 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Andrew_
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 10/31/2003 5:41 AM (GMT -6) |   | My father and I were talking about this the other day.
Isaiah 14:12 states that when Lucifer fell, he 'shook the nations'. We can all agree that he fell before the creation of Adam and Eve (if anyone proves differently, please show/explain. I'd like to see different viewpoints), so how could there have been nations before man was created?
Also, bones take a lot longer than a few thousand years to fossilize, so what are we to make of that?
I'm sorry if this is a lame post, but it's just been on my mind lately.
Andrew | | Back to Top | | |
 |
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 11/1/2003 11:00 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_
My father and I were talking about this the other day.
Isaiah 14:12 states that when Lucifer fell, he 'shook the nations'. We can all agree that he fell before the creation of Adam and Eve (if anyone proves differently, please show/explain. I'd like to see different viewpoints), so how could there have been nations before man was created?
Also, bones take a lot longer than a few thousand years to fossilize, so what are we to make of that?
Andrew,
If you start with Isaiah 14:3 you will see that in-context 14:12-15 clearly refer metaphorically to the king of Babylon. The whole passage is a triumphant and ironic lament over Babylon-the-captor's demise and the ensuing freedom of the Israelites. Like many Isaiah passages, it is written in a prophetic and non-literal style (the trees exult over Babylon's fall - Isaiah 14:8 - etc). Thus the king of Babylon is pictured as having exalted himself to heaven and having aspired to God's throne - Isaiah 14:12-14 - only to be thrown down to join those in the grave (sheol) - Isaiah 14:15 cf 14:9-11.
This is the plain historical-grammatical meaning of 14:12-15. It is true that later tradition (mostly Christian I think) appropriated and re-visioned this passage as referring to the fall of Satan. I make no comment on that - certainly it is common in later Christian thought to re-vision Old Testament passages, which probably mean one thing historically-grammatically, to foreshadow or pattern another thing entirely (for example the "young woman/virgin" of Isaiah 7:14, vis-a-vis Matthew's recognition in that passage of a messianic foreshadowing - Matthew 1:22-12). And I believe such appropropriation beyond the context can be valid, as we see themes and types repeat throughout scripture. But whether seeing Satan in Isaiah 14:12-15 is such a valid re-visioning is not something I'm familiar enough with to comment further upon.
In any case, I think the heart of your question hints at an underlying assumption of exacting intrabiblical consistency that you might want to reconsider. In our modern age where critical methodology suffuses everything we do, we might expect that any account worthwhile, let alone one that is God's word, would likewise conform to our standards of precision - as if the modern way of thinking has been normative throughout time and is God's way of thinking too. But the revelation of the Old Testament, in particular, was given to a people and time unfamiliar and unconcerned with critical method and rigorous technical consistency (concerns which grew out of Greek culture in the first few centuries BC).
Thus, even if the Lucifer tradition of Isaiah 14:12-15 is valid, I don't see it saying anything about the timeline or timeframe of his fall (as if it were a historical event). Nor do I see it conflicting with anything in the creation accounts (which are likewise pre-modern, pre-critical compositions). To see such conflict is to push the literary genre of both Isaiah and Genesis further than their historical context allows.
Incidentally, if you or anyone else is committed to the doctrine of total factual inerrancy - popular in many conservative Christian circles because (I think) of its conformance to what our modern way of thinking would cause us to presume God would do - I understand you may have trouble with this.
Best regards,
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
Andrew_
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 11/4/2003 6:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott: Thanks for the informative response. You have a valid point, but we also need to remember that much of the Old Testament writings have double meanings: one passage (I don't recall where) talks about an earthly king, but then saying that he was the 'sum of perfection' and goes on to attribute to this king an appearance can't be human.
Also, Genesis 1:2 states that the earth was formless and void. The hebrew reads (note: I'm reading second-hand translations. Dana, correct me if need be) that the earth became 'waste and empty'. There is a gap in time between the first and second verses, so could that possibly hint to there being something before[i/] Adam?
Andrew | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 11/4/2003 3:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Andrew,
You began:
quote:
Scott: Thanks for the informative response. You have a valid point, but we also need to remember that much of the Old Testament writings have double meanings: one passage (I don't recall where) talks about an earthly king, but then saying that he was the 'sum of perfection' and goes on to attribute to this king an appearance can't be human.
Yes, there is prefiguring in the Old Testament; as a Christian I accept that. But in this case (Isaiah 14:12-15) I don't see that we are warranted to come to that conclusion. There is, to my knowledge, no later biblical revelation which appropriates and re-visions Isaiah 14:12-15 in the same way, for example, that Matthew does with the "young woman" of Isaiah 7:14. Further, there is a strikingly plain meaning (the king of Babylon) already evident in the context of 14:12-15 which does not in itself call for any additional interpretation (unlike, for example, the reference to the woman's seed and the serpent in Genesis 3:15, whose lack of self-evident historical-grammatical meaning opens the door for a later messianic and Christian interpretation). And finally, the literary style of the oracles in Isaiah 14 is clearly non-literal (since the trees exult in 14:8, for example) so any elements of 14:12-15 that would be fantastical to apply literally to a human being or human kingdom (eg, "morning star") can be seen as figurative rather than requiring us to postulate any supernatural subject. So I have trouble seeing any reference, even a veiled one, to the fall of Satan in 14:12-15.
Even if such a reference were there, I think it would be a mistake to reach across centuries of time and literary divides (prophecy versus inspired legend) from Isaiah 14 to Genesis 1 and attempt to read out of each text, and connect, secular historical timeline facts (which aren't there in either text in the first place, in my view) - such as the sequencing of Satan's fall vis-a-vis the creation of the nations and of man. We don't believe that Satan literally is (or ever was) either "morning star" or "son of the dawn", nor that he is currently in "the grave", so I don't see how we can conclude that he literally was cast from heaven to earth. That seems arbitrary to me. Nor do I think we can conclude that such an event caused cosmic upheaval which can ostensibly be connected with Genesis 1:2. Such cosmic upheaval - from good to bad to good again - is nowhere else recounted in the Bible that I'm aware of, nor is there any external scientific or historical evidence for it having happened, and thus it strikes me as merely speculative.
You continued:
quote:
Also, Genesis 1:2 states that the earth was formless and void. The hebrew reads (note: I'm reading second-hand translations. Dana, correct me if need be) that the earth became 'waste and empty'. There is a gap in time between the first and second verses, so could that possibly hint to there being something before[i/] Adam?
I've not read of any scholar who has concluded, purely on textual grounds, that 'was' can be rendered 'became'. I have read of various translations of 'without form and void', and accept that 'waste and empty' are within their breadth, but it is not necessary to postulate the 'gap theory' (a hidden cosmic upheaval between 1:1 and 1:2) to explain this or the rest of Genesis 1:2 for that matter. Rather, in my view, since Genesis 1 serves as a theological polemic against Babylonian and other polytheistic ANE (ancient near-Eastern) cosmogonies, which commonly begin with primordial water, earth and darkness in chaos, so too does Genesis 1 begin with these elements. In this way God both accommodated to and accorded with the ancient Hebrews' expectations concerning theologically-irrelevant scientific details (such as the secular prehistory of the cosmos), ie by using legend-material with which they were familiar. And yet God reshaped that material to teach theologically important basics at a time when his light was just beginning to break into the world (such as his lordship alone, and the creaturely status of everything else, in contrast to the animism of the surrounding cultures).
So there is a historical-grammatical explanation for Genesis 1:2 apart from having to appeal to a gap that is already otherwise without much foundation, from what I can tell. Not to mention the lack of external evidence, eg from science and history, of such a gap having actually occurred in our past. Instead the natural history of our past seems pretty seamless, according to the mainstream picture, which I generally accept.
In summary, I guess I'd have to say that I generally haven't found the gap theory especially convincing or helpful. Your mileage, of course, may vary, and I can respect that.
Best regards,
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:15 AM (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 |
|
|