#37.5 The Gospels as History Post #1.5

Thanks Alan! If I can quit smoking, then surely a virgin can drive a camel through the eye of a fat man whilst loving her enemy! 

Do I believe in miracles? I'm certainly skeptical. However, the natural world itself is so full of bizarre wonders which are inexplicable to my uneducated mind that I find any supernatural wonders that might test my “faith” at least acceptable to some degree. Science has explained the inexplicable for decades, even centuries, surely more “miracles” can be defined as time marches on.

My point being this; my “rejection” of the Gospels is not based upon a scientific standard that “miracles don’t happen in history”. Is that a component of my skepticism? Certainly. Just as those same miracles are a component of your Faith. However, the germination of my disbelief did not stem from a science vs. supernatural mindset.

This is a topic I hope to get into, as it’s not something to merely brush aside from an agnostic or Christian perspective. I am not afraid to discuss any issue you can think of about these books. I hope you won’t preemptively take things off the table via your own priori assumptions.

Now back to the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth... better known as smoking cessation.

JahSay

#37 The Gospels as History #1

I've delayed  launching this discussion due to a limitation in my own brain. I'm not exactly sure where to start. As I turned it around inside my noggin, the thing that has become clear is a need to settle a philosophical question before we turn to the historical questions.

Many who reject the gospels do so for reasons that have to do with texts and history and bias and the process involved. But there's a separate issue that precedes this discussion. Many who reject the gospels as history do so for a reason that has nothing to do with history. Their objection is philosophical. They reject the possibility of the supernatural and miraculous. This a priori assumption, when present, makes a discussion about texts, authorship, dating, etc a big waste of time. For those who reject the miraculous, the gospels are rejected as history because miracles don't happen in history. Babies can't be born to virgins. People blind from birth don't suddenly start seeing. The dead don't rise.

Now I'm not asking at this point whether or not you believe the particular miracles in the gospels happened. I'm asking in general terms if you believe miracles happen? Do we live in a closed system of uniform natural causes? Or, do we live in a somewhat open system where supernatural cause is possible? Probable?

I need to know your current position on that question before I can know where to start.

Congrats on quitting smoking. I'm proud of you bro.
Alan

#36 Parenthetical Post

Just want to make a couple of points indirectly connected to our current conversation.

1) Reason and knowledge did not lead me to faith.
Rom 10:17 says well that "faith comes by hearing". I'm a believer because I met a man named Jesus. He talks to me. He works powerfully in my life. He answers prayer. He works miracles. It's a very relational and revelational kind of thing. He speaks to me through scripture and he speaks to me in many of the ways I observe him speaking to other people in the narratives of scripture. No audible voice yet. Maybe later today though.
2) Reason and knowledge are complementary to my faith.
I'm not claiming to be a scholar or a genius. But I have put some thought into my faith. So far, this has served me well. It hasn't undermined my faith at all, but only supported it through the consistent congruence that I discover.
3) I recognize that no one else is going to come to faith through reason and knowledge. Sorry for that Aquinas.
4) Even so, from an apologetic perspective, I need to point out that we're going at this all wrong. Starting with Genesis and working forward is not the best way to establish scriptural authority. Much better to begin with the gospels as reliable documents then move to Jesus as a trustworthy authority then move to acceptance of the OT on the warrant of Jesus' authority. The current conversation would then serve to simply clarify objections to the OT and better understand the purpose and development of the OT rather than attempt to establish it's authority through argument.

#35 Genesis Post #15 Response from Jace

Jace replies in context and in RED:

I'm familiar with J, E, P, and D as you've described them. I find the whole theory humorous at best. The entire argument, when used as an attempt to undermine scriptural authority, is weak in my opinion. First of all, that the five books of Moses were entirely written by Moses is obviously false. The end of Deuteronomy tells of Moses' death and burial. There was clearly some redactor involved there. I wouldn't argue otherwise and nothing hangs on it in my opinion. I’m not sure why you find the “argument” humorous, at best or otherwise. As a lay person I find it fascinating. As a minister and theological teacher I would think you would as well. To your “First of all”, with more to follow, I would ask if you agree that Moses did not write the first 5 books of the Bible, then who did if it was just one person? You explode your own nonchalance with the following:

Secondly, the whole argument fails to note the obvious. A writer's agenda and bias in different pieces of writing can dramatically influence the final product.

The whole “argument”, as you continue to describe it, is EXACTLY predicated on your point. Not only do the majority of main stream theologians believe this to be correct they believe it precisely BECAUSE “A writer's agenda and bias in different pieces of writing can dramatically influence the final product”. I’m a little unclear on how you can even separate those two things.

 In Genesis 1 the writer is clearly paralleling and, in the distinctions, correcting the contemporary Babylonian and Mesopotamian creation stories. In Genesis 2, the agenda is independent of any thought of the Babylonian stories and therefore free to take on another shape. To note differences between Genesis 1 & 2 stylistically is most simply explained by understanding that the two sections have distinct purposes. Occam's Razor would lead me to this explanation over the overly complex JEPD theories any day.

The JEPD theories aren’t complex at all. In fact, they are incredibly simple. Various oral traditions of the Hebrews were written down by various people, eventually, they were compiled together. That’s a bit like saying that the creation of Nortons Anthology of English Literature is more easily explained by magic than a collection of editors doing their jobs.

The writer of Genesis is BIASED. He has a theological, philosophical, and political agenda in every word. Find me a history that doesn't and I'll give you a dollar. None of this has anything to do with the writing's value or accuracy as history. If it did, history would be impossible in any setting. It's just that in reading history, the reader will be well served to acknowledge and attempt to identity the writer's bias and to admit his own as well. 

Again, I don’t think anyone of even moderate education would argue with you on this; all historians suffer from varying degrees of bias. You can keep your dollar! And, again, the point you are making is the specific reason theologians have come to this conclusion; that multiple authors wrote various portions of Genesis. That’s the reasons there are different versions of the same story throughout Genesis (Creation, The Flood, Jacob, etc.). Different writers wanted to emphasize different aspects of these stories.

As far as the bias having “nothing to do with the writings value or accuracy as history”....Surely you don’t mean that? I don’t say their value as theological or spiritual is denigrated by the multiple authors. Not at all. In fact, that may make them all the richer. However, although all historians are biased to some degree, the best ones are the least so. Would you like to read the history of World War 2 as written by Ahmadinejad? Bias has it’s boundaries and it’s limitations.

The argument you present is an argument against a fundamentalist and positivistic view of scripture, one that I don't share. In arguing against that you are not arguing with me at all. The view you are in disagreement with fails to see that the text of scripture does not give us direct access to the events described. They think that:

1) The event occurs.

2) The writer records the event in scripture.

3) The reader reads and understands the event.

This is ludicrous and naive. Reality looks more like this:

1) The event occurs. 

The event is REPORTED to have occurred. You do dismiss every Creation story save Genesis, right? I would argue that most of the other Creation stories are no more fantastical. And since our intrepid “reporters” are indeed biased and with an agenda, well....

1. The historian brings his own bias and agenda to the evaluation of the event.

Agreed.

1. The historian works through a particular process of research, analysis, and selection to process the event through the filter of his own bias and agenda.

Agreed, with the caveat that “bias and agenda”, in a nomadic tribe of the Middle East about 3,000 years ago, may also affect the efficacy of “research and analysis”. 

4) The text itself is a multi layered and nuanced concrete item where genre, the function of language, the nature of referent, and layers of possible meeting both denoted and connoted.

I’m not sure I understand this point. Please explain.

5) The reader brings their own approach to the reading. Some read to control. Others read to surrender. They both tend to find what they're looking for. 

We should make this continued argument you’ve been making a whole separate conversation. There’s a lot to it. Also, I don’t entirely disagree.

6) The reader brings their own bias and agenda to the reading. 

I think this is really point 5.5?

7) Meaning is defined.

Ah! I assume the bias and agenda are still involved in this “defined meaning”?

And the above doesn't even address the complexities of language, translation, reproduction, and redaction. I'm no scholar on this stuff, but I have spent some time in the text and dealing with these issues. I am convinced that:

1) There is no possibility of a text that would give us direct access to events. Bias cannot be eliminated.

2) We have exactly the text God wants us to have. 

Hmm, hard to figure how these aren’t in direct conflict. But then, I guess God is biased. Even in my Christian days though, I had trouble with this. I’m not sure what God wants me to take from Leviticus, but it must be something I’m blind to. I LOVE shrimp cocktail!!

This entire process demands:

1) Surrender. If I come to the text committed to my a priori agendas and assumptions looking to validate my already settled position (whether belief or unbelief) then the text will serve me well either way. I'll find what I'm looking for. When I come to the Bible, not just to read it, but to let it read me, I find all kinds of things getting adjusted and changed in me all the time, even my fundamentalist assumptions about the Bible. 

Ah, but that assumes that “Surrender” is not, in and of itself, a bias. That said, I do my best to approach all literature with an open mind and heart. Including the Bible.

2) An epistemology of Critical Realism. I must abandon positivism and adopt the mindset that there is a concrete reality I can truly know while humbly maintaining my awareness of personal bias.

I salute that effort and join in with you.

3) An epistemology of Love. The Bible doesn't work well as a tool to validate my "rightness" (either direction). It works great when Love is the filter through which all knowledge must pass. If my agenda is to love God and others, then all the Law will be fulfilled in that. If the kind of knowledge I'm looking for is a relational and experiential knowledge of God, the Bible works very well for that. 

I can’t disagree with that. Well, accept for the bits where God is smiting and slaughtering. Or turning folks into pillars of salt and such. But, I agree that love is the filter which SOME knowledge must pass. I agree that you can’t have a good relationship with anyone without humility, openness, hope, faith, grace... all things that are discussed and extolled throughout Scripture. However, I don’t need the meteorologist to love me or vice versa for his knowledge to be of use. Or my doctor. Yadda, yadda. I won’t belabor the point.

Alan, my over all point is not to take away the spiritual importance of either of these two Creation stories. But, to take these stories as “history” is to take about 30 branches of science and throw them out the window. Why would one do this? To satiate a bias. 

#35 Genesis Post #15

I'm familiar with J, E, P, and D as you've described them. I find the whole theory humorous at best. The entire argument, when used as an attempt to undermine scriptural authority, is weak in my opinion. First of all, that the five books of Moses were entirely written by Moses is obviously false. The end of Deuteronomy tells of Moses' death and burial. There was clearly some redactor involved there. I wouldn't argue otherwise and nothing hangs on it in my opinion.

Secondly, the whole argument fails to note the obvious. A writer's agenda and bias in different pieces of writing can dramatically influence the final product. In Genesis 1 the writer is clearly paralleling and, in the distinctions, correcting the contemporary Babylonian and Mesopotamian creation stories. In Genesis 2, the agenda is independent of any thought of the Babylonian stories and therefore free to take on another shape. To note differences between Genesis 1 & 2 stylistically is most simply explained by understanding that the two sections have distinct purposes. Occam's Razor would lead me to this explanation over the overly complex JEPD theories any day.

The writer of Genesis is BIASED. He has a theological, philosophical, and political agenda in every word. Find me a history that doesn't and I'll give you a dollar. None of this has anything to do with the writing's value or accuracy as history. If it did, history would be impossible in any setting. It's just that in reading history, the reader will be well served to acknowledge and attempt to identity the writer's bias and to admit his own as well.

The argument you present is an argument against a fundamentalist and positivistic view of scripture, one that I don't share. In arguing against that you are not arguing with me at all. The view you are in disagreement with fails to see that the text of scripture does not give us direct access to the events described. They think that:

1) The event occurs.
2) The writer records the event in scripture.
3) The reader reads and understands the event.

This is ludicrous and naive. Reality looks more like this:

1) The event occurs.
2) The historian brings his own bias and agenda to the evaluation of the event.
3) The historian works through a particular process of research, analysis, and selection to process the event through the filter of his own bias and agenda.
4) The text itself is a multi layered and nuanced concrete item where genre, the function of language, the nature of referent, and layers of possible meeting both denoted and connoted.
5) The reader brings their own approach to the reading. Some read to control. Others read to surrender. They both tend to find what they're looking for.
6) The reader brings their own bias and agenda to the reading.
7) Meaning is defined.

And the above doesn't even address the complexities of language, translation, reproduction, and redaction. I'm no scholar on this stuff, but I have spent some time in the text and dealing with these issues. I am convinced that:
1) There is no possibility of a text that would give us direct access to events. Bias cannot be eliminated.
2) We have exactly the text God wants us to have.

This entire process demands:
1) Surrender. If I come to the text committed to my a priori agendas and assumptions looking to validate my already settled position (whether belief or unbelief) then the text will serve me well either way. I'll find what I'm looking for. When I come to the Bible, not just to read it, but to let it read me, I find all kinds of things getting adjusted and changed in me all the time, even my fundamentalist assumptions about the Bible.
2) An epistemology of Critical Realism. I must abandon positivism and adopt the mindset that there is a concrete reality I can truly know while humbly maintaining my awareness of personal bias.
3) An epistemology of Love. The Bible doesn't work well as a tool to validate my "rightness" (either direction). It works great when Love is the filter through which all knowledge must pass. If my agenda is to love God and others, then all the Law will be fulfilled in that. If the kind of knowledge I'm looking for is a relational and experiential knowledge of God, the Bible works very well for that.

#34 Genesis Post #14

Response to Genesis Post #13

Well, I must confess, I am not fluent in Hebrew. But I'm sensing a trend. This is somewhat reminiscent of the much maligned comment, "That depends on what the word "is" is." made by Bill Clinton during his times of trouble in the 90's.

I don't say that just to be glib or dismissive of scholarship. In fact I applaud this approach you are taking; studying the language, examining the context, researching the culture. But do you take it far enough?

As an evangelical Christian I was taught that Moses wrote all 5 of the first books in the Bible. As it turns out, this is not what the vast majority of Biblical scholars believe to be true. (In fact the only ones who don't acknowledge the following tend to be of a decidedly evangelical or fundamentalist bent).

In fact, although Moses still receives credit for most of the source material in the Torah, both Jewish and Christian scholarship has determined there are as many as 5 easily identifiable authors, or more pointedly, scribes within these books attributed to Moses.

We can certainly get in to the different authors at a later time. But, for those unfamiliar or skeptical of the notion It would be informative to read chapter 1 and chapter two in a "compare and contrast" method.

Stylistically and linguistically they are quite different. In fact, it would appear to be a very confused mind that would write these two chapters sequentially and present them as a narrative.

Beyond just the contradictions of chronology, there is a distinct difference in the "voice" of these two passages.

But, it is even more subtle a proposition than that. We of a modern and Western mindset will be compelled to (if we accept the premise of dual authors) conclude that chapter 1 is writer A (actually, he's known as "P" for "Priestly") and chapter 2 as writer B (actually, he's known as "J" for Yahwist or Jehovist), but we would be in error.

The writer of chapter 1 is indeed "P", the "Priestly" writer. A literary style more concerned with history and genealogies, the letter of the law, if you will. You'll notice in chapter 1 the almost mantra-like approach to the action. Not a lot of personality.

In chapter 2 "P" continues…but just for the first few verses. Then, verse 4 rather abruptly, transitions to Creation story redux. This 4th verse is generally thought to be written by yet a 3rd author, at least in part. But more about "Redactor" as necessary.

The remainder of chapter 2, which is also thought to predate chapter 1, is attributed to writer "J". Our Yahwist friend. And to be fair, compared to "P", old "J" is a regular pushover. "J" is where you're more likely to hear and feel real emotion, dialogue, and blessed mercy from God. For example, the words "mercy", "grace", and "repentance" never emanate from "P"'s pen. However, "J" and his commiserator "E" (yes, that's another one the scholars have identified through style, language, and interest) use these words around 70 times. Apparently, "P" is believed to have written chapter 1 after "J" wrote chapter 2. This would explain the presence of "R" and his clumsy attempt at a transitional phrase (the first half of verse 4).

Sorry this is so dang long…

By the way Alan, I am not assuming you are ignorant of these things. Although, I don't know how much education you have received outside the confines of modern evangelical "thought". I would assume, with your curious and voracious intellect that I'm not showing you any new info here. However, I can say with great confidence, that this knowledge of Biblical origin is not exactly bandied about in Sunday School.

The point is, these were oral traditions of a pre-history for the nomadic Hebrews. They were written down, once a written language was developed, and were later compiled. This took centuries of development. To read this as a literal truth flies in the face of even the most remedial research. That said, faith is a funny thing. One can certainly believe whatever one wishes. But to do so without examining the evidence is a shoddy bit of work.

#33 Genesis Post #13

Are there chronological inconsistencies between Genesis 1 & 2? Here are the key passages to compare:

“And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. ” (Genesis 1:11, ESV)

“These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, ” (Genesis 2:4–5, ESV)

The word translated "field" in Gen 2:5 is Sadeh in the Hebrew. While it can occasionally be translated to mean land as opposed to sea, it most often refers to a smaller piece of land within all the overall land that exists. There is another Hebrew word that speaks to land in general - eretz. This context leads us toward this particular use, for it says "No bush of the field was yet in the land (eretz)..."  Sadeh has a specific agricultural connotation picturing a plain that has been cultivated. This is also consistent contextually for it says "and there was no man to work the ground..."

So the very common objection that Gen 1 says God made plants then Man while Gen 2 says God made Man then plants is misleading. For in actuality Gen 1 says God made plants then Man. Gen 2 says that until God made Man there was no agriculture, which makes sense given there was no Man.

#32 Genesis Post #12 (brief too!)

1. I believe the Creation stories denote historical events.
2. I believe the Creation stories connote essential theological truth.
3. I believe readings of these stories that fail to give due weight to the figurative language present in the text are dangerous at worst and misleading at best.

#31 Genesis Post #11

I have so much work to do....but I'm gonna jump in on this. Because you're really annoying me! (Although, it mostly makes me smile and love you all the better because nobody else gets my goat quite as charmingly).

I'm using the word myth as it is described by the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Definition of MYTH

1

a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenonb : parable, allegory

2

a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society<seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs>b : an unfounded or false notion

3

: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

4

: the whole body of myths

Now the definitions you credit to Kreef and Tacelli are a bit tedious. The appearance of specificity is not necessarily the advent of clarity. I do mean #2, but I also mean all of the above. Do we need to enumerate what myth is not?


If so, here is what myth does NOT mean: Something that is literally true, based on provable fact, and free from embellishment. Myth develops in order to make sense of things that are beyond our comprehension. 


As I've repeatedly stated, myths do have value. They should be studied from every angle.


Now, answer my darn question!!!

#30 Genesis Post #10

Here are several possible ways to define myth. Which of these (or more than one) do you mean by the word? I think you're using #2, right?

1. The literal sense of myth, from the Greek mythos, is simply "sacred story." This says nothing about its truth or falsity, historicity or nonhistoricity—just that it is a story and that it is sacred, or about sacred things.
2. The popular sense is simply "something that didn’t really happen," or "something that isn’t real"—like Santa Claus. Here myth is contrasted with truth or fact. This is the sense in which most people are concerned about the stories in the Bible, especially the miracle stories: did they really happen, or are they only "myths," that is, mere fictional human inventions?
3. A more technical and narrow sense of myth that is often used to describe biblical stories, especially miracle stories, is that of a literary genre that includes fantasy, talking animals and stories of the gods. These are supernatural stories that are not literally true, nor are they meant by the storyteller to be taken as literally true, but as a way of explaining natural facts by supernatural (or natural) fictions. Both supernatural stories of gods and talking animals, and natural stories like Jesus’ parables, fit in this category.
4. Another technical meaning, unusual outside professional circles, is that of a projection of human consciousness out onto reality. In this sense, Kant’s theory of knowledge ("the Copernican revolution in philosophy," as he called it) is the claim that all human knowledge is myth. In a narrower sense, dreams are myths if while we are dreaming we take them for objective realities.
5. A much broader, but still technical and professional, use of myth is "any story meant to articulate a worldview." This sense would include both literally true and fictional stories, but it is usually used with the connotation of fiction.
6. A last sense, also quite broad and quite technical, used in literary more than biblical circles, is that of a Platonic archetype in story form, a universal truth about human life expressed in a story. The story is usually fiction, but not necessarily. Christ’s resurrection, even if factual, would also be a myth in this sense, as the pattern for our resurrection.

These definitions from Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli

#29 Genesis Post #9

Interesting stuff. It's certainly germane to the topic at hand, but it also appears to be dancing around my actual questions.

Let's simplify. I'l state my beliefs about Genesis. You reciprocate.

1. I believe the Creation stories are myths: Again, this does not mean a Creator didn't create. It means these stories were developed by ignorant (not stupid, ignorant) people. You can find similar stories in every culture and faith.
2. I believe holding onto these myths is dangerous: They force people of Faith to ignore provable facts in order to sustain unprovable beliefs in the pursuit of an orthodoxy. The need for orthodoxy is based in the fear of death and damnation. A fear all of us share at one level or another.
3. I believe these myths DO have value: These stories can speak to what an ancient people believed in, aspired to, valued and feared. Since these stories are a cornerstone of both Western literature and Western thought it is imperative, regardless of our beliefs, that we study them and try to understand them within their historical context.


Trying to keep it as brief and clear as possible. Please follow suit!

Jace

#28 Genesis Post #8

I found your last post very helpful. For one thing, it gave me some sense of having clearly communicated what I was attempting to communicate and having been understood. My goal in this exchange isn’t to win you over, but to help you understand what I believe and why to the degree I am able. If I’m right in what I believe, then the power to win you over is in the thing itself. So the most helpful thing you can do prior to disagreeing with what I have said is to first give some reflection that indicates you are at least disagreeing with what I have tried to say, which is what you’ve done. So thanks.

Here’s what I think you’re saying. There is a large and influential group within Christianity who insist on a young earth creation model. This group is committed to the inerrancy of scripture (we have yet to define this and so I have yet to voice my stance), and I think we both agree on what “they” mean by this phrase. This group dismisses any scientific evidence that would challenge their view. They do this primarily for theological reasons and any scientific evidence or argument they use to challenge an old earth model is thus tainted by their theological bias. It seems this is the group and the stance you are in disagreement with. It remains to be seen whether you are in disagreement with me, for I have not indicated my view on the old earth / young earth discussion and have not weighed in on the science and very little on the theology. I think this is why you still feel unanswered.

My only point so far has been to define the playing field as I understand it. The text of Genesis 1 does not demand a young earth or an old earth view. It remains to be seen if any other texts do and what their interpretive issues might be. For the sake of simplicity, I am limiting the scope of what I’m discussing at this point to Genesis 1.

1) Genesis 1 tells us nothing about the literal span of time involved in Creation.

2) Many Christians interpret Genesis 1 to demand a young earth / 6 literal day interpretation.

3) You disagree with (2).

4) Your disagreement is with their interpretation not the text itself.

This leads me to what I think is a parenthetical idea very relevant to our present discussion. It is at this point that I am taking the role of a critic of Christianity from within Christianity, not that I’m criticizing Christianity as it ought to be and sometime is, but rather as it often is in actual expression. The history of the biblical inerrancy discussion is fascinating. I’m less familiar than I should be with all the details and the details I’m aware of would bog us down. To simply summarize, I believe this discussion is an outgrowth of the liberal/fundamentalist discussion from the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The error of liberal theology (and here I have admittedly shown my hand) sparked a reaction within non-liberal Christian academia and the pastorate. This reaction is called fundamentalism. It is my observation that a reaction to error often directly produces more error. Fundamentalism can be somewhat simply understood through the mantra (referring to scripture): God said it. I believe it. That settles it.

This approach to scripture and faith has had a few benefits but has been quite destructive overall. It is good in that it is true and right so far as it goes. It is naïve in that it leaves out a key part of the process. In actuality, a conservative, even a fundamentalist approach to scripture always actually includes this process: God said it. I interpret it. I believe it. That settles it. By folding “I interpret it” into “God said it” we equate our understanding with the voice and authority of God. Much harm has come from this. The real problem here is epistemological. It assumes a positivism that just isn’t real.

Though we can trace the modern expressions of this dilemma back to specific events in recent history, it is by no means a new dilemma. Those who provided the primary opposition to Jesus himself were, it seems, motivated by a similar fundamentalist agenda. Jesus heals on the Sabbath. God said you can’t do that. You have therefore violated God’s law. But God never said any such thing. More than that, they had assumed something fundamentally incorrect about the purpose of Sabbath and this wrong assumption couldn’t help but lead to error in interpretation and application. They assume that God made the man for the Sabbath when in fact the reverse is true. This doesn’t mean the Law was wrong. It simply meant they were interpreting it incorrectly both in general purpose and intent as well as in the particular meaning and application. Those trapped in this way of thinking will usually be deeply offended at an approach which takes the form “You have heard it said x, but I say to you y.” This because the “You have heard it said” bit has taken the form of creeds, catechisms, denominational doctrinal distinctives, and the like. Many who claim a commitment to the inerrancy of scripture are actually committed to these and scripture itself no longer has the authority to adjust them.

A man named Aquinas (a man much smarter than me) once wrote a book called Summa Theologica. He became, succeeding Augustine, the most influential theologian in the Catholic Church. This so much so that my non-catholic understanding of catholic orthodoxy is that “if Aquinas taught it then that’s what we believe.” But this does not represent a commitment to the authority of scripture. It simply evidences a commitment to Aquinas’ interpretation, an interpretation I’m convinced was right on many points and perhaps wrong on some others.

The genius of the Reformation (admitting some idiocy as well) was in the return to sola scriptura. Scripture, not Church teaching and tradition, is alone authoritative. The present difficulty is that we are now faced with a need for new reformation, for now Reformation Theology is, in many instances, authoritative in such a way that Scripture can no longer be used to adjust it. If Calvin said it (or Luther, or Wesley, or…) then I believe it. That settles it. We have made Calvin (or insert your theological guru here) god and his Institutes scripture.

In my opinion, the root of all this, even in me, is The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. For we are always looking to define the Knowledge of Good we can commit to and die for and looking for this from a book that was designed to offer something more. But that’s Genesis Chapter 2 and 3 and I won’t let you talk to me about that yet!

#27 Genesis Post #7

Here’s a re-write of my original reply. Kind of. I’m of course cheating a bit, because now I know your response to those arguments. I’ll try and respond to both. As usual, this is going to be frustrating for both of us. You, apparently, believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and I do not. Therefore, as in all of these discussions, it comes back to degrees of faith.

So, initially in response to N.T. Wright’s beautifully written, but ultimate obfuscation of the word “literal” (perhaps I’m just not clever enough) I posted the Merriam-Webster definition of the word:

LITERAL:

a : according with the letter of the scriptures (Curious that the most common usage is in reference to scripture...yes, I'm being snarky.)

b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual <liberty in the literal sense is impossible — B. N. Cardozo>

c : free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literaltruth>

d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a veryliteral man>

2

: of, relating to, or expressed in letters

3

: reproduced word for word : exact, verbatim <a literaltranslation>

I certainly understand that you were stating that the language in Genesis 1 and 2 is plausible on two levels; concrete and metaphorical. There’s no need to say “metaphorically referring to concrete things” as that is understood to be the definition of metaphorical.

Your well researched and well written dissertation on the Hebrew word for “day” is illuminating. Like so much of language, ancient and modern, the context, the user and the hearer/reader offer as much weight to a given word as anything. This is both frustrating and liberating. Ah, the dualities of life!

In the end, I do understand your thoughts on the veracity or literalness of the language in the Creation story. You made your point well and I understood. I promise!

However, I still feel unanswered for this reason; though you have managed to reason out your thoughts quite lucidly most Christians have very little understanding of these details. Furthermore, from an academic viewpoint this is more of a literary analysis than a factual analysis. Which is a problem.

The reason that’s problematic is that the layperson interprets these writings in such a simplistic manner that it then clouds their understanding of science; biology, natural selection, paleontology, geology, cosmology, and to an even greater yet more subtle extent, psychology. They begin to look at facts as "propaganda from the "Liberal Elite"", whoever the heck that is.

As I’ve mentioned, as a believer I never took the Genesis creation story literally. There was no need for me to do that and maintain my faith. In my view, God was greater than a two chapter explanation of the origins of life.

My concern over this literal interpretation held by most believers is that it has a dumbing down effect on society. The museum in Kentucky that puts dinosaurs frolicking about the outskirts of Eden is an affront to wisdom, knowledge and, in my view, even faith. 

The mountain of evidence that points to the evolution of human beings from progenitor primates flies in the face of these Creation stories. I readily concede that evolution and natural selection DO NOT preclude a Creator. Not in the least. They do however show these stories in a very different light. These stories are, just that, stories. As man developed language, tribes, traditions, and myths, in order to make sense of it all, these stories evolved along with him. This is not a denigration of these myths. Merely an acknowledgement of what they are. There is no shame in these stories. Nor does their implausibility make the existence of God implausible. However, holding onto these myths as if one’s faith depends upon it seems sophomoric to me. Both intellectually and spiritually.

Which brings me to the real point I’m trying to get too....

But I digress. One thing at a time, as you say.

#26 Genesis Post #6

I know your last post vanished mysteriously. I didn't delete it. Promise! I did read it though and will reply as best as I can.

First...you mentioned that I hadn't yet replied to your question about the apparent chronological discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2. I will. One thing at a time!

Second...you insisted that we use a common man use of "literal" and in no way acknowledged the distinction I was making or the argument made based on that distinction. I don't understand this and am a bit surprised. Anyway, it leaves me feeling a bit hamstrung, because it seems like I am being asked to make bricks without straw. The questions you are asking are academic. To be expected to answer them yet not allowed to use words in an academically precise way is very difficult. To be asked to give a critical evaluation of text without access to the tools of critical evaluation seems unnecessary and arbitrary.

You asked if I think Genesis 1 is literally true or not and then claimed to not be black and white about it. But yet when I gave my best effort at a nuanced response, you dismissed it out of hand without actually responding to it.

To summarize my previous post. The text of Genesis 1 does not appear to give us any information about the length of time involved in Creation. "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day" cannot be viewed as literal language simply because at this point there was no sun for the earth to revolve around. Evening and morning as observable events could not have been happening. The text demands a non-literal understanding. BUT, what is the referent of this non-literal language? THIS is the key question. Is the referent abstract or concrete? Is this language pointing us toward an actual span of time (that we don't know the length of)  or toward a mere abstract theological idea? I believe this non-literal language is telling us about a concrete event of God's creation. I have no idea how long it took. The text does not literally tell us that. I've seen some scientific data that leads me to think it was more than six 24 hour periods. This raises some theological questions for me, but I have lots of those so this is nothing new.

I believe your questions are requiring this degree of precision in my answer. In order to respond, I have to be able to attempt to define my terms so you can better understand my meaning. I think this is your objective, right?

#24 Genesis Post 4

It seems we must back up even further!

Jace: "It is either literally true or it is not literally true, as a historical account."

This is where we are talking past one another, for we do not yet share a common  understanding of how words are used in general, nor the word "literal" in particular. Here's a great quote from N.T. Wright that explains it better than I can.

"The terms ‘literal’ and ‘metaphorical’ refer, properly, to the ways words refer to things, not to the things to which the words refer. For the latter task, the appropriate words might be ‘concrete’ and ‘abstract’. The phrase ‘Plato’s theory of forms’ literally refers to an abstract entity (in fact, a doubly abstract one). The phrase ‘the greasy spoon’ refers metaphorically, and perhaps also metonymically, to a concrete entity, namely the cheap restaurant down the road. The fact that the language is being used literally or metaphorically tells us nothing, in and of itself, about the sort of entities it is referring to." - N.T. Wright

It seems you were hearing me say that the words in Genesis 1 & 2 were at times refering to abstract things. What I was actually saying is that some of the words in Genesis 1 & 2 might be metaphorically refering to concrete things.

"Day" is an excellent example of this. A "day" is a 24 hour period measured by the time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis a single time while in orbit around the sun. If Moses' readers had a pre-scientific flat earth view, then for them, a "day" is the time span between sundown and sundown. Either of these methods of meausrement defining a "day" requires the earth to, in actuality, be orbiting the sun while rotating on its axis. Since the sun, in the Genesis account, did not exist until day 4, it seems very likely that the word "day", at least during days 1-3 (though I doubt an inconsistency), is referring to a "day" the way we would measure it concretely.

Further insight is gained when we see the way this Hebrew word translated "day" is used elsewhere.

3117
יׄום [yowm /yome/] n m. From an unused root meaning to be hot; TWOT 852; GK 3427 and 3428; 2274 occurrences; AV translates as "day" 2008 times, "time" 64 times, "chronicles + 1697" 37 times, "daily" 32 times, "ever" 17 times, "year" 14 times, "continually" 10 times, "when" 10 times, "as" 10 times, "while" eight times, "full 8 always" four times, "whole" four times, "alway" four times, and translated miscellaneously 44 times. 1 day, time, year. 1a day (as opposed to night). 1b day (24 hour period). 1b1 as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1. 1b2 as a division of time. 1b2a a working day, a day’s journey. 1c days, lifetime (pl.). 1d time, period (general). 1e year. 1f temporal references. 1f1 today. 1f2 yesterday. 1f3 tomorrow.

Day - 2088 times
Time - 64 times
Daily - 32 times
Ever - 17 times
Year - 14 times
Continually - 10 times
When - 10 times
As - 10 times
While - 8 times
etc.

Most often this Hebrew word is translated "day". But we see that this is not a rigid meaning. Hebrew vocabulary is much more fluid than that. So, I must look at the context to see whether or not this word should inflexibly be understood to refer to a concrete span of 24 hours measured by the rotation of the earth on its axis.

One clue that this might have a concrete referent is the use of the words "evening" and "morning" to describe the beginning and end of this period of time under consideration. But then I must decide how these words are being used. Since I see that "evening" and "morning" are used to, for the first four days of Creation, bookend periods of time during which the sun did not even exist, it is apparent from the text that neither "evening" nor "morning" can be used to force an interpretation that includes a concrete referent.

All this demonstrates is that the text does not clearly tell us the concrete span of time referred to by the word "day". The time spans might have been precisely 24 hours long. But the text does not demand that conclusion. Evangelical insistence that they do is usually due to a view of how words function very similar to the one quoted from you above. It's either all or nothing. This is not the reality of language.

But even if I were to concede that the time spans denoted by "day" are not concrete 24 hour periods, but rather a metaphorical way of describing a time span we do not know the concrete length of (evening and morning certainly pointing this direction), it would in no way follow from this logically that no concrete span of time did in fact occur (of admittedly unknown length).

So your statement that "it is either literally true or literally not true" fails to give adequate place for the complexities of the ways we use abstract words to describe both concrete realities, abstract realities, in both metaphorical and literal ways.

#23 Genesis Post #3

Alright, we’ll tackle these one at a time. We’ll start with number 1. I asked if you believed the Creation Story in Genesis was literally true and if so, which version you preferred; chapter 1 or chapter 2. I’ll put your answers verbatim to alleviate any suspicion that I’m putting words in your mouth:

ALAN-Yes, I believe the story to be literally true. 

Having said that, I think there are literary elements that may be literal events/items described with metaphorical referents and there may be metaphorical elements with literal referants as well. 

Jace- Well, that’s nice, but also malarkey. It is either literally true or it is not literally true, as a historical account. Now I’ve heard these metaphysical arguments before; Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and every other religious persuasion always have these metaphysical arguments to fall back on. (Although one imagines the crashing sound gets annoying after a while). This is a linguistic game that wouldn’t pass muster in most mainstream seminary programs. 

ALAN-"Day" could be seen as metaphorical language denoting a literal span of time. The Tree of Knowledge is a literal tree but certainly with a metaphorical referent. Some would interpret "day" literally. I really don't know and I think the conversation misses the point. Genesis isn't about "when" and "how." It's about "who, what, and why." Anyway, I see room for discussion on interpretting the date issue. Most of the arguments assume that time is constant, which it isn't.

Jace- Well, I’m certainly relieved that you see “room for discussion” on the time line! While I have no real understanding of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (and even less of Special Relativity) I won’t argue that time is constant. I will argue that it certainly puts the readers of Genesis, pre-Einstein, in a bit of a bind. To say nothing of it’s author/s. And yes, let’s go ahead and address that the vast majority of Biblical scholars ascribe chapters 1 and 2 to different authors.

ALAN-I do not see anything incongruent between the two versions in chapter 1 and 2. Rather, I see the same story from two different perspectives. Chapter 2 is, from the beginning focused upon the creation of mankind. Chapter 1 seems to have a bigger picture view. We have four different gospels offering four different perspectives on the same story about Jesus as well.

Jace- Well, if you don’t see the two versions as different chronologically I’m at a loss. In chapter 1, man is created last, after the flora and fauna. In chapter 2 Adam is created first, before the flora and fauna. As an allegorical story there is nothing wrong here. As a historical document the same cannot be said.

The historical value of these two stories (Ch.1-2) may not be germane to your personal faith (and I can certainly respect that), but it is still hugely significant.  

As we have discussed in this forum before, the Church has been anti-science since it’s inception. Yes, yes, they eventually come along; the Earth is round, indeed we aren’t the center of the Universe, maybe medicine isn’t the devils work, etc. However, they are always decades or even centuries late. One of the root reasons for this lies in the literal interpretation of obvious allegories and metaphors.

There is a museum not far from my home in Nashville where one will find lovely dioramas of dinosaurs and humans. Together. At this museum they will explain to you how “Natural Selection” is not “Evolution”. (Which would undoubtedly have Charles Darwin rather perplexed). My point is that conflating the “mysteries” of Faith with the evidence of science is bad for you. It demeans faith and it sullies science.

So, we educate our children with bad science and, to add insult to injury, we engender an unnecessary literalism to faith. 

Why does this persist with the mountain of evidence that the Earth and it’s life are beyond ancient even by scriptural standards? Because if the Genesis stories are not a“literal” history then it could be easily asserted that the following books of the Bible have certain aspects decrying historical veracity.

#22 Genesis Post #2

Hey Jace,
Wow - you ask a lot of questions! Good ones too! If you want a more thorough answer on any one of these, then we should do them one at a time. But here is a brief response to each.


1. Do you believe the Creation Story to be literally true? If so, what are your thoughts on the two differing versions presented in chapters 1 and 2?
Yes, I believe the story to be literally true.

Having said that, I think there are literary elements that may be literal events/items described with metaphorical referents and there may be metaphorical elements with literal referants as well. "Day" could be seen as metaphorical language denoting a literal span of time. The Tree of Knowledge is a literal tree but certainly with a metaphorical referent. Some would interpret "day" literally. I really don't know and I think the conversation misses the point. Genesis isn't about "when" and "how." It's about "who, what, and why." Anyway, I see room for discussion on interpretting the date issue. Most of the arguments assume that time is constant, which it isn't.

I do not see anything incongruent between the two versions in chapter 1 and 2. Rather, I see the same story from two different perspectives. Chapter 2 is, from the beginning focused upon the creation of mankind. Chapter 1 seems to have a bigger picture view. We have four different gospels offering four different perspectives on the same story about Jesus as well.

2. Do you find the description of Eve in chapter 2 as a "helper" as opposed to a "partner" to be misogynistic simply because of the culture in which it was written or do you believe God views women as less than men?
I do not find "helper" to in any way imply inferiority in women. If anything, it implies insufficiency in man, for it was not good for man to be alone. My own experience as a man demonstrates this! But I think even this interpretation is off base. Originally, God created Man as male and female. The two were one. It appears that this is the state that was somehow less than good. God then separated male and female. Now part of mankind is male and the other part, distinct from the male, is female. Both together are the full expression of God's image. It is "good" that God's image being fully expressed on the earth requires relationship. Man dominating Woman is a curse. It is not part of the original design for things at all.

^{“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” ” (Genesis 1:27–28, ESV)}
  
I think it's important to note in the above that God commissioned male and female together to fill the earth, subdue it, and to have dominion. God's design from the beginning is for co-laboring.


3. Was man created in God's image, save for the wisdom to differentiate the "knowledge of good and evil", or does God not know the difference between good and evil?
No. The Tree of Life does not leave you without knowledge. It is the Tree of Knowledge that leaves you without life. The issue is: what is my source? Here we have two literal trees but with a very metaphorical use and referent. Life is about being rightly aligned with God as source. Knowledge is about being disconnected from God as source, plugging in to self as source instead.

4. Why is nudity now shameful after eating the fruit of knowledge?
Instead of being primarily God-concsious, man became self-conscious. Shame touches more than nudity. It produced fear, for they ran and hid. It produced an awareness of nakedness and a need to hide. My suspicion is, based on Psalm 8, that prior to the Fall both Adam and Eve were clothed in Glory, this being lost when sin entered.

5. Why was the serpent cursed for telling the truth?
He wasn't. He was cursed for lying. "Did God really say?" Well, yes...in fact he did say. "God just knows that in the day you eat of it, you will be like him..." Well, in fact, they were already like God - made in the very image and likeness of God.

6. Why did God make Adam and Eve some new clothes? Was he now ashamed of their nudity? Did he not mind it when they were oblivious?
The fig leaves were probably quite insufficient!

God covered them, not because he was ashamed, but because they were. It was mercy. That God would shed blood in order to cover shame is a powerful picture of redemption.

7. Why did God remove them from the Garden and curse all of humanity to a life of labor culminating in death when, in his omnipotent omniscience He knew full well what they would do?
This question simply doesn't go far enough. It's not just - why would God make man if he knew man would sin and be separated from God's holiness? It's also - why would God make man when he knew he himself would die on the cross in order to restore that relationship? Sin separates us from God. It kills. God redeems.