about my sin?” is, “Ask Him.”  This may seem naïve; it is not.  The crisis described above is between man and Scripture---where is the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit as dictating Scripture, nor even as aiding exegesis, but as working in the life of the Christian? When do we bring the question, “Why should I believe any of it if Genesis is not what I think?” to the Holy Spirit and allow Him to answer?  If a man’s relationship with Christ is nothing more than his relationship with Scripture manifested in a constant attack on anything other than YEC, then I am afraid that man is engaged in something not unlike idolatry—the worship of Scripture may be higher than the worship of false gods; but it is still the worship of something less than God Himself.

 

 

clb

Edited February 27, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[EnochBethany]

I can no longer find the exact post but the quote is this:

 

There are people out there for whom this is a real problem.  Why should they trust the Bible at all?   If the first eleven chapters are nothing more than a myth or at best is a lot of stories with incorrect information about man’s origins, why should they trust the Bible in any other claim it makes?  In some cases they are thinking,  "If God is wrong about my origins, why should I believe Him when He tells me about my sin?"

 

 

I believe it was from Shiloh; if not, I apologize.  Here are my thoughts

 

“Nothing more than myth.” We need to define myth a little more closely.  There are myths (like the best of the Greeks’) which tell an unhistorical truth in the guise of a historical narrative: these “truths” are often either a universal phenomenon or a universal experience.  Thus the perennial alternation between summer and winter is explained by the story of Demeter and Persephone: that happened only once, yet the reality it captures is (according to the Greeks) infinite.  The story of Orpheus losing his wife by looking back for her just as they were reaching the exit from Hades tells a similar experience: what it means to hold on to something too tight that you lose it.

 

When it is said that Genesis is “nothing more than a myth” I believe something like that kind of myth is in mind; I believe this because no one who understood the full range of myth could possibly say “nothing more”.  “Mere myth” is what is in mind.  Of course Genesis has been explained as mere myth: that the story of the fall records nothing of the past but rather sets up as history what is really a universal experience in every man—the rise and fall of every man.  Some parables approximate this kind of genre by giving a universal moral truth in the form of a short narrative.

 

No one on this site (to my knowledge) is claiming Genesis is “mere myth”, in the sense that nothing of historical value is being conveyed.  Here is how I see the mythopoeic element at work in Genesis.  Genesis 1 conveys history—that is, it teaches historical, concrete truths:  God did create the universe, He did create man as no other creature on earth, man was made in harmony with God, and man did sin thereby losing those privileges—but it is history told through a particular lens: that lens is experience of the Hebrews, both cultural and immediate: the chief cultural elements at work being the temple ideology prevalent in those days; the immediate experience chiefly being the Exodus event with special significance given the parting of the Red Sea and the construction of the tabernacle—(as to the first, note how important “separation of water” is in both Genesis 1 and the flood narrative). No one with intimate knowledge of the Bible and its culture could miss (except by deliberate obscurantism) the parallels.  The fact is, myth remains one of the most powerful genres of literature; it brings to mere narrative what mere narrative could never generate on its own.  “Nothing more than myth”?  I would say “nothing less”.  Myth, this kind of myth, is far more powerful than "a bunch of stories".  It is far more powerful than a mere scientific description of creation.

 

So much for the definitions of myth.  Other problems arise here.

 

There is what might be called an empirical problem. I am in a Bible study; I have presented my ideas to the men in my group.  They have no problem with it—in fact, they have all (18 or so) said their appreciation of Scripture has deepened.  They continue to believe in Jesus and his resurrection; they believe that God speaks through Genesis.  They hail Scripture as God’s word.   But how can this be?  On the above reasoning they should abandon it?  Why don’t they? The reason is, people do not fall away from the faith merely because of a logical jump from a non-chronological, non-literal, reading of Genesis to the conclusion that the Bible as a whole is false.  The cracks were already there long before they met these notions.   The fear that anything but YEC can produce rock-solid faith is exposed as chimerical by the mere existence of Christians who revere God’s word, believe in Jesus, and yet are not 6-day creationists.  YEC is not necessary to salvation; if it were, He would have told us (note, I am saying he would have told us it was necessary for salvation: Paul, or someone, would have said, “If you believe in your heart….that Christ is Lord….and OEC is false….then….saved”.  If YEC is the only obstacle standing between reverence for Scripture and the claims of science, then I and numerous others are walking contradictions.  Whether YEC is better exegesis is a different question.  But refutations against OEC or other readings must then be made by exegesis; not on the pragmatic grounds of potential spiritual abandonment.

 

There is a logical difficulty here as well:  the question posed above is, “why should I believe this (say, the resurrection) if that (say, creation, flood etc.) is mythical or anything other than pure history?”  The implied answer to this question seems to be, “We shouldn’t.”  The implied conclusion, “Therefore, everything must be purely literal.” There are two problems with this kind of reasoning.  First, why shouldn’t we believe the resurrection, or the reign of David, or the multiplication of bread by Jesus, was intended as purely literal?  Why should the mere fact that one section in Scripture contains mythic elements suddenly render everything else mythical as well?

 

 Do not get me wrong.  I can appreciate the emotional fear that asks the question.  I can even sympathize with the emotion that clings to the answer.  But my intellect cannot embrace it as rational. No honest thinker could. The space between the premise, “Genesis 1-11 is mythical” to the conclusion “everything else therefore must be mythical” is so great that no turn of logic could ever cross it.  And yet people are crossing the gap in a single leap.  Why?  I propose that fear is the driving force, not reason.  Here is the real logic that I see operating.  The real premises are 1) Everything but a chronological reading of Genesis rattles my faith; 2) I don’t like my faith being rattled.  Therefore (the conclusion) Genesis must be chronological and literal, for only that reading will put my nerves at ease.  You see of course the problem. The logic is based entirely on fear and is therefore vitiated from the start.  We call Genesis 1 literal because we can’t deal with the problems that arise if it were not.  It is like claiming a ladder is safe because we are afraid of falling; we claim Genesis 1 is mere narrative because we do not like the doubts that arise when it is suggested otherwise.  Our apparent “trust” in Scripture turns out to be nothing more than a kind of incantation; we have lulled ourselves into a dogmatic, and self-induced, hypnosis.  Genesis becomes objectively literal because our subjective “trust” requires it.  In a word, we are saying, “Hey Genesis! My faith in Scripture as a whole depends on your literalness; therefore you are literal!”

 

However, there may be a deeper spiritual problem involved here: note that the Bible above is equated with God.  OF course, it is God-inspired.  But God’s word is intended to bring us into a relationship with Him.  There will be no Scripture in the Kingdom of God to come.  The answer to the hypothetical question above, “….why should I believe him when he tells me about my sin?” is, “Ask Him.”  This may seem naïve; it is not.  The crisis described above is between man and Scripture---where is the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit as dictating Scripture, nor even as aiding exegesis, but as working in the life of the Christian? When do we bring the question, “Why should I believe any of it if Genesis is not what I think?” to the Holy Spirit and allow Him to answer?  If a man’s relationship with Christ is nothing more than his relationship with Scripture manifested in a constant attack on anything other than YEC, then I am afraid that man is engaged in something not unlike idolatry—the worship of Scripture may be higher than the worship of false gods; but it is still the worship of something less than God Himself.

 

 

clb

Q:“Nothing more than myth.” We need to define myth a little more closely.  There are myths (like the best of the Greeks’) which tell an unhistorical truth in the guise of a historical narrative: unQ

 

Are you sure it is in the guise of a historical narrative?  Can you consider a god in the form of a swan impregnating a woman "the guise of a historical narrative"?  On the guise scale of 0-10, where would this be rated?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

No foreshadowing at all?  No cultural parallels? Really?  That is a rather myopic way of looking at it.

 

No, it's simply the correct way to look at it.   If the Bible were drawing cultural parallels in Genesis, it would have told us so.  I am sorry that you lack the hermeneutic skills to understand that, but that is simply the facts, whether you are willing to make room for them or not.

 

 

 

Sorry I've been gone a while Sheniy!  Let's note some things here

 

When Shiloh says the Bible “would tell us”, does he mean that somewhere in Scripture we would read words to this effect: “Everything I have just told you is a parallel to other parts of Scripture or your own cultural background?”  Or, more to the point, “Now, Hebrews, I am going to address 21st c. readers for a bit…21st c. readers, when I said this to the Hebrews I was making a reference to elements in their experience—let me explain those elements.”  In other words, we demand a footnote or parenthesis specifically for our benefit.

 

What I mean is if the author meant to include cultural parallels, they would be in the text itself.  The cultural parallels that you have tried to draw up really only work if we assume that Moses was not the author, that the author of Genesis was written much later.    The reason is that Moses was not alive when the temple was built and so could not have made those parallels.  

 

Moses wrote the book of Genesis and he wrote it long before there was any temple or temple culture/mindset to parallel it to.   If you are going to use cultural parallels as an interpretative, exegetical tool, then those parallels have to be in the source text and should have been obvious to the original audience standing near the foot of Mt. Sinai.

 

The purpose of interpretation/exegesis is to lead out the meaning of a given text.   The cultural parallels are interesting but are not "interpretations" and do not serve as "meaning" when trying to understand what the text is actually meaning to convey.

 

If the first, that is asinine: cultural parallels would not need to be made explicit to them and would only harm the thrust of the message if they were made so.

 

If you are using those cultural parallels as a tool of exegesis they definitely need to be in the source text.   The harm being done is when people trying impose something onto a given text that the author didn't have in mind originally.

 

One important rule of hermeneutics is that a text cannot mean today what it didn't mean when the author first penned it.

 

Like I said Shiloh, would you like to see how I do exegesis?  The mods won't let me do it publicly.

 

 

I have already seen it. and it isn't exegesis.

[Sheniy]

What I mean is if the author meant to include cultural parallels, they would be in the text itself.  The cultural parallels that you have tried to draw up really only work if we assume that Moses was not the author, that the author of Genesis was written much later.    The reason is that Moses was not alive when the temple was built and so could not have made those parallels.  

 

Moses wrote the book of Genesis and he wrote it long before there was any temple or temple culture/mindset to parallel it to.   If you are going to use cultural parallels as an interpretative, exegetical tool, then those parallels have to be in the source text and should have been obvious to the original audience standing near the foot of Mt. Sinai.

 

The purpose of interpretation/exegesis is to lead out the meaning of a given text.   The cultural parallels are interesting but are not "interpretations" and do not serve as "meaning" when trying to understand what the text is actually meaning to convey.

I'm going to assume that you didn't read Connor's original posts about the parallels (the ones about the parallels in Genesis).  That's ok. I saved a copy to my hard drive.

 

Here's a quote:

The world of Genesis 1-3 is structured on the pattern of the tabernacle.

 

The Tabernacle was a the dwelling place of God the Creator among the Israelites.  The instructions for building it were given to them by Moses in Exodus.  The story of creation in Genesis was also written by Moses.

 

The creation of the universe and the construction of the Tabernacle, both as the dwelling place of God, were written by the same person in the same period of time for the same group of people.

 

The conclusion I get is that these parallels were intended to be (and likely easily were) recognized by the Israelites.  The message is clear: "the God of the universe, the God of all gods, is Your God and wishes to dwell among you."

[Guest shiloh357]

 

What I mean is if the author meant to include cultural parallels, they would be in the text itself.  The cultural parallels that you have tried to draw up really only work if we assume that Moses was not the author, that the author of Genesis was written much later.    The reason is that Moses was not alive when the temple was built and so could not have made those parallels.  

 

Moses wrote the book of Genesis and he wrote it long before there was any temple or temple culture/mindset to parallel it to.   If you are going to use cultural parallels as an interpretative, exegetical tool, then those parallels have to be in the source text and should have been obvious to the original audience standing near the foot of Mt. Sinai.

 

The purpose of interpretation/exegesis is to lead out the meaning of a given text.   The cultural parallels are interesting but are not "interpretations" and do not serve as "meaning" when trying to understand what the text is actually meaning to convey.

I'm going to assume that you didn't read Connor's original posts about the parallels (the ones about the parallels in Genesis).  That's ok. I saved a copy to my hard drive.

 

 

Actually He did mention the temple and I addressed that in a previous thread.   He mentioned the temple and Garden of eden and the Holy of Holies.  Here is is Connor's own words:

 

 

This theme (of further development) runs right through all of scripture to the very end.  The author of Genesis 1 and 2 depicts creation as a temple: Eden, the garden of Eden, and the rest of the world, i.e. 3 sections corresponding to the 3 sections of the temple.  Throughout Scripture we have glimpses of the future in which all the world be something of a holy of holies.  This reaches its climax in Revelation where the dimensions of the New Jerusalem are perfectly symmetrical---i.e. the same dimensions of the holy of holies.  It is not an unpardonable stretch to suggest that Adam and Eve, as God's images, were given responsibilities correspondning to God as Creator.  It has been suggested by some scholars that their role was to extend the garden of Eden throughout all the earth.  In other words, make the world a holy of holies.

 

 

Evidently, I read better than you think I do.

[Guest shiloh357]

The Tabernacle was a the dwelling place of God the Creator among the Israelites.  The instructions for building it were given to them by Moses in Exodus.  The story of creation in Genesis was also written by Moses.

 

The creation of the universe and the construction of the Tabernacle, both as the dwelling place of God, were written by the same person in the same period of time for the same group of people.

 

The conclusion I get is that these parallels were intended to be (and likely easily were) recognized by the Israelites.  The message is clear: "the God of the universe, the God of all gods, is Your God and wishes to dwell among you."

 

These "parallels" are being imposed on the text of Genesis.   You are operating from the assumption that the Israelies had read and knew and studied the book of Genesis well enough to draw such parallels.  The fact is that they didn't have the advantages we have with having 24/7 access to the Bible. 

 

And as I had pointed out before.  The research is backwards.  What rabbinical scholars have taught is not that Eden was patterened after the tabernacle/temple, but the other way around.  The temple was constructed to be reminscient of the Garden of Eden.  The Rabbis call the Temple, "Eden in Stone."  The parallels are going in the opposite direction and makes much more sense.

[Sheniy]

Sorry I've been gone a while Sheniy!

No worries! I've been taking some time to explore the rest of the forum.

I didn't join this forum to debate Genesis. lol

 

When Shiloh says the Bible “would tell us”, does he mean that somewhere in Scripture we would read words to this effect: “Everything I have just told you is a parallel to other parts of Scripture or your own cultural background?” Or, more to the point, “Now, Hebrews, I am going to address 21st c. readers for a bit…21st c. readers, when I said this to the Hebrews I was making a reference to elements in their experience—let me explain those elements.” In other words, we demand a footnote or parenthesis specifically for our benefit.

LOL

 

How many passages in the bible do we accept as prophecy even though the immediate text doesn't refer to them as such?  How many passages are taken as prophecy solely because of the parallels and clear foreshadowing?  The human authors may not have even known they were giving prophecies, but this is the proof of the God-inspired nature of the bible.

 

  You question the parallels in Genesis, but you don't question this?

 

I don't understand your logic, Shiloh...

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Sorry I've been gone a while Sheniy!

No worries! I've been taking some time to explore the rest of the forum.

I didn't join this forum to debate Genesis. lol

 

When Shiloh says the Bible “would tell us”, does he mean that somewhere in Scripture we would read words to this effect: “Everything I have just told you is a parallel to other parts of Scripture or your own cultural background?” Or, more to the point, “Now, Hebrews, I am going to address 21st c. readers for a bit…21st c. readers, when I said this to the Hebrews I was making a reference to elements in their experience—let me explain those elements.” In other words, we demand a footnote or parenthesis specifically for our benefit.

LOL

 

How many passages in the bible do we accept as prophecy even though the immediate text doesn't refer to them as such?  How many passages are taken as prophecy solely because of the parallels and clear foreshadowing?  The human authors may not have even known they were giving prophecies, but this is the proof of the God-inspired nature of the bible.

 

  You question the parallels in Genesis, but you don't question this?

 

I don't understand your logic, Shiloh...

 

You don't understand my logic because you don't understand exegesis.

 

   The reason we know that some passages are prophetic even though they are not indicated as such in the immediate source text is because there is later indications of their fulfilment.   The Bible refers back to a text when that proophecy has been fulfilled at a later time.

 

Genesis 1 is not prophetic because you have NO references to it as prophetic.   You have no references in the Bible point back to Genesis 1  and say, "this is how this text is fulfillled."    Since the Bible never treats Genesis 1 as "foreshadowing" any claim that it foreshadows something else is not exegesis and is not based on a solid and sound interpretative approach to the text.

[Sheniy]

Actually He did mention the temple and I addressed that in a previous thread.   He mentioned the temple and Garden of eden and the Holy of Holies. 

(snip)

 

Evidently, I read better than you think I do.

Yet, your argument hinged on the fact that all cultural parallels he brought up were regarding just the temple. They clearly weren't, which lead me to my conclusion that you didn't read his posts.

 

Would you like to restate your argument since your assessment of his was incorrect (or incomplete)?

 

I can re-post one of his deleted posts, if you need to reference it.

 

What rabbinical scholars have taught is not that Eden was patterened after the tabernacle/temple, but the other way around.  The temple was constructed to be reminscient of the Garden of Eden.

 

 

I think this was part of Connor's point.

 

BTW, why would Moses write Genesis if not for the Israelites?  Although, they likely wouldn't need to study it  or even read it to connect the parallels to the tabernacle.  I believe that the creation story (along with the rest of Genesis) was passed down orally from generation to generation for (at the very least) centuries, then written down by Moses.  These stories would have likely been very familiar to the Israelites as a part of their own cultural history. If this isn't the case, where did Moses get it from? He obviously wasn't a witness.  It wasn't given as a vision, or the text would say that explicitly.

Both the creation story and the instruction for the tabernacle were given by Moses and inspired by God.  The Israelites would recognize the Creation story, so that is what the Tabernacle was patterned around.

 

The other parallel that Connor mentioned, the similarities to the pagan god's temple, would have just been further evidence that Yahweh is more that just another run of the mill, average, small time god, but God of the Cosmos, the One Who Was, Who Is and Who Always Will Be.

 

For Someone who is well known for speaking and relaying His Truth in images and shadows, this doesn't seem to me like it's all that much of a stretch.

[Sheniy]

The reason we know that some passages are prophetic even though they are not indicated as such in the immediate source text is because there is later indications of their fulfilment.   The Bible refers back to a text when that proophecy has been fulfilled at a later time.

 

Genesis 1 is not prophetic because you have NO references to it as prophetic.   You have no references in the Bible point back to Genesis 1  and say, "this is how this text is fulfillled."    Since the Bible never treats Genesis 1 as "foreshadowing" any claim that it foreshadows something else is not exegesis and is not based on a solid and sound interpretative approach to the text.

 

I don't believe I said Genesis was prophetic. Just using prophecy as an example.

So...with prophecies, we can use text from a different time and author to verify, but we can't do the same with foreshadowing?

Even though many prophecies are actually by definition just a (divinely inspired) foreshadow of future events?

The Tabernacle intentionally parallels Creation and is a shadow of the Temple, which is a shadow of Heaven, which has even more similarities to the first Creation...and so on.

I see a very clear pattern here.