On biblical interpretation (was Re: RATE)

From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 21:38:29 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)"

    From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
    Subject: Re: RATE

    > Jay Willingham wrote:
    > >
    > > It is easy to infer that Adam and Eve had a personal, intimate
    relationship
    > > with God in the garden and walked and talked with him
    there.................
    >
    > It is easy to infer that Adam had red hair and smoked a pipe. I.e.,
    there's
    > nothing in Genesis that says he didn't. But injecting whatever we want
    into a story is
    > not serious biblical interpretation - even if Adam & Eve walking in the
    garden with God
    > is a staple of bad sermons & Sunday School lessons. Genesis 2-3 is a
    story with
    > profound theological content, but not history, and as with any story, we
    shouldn't put
    > in things that the author didn't tell us.
    >
    > Shalom,
    > George
    >
    Here's another slant, not about reading things into it, but about taking
    everything literally, from Origen of Alexandria (3rd cent.), _On First
    Principles_, chap. III, on how Scripture should be understood:

        "To what person of intelligence, I ask, will the account seem logically
    consistent that says there was a 'first day' and a 'second' and 'third,' in
    which also 'evening' and 'morning' are named, without a sun, without a moon,
    and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven?
    And who will be found simple enough to believe that like some farmer 'God
    planted trees in the garden of Eden, in the east' and that He planted 'the
    tree of life' in it, that is a visible tree that could be touched, so that
    someone could eat of this tree with corporeal teeth and gain life, and
    further, could eat of another tree and receive knowledge 'of good and evil'?
    Moreover, we find that God is said to stroll in the garden in the afternoon
    and Adam to hide under a tree. Surely, I think no one doubts that these
    statement are made by Scripture in the form of a type by which they point
    toward certain mysteries. ...there is no need for us to enlarge the
    discussion too much beyond what [examples] we have in hand, since it is
    quite easy for everyone who wishes to collect from the holy Scriptures
    things that are written as though they were really done, but cannot be
    believed to have happened appropriately and reasonbly according to the
    narrative meaning. ...In this way [the reader] will notice that into these
    account that seem to have been described according to the letter there have
    been sown in and woven together things that the narrative meaning will not
    admit but that preserve the spiritual meaning. [Several paragraphs of other
    examples follow.]

        "Now we have brought all these exmpales in order to show that the aim of
    the Holy Spirit, who thought it right to give us the divine Scripture, is
    not that we might be able to be edified by the letter alone or in all cases,
    since we often discover that the letter is impossible or insufficient in
    itself because by it sometimes not only irrationalities but also
    impossibilities are described. But the aim of the Holy Spirit is that we
    should understand that there have been woven into the visible narrative
    truths that, if pondered and understood inwardly, bring forth a law useful
    to men and worthy of God."

    Bob Schneider



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 21:42:47 EDT