Friendly Biblical Discourse

What’s the literal meaning of The Flood story? Noah literally took two of each living creature on his boat?

All scripture has meaning but that meaning isn’t always conveyed literally. The Garden of Eden is not literal, the meaning is conveyed via allegory. The story is about the origin of Original Sin, according to Christianity but this interpretation emerged a few centuries after Christ.

The Jews on the other hand, do not interpret it as having anything to do with Original Sin, as they don’t believe in the concept, and in fact, The Fall of Man is given more significance in Christianity than Judaism.

So what’s the literal meaning?

What it says literally. Not that it is a comprehensive explanation, but that there is not a literal error.

It is both. The Bible is not constrained by the “or”, the Bible is "all" that God has to say.

The Garden of Eden is a beautiful story of Jesus too. (in typology)

I’ve found all of your recent posts in this thread very interesting and thought-provoking.

Something I’ve always thought, and I preface this by saying that I don’t expect non-believers to agree, is that if one truly believes that God is the creator of everything and omnipotent and all that, why couldn’t the Bible be literal? If God is who He says He is, wouldn’t everything we read about in the Garden of Eden have potentially actually happened? And would the Hebrews not have believed the same thing?

1 Like

I find it odd that a person can believe that God can save their soul and bring them to the Third Heaven, however far it is from earth, and doubt that He could part the Red Sea. Like, which is the greater miracle?

1 Like

The issue is communication or conveying a message/information. The Bible is not an historical text. It’s not a scientific text. It’s not a philosophical text. It’s a religious text. Details about how exactly the Earth was created are irrelevant. The message of the Bible is a moral one. It provides the rules, so to speak, we must follow in order to hold up our end of the covenant with God. The lesson of Eden is not, as later Christians claim, to provide us with an historical origin of Original Sin, but simply to show the consequences of disobeying God, regardless of the temptation. It should be noted that the serpent in Eden is not identified as Satan in Genesis.

The people who wrote Genesis were not witnesses. They made it up. But they were trying to convey a moral message, tell a story, and they framed it the way they did because of who their audience was. One of the most plausible explanations for the Eden story is that the knowledge Adam and Eve learned, was knowledge of death. They became aware of the finiteness of life. They became self aware. They became human. And if we believe that God inspired the writers of Genesis, then it would stand to reason he would communicate to them in the way they were to communicate to the people.

People need to understand the difference between scientific truth, historical truth and theological truth. We don’t believe greek mythology is literally true so why should we think that the religious writings of a people who lived at the same time are literally true? The stories are all unbelievable to our modern sensibilities. In fact, 2,000 years ago, people who would still be considered part of the ancient world, wrote that Genesis was allegorical. I think they would know better than us. Sure, God can do anything but that being true, makes these stories even less believable. With regard to Eden, to paraphrase Origen, who lived in the second century AD, we’re supposed to picture God as some farmer planting a garden?

Even The Sopranos recognized the silliness. When a fundamentalist suggests that dinosaurs were in Eden, Tony responds, “like the Flintstones?”

Soon after, Christopher says, “No way. T-Rex in the garden of Eden? Adam and Eve would be running all the time, scared shitless. But the Bible says it was paradise.”

Vico wrote that the language of the ancients was poetic, metaphoric, but not consciously so. They didn’t have literature classes that taught them about metaphors, irony, etc., it was just how they naturally used language. Why do we call a table’s legs, legs? A different word could have been invented but it was just easier to use a word that already existed. A poet didn’t invent this. It wasn’t a deliberate use of metaphor. In Beowulf, the sea is referred to as the whale’s road. We need to consider the people who wrote the Bible and their audience. Neither was from the modern age. Neither was us.

1 Like

Comparing scripture with scripture, it isn’t difficult to see who embodied the form of a serpent in Genesis 3.

Isaiah 27:1, “In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent;”

Revelation 12:9, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”

What assures you that the serpent was actually inside the Garden of Eden when speaking with the woman?

Only, the serpent is not described as embodying anyone or anything.

Does not mention Eden.

Dragon or serpent? If we take a literal reading, which you seem to prefer, then we have Satan being described as a serpent, as well as a dragon (can he have been literally both at the same time?), but we do not have the serpent in Eden being described as Satan. We also have Satan being cast out from Heaven to the Earth, not from Eden. Does the Devil always take the form of a serpent, or dragon? In other words, is Satan literally a dragon or serpent or should we take these descriptions as metaphors? I mean, wasn’t Satan an angel? So do angels look like serpents?

This is a self imposed limitation that you approach the Bible. Why can’t it be both? or even the form of a cherub (Ezekiel 28:14)? Or the form of a man or woman?

This shows more a lack of understanding the fall of Lucifer than anything else. Satan had been cast out of Heaven, at least some time, before God created Adam. It is more likely that Satan wasn’t permitted entrance to the Garden where God was walking with His sinless creation of the Adam’s.

I don’t think that detail matters but for it to be true, Eve would have been outside of Eden.

But we do know that God does not address the serpent as Satan but as a serpent.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.

No mention of Satan.

Genesis 3:14-15 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."

No mention of Satan.

If you think like a STEM you wouldn’t jump to that conclusion. Why couldn’t the woman have been standing in the Garden where it borders the field and spoke with the serpent with him standing in the field where it borders the Garden?

It shows that even you, as much as you talk about taking a literal reading of the Bible, inserting “facts” that are not in the text. Again, no where in Genesis 3 is Satan mentioned. This is a literal fact. If you say the serpent was Satan then you are not basing it on the text. In fact, given what I posted, a literal interpretation would be that the serpent in Genesis was not Satan.

And who might be the one told his destiny here?

Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Sometimes the context makes what is not “literally” said very obvious.

First off, I said that the detail does not matter. You are the one jumping to conclusions by ignoring the text of Genesis 3 and using other texts to fill in gaps or more likely, to support interpretations.

Second, and this is where I crush you so called STEM powers of reasoning (you seem to have forgotten three things, one, I was a STEM major at one point. Two, this is a theological matter, not science. Three, it is also in some ways a literary/linguistic one.). In Genesis 2 we have the following quote:

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

The serpent is called serpent because Adam gave him that name. The serpent was brought to Adam, who was placed in Eden by God. Thus, a serpent was able to enter Eden. Remember, you said that Satan could not enter Eden, but this was not Satan, it was a serpent. Therefore, the idea that the serpent was in Eden is not that implausible. Also, this is what you wrote:

The serpent, not a serpent. You are therefore talking about this particular serpent, which you claim was Satan. But you have nothing in Genesis to back that up. Remember, we’re taking a literal interpretation here. I claim the specific serpent was A serpent so it could have been in Eden.

Not to mention the serpent or multi headed serpent imagery is present in religious traditions predating the Hebrew tradition.

Everyone also forgets that YHWH also came from an earlier tradition and was in fact married to a goddess in some of them.

I was always taught growing up in the Christian world that YHWH (God) did not predate the Abrahamic traditions. I was also taught Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible and we know that’s false.

Genesis 2 is also an entirely different creation account from Genesis 1. It is scholarly consensus that Genesis 1 was likely added much later on.

Satan does not have the ability to produce offspring.

It is not jumping to a conclusion, it is a process based solely on allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible.

A great many STEM’s drop 50 IQ points when they enter the Church doors. This is an exact parallel to what happens to many lifters when they enter the doors to the gym.