A Theological Defense of "Gap Theory"

Yes. Today when we think of the tree of life we should think of the living Person of Jesus Christ.The ark of the covenant was a physical piece of furniture. But the way people related to it could bring blessing or a curse. I think it must have been similiar with that tree of life in Genesis. It was a real tree. But the important thing was what God did in relation to Adam's obedience or disobedience in relation to the tree.Those days are long over now. And the tree of life today is Jesus Christ. It is encredible how the two testaments relate to each other. Though some would have nothing to do with this way of understanding, I got persuaded totally that it is so. It was a gradual persuasion. And now I find the overall wisdom of God and His trancendants over time to be astounding. I think that the flow of history from Genesis means that historical events a being discribed. The history has within it also profound meanings concerning God's eternal purpose.He is the "I AM". Before Him all of history just one flash of a moment. He transcends time. Yet He can enter into it also. He must know all that is to take place throughout eternity.There must be no limit to His wisdom and knowledge. I'll have to free my screen and look again at the verses you quoted.But the actual trees of Genesis? Where are they? No one knows. I certainly don't know.I think that Eden's gate and that tree were visible to the expelled couple from a distance away for a while. But I don't have a clue what happened to the geographic area called Eden.We can only speculate. I would advise people not to be concerned about any tree of life beside the Lord Jesus Christ. I think to pursue any remnant of a tree of life physically would be a distraction from life. This might be like searching for the fountain of youth in the swamps of Florida as some European explorers were inclined to attempt. Perhaps you could spell out for me more the contradiction you are speaking of. Mainstream Christianity doesn't say much about the matter, I don't think.I know some books on the subject. "The Tree of Life" by Witness Lee. "There Where Two Trees in the Garden" by Rck Joyner. "Two Principles of Conduct" by Watchman Nee.The whole April Issue of Affirmation and Crituque, Vol XI. No.1 2006 is devoted to the subject of the Tree of Life. And that publication is 96 pages of discussion on the subject.Affirmation & Critique - A Journal of Christian Thought I don't think we can do any scientific experiments on the tree of life. But if you want some science discussion on what these two trees meant to one researcher you might try Author Custance's Doorway Papers. I think he had some biological opinions about the nature of the tree of the knowlege of good and evil. I didn't read it all. It just didn't touch my interest at this time. I recall him talking about cell damage and such things which he attributed to the events of Genesis.Perhaps I'll look into his discussion again sometime. I had a suspicion that you couldn't really have agreed with me all that much.But what is the strongest argument to demonstrate that their immortality was related to the tree of life? I'd like to ask you a few questions to see how you reason this matter out.

Sorry it's taken so long to reply but availability is a precious commodity. That's not true at all, just the direction you are heading with your interpretation that I don't agree with. Aside from that, your quotes and their scriptural application was spot on. The ark of the covenant was not just a piece of furniture it really did hold the essence of God within it. It wasn't just representative of him, as you are implying. As you can see it wasn't just relating to it that brought blessings or curses but it was the living emodiment of God in that time. No-one struck those people except God himself.Sometimes we look so much at interpreting and extrapolating that the simple and straighforward is often forgotten.This also applies to what you said in most of your post in relation to the Tree of Life, not detracting one bit from the fact that you interpreted those verses well. (Just not completely, leaving out the easy and straightforward approach)_______________________________________________________________________________________________ So that you don't have to go looking here are the verses I mentioned. Revelation 2:7
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. Revelation 22:2
down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.Revelation 22:14
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.Revelation 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.Again, not detracting from your interpretation please note that God uses the term "Tree of life" and no other, in Revelation, where a more straightforward and easier term could have been used to denote Jesus gift of Eternal life. So that leads me to think that interpreting should be done a little more literally than you have been doing. Since if you are correct, people would Know at this time (at the writing of Revelation) where the gift of Eternal life comes from.(if not from a physical tree)I never aked where the tree of life was, I asked what happened to it?The answer is that it is where the Bible says it is, in Heaven waiting for us. How do I know this?
Look at the above verses without trying to put a figurative spin on them.As for the Garden of Eden, it is irrelevant where it actually was since it doesn't exist as such anymore. And no I'm not searching for the fountain of eternal youth as you put it, since the Tree is in heaven, as I said, it's a no brainer that if one wants access to it there is only one way... Through Jesus._______________________________________________________________________________________________ Let's take the classical approach to the events in question:Man is eternal because he was made in the living image of God and since one is eternal the other must be so as well.
God gives man the task of dominating the earth.
Man falls when he disobeys God and is expelled into the wastes of the earth to toil and sweat until he dies. i.e. death comes into existence because of the fall of man.Problem: Scientific evidence which is incontrovertible states that the earth is older than any possible interpretation of the bible text as shown by fossil evidence, thus how can we reconcile these two apparent and inflexible views?The Gap Theory does so with ease but is problematic in one aspect.You have to find a way around romans 5:12, since that is what people mainly use to urgue that there was no death before the fall. I argued before that this verse is being manipulated to say what it doesn't say. Romans 5:12-14
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.This only speaks of death coming due to sin, so it is a consequence of sin. It also speaks of death coming to all men because of Adam. It doesn't say that death came to creation as everybody interprets it.There is also the practical aspect to look at and that is that man and animals could give birth to offspring at this time (be fruitful and multiply). Given time there would have been no space for any living thing on earth and bacteria that decompose organics would not even exist.So to all intents and purposes death was around and in evidence before the fall just not for man who was immortal because of the Tree of Life (the bible says so). To say the opposite is to ignore the biblical evidence as well as scientific evidence.That is what I find interesting when faced with these contradictions._______________________________________________________________________________________________How can I demonstrate this in a clearer way?When God created man, He did so in his image. 1. He shaped the body from the dust of the earth.
2. He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.Two conditions were needed for mans creation. One physical the other spiritual.Both aspects of man had an ingredient of Gods life only together do they become LIFE as Adam knew it.Both needed nourishment to continue to live. Food for the physical and Gods' presence for the Spiritual. When Adam and Eve disobeyed Gods' order to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, in essence they died an immediate death, A spiritual death. This is reflected in thier underlying need to clothe themselves. They noticed the abandonment of Gods' Spirit. When they were expelled from the Garden of Eden and thus refused access to the Tree of Life they were left to die a physical death. A reflection of the spiritual death that had already taken place.So we see a difference between death coming to man and death already in evidence in the rest of creation.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Jor-el, Some things crafted by the Jews were holy to God. By way of their being separated and consecrated to God they became holy. Their dedication to God made them not common but holy. The ark and the holy anointing oil are among these category of things.Are you saying that these furnitures or anointing oils had the essence of God? Well to tell the truth Jor-el, all I see is that this exactly makes the point I wish to make. God acted in accordance to how they did certain things in relation to those consecrated objects. There attitude towards them was a window into their attititude towards God. You are making a incredible leap to go from there to saying that these physical things had the essence of God in any kind of real sense.Thanks for collecting the verses for me. I was lazy. But these are exactly the verses that I would use to make my point. The way the people related to the objects brought forth actions from God.Do you want to move from that to saying that the material objects were God Himself?Doesn’t this commandment of God indicate that the Israelites could not make anything that was equal to God, including an ark:”You shall not make for yourself an idol. Nor form of anything that is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water beneath the earth. You shall not bow down to them, and you shall not serve them; for I, Jehovah your God, am a jealous God . ” (Exo. 20:4,5)Doesn’t this command indicate that nothing material that the Jews could make could equal God Himself? How do you understand the clear indication of Revelation 1:1 that God is making known to us many things by signs?”The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to Him to show His slave the things that must quickly take place; and He made it known by signs, sending it by His angel to His slave John” (Rev. 1:1)Does your supposed “easy and straightforward approach” eliminate the need for us to discern what in Revelation is a “sign” signifying something to us?Does the “easy and straightforward approach” mean that all the “signs” in Revelation should be understood not symbolically but as the actual objects which they are? Latter you speak of the tree of life as being something in heaven. Are we to understand that there will be nations in heaven then? National distinctions will exist in heaven? The gates are discribed as being made of a pearl. Do you then envision a huge 5000 ton oyster that produced a pearl large enough to be scalpted into a gate? And twelve gates of the same size?Is this the “easy more straightforward approach” we should use to understand this?Does the reader knowledgeable of the Bible have to carefully decide what things are “signs” in Revelation and what things are to be taken more liturally?Will a giant Godzilla like monster actually come up out of the Mediteranian Sea with seven heads and ten horns? That would sure shock even the staunchest literalist! Don’t you think? I fear that your “easy more straightfoward approach” may lead to such interpretations. Then in the seven epistles to the seven churches you also understand quite literally:1.) Hidden manna will be eaten again (2:17).
2.) Christians will possess a physical white stone with their name in it (2:17).
3.) The actual astronomical body known as “the morning star” will be given to Christians (2:28).
4.) Christ is searching through the physical kidneys of the believers (2:23).
5.) Believers in the church in Thytira were thrown into a physical sick bed of huge proportions (2:22).
6.) Disobedient believers will be stripped of their clothing and made to parade around buck naked for others to see (3:18).
7.) Poor Christians in Laodicea will have to go to Jesus to buy physical bars of gold which are hot out of the furnace (3:18).
8.) Christ has cannabalized some Christians and will spit them physically out of His mouth if they are not the proper tempurature (3:16).
9.) Millions of Christians will be physically crowded together on top of one another sitting on Jesus’ throne (3:21).
10.) Christians will eat physical fruit from the tree of life back in Eden’s Paradise in heaven (2:7).Does your easy more straightfoward approach require that we expect to see a long sword sticking out of the mouth of Jesus when He comes?I think that the vision made known to us by signs means that there are different levels of appreciation of the symbolic meaning of some things in Revelation. I think our comprehension grows as our spiritual experience deepens. I would not expect a new believer to have progressed too far in interpreting these signs. And even after many years of spiritual growth and Bible study I think care has to be taken to ascertain to what level we should understand something liturally and to what level we should perceive that symbolism is taking place.Do you agree with this? Where does it say that the tree of life is in Heaven waiting for us?
Can you find me a verse in Scripture that mentions “Heaven” and “the tree of life” in the same sentence or in closely adjoining sentences? Where? If Jesus says that He is the life, then isn’t any physical “tree of life” an anticlimax? If we come to Jesus Who is the life why would we want to return to a inhuman physical tree limb that is the life?Why don’t you consider that after Jesus a physical tree of life is a anticlimax and even possibly a restraction from Jesus? Are we not taught by the Apostle Paul to hold fast the Head, Christ?
” . a feast or of a new moon or of the Sabbath, which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body is of Christ . And not holding the Head, out from whom all the Body . grows with the growth of God” (See Colossians 2:16-19)John speaks of things made known by signs. And Paul warns of biblical things which are a shadow but the body of the shadow is Christ. Let me think about this for awhile. It is not the first time I have heard it though. And I may have some response to the rest of your post as I am thinking about it.The Lord be with your spirit.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Greetings Jaywill,The apparent discrepancy between our differing interpretations of what the ark really meant (or was) to the believers of that time period is a reflection of the overall disagreement regarding the Tree of Life among other things, it is one of intent. Although we are looking at the same verses we are reading them differently.If I understand you correctly, we can resume your argument according to what you wrote in your last post. So you're basically saying that God only acted in accordance to the way people acted toward those objects. If they acted in faith they were blessed, if they acted with irreverence God acted on that as well, thus the object itself had no power, it was merely a symbol that God used according to his will. Please correct me if my interpretation of what you are saying is in error.You further used the verses I provided to back up your answer, YET... it seems that you don't see the contradiction in your statement. Tell me, do you know why Uzzah put his hand on the ark?It seems that a man who is only trying to steady the ark after the oxen that were pulling the cart stumbled is not commiting a sin of irreverence before God or is he?He was trying to protect something of value to him and his people. The only thing that was wrong was that he wasn't a consecrated priest, the only ones who could touch the ark. So he died, but no sin was commited by him, was it.What did his attitude have to do with the action that God took "in accordance to the way people acted toward those objects."?That one's easy, nothing. The presence of the ark brought blessings or curses through the hand of God since in many ways the ark was the symbol of the physical presence of God among his people. That is also why it was placed int the Holy of Holies in the Temple. There it was even regarded as the Throne of God, since it had what was called the mercy seat which no one ever sat on.Am I saying that the ark was magical without God in the equation?
Of course not, but one must ask if a physical symbol of the presence of God was also not imbued with that very presence. When God ordered its' construction was He not also giving the people a part of his presence? The order to build the ark didn't come from a man but from God himself. What does that tell you about it being just a mere symbol?As for your statements: They say that Irony is the darkest form of comedy, I am laughing.Lets not put words in my mouth, ok? As for the continuance of this particular subject, it is out of context to the general topic and should be discussed elswhere.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm going out on a limb here but I think you mistook the meaning or the verse for another.The word "signs" doesn't appear in Rev. 1:1. I take it that you interpret "signs" as indications or events. As you can see by the KJV version that signs actually means in this context "stamp of approval" or "communicated". It's not even in the plural it is in the singular as it refers directly to the angel God sent to John.Please refer to: BibleGateway.com for more versions.This sort of eliminates your argument based on this word since you are not interpreting it correctly. There are no "SIGNS" there are clear events which we then have to interpret in context.If some of these events are contextually metaphorical then that is how they should be read. If they are clear events then why insist that they are metaphorical just because you don't undersand them in their context.One of the 1st things we learn in school in English Lit. is to interpret passages within their context. It is a baseline that prevents error and misunderstanding. Something is only a metaphor or an allegory when the context clearly shows this to be the case. Yes there will be a representation of all nations in heaven as well as people of all colours.Let us imagine for a moment that I am in heaven at the moment, witnessing the event described above. Do I stop being Portuguese by birth just because I'm in heaven, does my friend next to me stop being black or Indian just because he is in heaven? NO!Do I stop being a man and the women behind me a woman just because we are in heaven? NoThe difference is in the fact that these distinctions no longer matter, not that they no longer exist. You, I think may have a problem with that. I don't. If that is what the bible says who am I to argue against the word. I'll see for myself when I get there. Again I think you should look up in the greek what "signs" actually means in the context you are putting forward. these events are literal, whether you like that answer or not. The interpretation of the events themselves in the context of our present day society is the hard part. Do I really need to answer that? PLEASE!!! Did you see anywhere in my posts the affirmation that everything in the bible is literal and that there are no metaphors or allegories in it? Don't push an issue to it's limit just to try prove the unprovable. Just follow the simple rules of Literature Interpertation. Yes I agree, but then again I'm not a New Believer as you imply. Revelation 2:7
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.Revelation 22:2
down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.Revelation 22:14
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.Revelation 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.Please note that in each and everyverse provided there is a location mentioned:"paradise of God", "middle of the great street of the city", "through the gates into the city", "tree of life and in the holy city". Am I missing something here or are you? Are we discussing semantics? Think about what I've been saying in the context I've been talking about and look at the above verse. Do I contradict it at all?Jesus is the way we use to get to the Father who provides eternal life, implicitely Jesus is the provider of that life (albeit indirectly). I never said otherwise but please note that Jesus also implies that he is at most a doorway we must use for our redemption.
That was after all his mission and purpose.What then is the meaning of life in the conrext I put forward. Just because I'm saying that the Tree of life is the source of eternal life for humans in the Holy City (Heaven), doesn't detract from the fact that Jesus is also the source of our eternal life (again indirectly) since he is the redeemer of our sins and thus the true and only way to come to the Father and the source of eternal life.God Bless.Edited by Jor-el, : grammatical errors found in some paragraphs

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Take for example the bronze serpent. When the serpent bitten people looked upon it they were healed according to Moses's command. latter they tried to preserve that bronze serpent and one of the godly kings had it destroyed. It had become an idol.Now, I think that the ark is in a similiar catagory and probably the tree that was called the tree of life was too. Now I don't really know that. I think it should be so. But whether it is or not I do stress that the tree of life for man today is Jesus Christ Himself.He is the life, He is the resurrection and the life, in Him is life, and He came that we might have life and have it abundantly. Seeking for or expecting a physical tree of life would be a destraction from Christ I believe. I think that he tried to do a good deed. But he was not qualified to do it for he was not of the priesthood.It is not just bad things done which can call forth judgment from God. It is also some "good" things done in a presumptious way. Now it was a hard hard lesson. And I don't think the man's death was significant of his eternal destiny. It could be just dispensational discipline. But obviously God meant business that only the priests were to handle the ark.For the rest, we do not know all that was in Uzzah's heart. We do not know his history. We do not know about him what God knows about him. The scant details only inform us that his "good" deed brought forth severe judgment from God.Remember the two sons of Aaron dying for offering "strange fire"? Handling the priestly items was serious business. We should learn from the typology of these incidents. His presumption to touch it while it was for the priests to do so was the sin. I didn't say I liked it by the way. I'm glad that the Bible records that David didn't like it either. But God smote him and that's that. We have to consider and learn. Our so called "good deed" may be an abomination to God.I also think that God did some things to make an example for our learning. It doesn't mean that each time something like this happened God did the same exact thing. My opinion is that sometimes one incident was reserved and recorded as a strong example. If your point is that the presence of the ark was a blessing without mentioning specifically what the attitude of the people near it was, I agree that that is what the story implies on one level.That is a good point. Some amount of blessing was had just because it was there. Its a good point that I want to think about for awhile.But in the long run God want His people to not only be in a blessed position but in a blessed disposition thoroughly inwardly. When it comes to the divine life of God His plan is to impart that life into every corner of out inward being - thought, feeling, imagination, memory, will, emotion, choosing, deciding - all our inward parts are to be saturated with God's life. So Paul could say that it was no longer he that lived but Christ that lived within him.Ego was gone, and yet ego is now Christ living within Paul. We should think of eternal life and being swallowed up totally by the personality of Christ. We are to be mingled with Christ so that He lives in us and we live in Him.Looking for a tree is anticlimatic. We need to seek out the Person of Christ to be the tree of life to us. I believe that it was a physical ark contructed in history at God's command. But I believe that the things were written as examples to us upon whom the end of the ages have come - "Now these things occured as examples to us, that we should not be ones who lust after evil things, even as they also lusted" (2 Cor. 10:6)And again in verse 11 - "Now these things happened to them as an example and they were written for our admonition, unto whom the ends oft he ages have come."He is refering to the Old Testament history. I regard it as history. I regard it as practical salvation to the people at that time. I don't believe that the ark or the tree of life was mythical or allegorical to the point of not being historical objects.But these things were written as examples to us in these latter times. God is profound and gradually unfolds the revelation of Himself. But for sure if you weren't in the ark at the time of the flood, you would drown. I don't think the people cared about the symbology of it. But today in relation to His economy moving to a new level, we should consider the example of such incidents in their typology.I must cut short now. But I did not imply that you were a new believer. That was not a reference to you personally.Chat latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Nitpick coming up: No 'cherubims.' The word would be cherubim (Hebrew plural) or cherubs (English plural).

---

Archer

What you are really discussing here is a Jewish Midrash--a story told in the 'gaps' of Biblical narratives.

Midrash - Wikipedia

The Midrashim offer hundreds of interpretations and speculations about biblical narratives. From these sources come the tales of Lillith and mythical creatures being on on or off the ride of Noah's ark.It's interesting that evangelical Christians, who normally know little about Midrashic literature and in any case feel no obligation to believe it literally, would take such a different approach to this single idea. The subject is the age of the earth and suddenly they want to quote the Talmud.The source of this eagerness to turn a Midrash into a 'Gap Hypthothesis' is plain, of course. The idea offers a loophole that can be used to harmonize a young-earth narrative with an old-earth reality. It permits assumption of the vast amounts of time that natural history requires. The loophole can be expanded to offer time for a solar system and moons to form, crustal plates to shift, mountains to rise, and strata and fossils to accumulate.This desire to incorporate reality into faith is admirable. Many literalists do not bother to make the effort. But instead of going to these lengths to try to shoehorn milions of years between two lines of text, why not just toss the literalism? Why not let discoveries take their course and let the chips fall where they may?No one really takes all of Genesis literally. Do snakes talk? No. Is the sky made of hammered metal? No. Does knowledge of good and evil grow on trees? No. Do snakes eat dust? No.These are metaphors that do everything but take out a full-page ad in The New York Times announcing I'M A METAPHOR!So let them be metaphors. And let natural history be natural history.Contrivances are not necessary. Just let things be.

---

Archer

yes, yes, i'm well aware of that, but the kjv is simply the most accessible for copying and pasting, and that's what it says.

---

i don't see how that makes it a metaphor. and i'm reasonably certain that the people who actually wrote the text did not view these things as metaphors. "snakes eating dust" is probably the key to understanding this better. snakes do, in fact, lick the ground, to smell. they don't eat the dust, but they do taste it. the story is an explanation for why: to shut them up. they are cursed to do so, so they will not open their mouths and lead man astray.you have to remember that the wrote and read these texts were not modern. they weren't stupid, but the social context was very different. they believed in god in certain (often different) ways, and the idea of a talking snake is quite a religious one. in many of the surrounding religions, various kinds of spirits (usually evil) manifested themselves as serpents. a hammered metal sky (like the creation of everything out of water) is bit of a theme in mesopotamian mythology. it's quite in line with the alchemy of the time.what we have to remember is that our reading of genesis as metaphor is something that is also designed to fit a young-earth narrative with and old-earth reality. genesis is first and foremost a book of origins. it explains how things came to be -- genesis was the science of the day. while we can read metaphorical things into it, the basic pshat reading is very, very literal, and was always intended to be such.people just need to come to terms with the fact that, read literally, the bible is often wrong.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

About the appearance of 'cherubims' for cherubim: Gotcha. I didn't realize that mistake appeared in the KJV.Take a look at the Oremus Bible Browser: oremus Bible Browser
NRSV, ecumenical canon, KJV option preserved.

---

Archer

arachnophilia writes: Points well made and well taken. (The serpent more often represented chaos in ancient times rather than evil, I believe, but that's a small point here.)It's also well to remember that the distinction between 'literal' and 'metaphorical' meanings is itself the product of a later age.You say the understandings of god varied. No doubt. The understandings of the serpent, the trees, and other elements of the story also would have varied. Even in ancient times, some minds understood their stories and images more literally, others less so. You can see these temperamental differences in the writers of the Tanakh and you can see it in other ancient religions (as when Socrates discusses the literal vs metaphorical reality of Athens's gods).You also mention alchemists. Alchemists, too, varied in how materially or spiritually--that is, how literally or metaphorically--they understood the nature of their project. Agreed. Not literally. But the statement could work as metaphor. Science did not exist. Genesis was the origin story of the day, sure. It was the received wisdom of the day, sure. It was the literature of the day, sure. The ancients might have understood it as a folk tale of the day, too. Fine. But no one thought of Genesis as 'science' as we know the term because there was no such thing. The kind of knowledge the ancients looked for in Genesis was a far cry from that sought by a modern literalist looking for a vapor canopy.Yes, the naive interpretation of the text would be literal, as it always is. This would hold especially true in a culture that has only one creation story to work with anyway. But people could observe then as well as now that snakes don't talk. People knew as well then as now that a single male human being alone in the world will feel lonely, and that it hardly takes a lot of trial and error to figure this out.How literally a given image might be taken would still vary from person to person depending on age, temperament and experience. But because the distinction between literal and poetic was fluid anyway, and because no competing stories existed within the culture, these differences in personal interpretation could remain nuances, not huge rifts. The necessity of distinguishing between metaphorical and literal is a modern one. The naive, out-of-the box interpretation would be literal, sure. But I don't see how anyone can say for a fact that this was always the only reading intended, as you seem to imply. The idea of a basic peshat reading as opposed to other kinds of readings is also a later invention. It comes from an age when distinguishing among different types of interpretation mattered far more.Literature is art. In a pre-scientific age it was not science. But it it was still art.The person or persons who crafted the story and shaped it as they passed it on made conscious decisions about what to include, what to leave out, what to modify and what to keep. At the beginning, clearly, they knew they were taking elements of Babylonian stories--the paradise, the fourfold river, the tree of life, the serpent--and adapting them to their own purpose. This purpose also meant there would be elements they would discard--polytheistic elements, mainly--in crafting a different picture. They made adjustments and shaped a story in a way that told others something important about the way the saw their deity operating in the universe.The audience accepted the story as real. Some, especially those less familiar with the creative process, might take it absolutely literally. Others might be more savvy and look for meanings beyond the images. Regardless, how literally or poetically the story was taken did not matter so much. The reality mattered.It is a scientific age that equates literal with real, and metaphor with imaginary. Biblical literalists, heairs to this pattern of thought, display it. Agreed.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Posted a draft.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Accidental early posting of a draft in progress.

---

Archer

depends on the myth and the serpent. chaos and evil are often associated. in genesis, god creates by making order, so chaos preexists the creation act. similarly darkness (figurative word for evil as well) preexists light. however, in the hebrew mythos, there is another chaos serpent. he lives in the primordial depths -- the leviathan. he and his mate (probably) appear in genesis 1 as ha-taninm ha-gadolim, the "great serpents." yes, even in modern traditional judaism, literal is the foundation for metaphorical. there was another thread recently where i was discussing the tendencies and evolution of opinions of god in the tanakh. for every argument you can find, there is a counterargument. and while genesis is a relatively new text of the tanakh, it was written to record very, very old traditions of the religion. there is even a good argument that says the people who collected the stories found within the book did not even believe them themselves.but the opinions of god in genesis are generally very literal, physical, sometimes very human. this varies from source to source. by the time we reach exodus, even in the same sources, god has become more majestic, abstract, and distanced from humanity. and of course there are books of the bible that contain mere colluqiual usages of god ("god bless you" etc). it's not what we understand as science -- ie, the scientific method -- but it did serve the same functions in intellectual discourse. of course. the rest of the universe, outside our atmosphere and the barrier that kept it, was water. this was not knowledge the ancients looked for in genesis, this was stuff they knew. the answers were decidedly less interesting. i am hardly naive in this area. the hebrews had two. well, of course they don't. they're too busy licking the ground. genesis 3 in particular is full of reasons for a lot of things. mankind doesn't live in a garden; in fact, the people who wrote the story lived in a desert. genesis tells them why. it explains death and burial, patriarchal societies, pain in childbirth and child-rearing, why women don't like snakes, and why snakes have no legs and lick the ground.the end results of story is always something everybody already knows. that's just the way etiologies work. they explain how things came to be the way they are now. we can actually learn a lot about the society that wrote these stories, and their attitudes, just by the cause and effect relationships in their folk tales. there are two creation stories in genesis, and we can tell alot about their flavor simply by comparing them. the first account is a preistly one -- ordered, majestic, and much more abstract. the second is human, and personal, and fallible. god creates by trial and error. both stories are literal (i'm sure you can find more metaphorical takes on it in the more poetic books), but have very different ideas, emphasis, and authors. no, not the only reading, just always present, and certainly the original intent (in this case). yes, i know. i was just using it for clarification. yes, i see nothing in the text to distinguish the two. symbolism was obviously intended, as well as the literal meaning.(i do not equate "literal" with "real" btw. i'm quite happy to read most any work of fiction as literal, for instance.)Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

In my time as a christian I've come across almost every forseeble and many times unforseeble explanation and theory for almost all parts of the bible. From Genesis to Revelation, I've heard everything that can possibly be used to undermine belief in the Bible, if not in the existence of God.Now I'm not saying that this is what I've read in your posts Archer Opterix and Arachnophilia but it cuts pretty close to the dividing line.I've had a few conversations with Arachnophilia, enough to know that he believes in God and that he is a christian and we've disagreed in a few points especially when metaphors come into play. As for your beliefs I wouldn't presume to guess.There is just one thing that really surprises me and that is that this is a Theological defense of the Gap Theory. In other words, according to the bible can we prove that one possible interpretation of the Genisis account "The Gap Theoery" is plausible. It is not do discuss whether Genesis is a metaphor or not. We are taking for granted that the bible is "God's word" for all intents and purposes, and that these events are fact as expounded by that very word.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Speaking as an observer ... That would also be a standard non-christian experience as well, which leaves them with the impression that anything can be interpreted from the bible, with so many spectrums on so many different issues. Just to be clear you are setting the goal posts at:(1) the earth is old (conforms to all known scientific age dating methods and mechanisms(2) the bible is not metaphoricalSo the interpretation(s) in question need to match both conditions.(3) this does not exclude metaphorical viewpoints as being christian, just as not being strict fundamentalist literal bible interpretation christian.It certainly seems to me (as an observer) to be much more productive than to try to discredit every method for dating the earth with the correlations and massive amounts of evidence that go with them.For comparison purposes, one should also look at the interpretations that show the earth orbits the sun in an outer arm of one of many similar galaxies.Also, are there any "semi-fundamentalists"? -- ones who take the OT as metaphor and the NT as literal fact? Why would that not be a valid position? {this would fall under (3) above and so should be another topic according to your goalposts}Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added last {} parenthetical statement

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Maybe you need to broaden your horizons, so you can foresee farther.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC