 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Serious Question | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/25/2004 3:59 PM (GMT -6) |   | This has developed into a fascinating discussion on the nature of inspiration and revelation in scripture. Thanks to all, especially "Questioner" (who I'll call Q below) for posing the issues and being willing to accept the tough answers, and to people like "TGB" (Tom) and "Iconoclast" for engaging with those issues so interestingly.
Tom and Q, I think to a certain extent you are talking at cross-purposes. I believe that when Tom is talking about scripture's "theological" claims as being its "deepest message", he is not referring to "theological claims" in the same sense that Q is when exploring the possibility of error in those claims. Consequently, Tom and Q, I think you are both right in your own ways.
Let me explain. I've tentatively concluded over time that scripture is a divine-human product, in the sense that it is a human witness to the progressive revelation of the divine in human thought and affairs. When we read scripture, we are first to exegete the historical-grammatical meaning to the best extent possible, using all the usual critical tools that we would apply to any text in that process to answer the question, "What would the original audience have thought this to mean? What would the author have explained it to mean?" (Of course, acknowledging the amorphous concept of "author" in certain books that may have been a communal development out of tradition, rather than a discrete composition of a single person.) But we are then to further ask, what message has God transported using the vehicle of that historical-grammatical meaning? In other words, what is his teaching point in it? - because the teaching point and the historical-grammatical meaning are not necessarily one and the same.
The historical-grammatical meaning in scripture is, I have come to tentatively believe, generally a human product. The teaching point is the divine imprimatur. This means that when the historical-grammatical meaning touches upon, not just history and science, but politics, ethics, theology and so forth, all of those claims are potentially errant - that is, falling short of God's best perception of what actually is. But even in their errancy some teaching point of God, some purpose of God, remains to be seen in faith by those with ears to hear; and it is that teaching point which is the "deepest message" of the passage (not its particular historical-grammatical claims, even when theological) and in which by faith we place our trust in its authority.
Thus we can acknowledge, for example, that theologically Samuel-Kings and Chronicles disagree on how to attribute David's motivation for his census, and thus more deeply on such things as the sovereignty of God, human free will, and the agency/activity of Satan. No amount of harmonization can result in an explanation for the contrasting passages which is fully and plainly endorsed by the historical-grammatical meanings of both passages, or even one or another of them. The historical-grammatical meaning of Samuel-Kings is that God in his sovereignty incited David, period; while the Chronicler's historical-grammatical claim is that Satan did so; and no theology regarding God's "higher will" and "lower will", or Satan's agency in pursuing either, or whatever, is contained within the historical-grammatical meanings of the passages. They simply stand in tension (if "contradiction" is too strong a word - I'm not sure it isn't) and thus in some degree of error, reflecting the different theological views of the respective authors rather than God's best perception of the matter.
But that is not to say that then the deepest purpose God had in including both viewpoints within his scripture has been rendered erroneous. What teaching point can we draw from comparing the passages? Whatever it is (and of course there are various theories in this example), we can look to it with some confidence in its trustworthiness and usefulness for Christian living (to paraphrase the letter to Timothy).
Now of course this leads to the inevitable acknowledgement of the tenuous nature of our interpretations regarding God's teaching. I just acknowledged various multiple theories regarding what is being taught in the tension over the Davidic census. Isn't that multiplicity the problem with this view of scripture? If God's teaching is not necessarily what is directly and historically-grammatically recorded, and we must instead employ faculties other than critical historical-grammatical reading to draw it forth, what confidence can we have then in the outcome? Is it not a license to read any teaching into scripture that we choose?
What such objections are saying, in effect, is that any God worth his salt would have not placed us in such a conundrum. He would have made discerning his teaching be as mechanical and scientific a process as learning to read and apply basic critical tools. He would have eschewed mystery and in fact would have ensured that what is most deeply and ontologically true is expressible in simple human language, so that then we would have no question.
What I've come to believe, though, is that this deduction about the nature of God is just that, a deduction from our own philosophical preferences, rather than an induction from either scripture or the world around us, where we instead, I think, have constant testimony to a God who maintains what "Iconoclast" has called "epistemic distance". If we have a God whose supreme self-revelation was in the local and temporal human life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, then what we have is a God who values relationship and experience, as with one person to another, rather than timeless systematic proposition, scientific evidence, and so forth. Given the universe in which we find ourselves - in which God is viscerally obvious yet maddeningly always just around the corner when searched for in intellectual detail - the last kind of scripture I would expect is one whose direct historical-grammatical meaning comes miraculously and inerrantly straight from God.
I know the above paragraph doesn't answer the objection regarding the risk of subjectivity in our discernment of God's teaching purposes in the Bible apart from necessary equation of those purposes with the historical-grammatical meaning. I can only acknowledge that risk is there. But it is to say that this is life, regardless of how we might desire it to be. It is utterly consistent, for better or worse, with how God has chosen to reveal himself.
So Q, although I do tend to agree partically with Iconoclast that it seems to me that, historically-grammatically, Paul is using "death" and "dead" to refer to something more than the merely physical (contrast with his use of "life" and "alive", for example), I do also tend to agree with you that he probably sees physical death as being at least part of, or emblematic of, that larger, more metaphorical meaning. Paul does seem to see physical death as being something against God's will and interjected into creation by mankind's sin (even as Paul also goes beyond this to teach about spiritual death as well). And to the extent we tentatively accept the various reasons, biblical and extra-biblical, for disputing that assessment of physical death, I think we can conclude that Paul is probably in error or at least muddied and incomplete in that claim, just as the Chronicler or the author/editor of Samuel-Kings were in their claims. But Tom, this need not undermine our search for God's teaching in Paul's - it only means that God's teaching must not be that physical death has no part in his plan. The "errancy" of Paul's literal teaching doesn't undermine God's, but rather serves to clarify what God's might be. Not that I will here offer an opinion on that, however :-)
Hope these ramblings help,
Scott
PS. In case it is not clear here, I am a Christian who believes by faith in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, based on the collective testimony of the gospels and apostles, and the testimony and lives of the body of believers over the ages. My faith is reinforced by the usual theistic philosophical arguments, the general historical plausibility of Jesus' basic story, the moral conviction of his teaching, and the intellectual and emotional satisfaction and hope it all brings me. But I have no particular use any longer for the inerrancy of scripture historically-grammatically interpreted, whether the resulting historical-grammatical claims are historical or scientific or theological in nature. Although I might not agree with all of Q's present beliefs, I find them to be an available option for a Christian. I would therefore describe myself as "moderate", neither "conservative" (since I deny such things as necessary inerrancy and literalism) nor "liberal" (since I affirm the incarnation and resurrection).
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/25/2004 4:21 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
John:
Apart from the fact that the world can reasonably be said to be filled up with animal life currently (at least the livable parts), after the Fall (with predation, death, disease, starvation, etc., all in play) it does not seem reasonable to me to jump to the conclusion that the biological/ecological cycle of life has so radically changed as you seem to think. It's an argument from silence that what is now the normal life-cycle of the animal kingdom, did not exist prior to the Fall.
God (Gen 1:30) said the animals and birds were to eat plants - same for humans (Gen 1:29). We know from the Flood account that man did not get permission to eat meat til after the Flood. Since only 1 pair of each kind of animal (except clean animals, probably for sacrifice purposes) was taken on board to "SAVE SEED ALIVE," it seems clear to me that animals AND humans were still vegetarian by the time of the Flood, per Genesis. THEN, God made animals afraid of man, seemingly for the first time. Thus, I would have to assume that carnivory came MUCH later than the Flood. I believe the time from the Flood to Abraham is vast.
quote:
I think the difference is that I don't see a clear logical distinction between "most benevolent" and "benevolent." For God, "most benevolent" would be an empty category, as for an all-powerful Being to be less than "most benevolent" would in fact make him not benevolent at all. (Doing the most good possible for all). That I think is the real point of departure between us on this issue.
If you believe God is doing the most good to people burning them in hell forever, then you must believe that God's ability to do good is regulated by conditions. Isn't that what I'm arguing for? The degree to which God found it fitting to provide for a "good" environment for Adam and Eve was conditioned by their state. Before the fall, the conditions could be BETTER than after the fall.
quote:
It is not clear to me how God could sanction that which is not benevolent, nor how he could set the ecological system up to be anything less than most benevolent and still remain benevolent himself. Further, I find the idea that God had to change the reproductive cycle and the eating habits of all the animals to accomodate the Fall illogical and without clear scriptural warrant. Such a radical change in ecology would surely have been listed among such relatively trivial matters as thorns, hard work, and snakes eating dust. Seems to me, anyway.
When you compare birth ages and death ages before and after the Fall, it doesn't seem to even be debatable that things were different in the beginning, and even until relatively recently. It is, after all, a radical notion that the human life-span was 120 years and up just a few thousand years ago. Evolutionists believe that human life-spans have been going up, if I'm not mistaken. But, as I said above, it seems clear to me that carnivory came MUCH later than the Flood.
quote:
John:
It seems to me that "reasonable minds" among sincere Christians have some very different ideas about truth, Scripture, etc., especially the Genesis account.
Ken Ham has a collection of quotes from Christians who, while holding to a non-literal interpretation of the Genesis account, admit that the literal approach is the most intuitive. That speaks volumes to me - especially since the literal view is the most philosophically coherent and it harmonizes parsimoniously with later writings, as QUESTIONER has argued. If the Genesis account can change meaning significantly - not just in scientific implications only, but philosophical ones also - because of future scientific discoveries, it isn't something I would worry about defending.
But I would also, then, not worry about defending NT writings that seem to be based upon a literal Genesis. I agree with QUESTIONER on that point. I just don't think the literal Genesis has been ruled out. See my post above as to how I reconcile it (I think on page 2 of this thread). I would go further - if QUESTIONER is right, I give up on the Bible altogether, because I believe in induction. I don't have time to try to prove the Bible. His "believe until proven wrong" approach is neither faith nor reason - I can't relate to it.
quote:
Personally, I tend toward the idea that the stories found in the first few chapters of Genesis were never meant to function as a science textbook, but rather that the narrative is a religious epic meant to communicate TRUTH, not necessarily scientifically verifiable facts per se. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the narrative through Gen. 11 is ahistorical, however.
It seems to read historically, and later prophets, including Christ, seem to refer to them as if they are history.
quote:
Because the more I've studied Genesis and science the less I've realized I truly know, I don't invest as much personally into whether or not it's scientifically verifiable.
I don't think it can be "verified" scientifically. I simply insist that it be AS coherent with what can be reasonably known as are other views/theories. And I think it is. Science, in my opinion, is in its infancy. I saw a book yesterday by a big name scientist toying with the idea that physical constants may have changed thru time. If this is true, all historical, scientific paradigms will be affected, and maybe radically.
quote:
I'm interested, though, do you agree with Greg about the Gap theory? While I think it helps answer some questions, it creates a whole bunch of other questions, both scripturally and scientifically.
No, I don't. I don't think it's as intuitive as the traditional/literal view. And I think it creates MORE problems. And it has significant scientific problems as well, unless he takes a very non-literal view of the reconstruction, in which case he has hermeneutical issues, also.
His arguments against an original carnivorous world, though, have the support I mentioned above from Genesis, as well as the prophetic verses you mentioned about the coming age, as well as the NT. In the NT, Christ told His apostles:
Luke 10:19 Look! I have given you the authority to trample snakes and scorpions and to destroy all the enemy's power, and nothing will ever hurt you.
Then Mark 16 says that one of the signs they would have is handling serpents without harm. Then, Hebrews describes those signs as the "powers of the age to come." This seems to argue for the elimination of carnivory, etc., as being literal in the prophets. It also, as I said, harmonizes quite parsimoniously with the literal Genesis account.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/25/2004 6:25 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Ken Ham has a collection of quotes from Christians who, while holding to a non-literal interpretation of the Genesis account, admit that the literal approach is the most intuitive. That speaks volumes to me - especially since the literal view is the most philosophically coherent and it harmonizes parsimoniously with later writings, as QUESTIONER has argued.
Ken can count me into that list. The question, to my mind, isn't over the historical-grammatical (ie literal) meaning of Genesis 1-11 to its original audience. Although those chapters do teach, in their themes, basic theological truths about the nature of God, man, and sin, I can't find any good reason to read metaphor or allegory into them. Rather those chapters seek to teach theological truth in the context of a narrative form (albeit highly structured and liturgical in Genesis 1) which states, as do all narratives, that 'this happened, then this, then that' where each 'this' and 'that' has a literal, not symbolic, referent. In other words, I see no reason to suppose that the author(s) and the audience in the original community would have agreed that a day was not a regular 24-hour interval, Adam was not the first real man, the extent of the flood was not global, and etc, but rather that those were all figures-of-speech, understood in the day to refer to other things entirely.
But all that establishes is that the form of Genesis 1-11 is narrative. It does not establish that the narrative is concerned with being historical, let alone that it actually is historical. In the same way, the legend of Robin Hood is certainly narrative: the figure of Robin, in the text, refers literally to a real man who robs the rich and shares the wealth - as opposed, say, to supposing that the Robin figure is a symbol of the people uprising in their rightous might and etc. But this in no way establishes that Robin's story, because it is literal narrative, therefore actually happened in history exactly, or even partially, the way it is recorded in the text. And how much, if any, of it is historical, or not, in no way helps or impinges upon whatever themes we extract from the story as its "teaching point".
Genesis 1-11 is narrative, but as with Robin Hood, there are certain just-so elements within the text itself that suggest an ahistorical, rather than historical, narrative is at work; and of course there is also the massive extrabiblical evidence suggesting the same. And as with Robin Hood, at the time of the original capture and distribution of the Genesis tradition, I'm sure there were those who accepted it as literal history, those who considered it ahistorical, and those who fell somewhere in between. That's the way ahistorical narratives always are received; it doesn't make the slightest difference in determining the historicity of a narrative or the truth of its themes.
I don't mean to divert this thread into another creation-evolution debate. I just offer this as an example of how people can end up on Ken Ham's list without being hardly as self-contradictory as it seems.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/26/2004 1:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
quote:
In other words, I see no reason to suppose that the author(s) and the audience in the original community would have agreed that a day was not a regular 24-hour interval, Adam was not the first real man, the extent of the flood was not global, and etc, but rather that those were all figures-of-speech, understood in the day to refer to other things entirely.
As I argued previously (and I think QUESTIONER agrees), the later writers seem to treat those chapters as if they really happened. And they seem to get a message from those chapters that makes sense IF they're historical. If they are referring to "other things entirely," it doesn't seem that even those later writers had a clue what those "things" were. And this butresses QUESTIONER'S point: If later writers preceded on the assumption that Genesis is literal when it's not, then much is at stake. As I told John, I don't have time to prove which parts are true and which parts aren't. And I don't think God expects me to, either.
Plus, if the scriptural theodicy is really about "other things entirely," the problem of evil seems to be unsolvable. This is too many problems, to me. I do agree with Doc that scripture has to be philosophically sound to be true. All the attacks on literalism simply make the scripture harder and harder to defend rationally. They seem to make God either an incompetent communicater, deceitful, or both.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/26/2004 1:50 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
I believe God is doing the most good he can wisely and righteously do for those in hell, given their own choices. To my understanding, to act benevolently is to act to promote the highest good of the all moral agents, each according to their relative worth (specifically, the relative worth of each moral agent is measured and known only by God himself).
I've never thought of God as being benevolent or malevolent WHEN executing proper punishment. I just see it as justice, which by definition is NOT malevolent. Words like "wrath" don't suggest to me that God is thinking about doing good to people when he inflicts it upon people. He's just giving them what they deserve. I guess I see justice as the inevitable corollary of God's benevolence. I.e., because God loves the good, He must hate, resist, and ultimately punish the evil.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/26/2004 7:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Scott,
quote:
In other words, I see no reason to suppose that the author(s) and the audience in the original community would have agreed that a day was not a regular 24-hour interval, Adam was not the first real man, the extent of the flood was not global, and etc, but rather that those were all figures-of-speech, understood in the day to refer to other things entirely.
As I argued previously (and I think QUESTIONER agrees), the later writers seem to treat those chapters as if they really happened... If they are referring to "other things entirely," it doesn't seem that even those later writers had a clue what those "things" were.
I agree. That was exactly part of my point. I don't understand whether you think we are in agreement or disagreement about that. Actually we are in agreement: the historical-grammatical (literal) meaning of Genesis 1-11 is that these things literally happened as described and are not self-conscious metaphors or figures of speech recognized at the time to refer allegorically to other things.
The question, then, is whether that (upon which we agree) means that therefore the stories' literal meanings furthermore actually happened in history, or whether they are instead to some degree ahistorical (fictional). Where we probably disagree is on this point. To quote you out-of-context (I've listed this sentence from where the ellipsis appear in the above quote):
quote:
And they seem to get a message from those chapters that makes sense IF they're historical.
Here is where we disagree. It doesn't matter whether those chapters are historical or not, anymore than it matters to Jesus' teaching point whether the stories of the rich man and Lazarus, or the prodigal son, or the man waylaid by bandits and rescued by the Samaritan, happened or not. Jesus refers to those characters as if they were real people, but whether they were or not (and there are clues in the narrative form to suggest the stories are not historical reports but parables) does not affect his teaching. The stories are literal, not allegorical - the character of the Samaritan really is supposed to be a Samaritan, just as a day in Genesis 1 really is supposed to be a day - but that does not mean they must be historical. Nor does at-face-value reference to them by Jesus, as if the stories actually happened, force them to be historical (anymore than if I speak of Robin Hood or Huck Finn as if they existed, I am implicitly endorsing a belief in the historicity of those figures).
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/26/2004 2:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And they seem to get a message from those chapters that makes sense IF they're historical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is where we disagree. It doesn't matter whether those chapters are historical or not, anymore than it matters to Jesus' teaching point whether the stories of the rich man and Lazarus, or the prodigal son, or the man waylaid by bandits and rescued by the Samaritan, happened or not. Jesus refers to those characters as if they were real people, but whether they were or not (and there are clues in the narrative form to suggest the stories are not historical reports but parables) does not affect his teaching.
The difference is this: The gospels CLAIM that the parables were parables. The point of a parable is to draw a comparison to something else - in Christ's example, it was to something REAL. But if Paul, in saying "in Adam we all die," is using a parable, then is he only speaking of death metaphorically? Then why does he talk about "mortal bodies" and "corruption" and new kinds of physical bodies, etc? The arguments become so metaphorical that the "phora" in metaphor begins to be meaningless. I'm with QUESTIONER on this one - except that I would "give up the farm" if I took his position.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/26/2004 2:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
John,
quote:
I believe God is doing the most good he can wisely and righteously do for those in hell, given their own choices. To my understanding, to act benevolently is to act to promote the highest good of the all moral agents, each according to their relative worth (specifically, the relative worth of each moral agent is measured and known only by God himself).
I've never thought of God as being benevolent or malevolent WHEN executing proper punishment. I just see it as justice, which by definition is NOT malevolent. Words like "wrath" don't suggest to me that God is thinking about doing good to people when he inflicts it upon people. He's just giving them what they deserve. I guess I see justice as the inevitable corollary of God's benevolence. I.e., because God loves the good, He must hate, resist, and ultimately punish the evil.
I don't see any reason why God as Judge can't be good, benevolent, and eminently just simultaneously. Hell is the highest good that God can wisely mete out to the unrepentant, and is the highest good that God can do for the moral universe in general. Sin and rebellion has to be limited in some way by God if he is to be a righteous Moral Governor. Were He not to send the unrepentant to hell, God would be manifestly unjust, evil, and unloving.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/27/2004 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott:
quote:
I know the above paragraph doesn't answer the objection regarding the risk of subjectivity in our discernment of God's teaching purposes in the Bible apart from necessary equation of those purposes with the historical-grammatical meaning. I can only acknowledge that risk is there. But it is to say that this is life, regardless of how we might desire it to be. It is utterly consistent, for better or worse, with how God has chosen to reveal himself.
quote:
In case it is not clear here, I am a Christian who believes by faith in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, based on the collective testimony of the gospels and apostles, and the testimony and lives of the body of believers over the ages. My faith is reinforced by the usual theistic philosophical arguments, the general historical plausibility of Jesus' basic story, the moral conviction of his teaching, and the intellectual and emotional satisfaction and hope it all brings me. But I have no particular use any longer for the inerrancy of scripture historically-grammatically interpreted, whether the resulting historical-grammatical claims are historical or scientific or theological in nature.
I just want to applaud.  I think that you have WONDERFULLY articulated a perspective with which I wholeheartedly agree! Pretty much everything you've said in your first post here. Absolutely stunning! Can't say it enough.
Q | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/27/2004 7:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Just to respond to this point:
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Scott,
quote:
It doesn't matter whether those chapters are historical or not, anymore than it matters to Jesus' teaching point whether the stories of the rich man and Lazarus, or the prodigal son, or the man waylaid by bandits and rescued by the Samaritan, happened or not...
The difference is this: The gospels CLAIM that the parables were parables.
Actually, no. In some cases the gospels explicitly state "Jesus told them a parable" or something of that sort. But not in other cases, including all of the ones I mentioned.
In the case of the Samaritan and the traveler waylaid by bandits, for example, no announcement of the genre of the story is given. Jesus just launches into it - see Luke 10:30. There is no reason, in principle that is, why Jesus might not be commenting from a current event at the time - as evidently in Luke 13:4 - rather than crafting a parable. The reason we (quite reasonably) infer that the story is ahistorical is not because it is announced to us, but because we infer it (a) from the form of the story itself (eg, its just-so quality) and (b) from external evidence - the knowledge that elsewhere plainly-announced parables were used in the culture and were used by Jesus himself. So, too, the case can be made for Genesis.
In the case of the prodigal son, so too Jesus just launches into it - see Luke 15:11. And likewise in the case of the rich man and Lazarus, which has no specific introduction whatsoever (see Luke 16:19) and in fact even uses proper names (eg "Lazarus") and follows right after what appears to be propositional teaching, which to some would suggest a factual rather than figurative situation. Yet still we generally acknowledge these stories to be ahistorical parables, not attempting to reflect actual events even though their referents are quite literal (eg, the bandits really are bandits, not symbols for marauding non-believers; the Samaritan really is a Samaritan, not a symbol for the good believer; etc).
Its clear, then, that the Hebrew culture employed a way of communicating moral and theological truth using literal stories that were nonetheless in large, if not entire, degree fictitious. This should not be surprising: the use of storied fiction for serious purposes is very common in all human cultures, even our own, but especially in pre-modern ones the world over. Why would not God have condescended to this human propensity at least on occasion? To the extent it is possible to discern these stories from historical accounts, by internal clues from the form and style of writing, as well as external evidence, it is then a Christian option to look for this beyond the historically-acknowledged parables of Jesus. It is quite reasonable, consistent and faithful, then, to maintain that Genesis 1-11, its stories and characters, can be interpreted in similar ahistorical fashion, even while granting their basic literal nature. Ken Ham is wrong to think this is an inconsistent position or a telling chink in the armor of those Christians who accept mainstream science.
Well, that's probably enough on this subject (Genesis interpretation) in this thread. I'll try to say no more on it :-)
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/27/2004 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
Not only do the NT writers (and Christ) speak as if the Creation account and the Flood account really happened, the genealogy of Christ goes back to Adam, who is called a son of God, as are the angels. It matters not whether Lazarus was a real person or not for the purpose of the parable. But genealogies become absurd if they devolve into myth.
When Christ said of the BEGINNING, "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder," it's hard to imagine how that should impress us if that whole account is not REAL. How is it a valid basis for moral argument if it never happened?
The apostles, from which we get our info, had their word confirmed with signs and wonders (unless they're lying about even that!). Christ supposedly said that they would be guided into all truth by the Spirit. Did Christ really say that? If God went to that trouble to confirm their words, why would I believe that God cared nothing about the accuracy of their writings? Paul, himself, said that God gave him permission to give his own judgement in scripture, because of his faithfulness. The obvious implication is that the rest WASN'T his judgement, but the very doctrine from Christ. Of course, we could say Paul really didn't write that either. But where does it end?
As I said of QUESTIONER, your view is neither faith nor reason. Reason requires evidence, faith takes God's word for it. You guys seem to do neither. You believe what can't be DISPROVED, assuming that the validity of the WHOLE bible (taken normatively) HAS been DISPROVED.
Your example about David doesn't even seem like a contradiction to me. It's no different than the book of Job saying that Satan did a thing AND God did it. Both are true. Satan did it because God permitted Satan to do it. And in that sense, God was "behind" it. The case with David could be identical. This is a normal, parsimonious use of language. To say that Genesis 1-11 is ahistorical, and, yet, say it historically and genealogically merges with REAL history is NOT normal figurative language, to me. That's unintelligible.
Paul says "let God be true and every man a liar." If God has made no serious attempt to provide an intelligible account of His own Word as He seemingly did with the apostle's spoken words, then I can't justify saying any man is false on account of It's claims.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/30/2004 7:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
...It matters not whether Lazarus was a real person or not for the purpose of the parable.
Correct, but why? The reason why is the same explanation for how truth can be conveyed by fiction in a number of cases, including the Genesis epic narrative if we grant for other reasons its fictional nature.
quote:
But genealogies become absurd if they devolve into myth.
Only to the modernist mind, which can't think of a reason for genealogy besides the cold and dry recording of biological ancestors. Rather than assume the way we think to be normative for all cultures in all times, and deduce from that normativity the conclusion that God would likewise scorn premodern thinking as mere "folly" or "falsehood", perhaps we should look at it the other way 'round. (I think that if the modern age has demonstrated anything, it is the validity of inductive thinking over deduction.) Ancient near eastern cultures used genealogy for purposes besides mere factual record-keeping; look at the 3-fold by 7-fold numerological structure within Matthew's genealogy of Jesus for a biblical example, and look at Sumerian (or other) king lists for extrabibilical examples. Nonliteral genealogy was a custom of the time, and so we should not be surprised by divine accommodation to it just as God has accommodated elsewhere in the Bible with respect to culture. Its only our own conceit concerning the supremacy and normativity of modern ways of thinking that leads us to dismiss the ancient way as foolishness and lies.
quote:
When Christ said of the BEGINNING, "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder," it's hard to imagine how that should impress us if that whole account is not REAL. How is it a valid basis for moral argument if it never happened?
Such reasoning hasn't kept "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" and other such stories from having had their desired teaching effect over time. If a narrative account illustrates a principle in viscerally convincing fashion, that is what lends authority to the theme, not the historicity of the account. This is simply because history, like science, records simply what is (or was), not what "ought". Would "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" really be made any more effective if it had really happened, when it is entirely plausible and convincing morally in any case?
quote:
...As I said of QUESTIONER, your view is neither faith nor reason. Reason requires evidence, faith takes God's word for it. You guys seem to do neither. You believe what can't be DISPROVED, assuming that the validity of the WHOLE bible (taken normatively) HAS been DISPROVED.
We hardly "assume" - we induct from the evidence (biblical and extrabiblical) to the conclusion, and then check the conclusion back against the evidence and the principles of the faith and don't find any necessary contradiction. As to the Bible being "disproved" - that is simply a vast exaggeration of my position, at least.
quote:
Your example about David doesn't even seem like a contradiction to me. It's no different than the book of Job saying that Satan did a thing AND God did it. Both are true. Satan did it because God permitted Satan to do it. And in that sense, God was "behind" it.
Yes, I think that's a reasonable theory of the teaching point God may have with these passages, but its not a literal and plain-sense reading of either passage.
First, neither passage directly gives the explanation you propose. The explanation is a theory, not a reading of either passage, as evidenced by the fact that if we only had one passage or the other, absent the whole rest of the Bible, we would blithely be satisfied with the face-value reading and find no need to hypothesize a larger theological theory around it.
And second, therefore neither passage accurately states the whole pertinent truth of the matter. If a student omitted a pertinent part of the solution from his answer on a test, the grader would be justified in considering that an "error". I realize inerrantists will special-plead down the definition of "inerrancy", to insist this sort of "partial truth" is consistent with the inerrancy doctrine, but the result is then a definition so weak that any two documents can then be "proven inerrant" by harmonization of assumed partial truths.
And lastly, with each passage being substantively incomplete per the proposed explanation, it therefore is reasonable to suspect that either the Chronicler or the Samuel/Kings authors/editors likewise shared the contrasting theological viewpoints. Otherwise, they would have been more clear in making their statements. So, in the absence of presuppositional deduction from the nature of God (and our own modern preference for assuming and imposing abstract propositional correspondent truth upon that nature), it seems reasonable to acknowledge a tension or contrast in those passages and their authors/editors, rather than an inerrant union.
Now, note that I'm not disputing your harmonization. I think it is a reasonable inference, and I tend too to hold to what it teaches about the God-Satan relationship and thus theodicy and so forth. It is the teaching point, as I've been saying, that has infallibility for us, if we can discern it. But it is not the literal text.
Sorry - I thought I'd be able to keep away from this but it seems I haven't succeeded :-) Hope I'm not boring anyone,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/30/2004 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Kublai Khan
Proof?
You're using your a-priori view that the earth is zillions of years old to prove that ancient middle-east genealogies are more than mundane book-keeping, then turning around and using the fact that middle-east genealogies are more than mundane book-keeping to prove that they aren't literal. Pretty bogus...
First, there is no proof of anything, only reasoning to what seems at the time to be the best inference. I make no claim to proof, nor in fact do I claim to be putting forth anything original in these ideas. They are, in fact, mainstream in scholarly circles, whether Christian or otherwise.
Second, the age of the earth does not drive how we interpret the use of genealogy in ancient near Eastern (ANE) culture. That question is a literary and archaelogical one, not a geological one, which is why I didn't mention the age of the earth in connection with genealogy. Even if the geological age of the earth aligned with the ages given in genealogies, we'd still have reason to suspect a non-literal nature because of the just-so idiosyncracies many of them show in numerology and structure.
Matthew's genealogy of Jesus, for example, uses the numbers 3 and 7, which scholars recognize as significant in ANE culture for signifying perfection and totality. (Although Matthew was written well after the ANE heyday, Jewish culture seems to have retained some ANE influence at the time, in resistance to proto-Western ideas from Greece and Rome.) Matthew uses these numbers to divide all of history into 3 periods of 14 (that is, twice 7) generations each: from promise to prototype (the first period of 14 generations, from Abraham to David, seen as the Messianic prototype in Jewish culture at the time of Matthew), then prototype to punishment (the second period of 14 generations, from David to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile in Babylon, the supreme national scar on the Jewish identity at the time), then punishment to fulfillment (the third period, from Babylon to Jesus). The structure is so important to Matthew's message that he is willing to adapt the genealogies recorded elsewhere, modify them, even slightly miscount them (the last period in Matthew's list is actually 13 generations), all in order to emphasize the message he is trying to impart - the culmination of God's plan in the form of Jesus.
What does this tell us then about Matthew and his audience? Either that they were foolish - unable to count the difference between 13 and 14, for example - or that something larger was at work here: the subservience of record-keeping to thematic purpose. It is a greater stretch to suppose the mass befuddlement and susceptibility to obvious fraud of millions - ie, to suppose that they operated under a modern mindset but were too stupid to make it work for them - than to suppose they operated under their own premodern set of rules.
Other examples could be given, biblical and extrabiblical. There is nothing radically speculative or circular about the non-literal use of genealogy in the ANE culture, nor is it circular to then apply that recognition in other areas (such as the question of inerrancy, where I applied it in the previous post).
Hope this helps,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/30/2004 8:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by scott_jorgenson
quote:
Originally posted by Kublai Khan
Proof?...
First, there is no proof of anything, only reasoning to what seems at the time to be the best inference...
That's strange. In my last response (see above), I responded to somebody ("Kublai Khan") who'd posted just a short while beforehand. Now that person's posting has disappeared from the thread (at least so far as I can tell). I guess either he deleted it, or some system administrator did, or there's a bug in the system... In any case, I'll let my last response stand rather than remove it too.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/31/2004 7:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Scott,
...I don't have time to respond fully right now, but until then I do wonder what you think Gen 1-11 means figuratively and how do you make sense of the genealogies that include that "history."
Just briefly: In my view, Genesis 1-11 are ahistorical: they seek to communicate ancient Hebrew worldview (including theology inspired of God) using various fictional forms that suggest history but do not seek to record it dispassionately, critically and precisely, in the modern style.
Genesis 1 (a masterpiece of ancient literature - I just love it) appropriates ANE cosmological and mythological motifs, already accepted by the ancient Hebrew culture at the time of composition, and subversively subordinates and recasts them to polemicize against ANE polytheistic theology while affirming God's revealed truth about the nature of God and creation. It uses a literary framework ala Meredith Klein to artfully underscore itself in doing so.
Genesis 2-11 stand apart from Genesis 1 as epic narrative, or saga. They record the legendary primordial history of the Hebrew people, and as such are a mixture of fiction and possibly some actual historical events, to such a degree as is impossible to distinguish from the text alone. Genesis 2-3 in addition might also be an Everyman parable (they certainly can function that way, at least). In any case, any actual historicity is secondary to the narrative, which (like all ancient legends) cares far less about the recording of what actually happened than the capture of a story that communicates and affirms a worldview - in this case, again, the inspired Hebrew worldview of the one almighty creator God who loves but makes moral demands on his people.
These views, I should note, are not personal and idiosyncratic, but are based on consensus scholarship (and not all of it liberal, not by a long shot - eg John Walton, John Stek, Meredith Klein, Hencri Blocher, Paul Seely, etc).
I also should add that the use of legend in Genesis probably does not end discretely at Genesis 11, but gradates downward from there through the Pentateuch and into the history books, where history (rather than legend) predominates by the time of Samuel-Kings. The gospels, of course, I consider to be primarily historical (though again, never in the dispassionate modern sense). Again, these statements are all tentative conclusions based on various evidences and inductive reasoning, not circular assumptions or presuppositions.
And, of course, I consider none of this "proven", only better supported than competing ideas.
quote:
I don't see how Matthew's contrived selection of real historical persons is analagous to Luke's selection of supposed "fictional" persons. Help me out here.
I discussed Matthew's genealogy as an example of the non-literal nature of ancient genealogy as a genre. It demonstrates that ancient genealogy did not always merely seek to book-keep ancestors. With respect to Luke's genealogy, then, we should be open to the non-literal possibility there as well - not in exactly the same way as Matthew, but in other ways - for example, the utilization of the primordial Hebrew heroes by Luke because they were assumed by the culture of the time, Luke included. So a genealogy like Luke's, that strove to go back to the beginning, and thus cover all of history in order to emphasize how Jesus caps God's plan, would need to refer to the primordial figures of Genesis 1-11 in order to make that point.
I know it all sounds very strange to us, but that's the point: they (the ancient Hebrews, and even the non-Hellenized Jews of Jesus' time) were not us, and it was to them that the dawning of revelation was given. It thus had to be given in a way that would let them capture, understand, value and record it in a way that resonated with them - ie, in the ways according to their culture. And those ways were very different from ours; we are very self-centered if we assume to make our modern ways normative upon them and God.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/31/2004 2:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
quote:
Genesis 1 (a masterpiece of ancient literature - I just love it) appropriates ANE cosmological and mythological motifs, already accepted by the ancient Hebrew culture at the time of composition, and subversively subordinates and recasts them to polemicize against ANE polytheistic theology while affirming God's revealed truth about the nature of God and creation.
What exactly IS God's revealed truth about His nature and the creation if Genesis 1-11 is not true?
quote:
In any case, any actual historicity is secondary to the narrative, which (like all ancient legends) cares far less about the recording of what actually happened than the capture of a story that communicates and affirms a worldview - in this case, again, the inspired Hebrew worldview of the one almighty creator God who loves but makes moral demands on his people.
This makes no sense to me, for a narrative Genesis reveals a kind of divine love much different than an evolutionist's or ICON's. That's the point - the Genesis narrative provides an intuitive theodicy that resolves the problem of natural evil. The "scientific" view doesn't.
quote:
Again, these statements are all tentative conclusions based on various evidences and inductive reasoning, not circular assumptions or presuppositions.
How would a Hebrew in, say, 500 B.C. inductively come to this conclusion? I can't see it. The inductive reasoning you are describing seems to be that which accepts two things as true - 1) the modern scientific view of the universe and 2) the necessity of the judaeo-christian scriptures being relevant to the modern world. If we don't make these two assumptions, the most simple (hence, inductive) explanation is that the Hebrew people probably just believed the Genesis account was factual.
quote:
And, of course, I consider none of this "proven", only better supported than competing ideas.
Again, I can't see how you can argue that hermeneutically. You must assume the validity of the modern scientific view to come to that conclusion. If the narratives were taken as true, the Bible (NT and OT) reads much simpler, and it is more accomodating to a rational theodicy.
quote:
I discussed Matthew's genealogy as an example of the non-literal nature of ancient genealogy as a genre. It demonstrates that ancient genealogy did not always merely seek to book-keep ancestors.
That doesn't mean Matthew's genealogy is not literal. It just means we are to determine why he left out certain individuals. The selected individuals were probably assumed by his original audience to be literal people.
quote:
I know it all sounds very strange to us, but that's the point: they (the ancient Hebrews, and even the non-Hellenized Jews of Jesus' time) were not us, and it was to them that the dawning of revelation was given. It thus had to be given in a way that would let them capture, understand, value and record it in a way that resonated with them - ie, in the ways according to their culture. And those ways were very different from ours; we are very self-centered if we assume to make our modern ways normative upon them and God.
I would argue the opposite - that unless we have evidence that they did not take the Genesis account as history, we are self-centered to ASSUME they didn't do so.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/31/2004 3:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
I've snipped your response and rearranged into common points in order to respond succinctly:
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Scott,
What exactly IS God's revealed truth about His nature and the creation if Genesis 1-11 is not true...
You assume truth is an every-category-or-nothing affair. Truth is not that binary; if it were, no fiction would be capable of conveying truth, from Jesus' parables to Golding's Lord of the Flies. More on this below.
quote:
How would a Hebrew in, say, 500 B.C. inductively come to this conclusion [ie that Genesis 1-11 are ahistorical]...If we don't make [assumptions]...the Hebrew people probably just believed the Genesis account was factual...The selected individuals [in Matthew's genealogy] were probably assumed by his original audience to be literal people...I would argue the opposite - that unless we have evidence that they did not take the Genesis account as history, we are self-centered to ASSUME they didn't do so.
Oh, I very much agree that the ancient audience generally took Genesis 1-11 literally. The view I'm presenting considers the genre of Genesis 1-11 to be essentially legendary, not self-conscious parable, for example. And its in the nature of the genre of legend that the audience, tellers and hearers alike, not only extract worldview-meaning from it, but furthermore usually believe the account to be historically true. That's a distinguishing feature of legend that separates it from other, more self-consciously fictional, genres.
That doesn't mean that the teaching point of the narrative includes that the narrative must be historically true, though. To illustrate: the legend of George Washington and the cherry tree has a particular moral teaching point - ie that it is honorable to admit guilt - whose truth does not require that the story itself be historical. In fact, the historicity of the story wouldn't add a shred of credence to the truthfulness of the teaching point: if young George really had cut down the tree, then admitted doing so, would that make "honesty is the best policy" any more truthful or worthy of our consideration? No. Nor, conversely, does the ahistoricity of the story detract from the veracity of the teaching point. And the fact that some people have thought (mistakenly) that the story is historical is totally beside the point - just as our knowing and acknowledging now that the story is ahistorical is also beside the point.
So, the legend illustrates and communicates its teaching point; it does not justify or corroborate it. It can't - how can the recording of "what was" in space-time corroborate "what ought be" or "what is" beyond space-time? The only thing that justifies such teaching points to us is the testimony of conscience on our hearts upon recognizing the teaching points of the story; the actual degree of historicity in the legend is not relevant. It is the same with Genesis 1-11 and indeed wherever legend might lie in scripture (which isn't everywhere).
And lest anyone say that legend would be scorned by God because it uses literally-false history to convey thematic truth - I see God using other fictional forms (eg fable and parable) elsewhere in scripture, along with poetry and prophetic hyperbole and all sorts of other non-literal literary genres. It is arbitrary to rule out legend apriori, as if there were something necessarily sinful or evil or depraved and un-God-like about it. God condescended to let people record his revelation in human language, according to human literary customs and conventions, and there is no reason to think that could not include legend.
quote:
The inductive reasoning you are describing seems to be that which accepts two things as true - 1) the modern scientific view of the universe and 2) the necessity of the judaeo-christian scriptures being relevant to the modern world...You must assume the validity of the modern scientific view to come to that conclusion...
The view I'm presenting does not simply "assume" the modern mainstream scientific view, but accepts it as well-founded itself for the usual scientific reasons (another debate entirely), and incorporates it along with internal textual evidence from the Bible that, in light of external literary evidence of known legends from other cultures, suggests an ahistorical Genesis. Putting the two together makes the case: the scientific evidence and the literary evidence.
I've discussed this subject extensively previously on this Web site; you might want to search on posts under my name, to get more understanding of the view I represent (look for discussions I've had with "Starkman"). You also might want to consult books such as Conrad Hyers' The Meaning of Genesis. As for the scientific evidence, I've discussed parts of that as well (its a huge subject) - look for posts under my name in threads in which I've debated with "SeanG". I do suggest, though, that we not divert this thread into a creation-evolution debate.
Hope this helps,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/31/2004 4:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
quote:
So, the legend illustrates and communicates its teaching point; it does not justify or corroborate it. It can't - how can the recording of "what was" in space-time corroborate "what ought be" or "what is" beyond space-time?
Again, the literalness of Genesis 1-2 would be quite consistent with what many think God ought to be like if, indeed, He's as benevolent as Christ. Can I not say that because of what Christ did in such-and-such a case, an ought may follow from that for me?
quote:
The only thing that justifies such teaching points to us is the testimony of conscience on our hearts upon recognizing the teaching points of the story; the actual degree of historicity in the legend is not relevant.
As per above, the literal Genesis squares quite intuitively with the conscience of many with respect to a theodicy that can explain natural evil consistent with a benevolent creator. The "scientific" view provides no such explanation. In short, your argument buttresses my view with respect to my conscience.
quote:
And lest anyone say that legend would be scorned by God because it uses literally-false history to convey thematic truth - I see God using other fictional forms (eg fable and parable) elsewhere in scripture, along with poetry and prophetic hyperbole and all sorts of other non-literal literary genres.
I do not resist the idea that God can use legend as parable or analogy. I resist that idea that God went to the trouble of REVEALING a law to Moses but then allowed him to incorporate a false history into that scripture and THAT LAW (the sabbath law). This makes God a pretty incompetent communicator in my opinion. How hard would it have been to just tell the truth to Moses and then have him write it down?
quote:
The view I'm presenting does not simply "assume" the modern mainstream scientific view, but accepts it as well-founded itself for the usual scientific reasons (another debate entirely), and incorporates it along with internal textual evidence from the Bible that, in light of external literary evidence of known legends from other cultures, suggests an ahistorical Genesis. Putting the two together makes the case: the scientific evidence and the literary evidence.
But if you don't assume that the Bible has to be relevant to the modern world, why not just put it on par with other ahistorical legends and myths, since it is inaccurate?
I don't see how Aesop's fables are in any way analogous to a non-historical Genesis. They are parables that don't claim divine inspiration. As such, those stories have the exact same parabolical meaning whether they are historical or not (just like the George Washington story). That is NOT the case with Genesis. Much is different IF Genesis is historical. It would imply a very different theodicy than one that could be derived from modern science. It would have implications about the exegesis of other passages as well.
Moreover, if science is to be an umpire of what scripture can mean, then God cannot expect all Christians to come to the same conclusions about the Bible. There are some who know virtually nothing about paleontology, astronomy, etc. By your approach, they are not compelled in the least to disbelieve a literal Genesis. For they are to let God be true and every man a liar. And without science as a censor, it cannot be denied that a literal Genesis is the most straight-forward and parsimonious approach to scripture. But if God doesn't require all people to come to the same conclusions about scripture, what are we to make of the fact that we are to let God be true and every man a liar? The consequences of that is different Christians will justly call the same person false and true.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 8/31/2004 8:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Scott,
Again, the literalness of Genesis 1-2 would be quite consistent with what many think God ought to be like if, indeed, He's as benevolent as Christ.
Why - is it because God is concerned about all truth, not just spiritual and moral but also scientific, historical and geographical, so that if he is benevolent and truthful he will not only correct spiritual misunderstanding but also physical? I don't see what evidential basis we have to affirm that he is interested in inspiring such "physical" truths - there's no testimony to it in scripture and indeed scripture instead presents instance after instance of "physical" knowledge accommodated to the day, whether it is cud-chewing hares or the three-storied universe. I think your argument is deductive from what we moderns would assume a benevolent and truthful God would be like - rather than inductively based on the witness we have both in the Bible and the extrabiblical evidence (both in the area of physical science and ANE cultural archaeology).
quote:
Can I not say that because of what Christ did in such-and-such a case, an ought may follow from that for me?
Yes, when we personally encounter Christ in his story, and viscerally imagine his experience and what he did for us, we quite understandably and justifiably feel such "ought-ness". But it is not a logical response, and - more to my point - it does not follow that therefore the veracity of any narrative's teaching point logically depends on, and is corroborated by, the historicity of the narrative. Again, is what we learn about honesty from a modern critical biography of George Washington (if anything) communicated more effectively and with more credence than what we learn from the cherry-tree story, just because the one is historical and the other is not? Some might think so, but I don't, and would add that a lot of fiction writers have been wasting their time then over the centuries if that view is the case - they should have written nonfiction instead :-)
But in any case, the gospels are in several places quite insistent in making the claim that what they are relating really happened in history, more or less. And of course Paul is even more Western and proto-modern in his writing, and he is just (if not more so) insistent that Christ's story is not just spiritually but historically true. Such self-insistence on historicity - explicit statements like those found in the opening of Luke and so forth - is not a characteristic fingerprint of legend, so far as I'm aware, and is absent from the Genesis epic. Genesis is more analogous to legend than the Jesus stories are, for that reason among others (such as the much greater extent to which the Jesus narrative finds verification in external sources than Genesis). Again, the view I'm representing isn't that the Bible is uniformly legendary but that we should merely be open to the possibility on a case-by-case basis - and the case is fairly good concerning Genesis but much less so concerning the gospels.
quote:
As per above, the literal Genesis squares quite intuitively with the conscience of many with respect to a theodicy that can explain natural evil consistent with a benevolent creator. The "scientific" view provides no such explanation.
Well, science as such naturally provides no theodicy or any other theology for that matter, but I think I know what you mean. In reply, I would suggest that a theodicy based on free will for moral agents, but extended to encompass freedom for the whole creation (for much the same reasons that lead us to postulate free will for moral agents in the first place) can fairly readily fit with the view of prehistory supported by mainstream science (as well as having some arguable biblical warrant). There may be other explanations compatible with more-or-less mainstream science - for example, the theory of a "representative" or "federal" Adam whose sin ripples throughout time, past and future - but I'm less familiar with them.
quote:
I do not resist the idea that God can use legend as parable or analogy. I resist that idea that God went to the trouble of REVEALING a law to Moses but then allowed him to incorporate a false history into that scripture and THAT LAW (the sabbath law). This makes God a pretty incompetent communicator in my opinion. How hard would it have been to just tell the truth to Moses and then have him write it down?
Not hard, but contrary to God's evident purposes. As I elaborated above, those purposes do not seem to include overriding already-present faulty ideas about physical truth. And while the view of accommodation and legend I'm expressing can fit with the idea of verbal inspiration (that being the theory that the very words of scripture are at least vetted by God, if not dictated by him), for those like myself who instead see inspiration more in concepts and events subsequently witnessed-to by humans using words under their own control, the idea that God would override extraneous incorrect ideas those human authors had is even more remote.
God, after all, is neither the originator of the physical factual falsehood (he rather appropriates it and turns it to his end) nor evidently is even interested in correcting it (else where in the Bible is the evidence of corrected physical knowledge of the day). God rather is interested in teaching things useful for instructing in faith and righteousness, to paraphrase the letter to Timothy.
quote:
But if you don't assume that the Bible has to be relevant to the modern world, why not just put it on par with other ahistorical legends and myths, since it is inaccurate?
Who said that saying the Bible contains premodern legend means that it as a whole, or even those legends within it, are irrelevant to the modern world? Just because the Bible communicates in a premodern fashion does not mean that it therefore has nothing to say to modern people.
As for why we should not just discount it as inaccurate then, like all the other legends and myths: because of the superior spiritual and moral teaching it gives, as judged by our convicted conscience; because of the basic veracity of the various genres it contains, each true to their own form, legend true to legend and history true to history; because of the testimony of all those who've come before us and who have found it useful as an authority in their lives. I know these are not bulletproof reasons, but as I wrote in my first posting in this thread, they are - for better or worse - what we have been given, and at least - in offering less than proof - they are consistent with the rest of creation.
quote:
I don't see how Aesop's fables are in any way analogous to a non-historical Genesis. They are parables that don't claim divine inspiration. As such, those stories have the exact same parabolical meaning whether they are historical or not (just like the George Washington story). That is NOT the case with Genesis. Much is different IF Genesis is historical. It would imply a very different theodicy than one that could be derived from modern science. It would have implications about the exegesis of other passages as well.
Moreover, if science is to be an umpire of what scripture can mean, then God cannot expect all Christians to come to the same conclusions about the Bible. There are some who know virtually nothing about paleontology, astronomy, etc. By your approach, they are not compelled in the least to disbelieve a literal Genesis. For they are to let God be true and every man a liar. And without science as a censor, it cannot be denied that a literal Genesis is the most straight-forward and parsimonious approach to scripture. But if God doesn't require all people to come to the same conclusions about scripture, what are we to make of the fact that we are to let God be true and every man a liar? The consequences of that is different Christians will justly call the same person false and true.
I've never heard it claimed before that God expects all Christians to interpret the historicity of Genesis in the same manner. Well, outfits like Answers in Genesis make some-such claims I suppose. I think God is more concerned with our hearts - love for him and the world - rather than our propositional content, such as our opinion on the historicity of Genesis.
Again, God appropriated the literary customs and devices of the time in inspiring the primordial Hebrew epic. If people additionally took his appropriation to imply endorsement, the mistake is theirs, but the mistake is inconsequential to, and thus uncompromising of, the teaching purpose anyway. When the teacher needs to teach the children that 1 + 1 = 2 and so uses an otherwise-beside-the-point story to that end, whose basic elements are factually in error but already in circulation among the children and pedagogically useful for the purpose - a story about 2 stars falling from the sky, for example, one, then another ("so how many stars are on the ground now, children?") - then there is no falsehood in the teacher, or compromise to his teaching. And if the children should mistakenly continue to assume the literal truth of the story used to communicate the teaching, the mistake is theirs, but is not one needing the teacher's correction anyway (the teaching of proper astronomy not being his purpose). And when they grew up, and came to learn the astronomical truth about stars, the children would be unwise to doubt the truth of the arithmetical teaching or the wisdom of the teacher having taught it in that way.
Well, I've now spent a cumulative 6 hours or so in the last few days on this forum, and probably need to start managing my time a little better. Please excuse me if I start winding down my participation in this thread. But I'll certainly stick around for at least one more response from you, Jeff.
Best regards,
Scott
PS. By the way, I mis-reported the name of Conrad Hyers' book in my last posting above. It is The Meaning of Creation, not The Meaning of Genesis. There are other readings I could recommend too.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 9/1/2004 7:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey there, Scott.
Been a while, dude, ain't it.
I saw your posts on this thread, so I had to jump in here. As always, your writing is awesomely clear, concise and like biting into a piece of ripe fruit; one stops to savor the flavor and let the enjoyment sink in.
Well, I've finally "come 'round": I'm no longer holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I'm still in flux about making sense of a literal Adam/Eve--prototype, if nothing more, for the sake of dealing with man made in the image of God--, the Old Earth/Young Earth stuff and more, but it'll come in time.
I liked the fact that you mentioned the Historical-Grammar of Genesis 1 and 2 as literal, but that the intended message is not literal. This is where I've been heading, and to see you specifically state this (sorry if you had in our earlier posts and I missed it) brings more ease to my mind as I work though this. I find it easier now to concentrate on the theology of the chapters without feeling bound to answer to a literal, inerrant and infallible composition (Yeah, the inerrant stuff is going out the door, too! After all, do I really want to disallow the authors the option of making even a grammatical error?)
I can get into this, big time, because the theology is so rich. As a matter of fact, I don't know that God could have communicated the theology as richly as He did if He hadn't used literalilty as a vehicle of communication in those early Genesis chapters. It's the literal that reinforces both the approach and content of the theology. That's exciting.
A few questions and requests:
1. How do you handle passages such as these: Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you . . . (I Peter 1, English Standard Version).
And this one: And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1, ESV). (I take both I and II Peter to be refering to the Old Testament prophets.)
2. I (maybe others, too) could really use some good reading material on the ANE cultural understanding of literary interpretation. Do you have some references pass on to us? (I've read some NT Wright and Derrett on the NT times, but I'm not sure what's good for OT times.)
3. I could also use some references to an approach to interpreting Genesis in light of question 2 above. I did note your having mentioned John Walton, John Stek, Meredith Klein, Hencri Blocher, Paul Seely. Can you be more specific about these author's works and what you suggest about them? Who else can you refer us to?
Hey, I also liked seeing that my "Starkman" made it in one of your posts (I figured I stuck in your craw enough to get a consolation prize!)
Well, thanks again,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 9/1/2004 10:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
Hey there, Scott.
Been a while, dude, ain't it.
Good to hear from you! And thank you for the compliments.
quote:
Well, I've finally "come 'round": I'm no longer holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I'm still in flux about making sense of a literal Adam/Eve--prototype, if nothing more, for the sake of dealing with man made in the image of God--, the Old Earth/Young Earth stuff and more, but it'll come in time.
I liked the fact that you mentioned the Historical-Grammar of Genesis 1 and 2 as literal, but that the intended message is not literal. This is where I've been heading, and to see you specifically state this (sorry if you had in our earlier posts and I missed it) brings more ease to my mind as I work though this. I find it easier now to concentrate on the theology of the chapters without feeling bound to answer to a literal, inerrant and infallible composition (Yeah, the inerrant stuff is going out the door, too! After all, do I really want to disallow the authors the option of making even a grammatical error?)
I can get into this, big time, because the theology is so rich. As a matter of fact, I don't know that God could have communicated the theology as richly as He did if He hadn't used literalilty as a vehicle of communication in those early Genesis chapters. It's the literal that reinforces both the approach and content of the theology. That's exciting.
Yes, I agree, its exciting and refreshing. I feel like I finally understand Genesis after all my years of exploration (eighteen at last count), if indeed the scriptures can ever be said to be "finally" understood.
I must not have made myself clear to you in our discussions from earlier this year, but my position is still unchanged since then: the elements of the Genesis narrative are not symbols or figures-of-speech for other elements in history, but stand on their own literally. Yet since the narrative does not arise from a culture that felt it necessary (or understood how) to distinguish between legend and history in the first place, the ahistoricity of those literal elements is not a fault but an accommodation to the culture - God being all things to all men, to paraphrase Paul, so as to transport his theological teaching in a medium best received by the original community.
At the risk of boredom, let me get into detail with an example. Take the separation of the waters on Day 2 in Genesis 1. This is not a figure-of-speech, or phenomenological expression, for the creation of atmosphere containing water vapor and droplets (clouds) with liquid water (the seas and lakes) below, as some apologists (typically old-earth) would claim. Neither is it a reference to the creation of a "vapor canopy" in orbit around earth, above the atmosphere, as others (young-earth) would claim. It is rather exactly what it says: the creation of a solid domed sky (raquia, something hammered-out) in the middle of a vast body of liquid water (tehom, the deep), thus dividing the body into liquid water above the sky and below it. How do we conclude this? Because not only is it the more literal interpretation of the account; it also gibes with other biblical references when they too are literally interpreted (for example, the floodgates of heaven and the deep as the source of the flood waters, in Genesis 7; Job's comparison of the sky to a hard mirror in Job 37:18; Ezekiel's vision of something like a crystalline sky in Ezekiel 1:22ff; John's vision of something like a sea above the sky and before the throne of God in Revelation 4:6). And - the clincher - it corresponds perfectly to what we now know the ANE cultures (eg Egyptian, Babylonian) believed was the actual (not merely phenomenological) physical structure of the universe. Those being dominant civilizations which set the intellectual climate of the time - think of Moses (Acts 7:22) and Daniel (Daniel 1:3ff) being trained in the learning of the Egyptians and Babylonians respectively - we have no reason to believe that the Hebrews likewise wouldn't have thought this to be the actual cosmology of the universe. Paul Seely, for example, establishes this beyond, I think, any reasonable doubt in his papers (see below), and he is not the only one to conclude likewise.
So the separation of the waters on Day 2 reflects a premodern cosmology and does not concord with actual physical reality as we now know it. But that is alright for our faith, because the actual teaching point isn't in the historicity of Day 2 but rather the purpose that describing such an event, on such a Day, in such a way, has in communicating the overall theme of Genesis 1. God took the idea of a creation over a period of days (prevalent in ANE culture) of a universe including a solid sky (prevalent in ANE culture) with waters above and below (also prevalent in ANE culture), and recast them according to his purpose, knowing that correcting the physical misunderstanding was neither his purpose nor helpful to his children. And in that purpose, the separation of waters on Day 2 contributes to the overall literary framework of Genesis 1 (see Meredith Kline below): separation on Days 1 through 3, population/rulership on Days 4 through 6 of that which was separated on parallel Days 1 through 3, and etc.
And the revelatory message that this literary framework, as well as the literal reading, underscores, is that there is only one creator God, that he transcends all other things, that all things other than him were created by him and are not divine, that creation is good and intentional and blessed, that humanity, male and female alike, are the pinnacle of creation, especially blessed, and so on. These are all teaching points which stand in stark contrast to the pagan ANE landscape surrounding the ancient Hebrews, in which the competing theologies spoke of multiple gods, multiple creators, accidental or incidental creation, divine creatures, and such discouraging motifs as humanity being created for slavery to the gods. See Conrad Hyers below.
Given the ancient Hebrew setting, God could have communicated his truth in no better way, I think, than addressing the pressing theological issues that threatened Hebrew identity as God's people using motifs and customs with which they were already familiar (whether in factual error or not, for that matter was unimportant compared to the urgent need to teach the people to keep to the faith).
quote:
A few questions and requests:
1. How do you handle passages such as these: Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you . . . (I Peter 1, English Standard Version).
And this one: And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1, ESV). (I take both I and II Peter to be refering to the Old Testament prophets.)
This is an excellent question regarding verbal inspiration and inerrancy. Nowhere in the Bible does scripture come closer to affirming part of itself having come directly from God, than in many of the proclamations of the Old Testament prophets. Not only do we have 2 Peter above, but also of course many places in the prophetic books themselves, where we find things like "the word of the Lord came to me" etc.
The honest answer is that I'm still exploring the nature of prophecy in the Bible. If scripture is not in all its literal meanings necessarily inerrant, nor even necessarily verbally inspired everywhere, what do we make of such prophetic claims? What I've studied (Craig Hill's In God's Time and now Brent Sandy's Plowshares and Pruning Hooks) has been enough, at least, to convince me that prophecy is its own literary genre in its own right - full of hyperbole and other non-literal poetic devices. And while the Hebrew understanding of prophecy does seem to have involved some form of verbal inspiration, there appears to be a degree of the human involved as well, as the prophet interprets and repeats what he has been inspired to say. So while, in the historical understanding, prophecy may in some way proceed verbally from God, due to the human element and the use of non-literal language in the first place it does not seem to me that literal inerrancy is claimed by scripture for prophecy, let alone non-prophetic narrative like the Genesis epic.
So suffice it to say that I don't know a good response to this question yet, but I suspect there is a solution out there compatible with what I've been saying here.
quote:
2. I (maybe others, too) could really use some good reading material on the ANE cultural understanding of literary interpretation. Do you have some references pass on to us? (I've read some NT Wright and Derrett on the NT times, but I'm not sure what's good for OT times.)
I'd have to recommend the papers of Paul Seely, who has exhaustively investigated ANE cosmology (and in general premodern cosmology around the world). Published in the Westminster Theological Journal over the last decade or so, Seely's papers (there are about 4 of them) survey dozens of archaeological works - I can recommend all his papers on the basis of his references and bibliography alone.
Unfortunately the Westminster Theological Journal (http://www.wts.edu/publications/wtj/index.html) does not seem to make their archives available online. Searching for the titles of the papers on Google, I have managed to find a couple for you (at odd locations too: "occasioncameras.com" ? :-).
Paul Seely: "The Geographical Meaning of 'Earth' and 'Seas'", http://www.occasioncameras.com/creationdays/pdf/earth.sea.seely.wtj.pdf
Paul Seely: "The Date of the Tower of Babel and Some Theological Implications",
http://www.occasioncameras.com/creationdays/pdf/seely.babel.wtj.2001.pdf
What I haven't been able to find online is Seely's "The Firmament and the Water Above", published in the WTJ in two parts. But I have electronic copies that he kindly emailed me a year or two ago, and I could forward them to you upon request.
Seely also does have a shorter, earlier essay treating the same subject in much less detail ("The Three-Storied Universe"), and it is available online at the Web site of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA, a group of American scientists who are Christians) since it was published in their journal. Here is the URL: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1969/JASA3-69Seely.html
Note: A couple of rebuttals to Seely by inerrancy apologist "J. P. Holding" (a pseudonym apparently) are available at the Answers in Genesis Web site, but they are more effective in isolation than when read in the context of Seely's complete original papers and his subsequent response to Holding (of which I also have an electronic copy).
quote:
3. I could also use some references to an approach to interpreting Genesis in light of question 2 above. I did note your having mentioned John Walton, John Stek, Meredith Klein, Hencri Blocher, Paul Seely. Can you be more specific about these author's works and what you suggest about them? Who else can you refer us to?
As long as I'm talking about Seely, let me note he also has a book, Inerrant Wisdom, which makes a biblical case against the doctrine of inerrancy - largely not built on the ANE material, however, and much more broadly-focused across the whole Bible rather than Genesis 1-11 (which he in fact rarely mentions directly). For Genesis in particular, I would stick to Seely's papers. For inerrancy in general, I would read his book (which, if not still available through distributors, is available from the publisher - that's where I got my copy).
Getting back to Genesis interpretation - my highest overall recommendation is Conrad Hyers' The Meaning of Creation (hopefully still in print). He covers both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 in light of the ANE historical-cultural context. You can also find a paper by Hyers, published in the ASA journal (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith) and available online at the ASA Web site, which pretty well condenses the ideas presented in the first half of the book:
Conrad Hyers: "Dinosaur Religion: On Interpreting and Mis-interpreting the Creation Texts", http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1984/JASA9-84Hyers.html
John Stek (at Wheaton and chairperson of the original NIV translation committee, if I'm not mistaken) provides an excellent chapter within the larger edited volume, Portraits of Creation. The chapter is entitled "What Says the Scripture", and makes use of insights from the ANE historical-cultural context. The rest of the book deals with scientific matters from a Christian perspective, not biblical issues, but nonetheless I recommend the whole volume to you. Again, I hope it is still in print.
Meredith Kline (I misspelled his name in my previous posting) is famous as a strong proponent of the framework hypothesis - seeing Genesis 1 as a literary framework organized topologically to emphasize the teaching point. Kline doesn't interact too much with insights from ANE culture, to my knowledge, but since the framework view is part of my understanding, I recommend him. He's published quite a bit on it; here are some articles by him available online:
Meredith Kline: "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony", http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html
Meredith Kline: "Because It Had Not Rained",
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html
Finally, Henri Blocher's book, In the Beginning, is a good, dense analysis of Genesis 1 through 3. Like Kline, Blocher doesn't really interact with ANE data, and is somewhat more conservative as well (assigning some historicity to Adam and Eve, for example).
I mentioned John Walton because apparently his recently-published Genesis commentary makes use of the ANE data (this according to what I've read). But I haven't looked at the commentary myself so can't personally vouch for it.
In addition to the above references, I can also recommend a couple of additional miscellaneous ones:
Robert Schneider (professor at Berea, an American Christian liberal arts university): "What the Bible Teaches about Creation", http://www.berea.edu/SpecialProject/scienceandfaith/essay01.asp - this essay is an excellent summary of all the above
Dennis Bratcher (Wesleyan scholar and minister): "The Fall - A Second Look", http://www.cresourcei.org/gen3.html - this essay skirts historicity and looks at what teaching points we can draw from the Genesis 2-3 narrative as story
Good "talking" to you - hope this helps,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
| 129 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:51 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|