ramoss writes:
And, why all those questions are useful in a theological/philosophical discussion, as well as looking at Genesis as literature, it does not show that the Story of Adam and Eve was anything more that Midrash, rather than historical.
The internal evidence in Hebrew shows it was a midrash, not history. The puns in it alone should show it is a 'just so' tale for teaching, rather than true history.
That's not my view that it is either historical OR theological/philosophical. Why can it not be both?
The divine revelation of the Bible unveils spiritual things, and these spiritual things are mysterious, abstract, and humanly speaking, unsubstantial. It is because of our limited ability to understand them, God was forced to disclose His divine revelation in the way of picture and allegory.
Genesis chapter two was written in a figurative way. And many figures are found in the story. But elsewhere in the Tanach we have history with allegory built into the names of people and places by God's sovereign foreknowledge.
So I take the name Moses to mean something. I take Moses as history too.
So I take the names of Abel, Enosh, Methuselah to have spiritually significance to them. I read them as historical too.
The ark of the covenant is highly symbolic. One could die for touching it if one was not of the priestly order designated to handle the ark. That is highly allegorical. That is symbolic. I regard it as historical also.
Aaron's budded rod is as opposed to the other men's rods in allegorical. Over the night Aaron's rod brought forth almond fruit and branches. The other competing men's rods went in dead sticks and came out the next day dead sticks. This is highly symbolic of resurrection - life from the dead establishing priestly authority. I take it as something that happened in history also.
So a dichotomy of allegory verses history I do not see in many argued upon events. Rather I see history with the sovereign God who transcends time attaching allegorical significance to places, people, and events.
Usually, when pure allegory is intended to be the only content, we can readily see that. But when we trace the genealogy from
Adam down to
Abraham in
First Chronicles 1:1-27, whether we want to believe it or not, the AUTHOR intends for us to understand history there.
Noah's flood is highly symbolic to the New Testament. The times of days, the lengths of time specified have a historical sound to them. The month and the day of the month are important to the writer.
In fact it can be argued that the day the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat was the precise day in which Jesus Christ rose from the dead. And Peter speaks of the symbolic nature of the ark of Noah as related to New Testament salvation.
It is too much to be a coincidence that the ark rested on dry land was the day Christ rose from the dead.
So I believe I am dealing with history and symbolism ordained by God in His providence over time.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2