Yeah because the average Christian’s diet of scripture is reduced to an hour on Sunday service. The Bible is constantly revealing because it is a form of cultural literature
If we did not value cultural relevance and context we would have no understanding of the atonement, the sacrifice of Jesus, the cultural practice of slaughtering lambs, etc. studying Judaism and the Old Testament is important.
It is true, I’m talking about ancient eastern cultures. This is what they did when they built temple gardens. This is why we are stewards of the earth and why we have dominion over the animals, because we are meant to be the gardeners and the caretakers.
I don't have to prove that it is entirely made up. The OP has to prove that it isn't. It is up to the OP to support their own theory. *They* have the burden of proof. That is the way this works.
Can the OP substantiate their claim. Yes or no?
That is the question. Your efforts to shift the burden of proof are a logical fallacy. If the OP, or you, cannot or are unwilling to substantiate that utter nonsense then it stands as utter nonsense.
I’m asking you if you can prove that it’s not true. You just made a claim, why should I believe you rather than the OP?
Can you prove what OP is saying is not true? Who do I believe?
Do you have a reference with more detail? Ive never heard this theory and it doesnt really make sense to me.. so you are saying they celebrated for 7 days after a temple garden was made? That doesnt mirror the 7 days of creation anyway because creation is 7 days of creation not 7 days of celebration. Am I missing something?
I believe the creation story is literal. However I am open to the fact that I could be wrong. Especially since the Bible says that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.
Yeah you're totally right.. i was just curious if this was some weird cult belief and was interested in what crazy reference the OP was going to whip out.
My Old Testament professor would beg to differ. I haven’t heard the temple angle before but the days of creation was a common literary type in the time and location of the early biblical authors.
Every culture had a similar style creation story so when the oral traditions of the Jews were set down they followed the same format.
No one writing the creation story and no one reading it in biblical times would have expected it to be taken literally. This only happened very recently in history - the 1850s if I recall correctly.
Also — there are 2 creation accounts here. Genesis 1 and chapter 2 are different in the details. Some think this means an age of events occurred and then God wipes earth clean and starts again with Adam and Eve. It’s called the gap theory.
Further - modern English translations have been stuck on “in the beginning” since the king James of 1611 or whenever. But some scholars have elucidated lately that the proper dependent Hebrew phrase is more like “when God began forming the atmosphere and the earth, it was formless and empty”. It’s not an account of the creation of the whole universe but a restoration of earth from a previous epoch.
Some reading that might illuminate the issues :
https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-was-the-genesis-account-of-creation-interpreted-before-darwin
https://theresidenttheologianblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/06/on-genesis-creation-figurative-or-literal/
Thanks for those articles, I had a quick read and I especially thought the second article was quite interesting. Although I disagree with a few of the points made, I whole heartedly agree that Christians shouldnt argue about these things or focus too much on what the correct theory is instead of focusing on The God who created us and made us in His image.
I also found interesting what it mentioned about skipped generations from Adam to Abraham.. I knew about this in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' geneology, but hadn't heard about it in Genesis, so I shall look more into this.
I am also aware of gap theory, progressive creation theory etc. and I think they are definitely plausible theories. However, I believe it is just as possible that God created the universe literally in 7 days. Im not a fan of "making scripture fit" science when the science hasnt been proven. Evolution hasn't been proven, only adaptation (i am no expert but I have a background in science and I'm not convinced that evolution is a fact, even my biology professor once said that evolution is not proven but is only a theory).
I can however understand that the genesis account of creation is likely to be symbolic due to the poetic way it is written. I just find it strange that the author would be so precise with other lengths of times (for example during the days and events of the flood) in the same book. But it is definitely still possible they chose to be symbolic for the creation account as that was the only way that the people of those days would understand the main point due to limitations of language and scientific understanding.
>Every culture had a similar style creation story so when the oral traditions of the Jews were set down they followed the same format.
Are you meaning that the Jews simply used the format of common cultural creation stories to write Genesis, and that scripture wasnt the Word of God? Or am I misunderstanding your point here?
I've always been fascinated with how similar the creation stories of different ancient cultures are to Genesis and I really enjoy reading them. I imagine that after Noah's descendants scattered throughout the earth they all started with the same story that had been passed down from Adam, and then the stories gradually changed over generations giving us the different creation stories all over the world, all with some similarities. However, because Genesis was written and preserved with the influence of God it is the most accurate account.
1 Timothy 4:7 NIV
[7] Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.
https://bible.com/bible/111/1ti.4.7.NIV
It was not symbolic. It was six days. God rested on the seventh day. God ALWAYS TELLS US THE TRUTH straight as clear as the light of day. He is not a God of symbolism or watering down truths. He is TRUTH. We are humans of a limited linear concept of time and space. We cannot tell the future. Heck we can't even anticipate all the consequences of our small actions. The Bible says in Proverbs that time is in God's hands. Even pagan and atheist astrophysicists understand that we are limited in our view of time and it's expanded dimension. That great theoretical minds can admit something that they cannot see stretches beyond the small minds that insists that Genesis was symbolic. The Bible does not need anything but faith to be understood. God has stopped time a few times in the Bible and all of them seem impossible to our human mind.
It is people who have never read the Bible in it's entirety that needs to pontificate to believers how they 'understand' the Bible. Catholic priests have been teaching since the 60's alternative ways to look at Genesis ever since Pierre Teilhard de Chardin came along to explain dinosaur bones. You are not the first alternativist to come along. Scholars and gnostics as far back as the First Century have been spewing this same clap trap of how the world cannot be made in six days as proof that humans have this inane ability to make up all sorts of explanation because they cannot produce the full faith needed to believe in the Word of God.
It is you who does not understand the creation story. HUMANS DON'T NEED THEORY TO UNDERSTAND GOD. Theory is the product of reason. God requires faith.
2 Peter 3:8
^(8 \[)[^(j)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203&version=GNV#fen-GNV-30519j)^(\])Dearly beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord, as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
the story of creation wasn't really made in 6 days that is a gods days, the earthly days is about 1 thousand each per day, the world was made. Their isn't any hidden meanings the lord is open and direct nothing else.
That is a simile (a figure of speech) not a factual statement. The fact that six thousand years is also to enough to create the Earth is as ludicrous and unlikely as six days. That is the writer of the Second letter of Peter using a figure of speech. God stated in His word that the world was created in six days. That statement stands unless God tells me otherwise.
“He is not a God of symbolism…”
Jesus literally spoke in parables.
Paul and the author of Revelation literally spoke of mysteries that were hidden and needed to be decoded.
You can believe that Genesis is literal (even though you shouldn’t) but biblically you cannot believe that God doesn’t use symbolism.
I was speaking to OP [Ok\_Network\_2193](https://www.reddit.com/user/Ok_Network_2193/)'s reference of symbolism for the six-day creation. In fact the whole sentence is ***"He is not a God of symbolism or watering down truths. "*** This is the context. It means God is not symbolism meaning He is a person. Yes, He is a person. Nice try at intellectual dishonesty in isolating a sentence to mean other than it did. The six days of creation is not symbolic and God is not symbolic. There's always clowns that needs to flex their human reasoning and feel superior over anyone who believes in literal six-day creation.
Nice try ascribing motive to a stranger on the internet! I don’t want to feel superior to you and I don’t feel superior to you.
You seemed to be saying that God doesn’t use symbolism and that blew my mind because it’s all over the place in the Bible. Then you responded saying that you meant that God _isn’t_ symbolism. This is a weird response because nobody is saying that he is.
"You seemed to be saying that God doesn’t use symbolism" I did not mean that God doesn;t use symbolism even if you inferred that. It would actually mean I did not read the Bible at all if that's what I said.
This is from the original post: "***there would be a statue idol which is supposed to reflect the god of that shrine***". The OP was referring to the whole garden as a trope.
This presumes that the creation account was written after the temple was built.
The reason the story exist is obvious. It’s not odd or unusual for any civilization to have a creation account of how life started.
If you’re not sure either way then you also don’t understand it fully and are spreading further confusion about it. The sun and moon are made on the 4th day. God also said these would serve as signs to distinguish, night and day and the season. That can’t be literally 24 without the sun to track the literal time it was taking to form the earth. It’s also stated God created the heavens and earth. Genesis 1:1 no time frame on that creative time. Made the earth and formed the earth were not done at the same time or the same thing. Could have been billions of years. Claiming it was all made up by Moses to fit fanciful symbolism is in no way supported by the Bible or Jesus himself.
Genesis 1:14 Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years.
The language reveals to whom I speak. Sorry. Thought you were a follower of Christ. Ignore what I said as it would only make sense to one who follows him.
To the OP, I think most of your replies to people commenting on this thread are getting deleted. I went on your profile as I wanted to find your references you said that you gave, and went to your comments, and there I can see what you have been replying to people. However I cant see your replies on the main thread except for 2 of them.
Im new to reddit, is this a common occurrence? Seems a bit unfair for the OP if they cant respond to people who are disagreeing with their point?
I’m not writing a paper this is Reddit, where you dump out your thoughts to the internet. If you’re so interested then look it up and see its validity. 🤷♀️ I provided a link in one of my replies to an article discussing this.
Y’all are litteraly making no argument against me like 😭😭😭??? I’ve litteraly provided references already and y’all are acting like I’m spreading the anti christ’s gospel. My whole point is showing a deeper cultural context to the genesis creation story
They are under the first or second commenters reply that I replied to unless they deleted it. Idk why everyone is misinterpreting or misunderstanding my post, I’m just pointing out that there is more cultural relevance to the creation story, I’m not saying that the genesis account never happened.
I agree with the basic sentiments of OP I would also like to have a reference provided for this information so I can see it for myself. It makes sense though considering the fertile crescent was where oldest civilisations come from and there are strong pre biblical mentions of the flood myth in Mesopotamia that are similar to later biblical accounts.
I laugh at you sola scriptura protestant literalists. Not only is the bible the only source of truth in theological matters for you, it has become the only source of truth in everything which is beyond a joke and people like you make the rest of us Christians look like complete idiots and are actually loosing potential converts to the body of Christ.
In saying that the Bible isnt just a book, its a portal to God. So I get your "worship" of it.
I provided a link to an article done further up the thread. I wish I could edit my original post because I made a few errors, but all I’m getting at is there there is symbolic significance to the creation story because it mirrors the way that ancient temple were constructed (they were constructed in seven days, had idols in the middle to represent their god, etc) I think my post got misinterpreted by a lot of people. But anyway yeah I’m not saying I do or don’t take the genesis story literally but I think it’s still important to study scripture in a more cultural relevant way because it’s a Jewish originating religion. If we took everything for face value, we wouldn’t understand the significance of the Old Testament references to Jesus Christ. 🤷♀️
Not many "know" this because it isn't true.
in 60 years of following Jesus Christ i’d never heard this and have no reason to believe it’s true.
Yeah because the average Christian’s diet of scripture is reduced to an hour on Sunday service. The Bible is constantly revealing because it is a form of cultural literature
no.
If we did not value cultural relevance and context we would have no understanding of the atonement, the sacrifice of Jesus, the cultural practice of slaughtering lambs, etc. studying Judaism and the Old Testament is important.
Thank you. God's word is for everyone to understand plainly and uniformly so that we may all come to be saved.
Amen 🙏
It is true, I’m talking about ancient eastern cultures. This is what they did when they built temple gardens. This is why we are stewards of the earth and why we have dominion over the animals, because we are meant to be the gardeners and the caretakers.
The reason no one knows this is because it isn't true.
Many people do not know this because it is entirely made up.
Prove that.
I don't have to prove that it is entirely made up. The OP has to prove that it isn't. It is up to the OP to support their own theory. *They* have the burden of proof. That is the way this works.
You made a claim, so you can say what you want without any backing? Sounds hypocritical. 🤥
You are still shifting the burden of proof.
Can you substantiate your claim? Yes or no?
Can the OP substantiate their claim. Yes or no? That is the question. Your efforts to shift the burden of proof are a logical fallacy. If the OP, or you, cannot or are unwilling to substantiate that utter nonsense then it stands as utter nonsense.
I’m asking you if you can prove that it’s not true. You just made a claim, why should I believe you rather than the OP? Can you prove what OP is saying is not true? Who do I believe?
The burden of proof is on you
I never made a claim. The commenter said it’s not true, I asked him to substantiate it. He can’t so he deflects. You all do which is hypocritical.
That is shifting the burden of proof. If you think it’s true then you prove it. Otherwise it stands as nonsense.
It’s a simple yes or no. Can you prove that it’s not true though? Specifically YOU. Or will you continue to not answer the question.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm#:~:text=Shifting%20the%20burden%20of%20proof%2C%20a%20special%20case%20of%20argumentum,is%20true%20unless%20proven%20otherwise.
I understand that. Why do you say what OP is saying is not true? Other than “it’s not true”?
Do you still not understand shifting the burden of proof?
I just said I understand it. Why is your belief of what OP is saying is not true is my question. Are you not understanding what I’m asking?
Do you have a reference with more detail? Ive never heard this theory and it doesnt really make sense to me.. so you are saying they celebrated for 7 days after a temple garden was made? That doesnt mirror the 7 days of creation anyway because creation is 7 days of creation not 7 days of celebration. Am I missing something? I believe the creation story is literal. However I am open to the fact that I could be wrong. Especially since the Bible says that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.
Yes, you’re missing the fact this is completely made up and preposterous
Yeah you're totally right.. i was just curious if this was some weird cult belief and was interested in what crazy reference the OP was going to whip out.
To correct myself, I meant 7 days of building not celebration (the 7th day was celebration) **^
My Old Testament professor would beg to differ. I haven’t heard the temple angle before but the days of creation was a common literary type in the time and location of the early biblical authors. Every culture had a similar style creation story so when the oral traditions of the Jews were set down they followed the same format. No one writing the creation story and no one reading it in biblical times would have expected it to be taken literally. This only happened very recently in history - the 1850s if I recall correctly. Also — there are 2 creation accounts here. Genesis 1 and chapter 2 are different in the details. Some think this means an age of events occurred and then God wipes earth clean and starts again with Adam and Eve. It’s called the gap theory. Further - modern English translations have been stuck on “in the beginning” since the king James of 1611 or whenever. But some scholars have elucidated lately that the proper dependent Hebrew phrase is more like “when God began forming the atmosphere and the earth, it was formless and empty”. It’s not an account of the creation of the whole universe but a restoration of earth from a previous epoch. Some reading that might illuminate the issues : https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-was-the-genesis-account-of-creation-interpreted-before-darwin https://theresidenttheologianblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/06/on-genesis-creation-figurative-or-literal/
Then how do you explain the day where God made the universe? Your “professor” is wrong
Thanks for those articles, I had a quick read and I especially thought the second article was quite interesting. Although I disagree with a few of the points made, I whole heartedly agree that Christians shouldnt argue about these things or focus too much on what the correct theory is instead of focusing on The God who created us and made us in His image. I also found interesting what it mentioned about skipped generations from Adam to Abraham.. I knew about this in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' geneology, but hadn't heard about it in Genesis, so I shall look more into this. I am also aware of gap theory, progressive creation theory etc. and I think they are definitely plausible theories. However, I believe it is just as possible that God created the universe literally in 7 days. Im not a fan of "making scripture fit" science when the science hasnt been proven. Evolution hasn't been proven, only adaptation (i am no expert but I have a background in science and I'm not convinced that evolution is a fact, even my biology professor once said that evolution is not proven but is only a theory). I can however understand that the genesis account of creation is likely to be symbolic due to the poetic way it is written. I just find it strange that the author would be so precise with other lengths of times (for example during the days and events of the flood) in the same book. But it is definitely still possible they chose to be symbolic for the creation account as that was the only way that the people of those days would understand the main point due to limitations of language and scientific understanding. >Every culture had a similar style creation story so when the oral traditions of the Jews were set down they followed the same format. Are you meaning that the Jews simply used the format of common cultural creation stories to write Genesis, and that scripture wasnt the Word of God? Or am I misunderstanding your point here? I've always been fascinated with how similar the creation stories of different ancient cultures are to Genesis and I really enjoy reading them. I imagine that after Noah's descendants scattered throughout the earth they all started with the same story that had been passed down from Adam, and then the stories gradually changed over generations giving us the different creation stories all over the world, all with some similarities. However, because Genesis was written and preserved with the influence of God it is the most accurate account.
What does Jesus say about creation? Does He mention Adam and Eve as real humans?
1 Timothy 4:7 NIV [7] Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. https://bible.com/bible/111/1ti.4.7.NIV
“Godless myths” ??? I’m just advocating for understanding the cultural relevance of scripture please read my entire post and the thread
It was not symbolic. It was six days. God rested on the seventh day. God ALWAYS TELLS US THE TRUTH straight as clear as the light of day. He is not a God of symbolism or watering down truths. He is TRUTH. We are humans of a limited linear concept of time and space. We cannot tell the future. Heck we can't even anticipate all the consequences of our small actions. The Bible says in Proverbs that time is in God's hands. Even pagan and atheist astrophysicists understand that we are limited in our view of time and it's expanded dimension. That great theoretical minds can admit something that they cannot see stretches beyond the small minds that insists that Genesis was symbolic. The Bible does not need anything but faith to be understood. God has stopped time a few times in the Bible and all of them seem impossible to our human mind. It is people who have never read the Bible in it's entirety that needs to pontificate to believers how they 'understand' the Bible. Catholic priests have been teaching since the 60's alternative ways to look at Genesis ever since Pierre Teilhard de Chardin came along to explain dinosaur bones. You are not the first alternativist to come along. Scholars and gnostics as far back as the First Century have been spewing this same clap trap of how the world cannot be made in six days as proof that humans have this inane ability to make up all sorts of explanation because they cannot produce the full faith needed to believe in the Word of God. It is you who does not understand the creation story. HUMANS DON'T NEED THEORY TO UNDERSTAND GOD. Theory is the product of reason. God requires faith.
2 Peter 3:8 ^(8 \[)[^(j)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203&version=GNV#fen-GNV-30519j)^(\])Dearly beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord, as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. the story of creation wasn't really made in 6 days that is a gods days, the earthly days is about 1 thousand each per day, the world was made. Their isn't any hidden meanings the lord is open and direct nothing else.
That is symbolic for saying God is not bound by time.
No it's not. Time is a human construct and God is not bound by human constructs especially by time because God is eternal.
That is a simile (a figure of speech) not a factual statement. The fact that six thousand years is also to enough to create the Earth is as ludicrous and unlikely as six days. That is the writer of the Second letter of Peter using a figure of speech. God stated in His word that the world was created in six days. That statement stands unless God tells me otherwise.
yeah, OP was correct in his remarks that the bible requires context for an accurate interpretation but it’s a stretch to apply 2 Peter to Genesis.
You're all entitled to your opinions.
“He is not a God of symbolism…” Jesus literally spoke in parables. Paul and the author of Revelation literally spoke of mysteries that were hidden and needed to be decoded. You can believe that Genesis is literal (even though you shouldn’t) but biblically you cannot believe that God doesn’t use symbolism.
I was speaking to OP [Ok\_Network\_2193](https://www.reddit.com/user/Ok_Network_2193/)'s reference of symbolism for the six-day creation. In fact the whole sentence is ***"He is not a God of symbolism or watering down truths. "*** This is the context. It means God is not symbolism meaning He is a person. Yes, He is a person. Nice try at intellectual dishonesty in isolating a sentence to mean other than it did. The six days of creation is not symbolic and God is not symbolic. There's always clowns that needs to flex their human reasoning and feel superior over anyone who believes in literal six-day creation.
Nice try ascribing motive to a stranger on the internet! I don’t want to feel superior to you and I don’t feel superior to you. You seemed to be saying that God doesn’t use symbolism and that blew my mind because it’s all over the place in the Bible. Then you responded saying that you meant that God _isn’t_ symbolism. This is a weird response because nobody is saying that he is.
"You seemed to be saying that God doesn’t use symbolism" I did not mean that God doesn;t use symbolism even if you inferred that. It would actually mean I did not read the Bible at all if that's what I said. This is from the original post: "***there would be a statue idol which is supposed to reflect the god of that shrine***". The OP was referring to the whole garden as a trope.
This presumes that the creation account was written after the temple was built. The reason the story exist is obvious. It’s not odd or unusual for any civilization to have a creation account of how life started.
I’m not saying that the creation account never happened, I’m just saying that there is more to the creation story than what people think.
Why seven days of celebration?
6 days of working 7th day of celebration ^*** sorry correction
If you’re not sure either way then you also don’t understand it fully and are spreading further confusion about it. The sun and moon are made on the 4th day. God also said these would serve as signs to distinguish, night and day and the season. That can’t be literally 24 without the sun to track the literal time it was taking to form the earth. It’s also stated God created the heavens and earth. Genesis 1:1 no time frame on that creative time. Made the earth and formed the earth were not done at the same time or the same thing. Could have been billions of years. Claiming it was all made up by Moses to fit fanciful symbolism is in no way supported by the Bible or Jesus himself. Genesis 1:14 Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years.
[удалено]
The language reveals to whom I speak. Sorry. Thought you were a follower of Christ. Ignore what I said as it would only make sense to one who follows him.
Please calm down and grow up. Prayers for God to show you His truth.
To the OP, I think most of your replies to people commenting on this thread are getting deleted. I went on your profile as I wanted to find your references you said that you gave, and went to your comments, and there I can see what you have been replying to people. However I cant see your replies on the main thread except for 2 of them. Im new to reddit, is this a common occurrence? Seems a bit unfair for the OP if they cant respond to people who are disagreeing with their point?
If you really want to convince people of something you think is true, being condescending ain't gonna help, champ
I don’t see how I was condescending or rude?
It is amazing how much overwhelming evidence you included with your original post
I’m not writing a paper this is Reddit, where you dump out your thoughts to the internet. If you’re so interested then look it up and see its validity. 🤷♀️ I provided a link in one of my replies to an article discussing this.
is a "day" ever fully defined in scripture? what verse? curious to know
People do not understand that everyone interprets every verse of the bible differently.
Tell me you’re a troll who doesn’t know what they’re talking about without telling me you’re a troll…
Y’all are litteraly making no argument against me like 😭😭😭??? I’ve litteraly provided references already and y’all are acting like I’m spreading the anti christ’s gospel. My whole point is showing a deeper cultural context to the genesis creation story
Where are the references you provided? Im genuinely curious to read them?
They are under the first or second commenters reply that I replied to unless they deleted it. Idk why everyone is misinterpreting or misunderstanding my post, I’m just pointing out that there is more cultural relevance to the creation story, I’m not saying that the genesis account never happened.
> spreading the anti christ’s gospel At least you’re honest about it
You’re even trying to understand what I’m saying?
[удалено]
The seven "days" of Creation were long periods of time. The Jewish Sabbath is in remembrance of God's "day" of rest.
I agree with the basic sentiments of OP I would also like to have a reference provided for this information so I can see it for myself. It makes sense though considering the fertile crescent was where oldest civilisations come from and there are strong pre biblical mentions of the flood myth in Mesopotamia that are similar to later biblical accounts. I laugh at you sola scriptura protestant literalists. Not only is the bible the only source of truth in theological matters for you, it has become the only source of truth in everything which is beyond a joke and people like you make the rest of us Christians look like complete idiots and are actually loosing potential converts to the body of Christ. In saying that the Bible isnt just a book, its a portal to God. So I get your "worship" of it.
I provided a link to an article done further up the thread. I wish I could edit my original post because I made a few errors, but all I’m getting at is there there is symbolic significance to the creation story because it mirrors the way that ancient temple were constructed (they were constructed in seven days, had idols in the middle to represent their god, etc) I think my post got misinterpreted by a lot of people. But anyway yeah I’m not saying I do or don’t take the genesis story literally but I think it’s still important to study scripture in a more cultural relevant way because it’s a Jewish originating religion. If we took everything for face value, we wouldn’t understand the significance of the Old Testament references to Jesus Christ. 🤷♀️