Adam and Eve (No Offense)

Beth · October 14, 2003, 17:14:28

Exothen,

I am not sure which Lexicon you are using--But the one that I am using The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon shows that this Hebrew word (adam) is most often translated "man, mankind" AS A NOUN. As an adjective, the same word is used for "red, tawny." As a VERB "to be red, or ruddy." When used as a proper noun the names Adam and Edom use the same consonants, and only vary in their vowel markings. So--it depends on how you want to translate it. I chose to translate it as a NOUN.

The Hebrew word for "ground or earth" has the same ROOT (adam), but has the letter "HEY" tagged on to the end (adamah.) Take a course in biblical Hebrew and you will see how the Hebrew language works.

You wrote:

quote:
You seem to have only assumed the ancient Jews and earliest Christians interpreted the text the way you do.

By the same token--for centuries--people have "assumed" it is all literal.

quote:
This is completely unfounded.

It is not unfounded at all if you do your homework and read up on Philo, Clement and Origen, (all of Alexandria) and you will see that what I am doing here is actually at least a 2,000 year old method of biblical interpretation. I am just bringing it back out into the open.

By the way: Clement and Origen were two of the "earliest Christian Church Fathers" and if anyone would know for sure what was going on during the 1st and 2nd centuries--it would have been them. I am just repeating what they wrote. The difference between the literal and the allegorical is addressed by the Apostle Paul--the first (the literal) is "milk for babes" and the second (the allegorical) "is meat for the mature."

The reference books for this are all in the bibliography that I have already posted. Go to your university library and check it out--it is all right there.

Peace,
Beth

Mustardseed · October 14, 2003, 17:27:48

Ok I have done it , she is not talking to me again I am in the shithouse. Well lets see..........what good can come from this.

?Wait!!!! maybe she will answer my question about why this name thing is so conclusive and just pretend I am not here and it was not me who asked!!. That would be fun maybe we can both pretend we are not talking to each other. Maybe we should use proxys. Ok anyone! Could you please tell Beth that I would like to know what her answer to my question is. What does the name thing prove or disprove.! anyone![

]
Thanks

Not talking to Beth
Mustardseed

Beth · October 14, 2003, 17:41:08

Wisp and everyone else,

There are over 3,000 proper names in the OT alone. I cannot of course address them all here. Here is a book that has been recently re-published (from 1865) where the meanings of all 3,000 Hebrew names are offered in English Alphabetical order, with both its Hebrew and Greek form: Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names. Grand Rapids: Kregel, Inc., 1997. At least one "meaning" is offered for each name. The price is fabulous--I think it only cost about $20 US Dollars.

If you want to go further, buy a Hebrew Lexicon (I use The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody MA:Hendrickson, 1997) and cross reference the Hebrew spellings for other forms of the root that is used for the proper name.

Also, (Exothen) if you want to know what St. Augustine (b. 354-d.430) had to say about this method of interpretation, read the following. In his treatise On Christian Doctrine, BK II, Chapter 16 he writes:

quote:
And we cannot doubt that, in the same way, many Hebrew names, which have not been interpreted by the writers of those books, would, if any one could interpret them, be of great value and service in solving the enigmas of Scripture. And a number of men skilled in that language have conferred no small benefit on posterity by explaining all these words without reference to their place in Scripture, and telling us what Adam means, what Eve, what Abraham, what Moses, and also the names of places, what Jerusalem signifies, or Sion, or Sinai, or Lebanon, or Jordan, and whatever other names in that language we are not acquainted with. And when these names have been investigated and explained, many figurative expressions in Scripture become clear.

He then applies this same method to Psalms 83.

If you want a quick look at some of these meanings on the internet, go to the Catholic Dictionary at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10675a.htm
This is a rather long page, but keep moving down and you will see what I am referring to.

You can also read the entire Treatise On Christian Doctrine by St. Augustine, which is where I extracted the above quote. But for a lot more on this method of interpretation, make sure you take a look at Book II (Chapter 16 is where the above quote is found.) Here is the link for this one: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

More later...

Peace,
Beth

Beth · October 15, 2003, 18:19:15

Hey all![

]

Just two things for tonight--

First, the Apostle Paul teaches us that biblical persons are not meant to be taken literally and he also teaches the we should interpret biblical proper names allegorically:

Galatians 4:21-26

21Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.

25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.

26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

*********

Hagar represents the "present city of Jerusalem" or "where we are all slaves" to the physical world and all its trappings.

Sarah represents the "heavenly Jerusalem" which is "free" from the physical world, where we are no longer "slaves" and can live freely in our heavenly state; where "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." (Gal. 5:6)

*********

The second thing regards "Ham." The biblical proper name "Ham"(from "hamah") has several meanings: As a verb: "to protect, to guard, to surround, to be joined by affinity" or "to make warm or hot" as in warm or hot bread. As a noun, ham also means "husband's father" or from a wife's perspective "father in law." Allegorically this would mean "knowledge of the law."

The actual Hebrew word for "hot" or "to make warm" is actually "Hamam" but is sometimes shortened to just "ham" when referring poetically for example, to the "heat of the sun." The idea of it meaning "black" probably only comes from stretching this meaning to the extreme of "really, really, hot = scorched to the point of blackness."

So, like most all other Hebrew names, "Ham" can be interpreted as either a noun, a verb, or an adjective.

Peace,
Beth

Mustardseed · October 16, 2003, 06:15:18

Interesting. In Afghanistan a Hamam is the traditional steam bath. Must be same word.

T_Kman0610 · October 17, 2003, 11:59:45

Thanks to all who posted here no this topic. i appreciate all the oppinions and the thoughts about Adam and eve. if anyonelse has any thoughts, comments, theoryies or oppinions please post it.

Thanx,
T_Kman0610

jc84corvette · October 17, 2003, 22:16:49

I think Adam and Eve were "test dummies" from God to see how the human being body works and coegsist with his new Earth.

wisp · October 18, 2003, 11:12:56

And thank you too T_Kman, the Beginning is always a good starting point! [

]

Beth,

Maybe it's because of what seemed to me (that he,Paul) had to find out the long and hard way to discover the truth of the gospel. I never could quite follow the concepts or writings of Paul.
Could you explain a little farther about this quote:

quote:
The difference between the literal and the allegorical is addressed by the Apostle Paul--the first (the literal) is "milk for babes" and the second (the allegorical) "is meat for the mature."

I can identify more with where the disiples of Jesus were coming from, in the new testament writing.

Now as far as allagory goes (And maybe this should be in the allagory section? Dunno). I was always under the impression early on, that allagory is "milk for babes".
This is shown through what I was taught as early as elementary school that Eastern and Western philosophies were taught in a manner similiar to what is known as "allagory", or a similiar fashion so named. Example of this was Chinese proverbs, as well as children's fables. Since then, I've come to believe also that children's fables are actually subconscious ideas brought to story form in the same way dreams are brought to consciousness. In this, being, "milk for babes", or put another way, "only what one can understand, comprehend, accept at a particular level a person is in, at a given time of his/her life.
An example of this various level would go like this. If a person had some kind of elemental or fundamental block in his or her life, a dream will show no more explicit information than that particular person can handle, let's say psychologically.

So...if this is so. Where is the meat for the mature?

I hope I'm not sounding confusing.

Beth · October 18, 2003, 17:59:03

Wisp,

I see the point of confusion. Stories are usually considered "milk for babes" and in the case of biblical scripture, it is the "stories" -- the literal interpretation that is the "milk." But--"allegory" by definition "says something other than what it seems to say." So--therefore it is considered "meat" in that you must know "how" to interpret the allegory. In this case, you must understand that it is through the interpretation of the names "in Hebrew" that the "literal stories" reveal the "hidden meanings" that then create the allegories.

Does this make sense?

Peace,
Beth

wisp · October 19, 2003, 14:07:09

Beth,
Yes, you have made it clear to me. I better understand what your saying and doing now, thanks. [

]

I forgot to say thank-you for the book you recommend.It's on my list of books to get.And,the link with names is great. In another thread you have mentioned you may have your own book. I'll look forward to that as well.

Mustardseed · October 19, 2003, 18:44:07

That would be one way of interpreting it, however that is not how I see it. When we talk about the difference of "milk" and "meat" we are in my view talking about the more hard to swallow truths in the scriptures as well as the more controversial subjects (we could get into that but some are covered allready). About allegories, Jesus said at one point to his diciples "if you do not eat my body and drink my blood ye can have no part of me" naturally that was a allegory but understood in context to be the last supper where he repeated it, and symbolic of taking Him into ones life and letting Him become part of ones own body. It says that "after this saying many walked no longer with Him" and he asked Peter will you also go away Peter answered "to whom else can we go you alone has the Words of life".It seemed that Peter had been looking around for a more conventional way of following God. The allegories sorted out a lot of folks who was only looking for an excuse to leave anyway. I am sure Beth also can cover this with an allegory , and I am considering her points very carefully but believe that the interpretation of the allegory could be in the same "time frame" so to speak and does not have to mean the whole cabodle is a fabrication.

Beth · October 19, 2003, 21:06:07

Mustardseed,

As far as the "food metaphors" as found throughout the bible are concerned, "meat" IF swallowed whole would be very hard to digest, whereas, "milk" swallowed whole is much more pleasing to one's system. However--if "meat" is chewed slowly, and carefully "broken down to its smallest bulk before swallowing" then "meat" is both more palpable to the taste buds because you have taken the time to savor it, as well as being richer in nutrients than just plain "milk."

As far as it "all just being a fabrication"--I once again must correct this misinterpretation of what I am saying, and maybe I have failed to make myself clear. I have NO DOUBT that a great deal of things actually "happened to the writers of scripture" that led them to create the stories of the bible in fictional form and more specifically through their use metaphor and allegory, which are literary tools that enable one to communicate ideas and experiences that would not be as clear when written straight out in exact terms. This is referred to as "midrash" in the Jewish tradition, and was the primary literary tool of biblical scripture.

Today, we would consider this same tool as a type of fiction, where an age old story can be retold in modern terms, with modern themes and associations. We also very commonly use allegory and metaphor to communicate ideas, for example, "I slept like a log last night" does not mean that "I was a log sleeping." I use that terminology to communicate to you that "I slept very soundly." Allegory and metaphor were used throughout biblical scripture because communication of ideas and experiences of the Divine realm are "the hardest" to communicate in a straightforward way.

There is a book that I suggest you consider purchasing that might help you better understand the use of allegory and metaphor in the bible. The author is a recently retired Episcopal Bishop that is working very hard to help save the Christian message. His overall thesis is however, that the "literal interpretation" MUST be put to rest in order for an even deeper understanding of the Christian message to be revealed through the "Jewish midrash that it is." The author is John Sheby Spong, and the one that I suggest (he has actually written 4 or 5) is Resurrection: A Bishop's Search for the Origins of Christianity. This book will challenge you in much the same way that my research has, but because you will have his complete texts at your disposal, a lot more will be explained and expounded on than I can possibly present here on this message board. I can only give brief "snipets" from my overall work, but his books have already been published.

Peace,
Beth

Mustardseed · October 19, 2003, 21:38:45

Listen Beth thankyou about the book. I think I will just wait a tad but I have kept the title in my mem. It is not becourse I do not want to consider the points in your research or his but allthough it may sound lame to you I am waiting and praying for a sign from God.I know ut sounds wierd but I have come to understand and I believe that unless one has the guidance og God, the information and words of others are sometimes just too persuasive. I went to a couple of Christian sites and after hearing their arguments (they were talking about the Jesus box) I almost made up my mind about the matter. Someone from the board posted a message to challenge my views and I am glad. My BIG problem is that it seems that I cannot take anyones word for anything. Nada. Not yours not Roberts no one. It seems to be my destiny to have to make sure what I hear is the truth. I am only sure of very few things. This is a few of them.

There exsists a being or a consiousness seemingly much larger than me, who seems to guide me in time of need.

Before I came to understand this I was very untouched by the plight of others. After this I seem to have a much greater degree of compassion.

I asked Jesus into my life 20some yrs ago and had a profound change. I pray to him and (it seems) my prayers are heard.

There are things in my life that are "deeper" than I am able to explain to others and I am in essence though married w kids a lonely man. (OBEs etc.)

I have not arrived I am still searching and i have not made up my mind.

Regards MS

PS there are a few other points too but they are a bit more private. THIS IS ONLY FOR BETH GUYS.( I have a weekness for chocolate cake dark belgian beers, and I need to work on my temper)[

].

Beth · October 20, 2003, 20:32:23

Mustardseed,

I am fascinated by the things "you know for sure." I must ask, however, why "biblical truth" isn't one of them. Most of our disagreements stem around your very strong defense of its literal truth. Do you think that in order to have Jesus in your life that you must also accept the Bible as truth?

I ask this, because as you know, I do not accept the stories as literal history, but I still have Jesus in my life. I just recognize that my Jesus is a personification of a being that it beyond my comprehension. Jesus or "my personal salvation" does not go away just because I do not accept the literal truth of the bible

Does this make any sense to you?

Peace,
Beth

Mustardseed · October 20, 2003, 22:02:06

Certainly it makes sense. The reason I did not include Biblical truth is .....I was not there. I believe it to be the truth but I do not KNOW. Its my faith!. My only contention is this.....some want to disprove that it could have happened....it MIGHT be the literal TRUTH. I want to leave that option open. As I said I am still learning and have opened my self to the possibility that my view might be somewhat flawed or immature. I still retain a strong faith in Jesus but I realise there might be more to Him than being "my exclusive God" . I dont KNOW a lot but I am determined to find out the truth for myself. You and Robert have been helpfull but with all due respect also representatives of yet in my view just another beliefsystem. I LOVE the post where you explained that you did not yet know where your research was taking you. Maybe it was only taking you to more questions!! That is also my life . It seems the more I learn the less I know. All seem to be vanity. You do make a lot of sense to me but sometimes it appears to me that you also like me seem to get caught up in "yourself" and your own experience and forget that the world and the truth is wayyyyyy bigger than us.
Regards MS

wisp · October 21, 2003, 05:02:41

Mustardseed,
Don't stop believing what you believe. Everything you said is how it's suppose to be. Your on the right track. Once you connect with God, a lot of it is about the ride he's taking you on. Your faith is all you need, you have that!
Beth obvious has that too. Her talk of spirit relationship tells me that. Relax about the details.
I usually don't say this, but very few people have a real strong faith. Why? Because they live on Earth. It's almost impossible to believe how big God is. It's almost impossible to believe there is celestial beings with the power and strength that they have. I always had the ability to comprehend what this Godly realm must be like. I can see why it's beyond most people's comprehension. That's why people live like they do. Those are the ones who that live in the flesh. They cannot see or comprehend anything beyond their own lives. Then there are those who dare to dream. These may or may not fit into with the crowd.

Because most people cannot take the reins to their own life, there are more spiritual types who can. This is where I see church leaders come into the picture.

Jesus said he didn't come here for the righteous, he came here for the unrighteous (sinners, for what that may be). He's given another way for people to "get it". People can connect with unrighteous. They cannot connect with righeousness because they have such little faith in themself, and those things around them.

The truth to me is this. When God wants you, you will see how little and how insignificant you really are in the grand scheme of things. This is why humility. When God called me to his presence, I had no control of my physical life at all. The angels can grab you and take you where he wants you to be. Even your mind is under the conditions of God for existence. The presence of God is as awesome as I had always comprehended. God is all that matters. God's angels are as powerful as the bible depicts them to be. There is definitely something to the bible. I was trying to meditate on the bible one night when God came for a visit. God will not put any more on you than what you can handle. And believe me, the edge of this is as scary as it gets! I understand now why God keeps such distance, his presence is too grand to take. He's is so powerful and strong that he can't be near you in this realm or in the present physical state your in. It's an incredible thing!

Rob · October 21, 2003, 08:12:51

Mustardseed - a few thoughts. Please dont hurt me!
You seem to be saying you stick to a belief in the literal interpretation of the bible because you want to - so you have faith in it, its what gives you a comfort factor (you're not the only one...). Personally, I think that the word belief should be stripped from the human language, there should only be what you know to be true and untrue. You know that there is a being called Jesus who is much bigger than the rest of us, and he loves you. Isn't that enough? Why does it matter if the bible is a literal story of real physical events thousand of years ago, or if it is a fiction made up to enlighten us? You have been led to Jesus and the Bible by God - and he (Jesus) does exist, however you look at it - but I think it was to help, not force you to cling to a rigid belief structure. I have to be honest, and I'm sorry but I cant think of any good that come come from clinging to a rigid belief in the literal interpretation of the bible. Yes, it is a possibility, but its also possibile its not, and thats it all really boils down to. Nobody can say for sure, and I cant say for sure why it really matters.
We are supposed to learn from the past, and thats it.

Hope you are well. Smile!

Rob

Mustardseed · October 21, 2003, 13:32:43

(you said)
(You said)
You seem to be saying you stick to a belief in the literal interpretation of the bible because you want to - so you have faith in it, its what gives you a comfort factor (you're not the only one...).

(MS)Maybe I did not make myself clear. I meant that I believe in the literal becourse I find it more believable . Not for a comfort factor at all. Actually I think that my life would be a lot easier if I choose not to. If the Bible is the recorded Word of God we have to figure out what to do to fulfill our part in "the picture He is painting" . If it is "only" written by men it represents no authority and does maybe not need to be heeded. It is a lot harder to "love your enemy" than you imagine. Also "going into the World to preach the good news" is not exactly a smooth ride.

(You said)
You know that there is a being called Jesus who is much bigger than the rest of us, and he loves you. Isn't that enough?

(MS) Not for me. I want the full monty. I wanna know as much about Him as I can.

(You said)
Why does it matter if the bible is a literal story of real physical events thousand of years ago, or if it is a fiction made up to enlighten us? You have been led to Jesus and the Bible by God - and he (Jesus) does exist, however you look at it - but I think it was to help, not force you to cling to a rigid belief structure.

(MS)
I do not see myself as a follower of "a ridgid God" This is what YOU along with many others see. I am actually quite amazed at how I get to see Him from new sides and learn about how "unridgid" he is. I also do not see Him forcing me to do anything.(I know that sounds like a contradiction but I can explain this later if you think so) I do what I do and believe gladly and with no feeling of dread. I love being a Missionary and tho it can at times be hard , I still wouldn't have it any other way. Many things are hard. Going to work in the morning, bringing up kids, being a kid too etc but we see the benefit and do it caurse its the right thing to do.

(You said)
I have to be honest, and I'm sorry but I cant think of any good that come come from clinging to a rigid belief in the literal interpretation of the bible.

(MS)
Apart from the fact that I dont believe it to be as ridgid as you say, thats fine. Maybe you cannot see any good but that does not mean it is not there or that it cannot have any merit.[

](

(You said)
Yes, it is a possibility, but its also possibile its not, and thats it all really boils down to. Nobody can say for sure, and I cant say for sure why it really matters.
We are supposed to learn from the past, and thats it.

(MS)
I agree with you totally. It is a choice, and though we might not see eye to eye on everything we should be able to walk arm in arm, and maybe one day we will know more than we know now, in fact that seems to be a obvious progression of things.

Thanks for the post peace to you too.
Regards Mustardseed

Beth · October 21, 2003, 20:22:16

Mustardseed,

I thought about "passing" on this comment, but it may very well be pertinent to the overall discussion. You wrote:

quote:
You do make a lot of sense to me but sometimes it appears to me that you also like me seem to get caught up in "yourself" and your own experience and forget that the world and the truth is wayyyyyy bigger than us.

I really do not understand how you could make this assertion. I do not forget this at all--as a matter of fact, this is what my work is all about. I am doing my level best to help people, you included, see that the world is MOST DEFINATELY "wayyyyyyyy bigger than us" in spite of our tendency to literalize the bible.

Before any exploration into just "how big" the truth really is, the concrete "veils" of the literal must be "rended" once and for all.

Mustardseed, I have had a great many "divine experiences" too, but regardless of how profound they are, "GOD" is "wayyyyyyyy bigger" than "a someone or some-thing" that could appear to little ole me. You think that you have "seen God"--perhaps you have, but I am not so bold as to ever make that claim. The way I figure it--"God" cannot be "seen like that" for "God" is far beyond a human's capacity to "see" and even far beyond human conception. Other than recognizing the "immensity" of God--"Seeing the divine" is as close to "seeing God" as I feel we can get.

By the way: The meaning of "Israel" is "the mind that sees God"--and so "Israelites" refer to those people who "have experiences of, and have 'seen' the divine realm." That would include us both...

Peace,
Beth

Mustardseed · October 21, 2003, 20:39:16

I dont know Beth. I cant really get into it tonight. You seem soooo much of a more eloguent speaker than I and , honestly I had a couple of beers tonight and do not feel too "smart". I hate it when my kids tell me but......"whatever". All I can say in my semi tipsy state, is this. Some seem to understand me , Whisp for one others too. Some seem to have a problem with me. I just try my best and want peace with all men and with you especially. Beth try this....explore me, without a preconcieved idea , just explore!!!!I know stuf. I have been around the block a few times. Lets just as friends compare notes. If we can stay away from dogma ....lets. Ask me the questions that are yet unsolved for you and who knows....maybe we can be a help to each other!!!I will in turn ask you!
RG
MS

T_Kman0610 · November 07, 2003, 05:19:09

Thank you all for so much info on this thread. i give you all my blessings. ANd now it is time for this topic to come back again for anyo who are interested and have not posted their oppinion.

cheers,
T_Kman0610

TheSeeker · November 07, 2003, 09:41:28

All I know is that it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...

Ok sorry, don't bash me, I couldn't help it.

T_Kman0610 · October 09, 2003, 13:02:22

To all other races i mean no offense. I have a question about adam and eve. were they both white? what color were they? if they were both white then was there another couple who were black? just wondering. sorry if i offended anyone. my theory was one was black and one was white.

News:

Adam and Eve (No Offense)