Hey, when was Eve named?

[Sarpedon]

I thought it didn't become literal until the reformation. Didn't the RCC always have the position that the bible is figurative? Similarly, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Believers.

 

[Jobar]

We should remember that the 'Fall of Man' interpretation of Jesus' salvic function was a matter of great controversy to the early Christians; there were quite a lot of differing views on just why Christ's (self) sacrifice was necessary. Lots of church councils, lots of sects declared heretical. The orthodox Catholic version became dogma because they were the ones who won the power struggle in the early days when Christians came to run the late Roman Empire.

I forget the particular sect, but there was one group which considered Jesus' death a bribe or ransom to Satan, which freed all the damned souls from Hell. Others took a more pantheistic view, and Christ's death was meant to show how all men, though mortal, also are gods and sons of gods. So paying off the debt of Adam's sin wasn't a hard and firm dogma of all of Christianity, in the earliest days.

I consider it entirely possible that Paul was actually a gnostic, which has been covered up but not entirely concealed by multiple re-writes of his epistles over the centuries. All that stuff that DBT quotes might have been violently rejected by Paul himself.

 

[southernhybrid]

I thought it didn't become literal until the reformation. Didn't the RCC always have the position that the bible is figurative? Similarly, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Believers.

I don't know about that, but the RCC literally believes that the bread and wine turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus when they take communion, which is even weirder than what the fundies believe. They just believe communion is symbolic.

Question fo Poli or anyone who knows a lot of the details of the history of Christianity. Why do you think so many modern Christian sects take all or most of the Bible literally? It would seem that with all the scientific knowledge we have these days, people wouldn't be taking things like the six day creation myth, the big flood myth or the Jesus rising from dead myth etc. as literal things. Does anyone know when or why the literal interpretations started?

 

[Politesse]

I thought it didn't become literal until the reformation. Didn't the RCC always have the position that the bible is figurative? Similarly, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Believers.

I don't know about that, but the RCC literally believes that the bread and wine turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus when they take communion, which is even weirder than what the fundies believe. They just believe communion is symbolic.

Question fo Poli or anyone who knows a lot of the details of the history of Christianity. Why do you think so many modern Christian sects take all or most of the Bible literally? It would seem that with all the scientific knowledge we have these days, people wouldn't be taking things like the six day creation myth, the big flood myth or the Jesus rising from dead myth etc. as literal things. Does anyone know when or why the literal interpretations started?

To be honest, I think the rise of empiricism made the current fad of material literalism inevitable. Consider how humans tend to respond to challenges and threats, we are instinctive propogators of "equal force". So if scientists are challenging the Bible on material/empirical grounds, it makes it very likely that radical conservatives will try to defend the Bible on those same rhetorical terms. In 1408, there would be no reason for a theologian to write about the "literal, six day account" of creation; there is no Big Bang, no evolution, to provide the Church with competition in explaining the world. But in 1908, there looks to be this competition for empirical support, and by all appearances the church is losing. Suddenly scientific-ish rhetoric abounds. The Bible is no longer a source of enlightenment, but a science book with precise instructions on how the universe was built.

Marcus Borg gives an approachable perspective to this in "Reading the Bible Again For the First Time"; it's not really so much that ye olde believers were anti-literalists, as it is that literalism wouldn't have meant quite the same thing in the prescientific age. Without any competing epistemologies to challenge ecclesiastical authority, there was less reason for it to exist as such.

I do think there are some pretty clear signs of demographic collapse among Christian literalism in the "Western world"; the same may not be so true globally.

 

[Politesse]

I consider it entirely possible that Paul was actually a gnostic, which has been covered up but not entirely concealed by multiple re-writes of his epistles over the centuries. All that stuff that DBT quotes might have been violently rejected by Paul himself.

I tend to side with Pagels on that one; Paul lived before the split, and his letters therefore innocently harbor elements of what would become both of those theologies a century or two after his death.

 

[DBT]

Regardless of any controversy in the early church, and there was plenty, the integrity of Christianity as taught in the NT rests on the narrative of a fall and a redeemer, a sacrifice that is deemed to be worthy in the eyes of God, the perfect Lamb, so without a fall, a sacrifice is pointless, there is no transgression, no sin and no need for a Christ.

Even a work of fiction demands integrity and consistency, not cherry picking because this seems too absurd to take literally (but good for the common folk)....but we like that, we like the idea of forgiveness, we like the promise of eternal life.......

 

[steve_bank]

The idea of a sacrificial lamb predates JC. I read that in the time of the gospels supplying ritual animals for ritual slaughter in the temple waw what we would call big business today. High profit. During ritual periods there would have been a stream of live animals in and dead ones out.

There is also traditions of a 'sin eater'. Someone in a tribe who eats ritual food thought to contain the transgressions of the group.

 

[Politesse]

Regardless of any controversy in the early church, and there was plenty, the integrity of Christianity as taught in the NT rests on the narrative of a fall and a redeemer, a sacrifice that is deemed to be worthy in the eyes of God, the perfect Lamb, so without a fall, a sacrifice is pointless, there is no transgression, no sin and no need for a Christ.

Even a work of fiction demands integrity and consistency, not cherry picking because this seems too absurd to take literally (but good for the common folk)....but we like that, we like the idea of forgiveness, we like the promise of eternal life.......

I'm not sure how to explain, if you do not understand still, that "the perfect Lamb" is indeed a metaphor.

Literal lambs look like this:



You can't turn the Bible literal by just declaring that all of its metaphors are somehow literal truths.

 

[DBT]

I'm not sure how to explain, if you do not understand still, that "the perfect Lamb" is indeed a metaphor.

You can't turn the Bible literal by just declaring that all of its metaphors are somehow literal truths.

It has nothing to do with me personally. You appear to be ignoring the believers, Christians who believe in the literal reality of the God of the Bible, their literal God, who believe in the literal existence of Christ, the Son of God, the Redeemer, the One who gave his life in Atonement for Sin, therefore, obviously, it these believers and these beliefs that I am talking about in terms of consistency and integrity of the overall narrative of the religion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

When she first appeared on screen, she was 'woman.' Adam and woman. The snake spoke to the woman, Adam blamed the woman, the woman blamed the snake, enmity between woman and snake...

When they were kicked out of the garden, Adam named her 'Eve.'
Eve apparently means 'The mother of all living.'

But when they left the garden, there were only two living.

The Woman was a clone of Adam. That would make her the daughter. Adam would be the mother. Adam was the mother of all living on that day. And since everyone descended of the daughter cells off his rib, he would be the Eve.

But even ignoring clone technology vocabulary, Eve was never, quite, the mother of all living. Every generation would increase the percentage, but never above 99.999999_. Not until Adam died, anyway.
And she wouldn't even begin to be the mother of all living until they had at least one son and one daughter, to perpetuate the species.
Or did Adam just call her the woman until they had grandkids and knew for sure there would be 'all living?'

That verse just strikes me as odd, same as the one about Moses being the most humble man, even to this day.

Well... he needed a name to set her apart from Lilith. His first girlfriend. Eve was just the replacement.

 

[Sarpedon]

I disagree that there was ever a time when there was not a 'competing epistemology' or that there was a definite 'rise of empiricism.' Greek philosophy predates Christianity. Missionary monotheism and faith were the new ideas, not reason. Everything about Christianity was a reaction against the reasonable system they found.

 

[Politesse]

I'm not sure how to explain, if you do not understand still, that "the perfect Lamb" is indeed a metaphor.

You can't turn the Bible literal by just declaring that all of its metaphors are somehow literal truths.

It has nothing to do with me personally. You appear to be ignoring the believers, Christians who believe in the literal reality of the God of the Bible, their literal God, who believe in the literal existence of Christ, the Son of God, the Redeemer, the One who gave his life in Atonement for Sin, therefore, obviously, it these believers and these beliefs that I am talking about in terms of consistency and integrity of the overall narrative of the religion.

If they believe in a "Lamb of God" that does not baaaa or chew grass, then they aren't strict literalists either, and must be at least occasionally okay with metaphors that don't have immediate material referents. There's an important difference between a symbol and a lie, and they understand it whenever they feel like it. This makes their claim to be strict literalists deeply inconsistent, and their criticism of "cherry picking" hypocritical to the core.

 

[DBT]

I'm not sure how to explain, if you do not understand still, that "the perfect Lamb" is indeed a metaphor.

You can't turn the Bible literal by just declaring that all of its metaphors are somehow literal truths.

It has nothing to do with me personally. You appear to be ignoring the believers, Christians who believe in the literal reality of the God of the Bible, their literal God, who believe in the literal existence of Christ, the Son of God, the Redeemer, the One who gave his life in Atonement for Sin, therefore, obviously, it these believers and these beliefs that I am talking about in terms of consistency and integrity of the overall narrative of the religion.

If they believe in a "Lamb of God" that does not baaaa or chew grass, then they aren't strict literalists either, and must be at least occasionally okay with metaphors that don't have immediate material referents. There's an important difference between a symbol and a lie, and they understand it whenever they feel like it. This makes their claim to be strict literalists deeply inconsistent, and their criticism of "cherry picking" hypocritical to the core.

The OT God required actual blood sacrifice, as does the marginally improved NT version;


Hebrews 9:22 '' Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.''

''But nothing that a person owns and devotes to the Lord—whether a human being or an animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; they are to be put to death'' (Lev. 27:28–9).

''but its entrails and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall burn all of it on the altar, as ja burnt offering, a food offering1 with a pleasing aroma to the Lord.'' Leviticus 1;9

These verses are not meant to be poetic, figurative, allegoric or metaphoric, they are instructions on what is pleasing to God, and what God requires from His Creatures.

It can't be whitewashed, sanitized for modern sensibilities or made to mean what it clearly says and what it clearly means.

 

[Politesse]

If they believe in a "Lamb of God" that does not baaaa or chew grass, then they aren't strict literalists either, and must be at least occasionally okay with metaphors that don't have immediate material referents. There's an important difference between a symbol and a lie, and they understand it whenever they feel like it. This makes their claim to be strict literalists deeply inconsistent, and their criticism of "cherry picking" hypocritical to the core.

The OT God required actual blood sacrifice, as does the marginally improved NT version;


Hebrews 9:22 '' Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.''

''But nothing that a person owns and devotes to the Lord—whether a human being or an animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; they are to be put to death'' (Lev. 27:28–9).

''but its entrails and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall burn all of it on the altar, as ja burnt offering, a food offering1 with a pleasing aroma to the Lord.'' Leviticus 1;9

These verses are not meant to be poetic, figurative, allegoric or metaphoric, they are instructions on what is pleasing to God, and what God requires from His Creatures.

It can't be whitewashed, sanitized for modern sensibilities or made to mean what it clearly says and what it clearly means.

If those requirements are literal, then how were they symbolically satisfied by a human sacrifice (Jesus)? The Pentateuch is more than specific about what sacrifices are needed to absolve which forms of uncleanliness, and not only is human sacrifice not accepted, it is forbidden in no uncertain terms. Yet you claim that Christian fundamentalism is consistent in its approach to the Bible, despite not requiring any sacrifices whatsoever of its adherents, except for the one kind of sacrifice the Hebrews were clearly commanded not to make.

I note that you are changing the goalposts, in any case, by mixing together several different books of differing genres, acting as though they must all bear the same relationship to literality or metaphor. You are also continuing to act as though "literal" and "true" are exclusive synonyms, even though I know from your vocabulary alone that you must be better educated than that.

 

[DBT]

If they believe in a "Lamb of God" that does not baaaa or chew grass, then they aren't strict literalists either, and must be at least occasionally okay with metaphors that don't have immediate material referents. There's an important difference between a symbol and a lie, and they understand it whenever they feel like it. This makes their claim to be strict literalists deeply inconsistent, and their criticism of "cherry picking" hypocritical to the core.

The OT God required actual blood sacrifice, as does the marginally improved NT version;


Hebrews 9:22 '' Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.''

''But nothing that a person owns and devotes to the Lord—whether a human being or an animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; they are to be put to death'' (Lev. 27:28–9).

''but its entrails and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall burn all of it on the altar, as ja burnt offering, a food offering1 with a pleasing aroma to the Lord.'' Leviticus 1;9

These verses are not meant to be poetic, figurative, allegoric or metaphoric, they are instructions on what is pleasing to God, and what God requires from His Creatures.

It can't be whitewashed, sanitized for modern sensibilities or made to mean what it clearly says and what it clearly means.

If those requirements are literal, then how were they symbolically satisfied by a human sacrifice (Jesus)? The Pentateuch is more than specific about what sacrifices are needed to absolve which forms of uncleanliness, and not only is human sacrifice not accepted, it is forbidden in no uncertain terms. Yet you claim that Christian fundamentalism is consistent in its approach to the Bible, despite not requiring any sacrifices whatsoever of its adherents, except for the one kind of sacrifice the Hebrews were clearly commanded not to make.

I note that you are changing the goalposts, in any case, by mixing together several different books of differing genres, acting as though they must all bear the same relationship to literality or metaphor. You are also continuing to act as though "literal" and "true" are exclusive synonyms, even though I know from your vocabulary alone that you must be better educated than that.

I'm not changing the goalposts. The subject is still literal interpretation versus figurative. I think I covered the reasons for the necessity of a literal Fall in relation to a literal Redemption, that without the former, the latter has no foundation, no meaning.

Now I am merely pointing out reasons for a Blood Sacrifice, and that Blood Sacrifice is a common theme in the Bible.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life" (Leviticus 17:11).


Christ as the 'Lamb of God'

''Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.'' 1 Corinthians 5:7

So Christ as the figurative lamb sacrificed, not for a figurative Fall or Sin, but the disobedience of Adam; ''Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people'' - Romans 5:12

Now this is either all allegory or metaphor (or simply mistaken beliefs/faith) or it is taken literally. You cannot pick and choose without destroying the integrity of the message of redemption.

And if intended as allegory...allegory for what?

What is the significance of, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" if taken as allegory? What is the point of it?

I would say that is what the ancients believed, they believed that in the beginning God indeed created the heavens and the earth.

 

[Politesse]

If those requirements are literal, then how were they symbolically satisfied by a human sacrifice (Jesus)? The Pentateuch is more than specific about what sacrifices are needed to absolve which forms of uncleanliness, and not only is human sacrifice not accepted, it is forbidden in no uncertain terms. Yet you claim that Christian fundamentalism is consistent in its approach to the Bible, despite not requiring any sacrifices whatsoever of its adherents, except for the one kind of sacrifice the Hebrews were clearly commanded not to make.

I note that you are changing the goalposts, in any case, by mixing together several different books of differing genres, acting as though they must all bear the same relationship to literality or metaphor. You are also continuing to act as though "literal" and "true" are exclusive synonyms, even though I know from your vocabulary alone that you must be better educated than that.

I'm not changing the goalposts. The subject is still literal interpretation versus figurative. I think I covered the reasons for the necessity of a literal Fall in relation to a literal Redemption, that without the former, the latter has no foundation, no meaning.

Now I am merely pointing out reasons for a Blood Sacrifice, and that Blood Sacrifice is a common theme in the Bible.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life" (Leviticus 17:11).


Christ as the 'Lamb of God'

''Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.'' 1 Corinthians 5:7

So Christ as the figurative lamb sacrificed, not for a figurative Fall or Sin, but the disobedience of Adam; ''Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people'' - Romans 5:12

Now this is either all allegory or metaphor (or simply mistaken beliefs/faith) or it is taken literally. You cannot pick and choose without destroying the integrity of the message of redemption.

And if intended as allegory...allegory for what?

What is the significance of, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" if taken as allegory? What is the point of it?

I would say that is what the ancients believed, they believed that in the beginning God indeed created the heavens and the earth.

So if is all allegory or all truth, and you can't conceive of overlap between those categories, are you claiming that it is all metaphor, or that Jesus was literally a sheep?

 

[Sarpedon]

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. The presence of things in the bible that are obviously metaphor and parable does not mean that everything in the bible can be so called. I could file a factual police report which makes use of metaphor, and no one in court would dispute that it is a factual account. If I were to describe the van that nearly killed me yesterday as coming at me 'like a charging bull' that is not grounds to dismiss the entire story of the van nearly killing me as fiction. Likewise, the description of Jesus as 'lamb of god' does not mean he literally was a lamb, but does not eliminate the idea that he was a sacrificed to expiate sin, just like a lamb would be.

 

[Politesse]

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. The presence of things in the bible that are obviously metaphor and parable does not mean that everything in the bible can be so called. I could file a factual police report which makes use of metaphor, and no one in court would dispute that it is a factual account. If I were to describe the van that nearly killed me yesterday as coming at me 'like a charging bull' that is not grounds to dismiss the entire story of the van nearly killing me as fiction. Likewise, the description of Jesus as 'lamb of god' does not mean he literally was a lamb, but does not eliminate the idea that he was a sacrificed to expiate sin, just like a lamb would be.

Unless.... you are insisting that everything in the Bible must be literal and never nuanced, that it is "inconsistent" to interpret any part of it as a metaphor or allegory of some kind. Even when talking about stories that have all the hallmarks of an allegory - meaningful names, symbolic gestures, explanatory dialogues connecting the story to present social relationships...

I'm not the one insisting that everything in the Bible must be of the same genre here. I don't see the Bible as being different in essential form than any other substantial collection of books.

 

[Tigers!]

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. The presence of things in the bible that are obviously metaphor and parable does not mean that everything in the bible can be so called. I could file a factual police report which makes use of metaphor, and no one in court would dispute that it is a factual account. If I were to describe the van that nearly killed me yesterday as coming at me 'like a charging bull' that is not grounds to dismiss the entire story of the van nearly killing me as fiction. Likewise, the description of Jesus as 'lamb of god' does not mean he literally was a lamb, but does not eliminate the idea that he was a sacrificed to expiate sin, just like a lamb would be.

Unless.... you are insisting that everything in the Bible must be literal and never nuanced, that it is "inconsistent" to interpret any part of it as a metaphor or allegory of some kind. Even when talking about stories that have all the hallmarks of an allegory - meaningful names, symbolic gestures, explanatory dialogues connecting the story to present social relationships...

I'm not the one insisting that everything in the Bible must be of the same genre here. I don't see the Bible as being different in essential form than any other substantial collection of books.

No-one on this thread is insisting that that everything in the Bible must be literal and never nuanced. You are setting up a straw sheep.

 

[Sarpedon]

Quite correct: the idea that the bible is to be taken entirely literally is a religious one, which is embraced by some sects but not others. We are merely confused by the inconsistency between the sects of this perfect and correct religion on how to interpret their perfect and correct scripture. We are perfectly capable of interpreting it any which way, if only someone could tell us which way is right!