Understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal versus non-literal.

[CrowCross]

Nope. The guy we call "Adam" really existed, but his actual name was not "Adam,"

Face-palm....I'm not even going to deal with that logic. It's basically NWRT.

In the bible we often see the names of people based upon something...For example Moses means... "to draw out."

 

[David Lamb]

Nope. The guy we call "Adam" really existed, but his actual name was not "Adam," unless we want to call the first male created "Man." That is what the Hebrew word "adam" means. That is the literal meaning of the word "adam."

But although Adam does mean man, it is also used as the first man's name. He is never called anything else. Take a verse like this one, where changing "Adam" from a name to "the Man" just wouldn't make sense:

“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” (Ro 5:14 NKJV)

It would be nonsense to say: "“Nevertheless death reigned from the man to Moses."

 

[Josheb]

In the bible we often see the names of people based upon something...For example Moses means... "to draw out."

Yep. And if we did not know Moses' name had a relevant meaning and how that meaning was allegorical content then we'd miss something important in scripture. Consider this: If the meaning of the names were what we found written in our English translations (which is what people who speak Hebrew see) then our Bible would look very much like Pilgrim's Progress. That is why some, mistakenly, think the Bible is all allegory and should only be read allegorically. So please stop with the snotty comments and piling on content I never posted and do not believe and show up for the conversation. Not once have I denied scripture should be read literally and YOU have been the brunt of my holding you accountable to basic exegesis countless times.

Read scripture exactly as written
with the normal meaning of the words
in their ordinary usage,
unless there is something in the surrounding text
that provides a reason for not doing so.​

That is THE first rule of Bible exegesis, and I have posted that standard ahundredthousandgazillionbajillion times so you do not EVER get to insinuate I am not reading scripture literally without calling into question your own cognitive faculties and integrity of character. Stop this nonsense and show up for the conversation.

When you acknowledge "Moses" and other names in the Bible have meaning that goes beyond merely being a name you are implicitly also acknowledging the inherent existence of allegorical content in God's word that exists by God's doing. What is the meaning or significance of having a man named "Draws Out" be the one who puts the first five books of divine revelation to pen and paper (or parchment )? Is that coincidence? Is it meaningless information? When I broach the fact names and phrases have meaning and significance beyond their literal content and you bring up Moses what you should be doing is saying, "Amen! You're absolutely right, Josh. Names have meaning that are helpful to understanding God's revelation and the idioms of ancient Hebrew and Greek are very informative." There's absolutely no ground for not affirming what is (or should be) obvious.

So why are you arguing?

 

[Josheb]

But although Adam does mean man, it is also used as the first man's name. He is never called anything else. Take a verse like this one, where changing "Adam" from a name to "the Man" just wouldn't make sense:

“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” (Ro 5:14 NKJV)

Yep. No follow it through to it's logical conclusion relevant to the matter of literal versus allegorical.

Don't just drop into the conversation with a statement and not follow it through. You've just acknowledged the word adam does mean "man." That is the literal meaning of the word. If you and I were fluent in Hebrew that is what we would be reading - that is what our brain would read - if we were reading scripture in its original language. That is literally what we'd read. As I just noted to @CrowCross, if we did that consistently throughout the Old Testament then the Old Testament would look like Pilgrim's Progress.* Does that mean the entire Bible should be read ONLY as allegory? No!

And if you, @David Lamb, and you, @CrowCross, also say, "No, the allegorical content inherent in a person's name or the idiomatic nature of Hebrew does not mean the entire Old Testament should be read as allegory," then you're in agreement with me and should say so.

It would be nonsense to say: "“Nevertheless death reigned from the man to Moses."

I disagree. If I had read Genesis before reading Romans 5, then I would completely understand what Paul said. If, on the other hand, I read Romans 5:14 with that wording I would be prompted to go find out the meaning of "the man," because that information is readily available and easily obtained in scripture I would then understand.

The salient point broaching Romans 5's use of "Adam," was supposed to be proof the NT writers treated Genesis literally, not allegorically. Whether or not Romans 5 uses the word "Adam" or the phrase "the man" does not prove one reading over another. MANY theologians, preachers, and teachers say otherwise but they are all wrong. Paul could have made the exact same statement as an appeal to Hebraic myth. Whether you or I believe Genesis' mention of "adam" literally means one male individual was created is irrelevant. The claim Pau's mention of Adam proves literalness is incorrect.

It is an assumption, not a fact.

And it's a foolish one because it would not make a single bit of difference whether or not Paul was thinking Genesis is literal or Genesis is allegorical because it would not change the meaning of his words. And that is the second mistake made on the protest against allegorical reading.

And MY point, my singular position in response to this op is fairly simple: ONLYism stinks. It is a form of legalism and legalism kills. The Bible, including the first three chapters of Genesis, is not ONLY literal or ONLY allegorical and it, therefore, should not be read ONLY literally or ONLY allegorical. Polarizing the reading of scripture that way is a false dichotomy because literal content and allegorical content co-exist within many passages, including the first three chapters of Genesis. Literal only is just as bad as allegory only. The op is correct when it observes the Bible (usually) provides indicators when something should be read literally and when it should be allegorically (or when both exist simultaneously) AND a greater understanding of scripture is gained when both are examined rather than one at the expense of the other.

Are you understanding that @CrowCross? You, @David Lamb? If that bold-faced paragraph is understood and agreed with then say "Yep" before adding anything else. And if there isn't agreement then say, "I disagree," because I have a pile of questions for each of you two. A handful of very simple, basic, very relevant questions will do one of three things:

• Build consensus with scripture among all four of us,
• Reveal the inconsistency in your own thinking if either of you is an onlyist,
• Provide the specific point at which you deny scripture.

So show up for the conversation and do not forget to affirm what you can affirm and do not make assumptions about my position(s). ASK me. I am fully capable of answering ANY questions you might have about my beliefs - and I assume the same about you.

Is ONLY literal correct?
IS ONLY allegory correct?


How much simpler a question could any of us ask? Which one of you has answered that question and made your position known as clearly as I have made mine?









* You two do understand Pilgrim's Progress is allegory, yes?
.

 

[CrowCross]

Read scripture exactly as written
with the normal meaning of the words
in their ordinary usage,
unless there is something in the surrounding text
that provides a reason for not doing so.

I have....when I read ...So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit......I use the NORMAL meaning of the word Adam. It refers to a specific biblical character.

When I read..... Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses,....I use the NORMAL meaning of the word Adam. It refers to a specific biblical character.

When I read .....the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.....I use the NORMAL meaning of the word Adam. It refers to a specific biblical character.

When I read....It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam,.....I use the NORMAL meaning of the word Adam. It refers to a specific biblical character.

When I read ....For as indeed in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive......I use the NORMAL meaning of the word Adam. It refers to a specific biblical character.

When I read ...For Adam was formed first, then Eve;......I use the NORMAL meaning of the word Adam. It refers to a specific biblical character.

 

[CrowCross]

And MY point, my singular position in response to this op is fairly simple: ONLYism stinks. It is a form of legalism and legalism kills. The Bible, including the first three chapters of Genesis, is not ONLY literal or ONLY allegorical and it, therefore, should not be read ONLY literally or ONLY allegorical. Polarizing the reading of scripture that way is a false dichotomy because literal content and allegorical content co-exist within many passages, including the first three chapters of Genesis. Literal only is just as bad as allegory only. The op is correct when it observes the Bible (usually) provides indicators when something should be read literally and when it should be allegorically (or when both exist simultaneously) AND a greater understanding of scripture is gained when both are examined rather than one at the expense of the other.

Then do all of us a favor....go through the creation and fall account...and point out the allegorical version. I mean, if you can support your argument.

 

[Josheb]

I have....when I read ...So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit......I use the NORMAL meaning of the word Adam. It refers to a specific biblical character.

When I read..... Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses,....I use the NORMAL meaning of the word Adam. It refers to a specific biblical character.

When I read .....the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.....I use the NORMAL meaning of the word Adam. It refers to a specific biblical character.

When I read....It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam,.....I use the NORMAL meaning of the word Adam. It refers to a specific biblical character.

When I read ....For as indeed in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive......I use the NORMAL meaning of the word Adam. It refers to a specific biblical character.

When I read ...For Adam was formed first, then Eve;......I use the NORMAL meaning of the word Adam. It refers to a specific biblical character.

Irrelevant. YOU are not the subject of this op.

1. Is a literal-only reading the only way the Bible should be read?
2. Is a literal-only reading the only way Genesis 1-3 should be read?
3. Is an allegorical-only reading the way the Bible should be read?
4. Is and allegorical-only reading the way Genesis 1-3 should be read?
5. Does the Bible contain both literal and allegorical content?
6. Does Genesis 1-3 contain both literal and allegorical content?
7. If the Bible contains both literal and allegorical content, should the Bible then be read according to its content?

And when we get done with that maybe we can broach the matter of literal versus literalistic because that is a much bigger problem than literal versus allegorical.

For now, just answer the questions asked. The questions are intentionally worded so they can be answered with a succinct yes or no so as to focus the conversation, establish what consensus can be had, and prevent further obfuscation. I know you have great difficulty answering questions directly when asked but make an effort to do so this time.

@David Lamb, you are invited to answer these questions, too (maybe demonstrate and thereby set an example for @CrowCross how easy and functional it is to answer relevant questions when asked without pages of avoidance).

 

[CrowCross]

Irrelevant. YOU are not the subject of this op.

1. Is a literal-only reading the only way the Bible should be read?

Yes, unless the bible presents an allegorical situation then explains it.
For example the two witnesses are presented as two olive trees and two lamp stands in Rev 11:14.

1. Is and allegorical-only reading the way Genesis 1-3 should be read?

Yes. For example Gen 3 tells us and why and how Adam and Eve fell in the garden. There is no allegorical presentation of the fall in the bible.

1. Does the Bible contain both literal and allegorical content?

Yes.

1. If the Bible contains both literal and allegorical content, should the Bible then be read according to its content?

As I have show...Yes. You have failed to explain how Gen 1-3 is allegorical. I in several examples have show why Gen 1-3 should be interpreted as literal.

And when we get done with that maybe we can broach the matter of literal versus literalistic because that is a much bigger problem than literal versus allegorical.

For some reason you identify anything you don't understand as allegorical.

For now, just answer the questions asked. The questions are intentionally worded so they can be answered with a succinct yes or no so as to focus the conversation, establish what consensus can be had, and prevent further obfuscation. I know you have great difficulty answering questions directly when asked but make an effort to do so this time.

@David Lamb, you are invited to answer these questions, too (maybe demonstrate and thereby set an example for @CrowCross how easy and functional it is to answer relevant questions when asked without pages of avoidance).

When you can present a biblically based allegorical explanation of Gen 1-3 ...feel free to get back to us.

 

[Josheb]

Then do all of us a favor....go through the creation and fall account...and point out the allegorical version. I mean, if you can support your argument.

Once you have affirmed the bold-faced print and answered the questions asked in Post 27.

You do not get to hijack another's thread for your own agenda. There are many threads in many forums where the exegesis of the creation account is discussed. Go to one of those threads if you're not going to answer the questions asked first, and if you genuinely want to understand how both literal and allegorical content (not one or the other only) reveal fact and truth.

Affirm the bold-faced paragraph and answer the questions asked. Establish consensus where possible. Identify specific points of disagreement. Answer the question asked. Don't obfuscate.


Addendum: I see you've answered the questions while I was writing this post. I'll take up those answers in the next post as soon as you've affirmed the bold-faced paragraph.

 

[Josheb]

For some reason you identify anything you don't understand as allegorical.

Troll

 

[CrowCross]

Once you have affirmed the bold-faced print and answered the questions asked in Post 27.

You do not get to hijack another's thread for your own agenda. There are many threads in many forums where the exegesis of the creation account is discussed. Go to one of those threads if you're not going to answer the questions asked first, and if you genuinely want to understand how both literal and allegorical content (not one or the other only) reveal fact and truth.

Affirm the bold-faced paragraph and answer the questions asked. Establish consensus where possible. Identify specific points of disagreement. Answer the question asked. Don't obfuscate.


Addendum: I see you've answered the questions while I was writing this post. I'll take up those answers in the next post as soon as you've affirmed the bold-faced paragraph.

To be honest I'm getting the impression english isn't your first language and you don't have the ability to comprehend it.

What is that based upon? Your lack of ability to address my response. Your first response is typically...you didn't address the OP...you hijacked the thread...

Now, kindly explain how Gen 1-3 could be allegorical.

As you very well know the title of the thread is...

Understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal versus non-literal.​

I addressed why Gen 1-3 should be taken literally. If you disagree kindly explain how Gen 1-3 could be allegorical.

 

[CrowCross]

Troll

truth.

 

[Josheb]

To be honest I'm getting the impression english isn't your first language and you don't have the ability to comprehend it.

What is that based upon? Your lack of ability to address my response. Your first response is typically...you didn't address the OP...you hijacked the thread...

Now, kindly explain how Gen 1-3 could be allegorical.

Nope. Not until you demonstrate an ability to keep personal comments to yourself.

Troll

truth.

I'm not interested in conversing with trolls.

As you very well know the title of the thread is...

Understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal versus non-literal.​

Yes, and within that context the op specified allegory as the non-literal alternative. Everything I have posted is consistent with that the op's set up and if that is adequately then there's no justification for commenting on what I very well know. It just dumb.

I addressed why Gen 1-3 should be taken literally.

Yes, but the question is literal ONLY, not literal in general. The question is whether or not the account is literal, not how you or I "take" it.

I addressed why Gen 1-3 should be taken literally.

Yes, but the op isn't about you, and no, you did not explain why. You just posted your personal opinions under the auspices of a circular argument. That is not explanatory. The word "literal" means normal usage and ordinary meaning. When ANYONE says I read literally because that's the normal meaning and ordinary usage they are being redundant, not explanatory. And the fact is you do not some of that literally. You only think you do and the reason that is the case has already been posted.

And I am not having that conversation with a troll.

If you disagree kindly explain how Gen 1-3 could be allegorical.

I've already answered that question with at least two examples of non-literal content. Not only do I not converse with trolls, but I don't converse with those who ignore already posted content, ask questions already answered, repeatedly post off-topic personal criticism, and refuse to acknowledge any agreement when the opportunity to do so arises.


Affirm the bold-faced paragraph if you wish this conversation to continue. Go back and make note of the two examples already provided of non-literal content if you wish this conversation to continue. State the fact you recognize that content has, in fact, already been provided. You did an adequate job answering the seven questions of Post 27 so I know you have it in you to do so when you want. The problem is you didn't finish. Affirm the bold-faced paragraph. Establish consensus first.

ONLYism stinks. It is a form of legalism and legalism kills. The Bible, including the first three chapters of Genesis, is not ONLY literal or ONLY allegorical and it, therefore, should not be read ONLY literally or ONLY allegorical. Polarizing the reading of scripture that way is a false dichotomy because literal content and allegorical content co-exist within many passages, including the first three chapters of Genesis. Literal only is just as bad as allegory only. The op is correct when it observes the Bible (usually) provides indicators when something should be read literally and when it should be allegorically (or when both exist simultaneously) AND a greater understanding of scripture is gained when both are examined rather than one at the expense of the other.​

The answer to that is not, "Please do us a favor....." It's a simple, "Yep." Or a simple, "Nope." Either way I'll know where we agree and where we do not. If you cannot do that much then you cannot do the more demanding aspects of consensus building this topic will demand. I won't waste my time with you.

Once I read an affirmation of the bold-faced paragraph then we can go through the Genesis 1-3 text (line by line, if you like) and correctly identify what and how is literal and what is not, and how that exegetically the case. We can examine any claim of literal reading to verify it is, in fact a literal reading of the text because a lot of people think they are reading the text literally and claim to be reading the text literally when they are not, in fact, doing so. Show me you can actually have the conversation you've implied you want to have because you are one of the most avoidant members of this forum and I am not starting something with you that you're going to undermine in a post or two.

Affirm the bold-faced paragraph, if you can.

 

[CrowCross]

Nope. Not until you demonstrate an ability to keep personal comments to yourself.

Please stop playing the victim.

 

[Josheb]

Please stop playing the victim.

Never happened.

R u gonna affirm the bold-faced paragraph, or not?

 

[CrowCross]

Never happened.

R u gonna affirm the bold-faced paragraph, or not?

Are you gonna give me a bold-face answer?

 

[Josheb]

Are you gonna give me a bold-face answer?

Bye

 

[EarlyActs]

How did God separate “light from darkness” and have a “first day” prior to the creation of a sun and rotating earth? What do the concepts of day and night mean prior to an earth and sun?

Are we SURE that was intended to be 100% literal and was not making some other more important point than “Astronomy and Planetology for dummies”?

I didn’t notice this before but there already was an earth there. So there would only be the question of another kind of light before the sun is placed. Which is answered above.

 

[CrowCross]

I didn’t notice this before but there already was an earth there

What do you think the earth look like then?

 

[Josheb]

I didn’t notice this before but there already was an earth there. So there would only be the question of another kind of light before the sun is placed. Which is answered above.

Are you referring to the creation of Sirius (post 6)?