" The Hebrew language didn't yet exist! "
I was always under the impression the Lord spoke Hebrew ( not that he's limited to one language ) thus if the Holy Spirit inspired Moses to write Genesis, it had to be spoken or inspired to him in a language he understood....yes!?
Early Jewish tradition held that Adam spoke "Adamic" language, which simply means the language Adam spoke, whatever it was, so that doesn’t tell us anything. Some later Medieval Jewish traditions held that Adam spoke Hebrew. Answers in Genesis says we don't know what language Adam spoke:
That said, the Hebrew language is a Canaanite language. The oldest ancient Hebrew inscriptions (called Paleo-Hebrew script) are pretty much identical to Phonecian, a Northwest Semitic language. The Canaanite word "El" is the name for a god singular. And "Elohim" is the name for gods plural. The plural ending is retained in biblical Hebrew though understood to refer to singular God. Context tells us which to use. For example, in Exodus 20:1-3 "God [elohim] said.... you shall have no other gods [elohim] before me."
In short (and in an oversimplified way), we can think of ancient "Hebrew" as the language spoken in Canaan and in the days of Joshua, Judges, and into the monarchy period with king David.
(Oldest known Paleo-Hebrew inscription from time of David; discovered in Valley of Elah where David fought Goliath!)
Biblical Hebrew actually came a little later with the Babylonian Captivity.
(Comparison of Paleo-Hebrew with Modern Hebrew, which is pretty close to Classical/Biblical Hebrew)
*So here's a helpful way to think of it: Hebrew is a Canaan-area type language (the area of modern Israel the Promised Land). However, Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldeans in Mesopotamia. Abraham was originally a pagan and polytheist who worshipped multiple gods (Joshua 24:2) before God called him to leave Mesopotamia and go to Canaan. So Abraham couldn't have spoken Hebrew at first, but probably spoke Akkadian or Sumerian or Elamite....Annnnnd, like the inscription above shows, even during the time of King David they weren't speaking and writing Classical/Biblical Hebrew, which again came around the time of the Babylonian Captivity.
Ancient ruins of Ur, where Genesis says Abraham lived before God called him to the Promised Land....
Thanks.
Happened to look into this a little myself and came upon Gen ch 10, story of Noah and his 3 sons, when they departed him " each with it's own language." ( V 4 )
Yep. Another good point👍
Yes, we have archaeological evidence that Sodom was a real city and geologic evidence is consistent with the Biblical account in Genesis 14, for example, that the Dead Sea ("Sea of Salt") used to be a valley ("Valley of Siddim") with bituminous deposits ("asphalt pits"). Look @Kjav! Positive evidence we can both agree on👍
I would say;
1. All of the 10 commandments are literal.
2. The version we see has contradictions, some possibly as a demonstration or an example for the faithful to ponder and reflect on.
3. A lot of the parts were written latter, sometime 100's of years after the fact, based on incomplete text's, the writers never claimed to have talked to God and essentially, just presented their best guess, based on their own faith and viewpoint as they were raised or influenced.
4. All of the miracles have a basis of fact, so locations exist or did so once.
So mostly figuratively, there are too many unanswered questions and inconsistencies which cannot be answered.
I'll say it again, "literal or figurative" is a false dichotomy. The better question is what was the intended meaning of a given text to the original audience.
The Text wasn't given to an "original audience". It was given to all generations. The Scriptures are very clear on that.
99% of this imaginary "original audience" couldn't read it anyway.
"Thalt shall not Kill" - To reduce war, stop the death penalty being applied. That sort of thing??
Although most of the Torah applied to the Hebrews and how to treat and behave with other Hebrews, Christians laterally, extended it to others, except some others it took longer to err franchise into these bargains.
The Text wasn't given to an "original audience". It was given to all generations. The Scriptures are very clear on that.
99% of this imaginary "original audience" couldn't read it anyway.
Actually, it was written to an original audience. For example, the book of Ephesians was written to the church at Ephesus. The gospel of Luke was written to Theophilus (Luke 1.3). You're right about the reading part, though, which is why such letters were read out loud to a congregation by someone who could read. I also think you're right about the Scriptures being for "all generations," but that does not preclude an original audience.
It nullifies your "original audience" point. The Scriptures were not written as a "letter to a group" and later on discovered as "something that would be good for everyone".
They were all written with all generations in mind from the beginning.
Not sure how it nullifies anything. Are you denying that Luke wrote his gospel to Theophilus (like he says in Luke 1.3), or that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians to the church at Corinth? Or that 1 Timothy was written to Timothy?
No, I'm denying that it was written to them without the consideration of the generations to follow who it would also be for.
I am claiming the doctrine that all Scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable to all generations.
And I'm not disputing that
If it is for all generations (and was given as such from the very beginning) then it in not "original audience specific".
It is not an either-or situation. That is a false dichotomy. You can accept both (and the Bible requires that we accept both as true). The Bible is meant for everyone, but it's also true that different books were written to specific audiences (like to Timothy or the church at Corinth or to Theophilus, and so forth). Both statements are true.
The Bible applies to everyone. But in order to understand how it applies, we must first understand what it meant originally to the intended audience. (This is not a heretical, anti-Christian idea. Nor is this my idea (I didn't come up with it). Nor is it a controversial idea. To the contrary, this is the basic process of Bible interpretation that every pastor learns in conservative, evangelical seminaries around the world)
No. If we want to say that God didn't intend Scripture to be for every generation I suppose we could call parts of it old fashioned and therefore not applicable to us, but that's not the case.
Great discussion. I enjoyed reading through the points. Because we need to consider the cultural context of the time, can we then say that certain verses that deal with, for example, hair length and head coverings, non-essentials people seem to love to argue about (Satan's way of distracting us from the essential tenets of our faith and the Gospel), was for a specific time, a specific purpose, and for a specific culture?
It of course depends on the specifics in question, but certainly there are cases like that whether it's a cultural matter or a theological matter for a specific time and purpose that no longer applies today (like the Old Testament sacrificial system or stoning someone for not observing the Sabbath). I think what you say speaks to the whole process of Bible interpretation where in proper exegesis one must: (1) First, determine what was meant (to the ancient audience) in order to know (2) what it actually means (to a timeless audience), so that (3) we know how to correctly apply it today (to a contemporary audience).
Also, a lot of the Bible, as you know, is a record of the history of ancient Israel. But just because something is recorded in the Bible doesn't mean the Bible condones or requires it. Such as arranged marriages or polygamy or slavery or violent murder.
@ItsTimeForTim
Thank you for your gracious response. I know some posts may seem negative but usually I'm just thinking out loud about questions I'm wrestling with myself. Makes it easy to miss some of my positive posts like:
Did-you-hear-about-the-jew-who-believes-jesus-rose-from-the-dead-no-its-not-the-start-of-a-joke?
Update-on-the-shroud-of-turin
Was-this-the-star-of-bethlehem?
But anyway, one thing that's been on my mind lately is the whole should we interpret the Bible "literally" or "figuratively"? I hope my answer will be encouraging, informative to people. But alas, it's not always received that way. But for what it's worth, I'll put it out there.
So what do I think about the whole "literal" vs "figurative" debate? I think it's a false dichotomy and the wrong question to ask. It's the wrong starting point, and distracts us from what we really want to know, which is: *what does the text mean and what is the correct interpretation?* And the only way to know that is to first understand the *original context*. It's basic Biblical Hermeneutics 101. I like this diagram of the process: (1) First, determine what it meant then, in order to know (2) what it actually means, so that (3) we know how to correctly apply it today.
Even those who argue literal interpretation recognize that sometimes a text actually is figurative, and that you have to look at the context in order to tell. So again, it all goes back to context as the starting point. "Literal or Figurative" is also a false dichotomy. Those aren't the only two choices, nor is it exclusively one or the other. Sometimes there can be a combination of both literal and figurative; historical/narrative prose and poetry in the same passage. Historical narrative can use symbolic, figurative language, and poetry and symbolism can include historical facts and details. And again, we can only tell from the context. There's also a tendency to think figurative or symbolic means it can't be true or real, but, in fact, symbolism is often used to represent real things (we see a lot of this in Revelation. Like the "Lion" and "Lamb that was slain" for Jesus; 'the beast,' 'the dragon' and so forth. Symbols standing for real people, places, events, and things.
Here's two examples from Genesis:
(1) Genesis 1: The Genesis 1 creation account does not fit neatly into any single genre, but includes elements of BOTH narrative prose and Hebrew poetry (like the stanza-like repeat "And God said," "And it was so," "And there was evening and morning day X"; and a ton of other poetic elements, including chiastic structures--the hallmark of Hebrew poetry; but it also contains a high amount of narrative prose; it has elements of both). That's why some OT scholars like to call it "exalted prose."
(2) Adam & Eve: Genesis 2-5 has both symbolic and historical elements. For example, the Garden of Eden story has a ton of figurative, symbolic elements that were well known in the Ancient Near East like the chaos creature (serpent), gardens representing paradise and "sacred space." Notice I didn't say it's allegorical (a symbolic *fictional* narrative often told to make a moral point). It's certainly not an allegory, and saying it has symbolic elements doesn't automatically mean it's not historical. In fact, we are clearly meant to understand that Adam and Eve were historical. The clearest evidence for this is the genealogy in Genesis 5. And then, of course, there are references to real world geography like the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and how Genesis 2 seems to locate the Garden of Eden near the Mountains of Ararat. But while we are meant to understand Adam and Eve as real historical people, at the same time we're also meant to understand them as symbolically representing all of humanity; as shown by their names (Adam literally means man/human; and Eve means life/source of life), and also the fact that "Adam and Eve" can't be their actual, real names (since the Hebrew language didn't yet exist!). And then there are other things, like the fact that the language/phrases used to describe Adam's function of tending the Garden are the same used to describe the function of the Levite priests in the Tabernacle (which held the Jewish Menorah lampstand with its branching shape that that was believed to symbolize the Tree of Life). So Adam is symbolically portrayed as performing a priestly function in tending the Garden. So there's a lot going on. They were real people, but the accounts also contain layers of symbolic theological meaning.
So whether one wants to argue that the Garden of Eden and/or Tree of Life & Tree of Knowledge/Wisdom symbolically represent a real point of rebellion in human history of man against God, or instead wants to argue they were a literal garden and trees that symbolically represent "sacred space" communion with God and God as the source of life and wisdom; either way, we can't say it's exclusively literal or figurative---one or the other---but includes elements of both.
*Adam and Eve were real life historical people. There was a real Fall/rebellion against God, and this is all communicated through an account that contains real world geographic references as well as rich layers of symbolic theological meaning....And we know this by understanding the original context.
Well, that's my take. Feel free to add your two cents (and anyone else who wants to).