30 replies to this topic

[JasonAlexander]

i have found that interpreting the bible by using the preconceptions of modern times can lead to a false interpretation. the scripture must be interpreted by considering the cultural background and context of the target literature.

with that said, the composition of the Bible can be written in many forms of literature such as songs, poetry, historical acounts, ect....
Thus the book of Genesis (and maybe most of the pre-flood accounts) could have possibly been traditionaly passed to Moses by songs of previous generations.

now if Genesis is a song would it be logical to say that the account of creation and the original sin of mankind is entirely allegorical like most songs consist?

[Steven]

JasonAlexander, on Jan 20 2006, 03:47 AM, said:

now if Genesis is a song would it be logical to say that the account of creation and the original sin of mankind is entirely allegorical like most songs consist?

Hi Jason
The structure of the Hebrew clearly isn't poetic, or a song, but otherwise that's a sensible question and one that occurs to many. And whatever oral history passed, there are plenty of OT and NT statements of the books "of Moses" being inspired by God.

Just two short comments - firstly it isn't an either/or, since something can be an allegory and still be a historical event - like for example Jesus cursing the fig tree. We know that the fig tree relates to Israel, and possibly AD70 and 1948, but it was still a literal fig tree with no fruit that Jesus withered. Similarly Peter uses the flood (ignore whether it really was global for a second) as an allegory of baptism, and of judgment. There's no either/or here. It can be both.

Secondly - the only ones who really KNOW what happened in Eden are those God has told, science can't disprove that 70 kilos of mud was transformed in 70 kilos of man. It's obviously as much, or more, a miracle as the raising of Lazarus or Jesus. Or indeed the promised raising of Isaiah and Daniel who at this moment are as much mud as Adam was. So we can only be guided by those to whom God spoke - first of all his Son, then the prophets and apostles. Looking at Paul's comments on Adam in Romans and Acts17, and on Eve in 2Co, Paul obviously believed that historical fact was behind the allegory Paul was making. And of course Luke lists Adam as a real person in the genealogy of Mary. Unfortunately that ties the historical existence of Adam by an unbroken genealogy to Abraham - and everyone recognises he historically existed.

This doesn't mean that there aren't some elements that are more allegorical than others - for example Gen3:15 is clearly allegory because it's a prophecy. We know the seed of a snake didn't literally bite Christ's heel, it was Roman nails that killed him. But that doesn't mean that there wasn't a literal fruit on a literal tree. If you think about it, what else would there have been that God could make a test for Adam out of than nominating one tree out of thousands. They hadn't had time to plant crops or build structures. It was just them, trees and animals. God could have simply drawn a line on the sand and said, "don't cross this line", but there's no reason why the tree should not have been real AND have allegorical meaning -- even though the 2nd tree of life in the 2nd paradise (1st paradise Gen2:8, 2nd paradise Rev2:7) doesn't have to be literal. And if you look at those who try to allegorise the tree and fruit they almost almost end up saying the sin was sex: which contradicts God's own instructions to "be fruitful and multiply".

S

[Tarinus]

JasonAlexander, on Jan 20 2006, 02:47 PM, said:

i have found that interpreting the bible by using the preconceptions of modern times can lead to a false interpretation. the scripture must be interpreted by considering the cultural background and context of the target literature.

with that said, the composition of the Bible can be written in many forms of literature such as songs, poetry, historical acounts, ect....
Thus the book of Genesis (and maybe most of the pre-flood accounts) could have possibly been traditionaly passed to Moses by songs of previous generations.

now if Genesis is a song would it be logical to say that the account of creation and the original sin of mankind is entirely allegorical like most songs consist?

Hi Jason,

Love your signature!

Your suggestion that Genesis is allegorical comes from your thought that Genesis 'could have possibly been' a song.

It reads to me like a straightforward narrative of historical events.

Is there any reason you think that Genesis may have originally been a song? And even if it was, why would it be 'logical' to say that it was therefore allegorical?

[Tarinus]

Steve wrote:

Quote

Just two short comments - firstly it isn't an either/or, since something can be an allegory and still be a historical event - like for example Jesus cursing the fig tree. We know that the fig tree relates to Israel, and possibly AD70 and 1948, but it was still a literal fig tree with no fruit that Jesus withered. Similarly Peter uses the flood (ignore whether it really was global for a second) as an allegory of baptism, and of judgment. There's no either/or here. It can be both.

At risk of changing the subject, Steve I can't see 1948 in the withered Fig Tree or the Fig Tree of Matthew 24...

Would you care to explain/elaborate - perhaps in a different thread?

Edited by Tarinus, 20 January 2006 - 04:53 AM.

[Steven]

Tarinus, on Jan 20 2006, 04:52 AM, said:

At risk of changing the subject, Steve I can't see 1948 in the withered Fig Tree or the Fig Tree of Matthew 24...

Would you care to explain/elaborate - perhaps in a different thread?

Hi! Hope all is well down there. When are you coming back up this way?

I said "possibly" meaning I'm not convinced of it enough myself to start a new thread. We know that the fig tree parables are all related to physical Israel, we know that the Olivet prophecy is related to AD70 and the return. Some people (I cannot really say that includes me) see connection to 1948 in Olivet, and it's quite common (and a little more convincing) to hear it asserted that 1948 is the start of the fulfillment of the fig tree leaves. Maybe that's the case. But then again given the "and all the trees" addition in Luke one might think Jesus was more interested in the breath coming into Ezekiel's dry bones than the bones being gathered together. I was just giving it as an example, personally I think the fig tree prophecy probably hasn't yet come to pass. Though the physical regathering of Israel at least makes it possible that they'll produce leaves.

For Jason the important thing is that it was a literal tree (like the tree of knowledge) but Jesus made it mean more (as God did with the earlier tree).
S.

[Adanac]

There are two extremes that both completely miss the whole point of Genesis.

1) The extreme literal view.
2) The extreme allegory view.

Both miss the wood for the trees.

I'll illustrate it with our old friend the serpent.

The extreme literal view holds that this was a monstrous fallen angel (or tool thereof) come to tempt mankind away from God.

The extreme allegory view says it is just a symbol for [insert whatever you jolly well like].

Whereas reading Genesis (instead of reading into Genesis) we are told it was an animal that spoke to Eve and she believed it. This boggles the 21st century mind so one is left intrigued.

Upon further examination one realizes the supreme allegorical value of the literal fact that it was an animal. And hey presto the world of Bible teaching on human nature, which accords perfectly with observed facts in the universe, opens out. Neither of the extreme views provide any real world meaning for you or me and leave the reader (actually not the reader, he hasn't really read it) in cloud cuckoo land.

[JasonAlexander]

Quote

steven: Looking at Paul's comments on Adam in Romans and Acts17, and on Eve in 2Co, Paul obviously believed that historical fact was behind the allegory Paul was making. And of course Luke lists Adam as a real person in the genealogy of Mary

i agree steven. in this instance the new testament is used to validate the literal aspect of the Genesis account. so, this is a literal "type" used to illustrate New testament "shadow" concept.

Quote

tarinus: Is there any reason you think that Genesis may have originally been a song? And even if it was, why would it be 'logical' to say that it was therefore allegorical?

tarinus, i can only say that in my most illustrious education that i've recieved in my life which equates to high school and less than a year of college credits i've heard (but can't remember the the source) that egypt was one of the first civilizations to use hieroglyphics, this is where moses got his education, thus he was able to record the pentateuch. yet before that man had no orginized form of writing. so they used songs. songs were easy to remember. you know the power of those commecial songs on tv that get us to buy useless stuff every day.

Quote

adanac: Upon further examination one realizes the supreme allegorical value of the literal fact that it was an animal

adanac, i just can't understand how a serpent can talk. therefore, maybe, the serpent is actually symbolic for the curious reasoning that God knew would eventually cause mankind to sin.

the serpent the new testament was used in a symbolic sense. could this point to the fact that if the new testament verifies that the serpent was allegorical?

Edited by JasonAlexander, 20 January 2006 - 08:28 AM.

[Kremlin]

No. The book of Genesis reads like a historical narrative, not allegory. If the writer intended it to be read allegorically, he did a poor job.

[Asyncritus]

Kremlin, on Jan 20 2006, 09:22 AM, said:

No. The book of Genesis reads like a historical narrative, not allegory. If the writer intended it to be read allegorically, he did a poor job.

Hear hear!

[JasonAlexander]

Quote

No. The book of Genesis reads like a historical narrative, not allegory. If the writer intended it to be read allegorically, he did a poor job.

ok, then can i get a varied comment on the following question:

did shadows that followed types of the old testament make the Pentateuch entirely literal, until the books of songs, wisdom and prophecy?

[JasonAlexander]

Quote

ok, then can i get a varied comment on the following question:

did shadows that followed types of the old testament make the Pentateuch entirely literal, until the books of songs, wisdom and prophecy?

after i read this it doesn't seem logical even to myself,
rather, i guess what i really want to ask is...

is the Pentateuch entirely literal and contains no allegories, and if so what validates the Pentateuch being literal?

[Steven]

JasonAlexander, on Jan 23 2006, 06:18 AM, said:

after i read this it doesn't seem logical even to myself,

I'm impressed, most of us would just let a confusing post stand!

Quote

rather, i guess what i really want to ask is... is the Pentateuch entirely literal and contains no allegories, and if so what validates the Pentateuch being literal?

No, it's not - as prophetic sections (the seed of the woman) and a few other instances indicate. What would validate probably 95% of the the Pentateuch being literal though is simply genre, the fact that symbolism or song etc aren't used. That compares very differently with, say, Psalms or Zechariah.

As to the snake being able to talk, it is odd, and Balaam's donkey may not be an exact parallel. The possible outcomes would be:
1. it was an angel
2. a snake did talk
3. the entire event is allegory

All in all, the easiest solution is 2, because there's no real reason why not, and because 1 and 3 create so many more problems, giant problems.

One rather unusual approach to how the snake could talk was that the snake had himself eaten the fruit, and the gift of speech was accompanied by the (mistaken) idea that the fruit wasn't fatal. But personally I find this a bit forced and too convenient. It's probably more to the point that God deliberately put some testing creature there as it was all in his plan.
S.

[Kremlin]

I know you rephrased your question, but

JasonAlexander, on Jan 23 2006, 07:43 AM, said:

Quote

No. The book of Genesis reads like a historical narrative, not allegory. If the writer intended it to be read allegorically, he did a poor job.

ok, then can i get a varied comment on the following question:

did shadows that followed types of the old testament make the Pentateuch entirely literal, until the books of songs, wisdom and prophecy?

I think the answer is found in that, while Genesis is intended by the writer to be a literal account, it has been interpreted in other ways, at least, in ways other than what those contemporary to the writer would have interpreted it.

A classic example of this is Genesis 12, where the "seed" mentioned had always been taken to refer to Israel until Paul, where Paul in Galatians 3-4 said that the seed was singular and it was Christ. His interpretation would have been (and still is) foreign to the Jews, though.

So your question - is it literal? Not sure. Can we prove it's supposed to be literal? Probably not. Did the writer intend for it to be read literally? I think so.

[JasonAlexander]

Steven,

Quote

As to the snake being able to talk, it is odd, and Balaam's donkey may not be an exact parallel. The possible outcomes would be:

3. the entire event is allegory

inspired by God (for all biblical writers moved the pen under God's direct influence) if the entire creation story was an allegory by Moses by using elements that where known to him and others, to explain things that could not have been known to people of that day (they did not have a precise manner of scientific inquiry). then that would explain how the serpent could talk. consider, how long could it have been possible for storytellers to use animals to describe various characteristics of humans? and even Christadelphians say most tempting is actually internal and not external. could the serpent just be the "evil intention" that was having a dialog with Eve? even Jesus (the perfect image of God) spoke continously by using elements of this known life to explain the spirtual things which are difficult for mankind to grasp.
and i write this because it seems the creation story is told twice and one of them may have been allegorical.

Thanks Steven for your reply, i really appreciate how you don't allow bias to enter when considering the scripture. i believe that the scripture can stand on it's own and mankind would have still be under medieval Popery, unless, people like you approached the scripture in search of truth such as you do!! friend and may God bless!

Kremlin,

Quote

Did the writer intend for it to be read literally?

i agree the interpretation of the writing must depend upon the purpose of the writer.


my personal comment:
being an electronic technician i've heard instructers say that some of the dynamics or the working model of how electronics work at the atomic level are theory and not a precise representation, but the results always come out accurate. now in this is case here of the creation story. if the working model brings accurate results would it mean that theory is satisfactory or must we plow on to ascertain the motive and mindset of Moses in writing this creation account?
any comments??

Edited by JasonAlexander, 23 January 2006 - 04:34 PM.

[JasonAlexander]

Quote

inspired by God (for all biblical writers moved the pen under God's direct influence) if the entire creation story was an allegory by Moses by using elements that where known to him and others, to explain things that could not have been known to people of that day (they did not have a precise manner of scientific inquiry). then that would explain how the serpent could talk. consider, how long could it have been possible for storytellers to use animals to describe various characteristics of humans? and even Christadelphians say most tempting is actually internal and not external. could the serpent just be the "evil intention" that was having a dialog with Eve? even Jesus (the perfect image of God) spoke continously by using elements of this known life to explain the spirtual things which are difficult for mankind to grasp.
and i write this because it seems the creation story is told twice and one of them may have been allegorical.

i would like to move this statement to general theology board so please go to the serpent link thread and try to discuss the allegorical aspect of the creation story there
thanks.

Edited by JasonAlexander, 23 January 2006 - 05:41 PM.

[Kremlin]

JasonAlexander, on Jan 24 2006, 01:57 AM, said:

my personal comment:
being an electronic technician i've heard instructers say that some of the dynamics or the working model of how electronics work at the atomic level are theory and not a precise representation, but the results always come out accurate. now in this is case here of the creation story. if the working model brings accurate results would it mean that theory is satisfactory or must we plow on to ascertain the motive and mindset of Moses in writing this creation account?
any comments??

Well sure, if you're talking about big-picture vs minute detail. One slight colour change in a pixel won't affect the final image seen. In fact, a different method of drawing that dot won't affect the image seen either. Just because we don't know what happens at the subatomic level doesn't mean we have to throw out chemistry, biology, or engineering. Newtonian physics are inaccurate at large masses or speeds, but we still use them because they're accurate enough for terrestrial calculations. We just can't use them to calculate the orbit of Mercury, so we use relativity.

I'm not sure if it's relevant in this case, though. Your question first has to answer whether or not the "working model" brings "accurate results" before we can determine whether it is satisfactory. Those terms themselves should be defined so people know what you mean. Ultimately I think that an insight into the writer (Moses) 's circumstances is very interesting in understanding how contemporaries would have understood their words. On some levels it may not matter, on others it will.

[jamiezz]

The significant portion to the understanding of God's intentions is allegorical.

If you like Jewish folktales or 'history' then the literal view is useful that way.

[InChristAlways]

Quote

One rather unusual approach to how the snake could talk was that the snake had himself eaten the fruit, and the gift of speech was accompanied by the (mistaken) idea that the fruit wasn't fatal. But personally I find this a bit forced and too convenient. It's probably more to the point that God deliberately put some testing creature there as it was all in his plan.
S.

Quote

The significant portion to the understanding of God's intentions is allegorical.

If you like Jewish folktales or 'history' then the literal view is useful that way.

Hi steve. That appears to compare to this passage in Revelation. I suppose if a snake or donky can talk, so can a beast or image. Spooky.

Reve 13: 5 And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.......... 15 He was granted [power] to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak

Edited by InChristAlways, 11 February 2006 - 05:03 AM.

[Cool Spot]

Adanac, on Jan 20 2006, 01:42 AM, said:

There are two extremes that both completely miss the whole point of Genesis.

1) The extreme literal view.
2) The extreme allegory view.

Both miss the wood for the trees. I'll illustrate it with our old friend the serpent. The extreme literal view holds that this was a monstrous fallen angel (or tool thereof) come to tempt mankind away from God.
Whereas reading Genesis (instead of reading into Genesis) we are told it was an animal that spoke to Eve and she believed it. This boggles the 21st century mind so one is left intrigued.

I don't understand; how is reading the passage that the serpent is a fallen angel more literal than interpreting it as a literal snake? Wouldn't interpreting it as a literal snake be the extreme literal view since it requires less interpretation of the term "serpent"?

[Adanac]

Yes point taken. "Extreme literal" is probably the wrong phrase.

[Asyncritus]

Cy Ibralem, on Feb 22 2006, 03:58 PM, said:

Allegories are based on literal events - See Gal 4.

Therefore, any allegory of Genesis is based on literal events.

Cy

Absolutely.

[InChristAlways]

Asyncritus, on Feb 22 2006, 01:24 PM, said:

Cy Ibralem, on Feb 22 2006, 03:58 PM, said:

Allegories are based on literal events - See Gal 4.

Therefore, any allegory of Genesis is based on literal events.
Cy

Absolutely.

But how can one perceive the spiritually alleghorically unless one also has the Spirit of Christ? [for example, Atheists].
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/...30&#entry239593
God, the book of Daniel, Jesus and Paul all spoke "Alleghorically" in the Bible. The whole Bible appears to be Divine "Parables" otherwise it would be just another orndinary book I think.

parables occurs 16 times in 16 verses:

Ezekiel 17:2 "Son of man, pose a riddle[#02420], and speak a parable[#04912] to the house of Israel,

Ezekiel 20:49 Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! They say of me, 'Does he not speak parables [#04912]?' "

Habakkuk 2:6 " Will not all these take up a proverb against him, And a taunting riddle against him, and say, 'Woe to him who increases [What] is not his -- how long? And to him who loads himself with many pledges'?

Gala 4:24 which things are an Alleghory. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar

[InChristAlways]

Quote

God, the book of Daniel, Jesus and Paul all spoke "Alleghorically" in the Bible. The whole Bible appears to be Divine "Parables" otherwise it would be just another orndinary book I think.

parables occurs 16 times in 16 verses:

Ezekiel 17:2 "Son of man, pose a riddle[#02420], and speak a parable[#04912] to the house of Israel,

Ezekiel 20:49 Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! They say of me, 'Does he not speak parables [#04912]?' "

Habakkuk 2:6 " Will not all these take up a proverb against him, And a taunting riddle against him, and say, 'Woe to him who increases [What] is not his -- how long? And to him who loads himself with many pledges'?

Gala 4:24 which things are an Alleghory. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar

Quote

Yes, I happen to believe very much of the Bible is Allegorical.

Cy

It appears the Rich Man and Lazarus has also been taken as less alleghorically than other parables. This is one of the most important parables in the Bible in my view and is in essence what the NT is all about I think.
http://www.godfire.n...y/abrahams.html [Abraham's bosom]

The story of the rich man and Lazarus is without doubt one of the most misunderstood of all the stories in the Bible. They hold that this is not a parable because it starts out in narrative form. It is argued, because it reads, "there was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day," that Christ is speaking here of an actual incident that took place. But in the parable of the prodigal son, in the fifteenth chapter of Luke, the narrative introduction is found also, for it says, "A certain man had two sons..." Yet it is generally conceded that the story of the prodigal son is a parable and all the fundamentalist preachers love to preach from its beautiful figures, thus applying it as a parable.

[JasonAlexander]

Quote

It appears the Rich Man and Lazarus has also been taken as less alleghorically than other parables

yes, it is taken literal by all those who are too stiffnecked to repent from a false doctrine! If the majority of mainstream churches repented from taking this "Parable" literal then most Hellfire preachers would be out of a job.

Edited by JasonAlexander, 12 March 2006 - 03:49 AM.

[InChristAlways]

JasonAlexander, on Mar 11 2006, 09:46 PM, said:

Quote

It appears the Rich Man and Lazarus has also been taken as less alleghorically than other parables

yes, it is taken literal by all those who are too stiffnecked to repent from a false doctrine!

LOL. Can I say a hearty "AMEN"

Edited by InChristAlways, 12 March 2006 - 03:48 AM.

[InChristAlways]

InChristAlways, on Mar 11 2006, 09:47 PM, said:

JasonAlexander, on Mar 11 2006, 09:46 PM, said:

Quote

It appears the Rich Man and Lazarus has also been taken as less alleghorically than other parables

yes, it is taken literal by all those who are too stiffnecked to repent from a false doctrine!

LOL. Can I say a hearty "AMEN"

Edited by InChristAlways, 12 March 2006 - 03:50 AM.

[Mercia2]

Quote

Your suggestion that Genesis is allegorical comes from your thought that Genesis 'could have possibly been' a song.

It reads to me like a straightforward narrative of historical events.

So does the Exodus, but it is also a spiritual allegory about being born again.

[Mercia2]

Quote

Allegories are based on literal events - See Gal 4.

Therefore, any allegory of Genesis is based on literal events.

But the literal event it is based on is not the natural creation but the spiritual creation.

Everything natural is used as a metaphor for what it spiritually represents.

seed
field
wheat
chaff
sun
stars
figs
night
day
trees of righteousness
etc etc

So also the natural creation.

Edited by Mercia2, 06 January 2007 - 07:36 AM.