Hey, when was Eve named?

[skepticalbip]

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!

And, of course all the sects need to agree. Unfortunately they don't. Not only do the sects not agree currently but the same sect doesn't seem to agree with what they held as "gospel truth" over time.

 

[DBT]

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?

I think you are being deliberately obtuse, sorry to say.. I have never denied the presence of allegory, poetic descriptions, etc. I am simply referring to the integrity of the story of Christianity as it is presented by the Gospels, Paul, etc. Nor am I saying the story is true and literal, that there is an actual God or an actual Jesus.....just the integrity of its narrative and claims, sin, redemption,sacrifice and so on.

This should not be that difficult to grasp.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Nobody is insisting that everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally.

 

[Jobar]

If those requirements are literal, then how were they symbolically satisfied by a human sacrifice (Jesus)?

When the Temple was destroyed in the first Jewish War, traditional Judaism was thrown into a multitude of quandaries. How are sins to be forgiven if the holy place is leveled, and Jews are not even allowed within the former precincts? Why didn't the promised Messiah come and save God's chosen people? The later wars erased the Jewish nation and scattered its folk. The old practices of Judaism had become impossible; so new versions had to be created and practiced, by the remnant of 'the Lord's Chosen People'. One of those versions eventually morphed into Christianity, with Jesus serving as both sacrificed sin offering and Messiah at once.

And as far as human sacrifice goes, it's plain that the very early Jews probably practiced it; Isaac, Jephthah’s daughter, and other instances.

 

[abaddon]

Well, if the discussion is leaning towards there's a mix of "biblical truths" expressed metaphorically and "biblical truths" expressed literally... And then add in that the various sects believe various things... then I'm still at a loss how this is correct:

The whole narrative of the Fall of Mankind, the need for Redemption, Christ as Saviour, etc, doesn't make sense if the Bible isn't to be taken literally. I think that on that point the Fundamentalists are right.

DBT shares the fundie's sentiment that somehow "literalness" is truer than metaphor. Metaphor seems virtually a synonym of "untrue" for not being a straight-up fact.

To me, for old tales to have significance, they must have a metaphorical dimension. In fact, I could be Christian instead of atheist if the symbols spoke to me. I argue against the supernaturalist metaphysics out of disagreement with such metaphysics... I see the myths, when read as myths, as meaningful and even true (psychologically... same as with many other myths and fables).

Can the tales make sense without a highly literal interpretation?

Here's an example of how they can:

"The Fall" would mean the sense of separation from nature. The existential dilemma of humans feeling like they're each an isolate unit that is distinct from the world. It's an illusory feeling since we're as much a feature of nature as any wind or wave. In this view, The Fall is a metaphorical description of an actuality.

"Redemption". To get over the illusion I'm an isolate self. To make whole (or "atone") one's relation to or even unity with "God". "God" being the ancient way of saying something along the lines of "ground of being", the most fundamental reality.

Does redemption need a sacrifice? Those who achieve the goal say it needs the "death" of the total identification with one's small-s self. Persons with terminal cancer given psilocybin lose their terror of death by losing their sense they're an isolated ego. They feel unity with the rest of "being", and there's an enduring after-effect once the drug's worn off. Accounts by "mystics" (contemplatives) through the centuries also describe this "ego death".

"Christ as Savior". Yeah, if that symbol of a big-S Self that "arises" after the death of ego-attachment speaks to the person, ok.

So, do the tales lose all significance if you don't take them literally? Answer: No.

Then are the Fundamentalists right on the point that it must all be taken literally? Answer: No.

 

[DBT]

DBT shares the fundie's sentiment that somehow "literalness" is truer than metaphor. Metaphor seems virtually a synonym of "untrue" for not being a straight-up fact.

I merely point to the integrity of the story line, its narrative and key components without claiming that it is a true or factual story. That is not my claim. The same rules of consistency and integrity can be applied to a Superman comic....

 

[repoman]

In our current technological and precise mindset, and even a few hundred years ago, people started searching for an exact time and place for the more out there aspects of the bible. Trying to get a YEC age of the earth down a specific year and the Garden of Eden to a specific place. If it didn't have a specific time and place did it really happen to our current mindset? But does it really need to be specific? I really doubt that the ancient Hebrews gave a crap about that.

 

[Tigers!]

In our current technological and precise mindset, and even a few hundred years ago, people started searching for an exact time and place for the more out there aspects of the bible. Trying to get a YEC age of the earth down a specific year and the Garden of Eden to a specific place. If it didn't have a specific time and place did it really happen to our current mindset? But does it really need to be specific? I really doubt that the ancient Hebrews gave a crap about that.

How specific a year do you want? The Biblical account itself allows for a small variation in range of the date of creation.
Granted the Garden of Eden's location in Gen 2:8-14 is vague. East of what? Obviously the description given is of a locale (4 rivers) that no longer is extant.

 

[Tigers!]

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.

I must publicly congratulate DBT on his recognition of the importance of the OT to Christianity. As he states he does not believe it but understands how the NT stands upon it and its importance to the believers life and faith. I wish more believers had his insight.
Well played sir!

 

[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.

I must publicly congratulate DBT on his recognition of the importance of the OT to Christianity. As he states he does not believe it but understands how the NT stands upon it and its importance to the believers life and faith. I wish more believers had his insight.
Well played sir!

Well at least he is on the winning team, lol.

I note that I never said nor meant to suggest that the Hebrew Scriptures are not important to Christianity, only that strictly literalist hermeneutics are not, and do not make anything more "logical" or "consistent" as was claimed.

Honestly, why anyone who follows a Lord who taught almost entirely in parabolas would passionately hate metaphors (and those who understand them) has never quite made sense to me. It's like meeting a Marxist who owns a corporation, or a Kantian who thinks violence in warfare is justified by the situational costs of inaction. Like those two cases, certainly not impossible, just odd. But then, if everyone who called themselves a Christian followed the teachings of Christ himself, the world would look very different indeed.

 

[Sarpedon]

How specific a year do you want? The Biblical account itself allows for a small variation in range of the date of creation.
Granted the Garden of Eden's location in Gen 2:8-14 is vague. East of what? Obviously the description given is of a locale (4 rivers) that no longer is extant.

That hasn't stopped centuries worth of christian scholars from identifying two of the rivers as the Tigris and Euphrates, and locating the garden in SE Turkey.

Of course, I recently saw a televangical claim that Jerusalem is located where the garden used to be, praise jesus.

And remember that guy who recently came in here with his maps, and located it in Aden?

 

[Tigers!]

Well at least he is on the winning team, lol.

But then, if everyone who called themselves a Christian followed the teachings of Christ himself, the world would look very different indeed.

I wish that were indeed true.

- - - Updated - - -

How specific a year do you want? The Biblical account itself allows for a small variation in range of the date of creation.
Granted the Garden of Eden's location in Gen 2:8-14 is vague. East of what? Obviously the description given is of a locale (4 rivers) that no longer is extant.

That hasn't stopped centuries worth of christian scholars from identifying two of the rivers as the Tigris and Euphrates, and locating the garden in SE Turkey.

Of course, I recently saw a televangical claim that Jerusalem is located where the garden used to be, praise jesus.

And remember that guy who recently came in here with his maps, and located it in Aden?

I seem to have missed that fellow.

 

[DBT]

Well at least he is on the winning team, lol.

Only if someone doesn't understood what I am saying, ha, ha.

Nor should it be difficult to grasp that if the story, be it fictional, entails a blood sacrifice to atone for an act of disobedience, a fall from Grace, then the reader cannot separate one from the other. The reader cannot say the former is merely allegory (allegory for what?) while the latter is the actual event.

It makes no sense as a story, the relationship between cause and effect and solution become incoherent and pointless

It's like interpreting Superman's vulnerability to Kryptonite as a metaphor for his inability to cope in certain situations.

It's absurd.

 

[Politesse]

It's incoherent and pointless anyway. Gods do not need human sacrifices, and should they need them, they can simply take them with a wave of a hand.

But figurative speech is not what makes it incoherent. You yourself are freely engaging in symbolism when you talk about a man symbolically dying for the sake of others. Within the confines of literal materiality, no man can die for anyone but himself. To believe in the magic of sacrifice requires one to accept that a goat, or a dove, or a man, can symbolically "stand in" for the shame of another. There is no literal connection between the unkind word I said yesterday and the dove I sacrificed to atone for it this morning. The dove wasn't even there to witness the crime it is being killed for, it has no idea why the priest is twisting its head off and eating everything but the blood and innards. How can it be literally identical with my sin? It is a symbol, only. No more could the death of Jesus yesterday be literally the result of my crimes today; time does not flow in that direction. But symbols are timeless, and bounded only by the imagination. If one accepts that sacrifice is an inherently metaphorical act, then a dove or an ox or a man can die for any number of crimes, committed at any time. Metaphors are flexible that way.

 

[Kharakov]

Before the first knight fell.

 

[DBT]

It's incoherent and pointless anyway. Gods do not need human sacrifices, and should they need them, they can simply take them with a wave of a hand.

That is correct. However that is not how the bible story goes.

 

[Lion IRC]

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.'

When atheists start Ops like this they should add the AngryFloof concern trolling disclaimer;
"This is only hypothetical.
It's a thought experiment"

 

[bilby]

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.'

When atheists start Ops like this they should add the AngryFloof concern trolling disclaimer;
"This is only hypothetical.
It's a thought experiment"

Really? Why?

No such disclaimers would be expected or required for an OP discussing any other work of fiction; It's assumed that sane people know the difference between fiction and reality.

If you don't, then your psychiatrist is the place to seek assistance.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, it seems like a weird disclaimer. I don't do that when talking about Star Wars characters, so why would I do it when talking about Biblical characters?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ya, it seems like a weird disclaimer. I don't do that when talking about Star Wars characters, so why would I do it when talking about Biblical characters?

If anything, i would expect a disclaimer that the discussion either needs to be limited to actual biblical support, or if people can introduce further made-up-bullshit as necessary to support their agenda.

Like, the angel Magamon has revealed to me, or i saw in a dream, or the Book of Antioch clearly reveals...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This has been a fascinating discussion, and I have to agree that based on the christians I know and have known all my life, their core beliefs come from literal readings. Agreed, many, if not all of them, do now have the knowledge of how translation and history has affected the presentations of those teachings they take as "gospel."

Jesus was an actual person who died so we could go to heaven because of what Eve did in the Garden of Eden. Our suffering in this world is caused by Eve and Adam disobeying god in that garden. The serpent is the devil. The angels announced Jesus's birth. Jesus ascended into heaven. Jesus performed literal miracles. Heaven is real. Hell is real. I could go on like this for pages and pages and pages. There is no allegorical or metaphorical association with any of these facts of their christian beliefs.

The great majority of those christians would not even know what those words mean, and if they did those words would certainly not apply to these literal facts about their religion. Their beliefs are not academic discussions but factual claims, without which they would have no reason to be christians.