OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 10:45:27 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Are any of these people not literal persons?  (Read 3555 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Andreas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 162

OC.net


WWW
« on: June 10, 2004, 01:42:30 AM »

1. Adam
2. Eve
3. Noah
4. Jonah and the Whale
5. Job
6. Moses
Logged

"It's later than you think! Hasten therefore to do the work of God."
 -Fr. Seraphim (Rose)
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2004, 01:57:10 AM »

1. Adam
2. Eve
3. Noah
4. Jonah and the Whale
5. Job
6. Moses


Well, a whale is not a person, so that's a start.  Wink
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Andreas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 162

OC.net


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2004, 01:59:54 AM »

Well, a whale is not a person, so that's a start.  Wink

 Cheesy
Logged

"It's later than you think! Hasten therefore to do the work of God."
 -Fr. Seraphim (Rose)
ambrosemzv
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


Pray unto God for us, Holy Ambrose of Optino!


« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2004, 05:26:46 AM »

The question seems to force us into choosing between saying, "these were real individuals" vs. "these are entirely made-up (read: fake) characters."

I'm not sure that is a helpful dichotomy, or one that confoms well to reality.  Much of what is written in Sacred Scripture about these persons may well not have come from historical records or texts that would qualify as acceptable "source material" for modern historians, but rather, involves faithful, inspired reflection on the traditions (mostly oral, no doubt) known to the author.

But, I still believe those passages are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and are true; that is to say, they communicate real knowledge concerning true relations between God and His creatures.

Personally, I see no reason to cast doubt on the historical, individual existence of any of them, especially with respect to Moses.

Even outside the Bible, historians and archaeologists have often been surprised to discover historical underpinnings to what they had previously considered purely fictional "legends."  Inscriptions have been found testifying to the historical existence of a Gilgamesh, king of Erekh (or Uruk), the hero of the Epic of Gilgamesh.  There was a historical king Arthur of the Celtic Britons.  Heinrich Schliemann used his knowledge of the Iliad to locate the remains of ancient Troy, and Arthur Evans' discovery of Minoan ruins confirms many elements concerning the legends about King Minos and the minotaur (including the discovery of a bull skeleton in the labyrinthine "basement" of the Minoan palace in Knossos).  I could go on.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2004, 05:40:34 AM by ambrosemzv » Logged

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne comprend pas.  -Pascal
icxn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 251


« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2004, 07:17:04 AM »

They are all historical persons... and mammal. Smiley
Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2004, 09:06:55 AM »

Agreed, "IXCN".  They are all real, historical persons (and a whale.)

Logged
Andreas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 162

OC.net


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2004, 05:23:55 PM »

But is not Jonah and the Whale allegory?
Logged

"It's later than you think! Hasten therefore to do the work of God."
 -Fr. Seraphim (Rose)
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2004, 05:54:25 PM »

I am not well read on the subject, but it seems reasonable to me that these can be inerrant while also being non-empirical.  If Adam and Eve or Jonah and the Whale are metaphor it really doesn't change much.
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
icxn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 251


« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2004, 05:57:07 PM »

which reminds of...

A little girl was telling her teacher the Bible account about Jonah being swallowed by a whale. The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though they are very large mammal their throat was very small. The little girl stated that the Bible said that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, and she believe the Bible. The teacher, not willing to give it up, reiterated that it was impossible for a whale to swallow a human. the little girl said, "Well, when I get to Heaven, I will ask Jonah." The teacher then asked, "What if Jonah went to hell?" The little girl replied, "Then You ask him." Smiley
Logged
Andreas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 162

OC.net


WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2004, 06:13:50 PM »

which reminds of...

A little girl was telling her teacher the Bible account about Jonah being swallowed by a whale. The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though they are very large mammal their throat was very small. The little girl stated that the Bible said that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, and she believe the Bible. The teacher, not willing to give it up, reiterated that it was impossible for a whale to swallow a human. the little girl said, "Well, when I get to Heaven, I will ask Jonah." The teacher then asked, "What if Jonah went to hell?" The little girl replied, "Then You ask him." Smiley

How Baptist of her. Wink
Logged

"It's later than you think! Hasten therefore to do the work of God."
 -Fr. Seraphim (Rose)
icxn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 251


« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2004, 06:40:30 PM »

Btw have you been reading Origen by any chance?
Logged
Andreas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 162

OC.net


WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2004, 08:18:48 PM »

No I have not. Why, what was he about? Huh
Logged

"It's later than you think! Hasten therefore to do the work of God."
 -Fr. Seraphim (Rose)
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2004, 08:35:22 PM »

Quote
A little girl was telling her teacher the Bible account about Jonah being swallowed by a whale. The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though they are very large mammal their throat was very small. The little girl stated that the Bible said that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, and she believe the Bible. The teacher, not willing to give it up, reiterated that it was impossible for a whale to swallow a human. the little girl said, "Well, when I get to Heaven, I will ask Jonah." The teacher then asked, "What if Jonah went to hell?" The little girl replied, "Then You ask him."

LOL   :cwm27:

That's a good one ixcn! Never heard it before.

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2004, 09:32:24 PM »

No I have not. Why, what was he about? Huh

I think he was referring to Origen's tendancy to read the Bible more allegorically as opposed to many of the other Church Fathers.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2004, 09:37:58 PM by Doubting Thomas » Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Rho
Running from dead works to Christ.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2004, 04:39:17 AM »

The normal principle of reading Scripture (as opposed to Origen's method) is a much more natural method of reading Scripture (and is, by the way, the way one would approach any work of literature) and allows the text to speak for itself, taking those passages literally which are meant to be, and taking those passages allegorically which are meant to be.  

Genesis intends to record history - let it be, then, history.  
The Book of Jonah pretends no allegory - let it be, then, history.  It is either ignorance of proper hermeneutics or anti-supernatural bias that would discount the historical value of Jonah's actually truly having been swallowed by a big fish (not a whale, by the way).
Logged

"I have taken my good deeds and my bad deeds and thrown them together in a heap. Then I have fled from both of them to Christ, and in Him I have peace." --David Dickson

Matthew 9:13 - Who is the sinner if not I?
icxn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 251


« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2004, 08:28:38 AM »

No I have not. Why, what was he about? Huh

Well, see what Thomas said.

As for the story of Jonah besides being literal - albeit miraculous - it also has an allegorical meaning (forgive me Rho). In fact it has more than one such meaning, but I have no time or the ability to translate (from the Greek) the 14 page exposition of St. Maximus.

icxn

PS. For the brave the greek text is here: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/greek/maximos/prosthalassion4.html (scroll down to +ò+í+¬+ñ+ù+ú+Ö+ú +P+ö')
Logged
ambrosemzv
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


Pray unto God for us, Holy Ambrose of Optino!


« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2004, 09:38:04 AM »

Well, it's certainly possible for the text to be both, which many Biblical texts are.  In fact, Jonah, stripped of its allegory and symbolism, would be a much poorer story, would it not.  I think that one would profit more spiritually from a good allegorical reading of the story, even if one doubts its status as literal history, than if one were to read it literally while ignoring its symbolism.

And actually, Origen advocated a reading something like you propose.  He said one should read the text literally until and unless one encountered passages that were apparently[/] self-contradictory or illogical, and that the latter were to be taken as 'sign posts,' cluing the reader in to the existence of a higher, spiritual, level of meaning.
Logged

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne comprend pas.  -Pascal
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,489



« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2006, 01:39:20 AM »

Quote
Are any of these people not literal persons?
1. Adam
2. Eve
3. Noah
4. Jonah and the Whale
5. Job
6. Moses

I suppose that it's probable that when someone wrote the first five books of the Old Testament in the name of Moses, they were actually speaking for someone who had actually lived. Other than him... I would very much doubt that they ever existed outside of mythology (not that myth isn't a lofty thing, properly done)  Smiley
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2010, 04:13:32 PM »

they are all literal people - we celebrate them all on the two Sundays before Nativity, and at other times. the Church does not commemorate fake people.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2010, 04:18:49 PM »

Adam and Eve are typological. Adam is Hebrew for "Man" and Eve is Hebrew for "Mother of the Living". Not sure about Job, but I believe Moses was a literal person, along with Noah and Jonah.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,985



« Reply #20 on: December 14, 2010, 04:35:46 PM »

Adam and Eve are typological. Adam is Hebrew for "Man" and Eve is Hebrew for "Mother of the Living". Not sure about Job, but I believe Moses was a literal person, along with Noah and Jonah.

I think that the question itself poses a big problem: Why is it important that these persons (plus the whale) are "literal persons"? I think it does not matter at all if Adam and Eve were "typological," "literal," or what I would say "prototypical." The deeper meaning of their story is what matters--just as it must be for the story of creation, Jonah and the whale, Job, etc. As my priest says, we must read the Old Testament from the prism of the Cross. Thus, the objective is not one of scholarship but one of understanding the salvation story and our role in it.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2010, 04:47:47 PM »

I agree with you, if the books in the OT were not literal or based historically it wouldn't have any merit on the deeper truths that the books have on my life. For me personally I am reading the OT trying to read it with a NT lens.

OT was man's way to try and seek God, and man applying his own interpretation of events to God but not God's actual actions.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2010, 04:53:03 PM »

Adam and Eve are typological. Adam is Hebrew for "Man" and Eve is Hebrew for "Mother of the Living". Not sure about Job, but I believe Moses was a literal person, along with Noah and Jonah.

I think that the question itself poses a big problem: Why is it important that these persons (plus the whale) are "literal persons"? I think it does not matter at all if Adam and Eve were "typological," "literal," or what I would say "prototypical." The deeper meaning of their story is what matters--just as it must be for the story of creation, Jonah and the whale, Job, etc. As my priest says, we must read the Old Testament from the prism of the Cross. Thus, the objective is not one of scholarship but one of understanding the salvation story and our role in it.

But then are you not arguing primarily then for a typological approach to understanding the Hebrew Scripture. Using the typology of Christ crucified as the lens through which to understand the Hebrew Scriptures?

I agree with what you are saying in terms of the goal and purpose along with Achronos, but I am just pointing out I think you are taking a rather "typological" approach, or at least the goal you are suggesting has heavily relied on typology from the beginning of Christian understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2010, 05:01:45 PM »


OT was man's way to try and seek God, and man applying his own interpretation of events to God but not God's actual actions.

The Old Testament was as much God's revelation to man of Himself as the New Testament. The Israelites certainly didn't invent the things that happened to them. Were that the case, one would think they'd select a God Who was more lenient.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2010, 05:04:05 PM »


OT was man's way to try and seek God, and man applying his own interpretation of events to God but not God's actual actions.

The Old Testament was as much God's revelation to man of Himself as the New Testament. The Israelites certainly didn't invent the things that happened to them. Were that the case, one would think they'd select a God Who was more lenient.

This runs into problems when taking the OT on its own and the NT on its own, and not using the NT as the basis for OT interpretation. There would be some stark contrasts of the God in the OT and NT if we don't use the NT interpretation.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2010, 05:05:58 PM »


OT was man's way to try and seek God, and man applying his own interpretation of events to God but not God's actual actions.

The Old Testament was as much God's revelation to man of Himself as the New Testament. The Israelites certainly didn't invent the things that happened to them. Were that the case, one would think they'd select a God Who was more lenient.

This runs into problems when taking the OT on its own and the NT on its own, and not using the NT as the basis for OT interpretation. There would be some stark contrasts of the God in the OT and NT if we don't use the NT interpretation.

Why don't you respond to what I actually said?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #26 on: December 14, 2010, 05:09:38 PM »


OT was man's way to try and seek God, and man applying his own interpretation of events to God but not God's actual actions.

The Old Testament was as much God's revelation to man of Himself as the New Testament. The Israelites certainly didn't invent the things that happened to them. Were that the case, one would think they'd select a God Who was more lenient.

This runs into problems when taking the OT on its own and the NT on its own, and not using the NT as the basis for OT interpretation. There would be some stark contrasts of the God in the OT and NT if we don't use the NT interpretation.

Why don't you respond to what I actually said?

The Israelites were applying what they thought God was acting upon but not His actual actions. To be honest that 'revelation' of God in the OT doesn't hold much weight to me because of the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ, because it is based on something that is infallible rather than man's attempt to explain the revelation of God (in the OT)
« Last Edit: December 14, 2010, 05:10:15 PM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,326



« Reply #27 on: December 14, 2010, 09:54:43 PM »

The whale may actually have been a great fish, so maybe it was a mammal and maybe it was a fish.  Glad we got that out of the way.  Now we can again sleep at night.  Grin
Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #28 on: December 14, 2010, 10:15:17 PM »

I would not lose sleep to find out Job was an allegory, though St. James seemed to believe he was a historical person. Moses would be much more of a problem.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,123


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #29 on: December 14, 2010, 11:53:31 PM »


OT was man's way to try and seek God, and man applying his own interpretation of events to God but not God's actual actions.

The Old Testament was as much God's revelation to man of Himself as the New Testament. The Israelites certainly didn't invent the things that happened to them. Were that the case, one would think they'd select a God Who was more lenient.

This runs into problems when taking the OT on its own and the NT on its own, and not using the NT as the basis for OT interpretation. There would be some stark contrasts of the God in the OT and NT if we don't use the NT interpretation.

Why don't you respond to what I actually said?

The Israelites were applying what they thought God was acting upon but not His actual actions. To be honest that 'revelation' of God in the OT doesn't hold much weight to me because of the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ, because it is based on something that is infallible rather than man's attempt to explain the revelation of God (in the OT)

So, in other words, when Prophets said that God did x because Israel did w, they were either lying or delusional?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,964



« Reply #30 on: December 15, 2010, 12:03:08 AM »

Christ references Jonah as a type for Himself being resurrected after three days (Matthew 12:38-41 and 16:4; Luke 11:29-32), but does a type necessitate a historical reality, or rather a pattern to be followed. Who knows?

But I do know that this kind of thinking is just two steps away from Christ Himself being non-historical and archetypical, so beware!
« Last Edit: December 15, 2010, 12:07:09 AM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,801



« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2010, 05:30:32 PM »

I side with those people as being literal persons.  I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #32 on: December 15, 2010, 05:57:39 PM »

Anyone from Abraham onwards I personally have no doubts about. I don't need archaelogy to validate my beliefs, but it's surprising the stuff they find in the dirt. A few months or years ago the Discovery Channel did a big deal about how the Exodus could have quite literally happened more or less how the Bible describes it, and they discovered some city that had previously been considered a Biblical myth. I'm pretty sure about everyone going back to Adam, but I can't claim I'm 100% sure.

Noah I'm unsure about because of the sheer impossibility of a worldwide flood. I think it's more likely that once there was a tremendously bad local flood (or that ancient lake in Canada broke loose and raised the sea level several meters), and over millennia the story was elaborated upon until we have Noah and the ark. However that doesn't mean Noah didn't exist. If there were few or no survivors except for one family, it would make sense that the story would live on like it did, across cultures and religions. But I am unsure. I lean towards literal.

Adam and Eve not being actual persons presents some issues with Orthodoxy's view of the Incarnation and salvation. (That is, if Christ is not somehow related by blood to every other human being, then how could they be saved? How does the Fall work if we're not all descended from the prototypical sinners? Orthodox theology presupposes the interrelation of all humans. That all humans are related through Adam (or Noah, I suppose) is how we are all partakers in Christ's incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. If we are not linked, but "genetic Adam and Eve" exist at different points in time, then there are some humans who are not related to Christ in any way. Of course God can overcome such paltry things as genes, but I'm not a fan of defaulting to "the Fathers just didn't understand science" on every point.)
« Last Edit: December 15, 2010, 06:03:26 PM by bogdan » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,985



« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2010, 06:00:32 PM »

Adam and Eve are typological. Adam is Hebrew for "Man" and Eve is Hebrew for "Mother of the Living". Not sure about Job, but I believe Moses was a literal person, along with Noah and Jonah.

I think that the question itself poses a big problem: Why is it important that these persons (plus the whale) are "literal persons"? I think it does not matter at all if Adam and Eve were "typological," "literal," or what I would say "prototypical." The deeper meaning of their story is what matters--just as it must be for the story of creation, Jonah and the whale, Job, etc. As my priest says, we must read the Old Testament from the prism of the Cross. Thus, the objective is not one of scholarship but one of understanding the salvation story and our role in it.

But then are you not arguing primarily then for a typological approach to understanding the Hebrew Scripture. Using the typology of Christ crucified as the lens through which to understand the Hebrew Scriptures?

I agree with what you are saying in terms of the goal and purpose along with Achronos, but I am just pointing out I think you are taking a rather "typological" approach, or at least the goal you are suggesting has heavily relied on typology from the beginning of Christian understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures.

My understanding of God's dealings with humanity--first with His chosen people and than with everybody-is that His revelations were tailored to the ability of the people to understand. Thus, the creation story is told in terms that were understandable to the audience--in human days (sunset to sunset). Now that God has allowed us to exist long enough to use His gift of intelligence to understand better His natural laws, we know that the process took longer than six human days. I do not know about you but the creation story as it is so understood today is so much more powerful and indicative of God's immense power than it was understood earlier. Similarly, we hear of scientists having tentatively identified "four Eves", that is single distinct points of origin for all humans. Yet, this does not disprove or debase the story of Adam and Eve, as I think that at least Eve may be prototypical. What I mean by that is that I believe humans were created directly by the Lord as told in Genesis (The how may be understood differently but the principle remains). That said, with the incarnation of Jesus the Christ we have seen a definite move by God from prototypes and types to actual, literal beings. Thus, the expression "looking at the Old Testament from the prism of the Cross" means more than finding pointers and prophecies for the Lord or finding the beginning chapters of a continuing salvific story, it also means that we have moved to a new era of God's dealings with mankind. This is the era of literal folks becoming part of a literal, approachable and loving God. From this POV, Adam and Eve and all of the other characters in the OP's list are my brothers and sisters; whether they are literal or prototypical, they are all real.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2010, 06:02:58 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,123


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #34 on: December 16, 2010, 04:24:40 AM »

Anyone from Abraham onwards I personally have no doubts about. I don't need archaelogy to validate my beliefs, but it's surprising the stuff they find in the dirt. A few months or years ago the Discovery Channel did a big deal about how the Exodus could have quite literally happened more or less how the Bible describes it, and they discovered some city that had previously been considered a Biblical myth. I'm pretty sure about everyone going back to Adam, but I can't claim I'm 100% sure.

Just a quick note, if that's the program with the guy from The Naked Archeologist, then from what I understand scholars say that he misrepresents the evidence - something he also did with The Jesus Family Tomb.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #35 on: December 16, 2010, 05:12:40 AM »

So, in other words, when Prophets said that God did x because Israel did w, they were either lying or delusional?

I accept the prophecies but we must look at them in the lens of the New Testament. St. Augustine wrote that “The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.”
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #36 on: December 16, 2010, 05:21:22 AM »

Noah I'm unsure about because of the sheer impossibility of a worldwide flood. I think it's more likely that once there was a tremendously bad local flood (or that ancient lake in Canada broke loose and raised the sea level several meters), and over millennia the story was elaborated upon until we have Noah and the ark. However that doesn't mean Noah didn't exist. If there were few or no survivors except for one family, it would make sense that the story would live on like it did, across cultures and religions. But I am unsure. I lean towards literal.

To me Noah's Ark is one of the greatest mysteries, I honestly believe it was allegorical. Although I do think it demythologizes certain legends at the time (the Gilgamesh Epic for example, and I do recall some Mayan/Aztec believe in a similar flood scenario with an Ark), which alot of Genesis is about, but I think the theological aspect of it is more powerful to me. The Ark moving in four directions, which symbolizes the Cross, the Flood representing the baptismal waters which are cleansing the Earth, the Ark as the Church of Salvation, etc. I really don't care if it happened or not. With God all things are possible, so some of the scientific problems could be removed by God's energies. If it did happen, I would love to go back into time and watch the whole experience unfold.

The issue I am struggling with is what kind of allegory does God present by cleaning out most of civiliazation except for Noah and his family in the Ark? Was it a symbol showing how all the evil will be gone and only those righteous will 'live' on to see what is after death? Almost in the same way Noah disembarks from the Ark to see a post-flood world?

Also I recall that God was "angry" at his creation, but like the banishment of Eden (which I believed was out of mercy) why would God ever act "angry" wouldn't mercy also be applied with the Flood? I also wonder since God knew that man couldn't reverse their sinful nature why bother cleansing the Earth, to give man another chance to try to become more righteous?
« Last Edit: December 16, 2010, 05:35:11 AM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #37 on: December 16, 2010, 09:44:36 PM »

If Adam and Eve weren't real people, then who was it that begot Seth? If Noah wasn't a real person, then who was it that begot Shem? If Abraham wasn't a real person, then who was it that begot Isaac? On a related note, if Joachim and Anna didn't beget Mary, then who did? Somehow or another, through a long series of people, relationships, and 'begots', we got from the first man (אדם) to the New Adam, Jesus. Jesus was real, right? He had a mother, He had grandparents, He had great-parents, and so on. None of His ancestors was the least bit metaphorical. They all actually existed.

Science (archaeology, etc.) can't tell me the names of these people, who must have existed. The Church, on the other hand, claims to know their names. Why shouldn't I believe the Church?

Quote from: Luke 3:23-38 (KJV)
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, [24] Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, [25] Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, [26] Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, [27] Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, [28] Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, [29] Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, [30] Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, [31] Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, [32] Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, [33] Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, [34] Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, [35] Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, [36] Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, [37] Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, [38] Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Tags: history typology 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.126 seconds with 64 queries.