Hey, when was Eve named?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow, I'm sorry about that guys, I completely got the two confused.

Though in my defense, Solomon was also a sex maniac who did unwise things despite being called wise.

Well it is hard to keep the perverts apart in the Book of Holiness.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see how taking everything literally helps in the slightest. If the act of reaching for the tree of knowledge is a literal event with a literal tree, not a metaphor for reaching out after forbidden knowledge, why would it result in all this blood guilt? Literal trees don't do that to you. Symbolic ones do. Similarly, I don't see how a strictly literal Jesus could redeem anything. He is important, in the Augustinian theology, as a figure of Adam. Ie, a symbolic offering in expiation of our sins. IF he isn't a symbol, he's just a guy, and I fail to see how just a guy could somehow cure us all from a 5000 year old case of fruit poisoning.

My point: Christianity is inherently symbolic, as are most religions, and indeed symbols are what give it power.

That's nice. What does that have to do with a Hebrew Myth (the Jewish don't interpret it literally at all) found in the Hebrew Scriptures?

 

[phands]

How do we know Jesus was Irish?

He was over 30and unmarried, hung around with 12 men drinking, and his mother thought he was god.

Actually jesus was from India......

[YOUTUBE]8tw7LIykvBw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Politesse]

I don't see how taking everything literally helps in the slightest. If the act of reaching for the tree of knowledge is a literal event with a literal tree, not a metaphor for reaching out after forbidden knowledge, why would it result in all this blood guilt? Literal trees don't do that to you. Symbolic ones do. Similarly, I don't see how a strictly literal Jesus could redeem anything. He is important, in the Augustinian theology, as a figure of Adam. Ie, a symbolic offering in expiation of our sins. IF he isn't a symbol, he's just a guy, and I fail to see how just a guy could somehow cure us all from a 5000 year old case of fruit poisoning.

My point: Christianity is inherently symbolic, as are most religions, and indeed symbols are what give it power.

That's nice. What does that have to do with a Hebrew Myth (the Jewish don't interpret it literally at all) found in the Hebrew Scriptures?

Everything in the world. My entire point is that the literalist hermeneutic is not consistent with the way Roman Christianity has interpreted the life of Christ and its importance. I am pretty darn sure that any Jew you asked would agree with me on that point; they would have no reason to either insist on the literality of the text, nor conclude that the events described somehow led necessarily to Calvary and the redemption of man. Neither would ever have been their assumption in the first place.

 

[Politesse]

Why do you say it is an apple? The Bible never states what type it was. Always called the 'fruit'.

This is true, my apologies for indulging in medieval convention. Though we want to get all nitpicky, there's no great translation for the Hebrew word in question, ancient Hebrew handles plant classification differently than English. Apple is definitely wrong, but fruit isn't completely accurate either. "An object that corresponds sometimes but not always to the concept of 'fruit' in English" would be more precise.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is it the apple?

Why do you say it is an apple? The Bible never states what type it was. Always called the 'fruit'.

Why Satan? The Tanakh never states Satan was involved in The Fall.

And please let us skip the "serpent" = "Satan" line as the scriptural text used to describe Satan in the Bible is not similar to the non-metaphorical word used to describe actual snakes... including in the Story of The Fall.

 

[steve_bank]

The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil. Metaphor for innocence vs self awareness. Satan would then be knowledge itself.

 

[DBT]

I don't see how taking everything literally helps in the slightest.

As pointed out, if there was no fall, no original sin, there is no need for a redeemer, no need for the Christ, no need for atonement......yet all of these things are central to the teachings of Christianity.

If the central pillars of Christianity are not to be taken literally, no literal fall, no literal original sin, there is no need for a literal redeemer, no need for the blood of Christ, the sacrifice, so it all falls apart.....it's just fiction, an ancient morality tale .....a metaphor that tells people; 'if you disobey authority, this is what happens'' ''this is how the world became corrupt''

But in the past, this was not how the central message was taken. It was taken literally....just questioning it's dogma could get you thrown to the church dungeons, tortured and burnt at the stake.

I am not talking about the obviously poetic verses, allegory, metaphor, etc, which is obviously present, but the significance of the central pillars of the faith if not taken literally

 

[Politesse]

What you continue to fail to explain is how a "literal" reading leads to any conclusions you draw. Which are themselves full of figurative language and allegory. A literal fall is what happens when you trip going down the hill, not a symbolic description of the state of humanity. And no fall, whether literal or figurative, is found in the literal text of scripture. Stating your point over and over isn't making it sound any more logical. Why would literally eating a literal fruit literally lead to any of the things you say it did?

I'm also baffled as to your exception case of "obviously present" allegory. How do you about detecting allegory at all? For me, stories in which characters with names like The Man and Mother--of-All who perform symbolic acts in locations like the Tree Of Life And Death are very obvious allegories, not even trying to hide. They make no sense when you strip them of their symbolic weight. What to you IS an obviously present allegory? And who taught you that allegory can't be about significant or central concepts? Not only can allegory have important and real referents, it usually does. Your argument is like saying that because Maus is about a real and significant event, that it proves there wasn't a real Holocaust if there weren't literal talking mice in it. The symbols aren't the point. The thing those symbols are trying to portray is the point.

 

[DBT]

What you continue to fail to explain is how a "literal" reading leads to any conclusions you draw. Which are themselves full of figurative language and allegory.

I have given the reasons. The reasons being; if there was no actual fall, no actual Original Sin, what need is there for a redeemer? Without a literal fall or literal original sin, what is the role or purpose of the Christ?

What is the need for Christ if there was no fall, no original sin? These are things that the early Christians believed. It was taken literally. A literal A&E, a literal Garden of Eden.

If Genesis taken to be mere allegory and metaphor, where lies the foundation of Christianity?

What is Christianity related to?


Just to be clear, I don't take the stories literally, I am not a theist. I am just pointing out that without a literal interpretation, that there is a literal God of the Bible, a literal Jesus the Redeemer, there is nothing but myth and allegory.

Of course, that is the case. However, that is not what fundamentalist Christians want to believe.


''The genealogies of Jesus presented in Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38 show that Genesis 1–11 is historical narrative. These genealogies must all be equally historical or else we must conclude that Jesus was descended from a myth and therefore He would not have been a real human being and therefore not our Savior and Lord.5

Paul built his doctrine of sin and salvation on the fact that sin and death entered the world through Adam. Jesus, as the Last Adam, came into the world to bring righteousness and life to people and to undo the damaging work of the first Adam (Romans 5:12–19; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, 45–47). Paul affirmed that the serpent deceived Eve, not Adam (2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13–14). He took Genesis 1–2 literally by affirming that Adam was created first and Eve was made from the body of Adam (1 Corinthians 11:8–9). In Romans 1:20, Paul indicated that people have seen the evidence of God’s existence and some of His attributes since the creation of the world.6 This means that Paul believed that man was right there at the beginning of history, not billions of years after the beginning.''

 

[Politesse]

I have given the reasons. The reasons being; if there was no actual fall, no actual Original Sin, what need is there for a redeemer? Without a literal fall or literal original sin, what is the role or purpose of the Christ?

What do you mean by an "actual fall", if non-literal readings aren't allowed? What, to you, is the literal meaning of the phrase, "a fall"?

If Genesis taken to be mere allegory and metaphor, where lies the foundation of Christianity?

I don't know what you mean by "mere" allegory and metaphor. We're talking about the description of the state of the relationship between God and man. Just because that is too complex to tackle with solely literal language doesn't mean that it isn't real, or important. Again, that's not how allegories work. Maus does not need literal talking mice to make its message real or important; there don't have a literal light at the end of a literal dock for there to be meaning in the social critique of the Great Gatsby; Human nature is in no way affected by whether the pig head in The Lord of the Flies was a literal physical object or a fevered dream of one of the characters, either for the characters or for us. A thing does not have to be literal or even factual to be communicative.

Paul built his doctrine of sin and salvation on the fact that sin and death entered the world through Adam. Jesus, as the Last Adam, came into the world to bring righteousness and life to people and to undo the damaging work of the first Adam (Romans 5:12–19; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, 45–47). Paul affirmed that the serpent deceived Eve, not Adam (2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13–14). He took Genesis 1–2 literally by affirming that Adam was created first and Eve was made from the body of Adam (1 Corinthians 11:8–9). In Romans 1:20, Paul indicated that people have seen the evidence of God’s existence and some of His attributes since the creation of the world.6 This means that Paul believed that man was right there at the beginning of history, not billions of years after the beginning.''

AIG can call it whatever they like, but that is definitely a figurative reading of both Genesis and Jesus' life. "Jesus is the Last Adam" is a metaphor. Just like "You are a miracle" or "Trump is a monster" or "Bob in Accounting is the next Machiavelli". It is not literally true. Jesus was not Adam. They did not share a SSN. Jesus never fucked Eve. Jesus and Adam were, literally, different people. Not only are literal readings not necessary, they aren't even helpful. This is a figurative reading that you are basing all of this theology on.

A literal reading of the Gospels would just leave you with Jesus' non-parabolic teachings and a couple of meaningless miracles really, and given that half of them are about universal love and the folly of wealth, I see where the prospect of a true literal reading would be terrifying to your average Christian conservative. But don't tell me that a rock is an orange, or that red is blue. You can't decry metaphor with one side of your mouth while spouting metaphors out the other.

 

[DBT]

What do you mean by an "actual fall", if non-literal readings aren't allowed? What, to you, is the literal meaning of the phrase, "a fall"?

Obviously 'the fall' comes from a biblical interpretation of Genesis The disobedience of Adam and Eve being the original sin, the original sin being referred to as the Fall.

So, again, if this is just taken to be a metaphor, a morality tale, what need is there for a Redeemer? After all, genesis is merely intended to be a metaphor, something that does not require the displeasure and damnation of god.

If genesis is merely taken a metaphor with no consequences, no fall, no curse upon Adam and all generations that followed, the story of Christ is unnecessary because there is no original sin, no curse....it is all metaphor, allegory and poetry.

Yet that is clearly not the intention of the writers. The writers listed the generations following Adam, they describe these events like it was history, and that is what it was taken to be, an actual A&E, an actual Cain, an actual Enoch, Moses and the rest.

We are not talking about science minded people who have an understanding of the natural world, this was there World View. This was how the World came about. This was there God.

AIG can call it whatever they like, but that is definitely a figurative reading of both Genesis and Jesus' life. "Jesus is the Last Adam" is a metaphor

.


It's not a matter of what AiG says. It is a matter of what the ancients themselves believed and what they wrote, what their Worldview, how the World was created and the God they worshiped.

Now, you may claim that these stories are nothing more than metaphor, but history tells us that the ancients believed in these stories, took them literally, accepted their accounts as a description of the history of their people.

 

[Politesse]

What do you mean by an "actual fall", if non-literal readings aren't allowed? What, to you, is the literal meaning of the phrase, "a fall"?

Obviously 'the fall' comes from a biblical interpretation of Genesis The disobedience of Adam and Eve being the original sin, the original sin being referred to as the Fall.

So, again, if this is just taken to be a metaphor, a morality tale, what need is there for a Redeemer? After all, genesis is merely intended to be a metaphor, something that does not require the displeasure and damnation of god.

If genesis is merely taken a metaphor with no consequences, no fall, no curse upon Adam and all generations that followed, the story of Christ is unnecessary because there is no original sin, no curse....it is all metaphor, allegory and poetry.

Yet that is clearly not the intention of the writers. The writers listed the generations following Adam, they describe these events like it was history, and that is what it was taken to be, an actual A&E, an actual Cain, an actual Enoch, Moses and the rest.

We are not talking about science minded people who have an understanding of the natural world, this was there World View. This was how the World came about. This was there God.

AIG can call it whatever they like, but that is definitely a figurative reading of both Genesis and Jesus' life. "Jesus is the Last Adam" is a metaphor

.


It's not a matter of what AiG says. It is a matter of what the ancients themselves believed and what they wrote, what their Worldview, how the World was created and the God they worshiped.

Now, you may claim that these stories are nothing more than metaphor, but history tells us that the ancients believed in these stories, took them literally, accepted their accounts as a description of the history of their people.

More insistence that your metaphorical interpretation somehow counts as "literal" even though it obviously is not. I have no idea how to respond to this without repeating myself.

I don't get what you mean by "just a metaphor" or "merely metaphor". Are you trying to claim that metaphors never refer to things that are real and important?

 

[steve_bank]

The redeemer and resurection in the gospels is metaphor for a human spiritual makeover, the born again experience.

Reincarnation in Buddhism IMO is also metaphor for spiritual transformation.

'The Fall' is about becoming spiritually corrupted as a human. The resurrection is about regaining spiritual rebirth. That is what makes sense to me. I imagine it all maps into modern psychology.

I watched an old Bill Myers show which had a panel of theologians, philosophers, and psychologists. There is a lot of psychology that can be pulled out of Genesis if you put your self into the times.

 

[Angry Floof]

Maybe Biblical Eve is a vestige of earlier goddess cultures.

 

[Jobar]

Eve was first named in Gen. 3:20, is the technically correct answer.

Ah- Politesse, those of us who've known you for years know very well you are NOT a Biblical literalist. But you say you are (or grew up) a Lutheran; Wiki says

Lutheranism advocates a doctrine of justification "by grace alone through faith alone on the basis of Scripture alone", the doctrine that scripture is the final authority on all matters of faith.

I'm quite curious how you can manage to identify as a Lutheran if your interpretation of scripture is different from other Lutherans- some of whom, I have no doubt, are literalists. Okay, maybe you can say that 'faith alone' means 'your own personal interpretation of scripture'- but it seems to me that means you can't say there's any definitive creed or dogma that one must follow to be a Lutheran.

You're aware that literalists are all too common; turn over any damp stone in the US. So you should keep in mind that criticisms such as those in this thread are directed at them, not (necessarily) you. I do wonder though- if you think that the Fall of Man- Adam, Eve, Apple, etc.- is only metaphorical, why do you believe we need salvation from an *actual* Christ?

 

[DBT]

Obviously 'the fall' comes from a biblical interpretation of Genesis The disobedience of Adam and Eve being the original sin, the original sin being referred to as the Fall.

So, again, if this is just taken to be a metaphor, a morality tale, what need is there for a Redeemer? After all, genesis is merely intended to be a metaphor, something that does not require the displeasure and damnation of god.

If genesis is merely taken a metaphor with no consequences, no fall, no curse upon Adam and all generations that followed, the story of Christ is unnecessary because there is no original sin, no curse....it is all metaphor, allegory and poetry.

Yet that is clearly not the intention of the writers. The writers listed the generations following Adam, they describe these events like it was history, and that is what it was taken to be, an actual A&E, an actual Cain, an actual Enoch, Moses and the rest.

We are not talking about science minded people who have an understanding of the natural world, this was there World View. This was how the World came about. This was there God.


.


It's not a matter of what AiG says. It is a matter of what the ancients themselves believed and what they wrote, what their Worldview, how the World was created and the God they worshiped.

Now, you may claim that these stories are nothing more than metaphor, but history tells us that the ancients believed in these stories, took them literally, accepted their accounts as a description of the history of their people.

More insistence that your metaphorical interpretation somehow counts as "literal" even though it obviously is not. I have no idea how to respond to this without repeating myself.

It's not insistence to point out the fact that the ancients did take the Genesis account of Creation literally, that the generations following Adam are listed literally, like real personages.

It is just the way it is. It is there for anyone to see and read.

I don't get what you mean by "just a metaphor" or "merely metaphor". Are you trying to claim that metaphors never refer to things that are real and important?

Metaphors obviously do relate to real ideas, concepts, lessons, etc, but the issue is that the objects and characters used to convey the intended meaning need not be actual characters or objects, you can use Unicorns as in the Noah song.

In this instance, if the Genesis description is a metaphor, a lesson on the consequences of disobedience, it is not a literal description of Creation and there was no actual disobedience by A&E because they did not exist, it is merely a lesson on fealty to God, and if God is intended to merely be a Metaphorical Character used to illustrate the lesson, this God is not a literal God.

But that is not what the writers believed or intended. Theirs was a literal God, a literal Creation, a literal Original Sin, a literal need for redemption, a literal need for a Redeemer, a Messiah.

 

[steve_bank]

Maybe Biblical Eve is a vestige of earlier goddess cultures.

There was a show that summarized and interpreted all the Hebrew/biblical archeological evidence. Academic not religious.

The evidence is that in in the form of carved images there was both a male and female form of deity in the early culture that became Hebrews. The female half was dropped over time.

Further the origins may have been escaped Egyptians slaves. The Exodus story origins.

 

[Politesse]

Eve was first named in Gen. 3:20, is the technically correct answer.

Ah- Politesse, those of us who've known you for years know very well you are NOT a Biblical literalist. But you say you are (or grew up) a Lutheran; Wiki says

Lutheranism advocates a doctrine of justification "by grace alone through faith alone on the basis of Scripture alone", the doctrine that scripture is the final authority on all matters of faith.

I'm quite curious how you can manage to identify as a Lutheran if your interpretation of scripture is different from other Lutherans- some of whom, I have no doubt, are literalists. Okay, maybe you can say that 'faith alone' means 'your own personal interpretation of scripture'- but it seems to me that means you can't say there's any definitive creed or dogma that one must follow to be a Lutheran.

I identify as Lutheran because I grew up in a Lutheran church and came close to becoming a Lutheran pastor in my youth, it is no more complicated than that.

I do not agree that Lutherans ought to treat Luther's words as somehow doctrinally binding, and I think the majority of Lutherans would agree on that point. He was an important figure in the history of the church, but not a demigod; he could be wrong, and often was wrong, when his very healthy temper got the better of him. You know most of his writings have only had an English translation for a few decades? And I am certain that the translator of many of those would not recommend an uncritical read thereof; I know, because he was a professor emeritus at the school, and I was present for several of his sermons. As for Martin Luther, he is highly respected, but as a man; he isn't worshiped, or followed as a leader.

As for the "solas", those have been very important to Lutherans across the centuries; people fought and died for them, and many of these were literalists to be certain. But I don't see how letting go of an ovely strict interpretation of these doctrines in the light of reason is any different from doing the same to the Scriptures themselves.

As for there being any creeds one must follow in order to be a Lutheran, the conservative branches (WELS, LCMS) would certainly insist on agreement with the Nicene Creed before allowing you to commune with them. But any ELCA branch church would not. You, Jobar, could walk in next Sunday and partake of the Eucharist without anyone blinking an eye, no conversions or grand statements of faith needed. Grace, and the dispensation of grace, are the province of God alone by the very words and testimony you have quoted above. God alone decides whom to keep in his care, and he is no respecter of human denominations and customs. Hence why we called Luther's rebellion a Reformation, rather than the creation of a new church. There is only one church, and no human can dictate whether it comes or goes. From a Lutheran perspective, at least. Even a very conservative Lutheran, in barring you from the host, would be trying to protect you from the consequences of a sin made in ignorance, not themselves refusing you communion.

If I am mistaken in this, I would be interested to see a countering view from another Lutheran. But having studied at a Lutheran seminary for two years, I am fairly confident that the broad strokes here, at least, are in keeping with what most Lutheran clergy would tell you on the point.

I do not, personally, worship with a Lutheran congregation very often these days, having jumped ship to the UU a while back, though I will visit old friends from time to time, and I make sure that for Reformation Sunday and the Feast of All Saints, at least, I am only within Lutheran walls. No one else quite does that holiday right. In another month's time, I will be dressed in red in the next-to-back pew alongside my mother and grandmother, belting out "A Mighty Fortress" at the top of my lungs.

Why? Because you do not have to be enslaved to something in order to love it.

I do wonder though- if you think that the Fall of Man- Adam, Eve, Apple, etc.- is only metaphorical, why do you believe we need salvation from an *actual* Christ?

Need? No one is forcing you to accept it. But it is freely offered. What do you think it is a metaphor for? If not the divorce of humanity and divinity, I don't know what. Salvific grace heals that wound. No apples required, unless it helps you understand the nature of the problem, which is the purpose of any metaphor.

 

[Politesse]

Metaphors obviously do relate to real ideas, concepts, lessons, etc, but the issue is that the objects and characters used to convey the intended meaning need not be actual characters or objects, you can use Unicorns as in the Noah song.

Yes, you can.

Which is why you don't get the point of the song, if you think that proving the literal existence of unicorns is the purpose of the same.

In this instance, if the Genesis description is a metaphor, a lesson on the consequences of disobedience, it is not a literal description of Creation and there was no actual disobedience by A&E because they did not exist, it is merely a lesson on fealty to God, and if God is intended to merely be a Metaphorical Character used to illustrate the lesson, this God is not a literal God.

You're making a lot of leaps there. Just because I use a metaphor to explain something, that doesn't make the thing itself fictional by fiat. Back to the example of Maus, which you ignored, the talking mice are metaphor; the Holocaust is real. Disproving the talking mice does not disprove that the Holocaust happened, nor does proving that the Holocaust did happpen mean that the talking mice must also be real. Maus is a deeply moving text, and the mice were chosen by Art Spiegelman to be the protagonists for a reason, it was neither a purposeless accidental choice on the part of the author, nor ever intended to be taken literally. It is more true because it is not literal. He was writing a story about what it felt like, not about what it looked like.

But that is not what the writers believed or intended. Theirs was a literal God, a literal Creation, a literal Original Sin, a literal need for redemption, a literal need for a Redeemer, a Messiah.

The writers? Of Genesis? Were Augustinian Christians, according to you? Maybe you should ask some actual Jews about this!

Even the most recent authors of the Bible had been dead for nearly 290 years before the words "Original Sin" were ever put to print. Between the creation of Genesis and those words is even longer maybe by as much as an additional 700 years. You are reading the cause and effect of history backwards, accusing the effect of being the cause. What you are doing is like claiming that Newton wrote his descriptions of the laws of gravity because he didn't want the Space Shuttle to fall.

 

[Politesse]

Maybe Biblical Eve is a vestige of earlier goddess cultures.

Nothing earlier about it, there were plenty of Goddess centric religions in the ANE at the time when this particular oral tradition began.

I note that "Mother of All" was also one of the titles ascribed to the Hellenistic Goddess Artemis, many centuries later than the composition of Genesis. Her icons in Ephesus and surrounds show her with a multitude of breasts ready to suckle her endless generations of children: