- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfIf you think that giving a false impression on the number of questions you have dodged reflects well on you feel free to continue to do so.
Like I said, start a thread about it if want to parade that chip you have on your shoulder. I can't remember "dodging" any questions of yours that I had not already addressed except when you were stalking me and asking me questions about my wife and kids and I had to ask you to desist.
I think Ghost of a Duke had to ask you to desist from doing that too. If ...[text shortened]... y sonship believes in the talking snake, especially his claim that it was "an historical event".
Originally posted by @dj2beckerStart a thread about how hard done by you feel. Meanwhile, any thoughts on the historicity of the talking snake?
If you think that giving a false impression on the number of questions you have dodged reflects well on you feel free to continue to do so.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou have been overly preoccupied with your out-of-joint nose and not following the exchanges and the topic.
Do you believe none of the Torah has any historical accuracy? Or is it only the parts that you don't like?
The question is about the story of the "talking snake/serpent" in "the Garden of Eden" featuring the first humans called "Adam and Eve", and, more specifically, the issue is whether the talking snake was a historical event as sonship and many Christians believe, or whether it is allegorical, as many other Christians believe.
I have asked sonship, who has asserted that it was a historical event, two questions about the historicity of his claim: [1] How many hundreds of thousands of years passed after this "historical event" occurred before the account of it was written down? [2] How did the people who finally wrote it down establish that the story was not allegorical?
'The serpent which now enters the narrative is marked as one of God's created animals (ch. 2.19). In the narrator's mind, therefore, it is not the symbol of a "demonic" power and certainly not of Satan. What distinguishes it a little from the rest of the animals is exclusively his greater cleverness. [...] The mention of the snake here is almost incidental; at any rate, in the "temptation" by it the concern is with a completely unmythical process, presented in such a way because the narrator is obviously anxious to shift the responsibility as little as possible from man. It is a question only of man and his guilt; therefore the narrator has carefully guarded against objectifying evil in any way, and therefore he has personified it as little as possible as a power coming from without. That he transferred the impulse to temptation outside man was almost more a necessity for the story than an attempt at making evil something existing outside man.'
Gerhard von Rad
This is interesting. Taken from https://tinyurl.com/y7ob93dw [which, surprise, surprise, has not been blocked by the Indonesian government]...
Dwelling in Paradise
Adam and Eve dwelt in tranquillity in Paradise. This, too, is agreed upon by Islamic, Christian and Jewish traditions. Islam tells us that all of Paradise was theirs to enjoy and God said to Adam, “eat both of you freely with pleasure and delight of things therein as wherever you will...” (Quran 2:35) The Quran does not reveal the exact location of where this Paradise was; however, commentators agree that it is not on the earth, and that the knowledge of the location is of no benefit to mankind. The benefit is in understanding the lesson from the events that took place there.
God continued his instructions to Adam and Eve by warning them “...come not near this tree or you both will be of the wrongdoers.” (Quran 2:35) The Quran does not reveal what type of tree it was; we have no details and seeking such knowledge also produces no benefit. What is understood is that Adam and Eve lived a tranquil existence and understood that they were forbidden to eat from the tree. However, Satan was waiting to exploit the weakness of mankind.[...]
The Role of Satan
Satan was there in the Paradise of Adam and Eve and his vow was to misguide and deceive them and their descendents. Satan said: “…surely I will sit in wait against them (human beings) on Your Straight Path. Then I will come to them from before them and behind them, from their right and from their left…” (Quran 7:16-17) Satan is arrogant, and considered himself better then Adam, and thus mankind. He is crafty and cunning, but ultimately understands the weakness of human beings; he recognises their loves and desires.[2]
Satan did not say to Adam and Eve “go eat from that tree” nor did he out rightly tell them to disobey God. He whispered into their hearts and planted disquieting thoughts and desires. Satan said to Adam and Eve, “...Your Lord did not forbid you this tree save that you should become Angels or become of the immortals.” (Quran 7:20) Their minds became filled with thoughts of the tree, and one day they decided to eat from it. Adam and Eve behaved as all human beings do; they became preoccupied with their own thoughts and the whisperings of Satan and they forgot the warning from God.
It is at this point that the Jewish and Christian traditions differ greatly from Islam. At no point do the words of God – the Quran, or the traditions and sayings of Prophet Muhammad - indicate that Satan came to Adam and Eve in the form of a snake or serpent.
Islam in no way indicates that Eve was the weaker of the two, or that she tempted Adam to disobey God. Eating the fruit of the tree was a mistake committed by both Adam and Eve. They bear equal responsibility. It was not the original sin spoken about in Christian traditions. The descendents of Adam are not being punished for the sins of their original parents. It was a mistake, and God, in His infinite Wisdom and Mercy, forgave them both.
Originally posted by @fmfOk. Let's look at it another way.
Yes I see what you are saying but I'd be more interested in a straight answer: Is the way you distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible the correct way, by any chance?
Do you believe the words of the Bible are inspired? God breathed?
No, you don't. That's fine. Obviously no one can make you believe it.
But let's say the words are inspired, God breathed. That would mean the words are supernatural. Understanding the words would then be supernaturally experienced.
Obviously, like any literary work, the Bible employs allegory, parables, allusion, diction, epigraph, euphemism, foreshadowing, imagery, metaphor/simile, personification, point-of-view, structure and the like.
Thing is though, is since the Word of God is God's Word and are understood supernaturally, it can be disastrous to say that this or that is the correct way to interpret the meaning of any particular verse or passage.
Because the correct way is the way in which God has supernaturally designed His words to be understood. That is to say, God causes one to understand by supernatural means not available to the unregenerate.
Try that on see how it fits.
Originally posted by @secondsonThanks for all the stuff you typed. I am still more interested in the question I asked you, which is: Is the way you distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible the correct way, by any chance?
Ok. Let's look at it another way.
Do you believe the words of the Bible are inspired? God breathed?
No, you don't. That's fine. Obviously no one can make you believe it.
But let's say the words are inspired, God breathed. That would mean the words are supernatural. Understanding the words would then be supernaturally experienced.
Obviously, li ...[text shortened]... erstand by supernatural means not available to the unregenerate.
Try that on see how it fits.
Originally posted by @secondsonChristians disagree about how the words should be understood.
Because the correct way is the way in which God has supernaturally designed His words to be understood. That is to say, God causes one to understand by supernatural means not available to the unregenerate.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
I don't advise anyone to seek insight into the Bible by consulting the Quran.
Even if you do get some truth it will be stealth-fully mixed with lies to propagate its own scheme. And that scheme is to produce an Arabian Moses. That is a God ordained law giver to supposedly have as the chief interests the welfare of those descendants of Abraham who were not of the promises of God towards him.
Genesis is pretty clear to locate to the audience of that time where this garden was.
"And a river went forth from Eden to water the garden, and from there is divided and became four branches. (v.10)
The name of the first is Pishon, it is the one that goes around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. (v.11)
And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. (v.12)
And the name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one that goes around the whole land of Cush. (v.13)
And the name of the third river is Hiddekel; it is the one that goes east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (v.14)
And Jehovah God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and to keep it." (v.15)
Now our present day geography may not exactly pinpoint these locations. And there also was the flood to consider which may have changed things.
But the point is that the audience originally handling this writing is being addressed in a matter-of-fact way as to geography. They must have known what was:
the Pishon river, Cush, the land of Havilah, (and the precious minerals for which it was renown), river Gihon (which seems to have existed while the audience read) ...
" ... the second river IS Gihon, it IS the one that goes around the whole land of Cush."
Sounds to me like it was a contemporary familiarity.
Hiddikel and Euphrates are written also as if the listener was familiar with them.
We cannot guarantee though that what those names mean today are identical to what they were then.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Now to the more spiritual usefulness of Genesis 2:10-15.
The Trinity is revealed to those who have an ear, in this passage.
Three substances are mentioned - gold, bdellium, onyx stone. Just a coincidence that three substances are mentioned. Well, maybe. Then again for those who have an ear - maybe not.
Gold - represents the divine nature of the Father.
Bdellium - a resin that is squeezed out of a tree's break in its bark, represents the death of the Son for salvation.
Onyx stone - a precious stone represents the transforming work of the Holy Spirit.
I learned that the operation of the Triune God is revealed to the church in the gold, bdellium, and onyx stone of the passage - the Father's nature, the Son's life secreting death, the Holy Spirit's transforming work.
Then the four rivers are also significant to the Christian church.
If you have an ear to hear, hear.
The three substances are similar to the three basic substances of the New Jerusalem in the end of the Bible -
Gold as a transparent gold street.
Pearl as the entrance into the city.
Twelve precious stones as the adornment of the wall of the city.
In the beginning of the Bible in Genesis we see a garden with the mention of three things - [b] gold, the resin of bdellium, and the precious stone onyx.
In the end of the Bible the garden has become a built up city. She is constituted with gold, pearl (like bdellium), and twelve precious stones.
The operation and economy of the Triune God is being portrayed in both instances. What God IS in His nature can never be separated from God's eternal purpose of what He carries out upon man.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @fmfAnd Christians are bound to have some disagreements.
Christians disagree about how the words should be understood.
But Christian A and Christian B can both be sanctified and become Christ like - built up together and loving one another.
Christian A and Christian B can learn of the Holy Spirit that matter X may not be all THAT important, but love in the Holy Spirit and Christ-likeness is what is crucial to the Father.
So Christian A holding some differing opinion with Christian B and Christian B with Christian A may decide that certain matters can be more important than others.
This is why I said the seeking one should seek God's wisdom.
This would be a good prayer.
"Lord Jesus, in this peculiar or difficult passage, what is it that You would have for me to hear? I don't trust myself Lord. I am prone to knowledge for knowledge sake as I remain in the old self. Lord Jesus, You shine on the words, shine on the page and reveal to my heart what it is that You would have me to hear from Your word."
We all are curious.
We have to balance our curiosity with practical concern for Jesus sanctifying our souls to be like Him.
Some matters I would be willing to die for.
Others I can be general and accommodating about if another brother or sister has another interpretation. I don't count my interpretations of God's word as infallible. But I trust His word is infallible.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @fmf
Thanks for all the stuff you typed. I am still more interested in the question I asked you, which is: Is the way you distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible the correct way, by any chance?
I will humor your question. But I think we have two different missions here.
I am into helping people to believe the Bible.
You are into helping people to disbelieve the Bible.
I am looking for keys to open up the Bible to understanding.
I think you are looking for keys to shut it up, locked, so that you don't have to listen to anything it says.
If you find out what is figurative in the Bible but God has not made inroads into your heart. It doesn't matter.
If you successfully find out what is allegorical or symbolic in the Bible but God has not made any inroads into your heart, it doesn't matter.
If you failed to discern what was symbolic but you drew close to God so that He made inroads into your heart, even though you made a mistake, it is at least a safe one. God will examine you one day to see how much you became like Jesus even though your literary grasp was faulty.
If you failed to discern an actual non-allegorical detail but your heart was open to God, receiving His Spirit and allowing Him to transform you into Christ likeness, that is more important to God. He will one day examine how His word was able to sanctify you, transform you, and conform you to the image of Christ.
You will not ALWAYS get it right.
But you can ALWAYS get the benefit of letting His living word dwell in your heart.
I encourage readers to be right.
I don't encourage you to be "dead right".
And i don't suspect anyone is always right all the time, unless you are Jesus Christ Himself.
Even the Apostle Paul did not leave us with the impression that there was nothing left difficult to comprehend in the whole Hebrew Bible. Even Paul asked "What IF ...?" to me in a tone saying, "Consider this interpretation."
To me that indicates that even a sent apostle of Christ was not one totally without some questions himself.
Originally posted by @sonshipWhy not answer the question sonship.
Were you saying something about putting up with "crap" ?
Why should I?
I like to converse and even point and counterpoint with posters who are able to show mutual respect.
How can the book of Revelation be both “signs” and literal?