Genesis 1-11

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I would say "less literally" than fundamentalist Christians; but not all Methodists view Gen. 1-11 the same way

Getting at the "religious truth" of these writings outweighs historical accuracy, or treating these accounts as a science textbook; maybe off the scale between history and myth
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCFantasy23
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I would say "less literally" than fundamentalist Christians; but not all Methodists view Gen. 1-11 the same way

Getting at the "religious truth" of these writings outweighs historical accuracy, or treating these accounts as a science textbook; maybe off the scale between history and myth

Thanks for the reply, but this just muddies the water for me. What do you mean "off the scale between history and myth"? Are you saying it's more than either of those things, or somewhere in between?
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Sorry to muddy the waters, I just happen to think they ARE muddy anyway.

"MYTH" can be a very negative term for those who react to it with
"Oh, you mean it's just NOT TRUE"

It can be a positive term for those who look at parallels between biblical narratives and accounts from other ancient cultures

Straight HISTORY -- let me give an example of the "Patriarch who told a king his wife was his sister rather than wife so the king would not take her"

This same story is told THREE TIMES in the Bible, twice it's Abraham and Sarah; once it's another patriarch, but same story

Further muddying is that Sarah is supposed to be 90-something, child-bearing age long gone; and yet she is still such a knock-out beauty that Abraham fears this or that king will snatch her away for himself, so he tells this half-truth about " sister not wife " but it doesn't fly...

Did this really happen? Twice to Abraham and once to his descendant? The same exact story?

Forgive me for not having exact references at the ready; I will try to look it up and get back here, giving it as examples of why early Genesis is-- imo-- in this muddy limbo between myth and history, and/or transcends them both

And it may be later than chapter 11, I will have to see
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Ok I am sorry
It's later than chs 1-11

In Gen 20, its Abraham & Sarah and King Abimelech
In Gen 26; it's Isaac & Rebekkah and same King Abimelech
Same story, and I think there's a third incident also, just dont have the tools from my phone to research it properly

But the larger point is-- it is not JUST GENESIS 1-11
That is full of paradoxes, its the whole Bible

The synoptic gospels place JESUS' CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE OF MONEY-CHANGERS at the very end of Jesus' ministry

John's gospel puts it right at the first of Jesus' ministry

Which is "right"?

Or do you just FORCE IT, like Scofield, and insist it must have happenned TWICE

This is not a METHODIST question, this is an issue of
FUNDAMENTALIST VS NON- FUNDAMENTALIST

LITERAL-AT-ALL-COSTS
VS
"Something is being said other than History"

I don't have the answers, I can't "speak for Methodists"

But would venture to guess that among UMC Seminaries, only Asbury would be LITERAL AT ALL COSTS, and the other handful of seminaries would teach the muddy water view

You can't read the Bible and just NOT SEE THIS STUFF
 
Upvote 0

Citanul

Well, when exactly do you mean?
May 31, 2006
3,425
2,621
45
Cape Town, South Africa
✟209,543.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
The only time I remember hearing this preached on was a couple of years ago when as a church we were working through The Story (essentially a preaching/devotional/small group plan where you go through most of the Bible, taking a new section each week). All that I can remember being said regarding the nature of the chapters was a comment that some people take them as literal history, while other people hold to the scientific account and have been able to reconcile that with the creation story. The remainder of the sermon was about what messages we can take away from the story, and those messages were things that wouldn't have been affected by the interpretation of Genesis.
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ok I am sorry
It's later than chs 1-11

In Gen 20, its Abraham & Sarah and King Abimelech
In Gen 26; it's Isaac & Rebekkah and same King Abimelech
Same story, and I think there's a third incident also, just dont have the tools from my phone to research it properly

But the larger point is-- it is not JUST GENESIS 1-11
That is full of paradoxes, its the whole Bible

The synoptic gospels place JESUS' CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE OF MONEY-CHANGERS at the very end of Jesus' ministry

John's gospel puts it right at the first of Jesus' ministry

Which is "right"?

Or do you just FORCE IT, like Scofield, and insist it must have happenned TWICE

This is not a METHODIST question, this is an issue of
FUNDAMENTALIST VS NON- FUNDAMENTALIST

LITERAL-AT-ALL-COSTS
VS
"Something is being said other than History"

I don't have the answers, I can't "speak for Methodists"

But would venture to guess that among UMC Seminaries, only Asbury would be LITERAL AT ALL COSTS, and the other handful of seminaries would teach the muddy water view

You can't read the Bible and just NOT SEE THIS STUFF

I think you misapprehend the stance of myself and others by calling it "LITERAL-AT-ALL-COSTS". We recognize the wide variety of literature present in the Bible and the different methods of interpreting them, but when it comes to straightforward historical narrative like much of Genesis and the gospels it would appear to be deceptive to write about an event as though it were historical, and not relate it in a manner that is acceptable in the time in which it was written (there were accepted forms at the time for allegory and such).

The problem of the cleansing of the temple that you presented could be reconciled the way Scofield did, or you could postulate that one or more of the gospels was not operating on a strictly chronological timetable, which was acceptable for biographies of the time. Either way, there is no need to debate whether Jesus actually did cleanse the temple at least once during His ministry. If He didn't do that, what else didn't He do? Miracles? Which of His teachings are actually His? Did He even go to the cross and rise again? You see the trouble one runs into when you try to escape the idea that historical narrative is just that: HISTORICAL.
 
Upvote 0

circuitrider

United Methodist
Site Supporter
Sep 1, 2013
2,071
391
Iowa
✟102,534.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
United Methodists don't have an official view of the creation accounts. We don't have a official view of a good bit of theology because that isn't were our emphasis is. Methodism is more about holy living that right doctrine over all.
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You can't read the Bible and just NOT SEE THIS STUFF

True, you can't. Especially not if you're a lawyer. You see all of the contradictions and seams within the text.

Everybody has his own solution. Mine is to take it exactly as written - that the text is intended by God to be what it is, WITH THE CONTRADICTIONS AND SEAMS IN IT.

God intends these things to be there, and visible, in order to teach us something by them: they don't MATTER. So, if you're believing in this book at the level where they DO matter - where something important hangs on an unresolvable contradiction, the fact that that is so should tell you that your hermeneutic for reading the Bible is wrong. God laid these mine shafts and traps in the text specifically so that the reader would find the contradictions and realize that they can't treat the text as the flawless thing they would like to. That lapses into bibliolatry, but only God is perfect.

Everybody has a hermeneutic for dealing with them.

For some - for far too many - the hermeneutic is willful denial of the conflict. That's not honest.

For others - another very large group in my experience - the conflict is largely ignored, and whatever Paul said is the last word on whatever the subject is.

My own hermeneutic is very simple: Whatever Jesus said in Revelation, trumps everything before that. Whatever Jesus said in the Gospels, trumps everything before that. Whatever YHWH said in the Torah, directly out of his own mouth, trumps everything between Genesis and Matthew.

SO, in every case, the words that proceeded forth directly out of the mouth of God, are authoritative over the rest of scripture, and what Jesus said LAST is the FINAL authority on everything. I have found that this hermeneutic obliterates every question I care about, and establishes a very clear and clean law, and description of life on earth and in the hereafter.

God revealed all of the important stuff directly. Other men in Scripture wrote about those things too, but much of what one wrote, another contradicted in some fashion. The final authority is God, so I just start there and avoid becoming bogged down in fights about the rest.
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
United Methodists don't have an official view of the creation accounts. We don't have a official view of a good bit of theology because that isn't were our emphasis is. Methodism is more about holy living that right doctrine over all.

Sounds rather Catholic, all in all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well? There is a historical reason for that.
Yes, there is.

The Wesleys were pious men of the 18th Century, of the Church of England. While they found the Church of England's structure to be acceptable, they did not find it to be spiritual, so they focused not on the Protestant doctrines of the Reformation but on a simpler spiritualism. This caused a great revival, with an emphasis on spiritualism as opposed to various complex doctrines.

The result was a Church, the Wesleyan, then Methodist, Church, that was structurally similar to the Church of England, but that had the angry doctrinaire tones of the Reformation gone out of it, replaced by a focus on individual piety and spiritual association with God.

Because the Methodists were not "protesting" anybody, really, and were not "coming out of" the Catholic Church, the rough edge of Protestantism that separated, say, Lutherans and Calvinists from Catholics was not there. There is no memory in Methodism of conflict with the Catholic Church, as such, because the Methodists came out of the Anglican Church, not the Catholics.

The Catholics, for their part, are also more individualistic spiritualists than the main Protestant denominations, which are very much focused on purity of doctrine or upon the personality of the central minister of their particular church assembly.

Catholic spiritual individuality walks alongside of Methodist spirituality rather well. Methodism is essentially third-generation Protestantism with all the venom taken out of it, moving to the edge of a Catholic-like Protestant Church, and thus resembling Catholicism in structure, and in the grace of spiritualism. Methodism is unselfconsciously low-church Catholic, though it thinks of itself as being "in the Protestant tradition". (By comparison, Anglicans/Episcopalians are very consciously High Church Protestant catholic, and emphasize the catholic forms, and their Protestantism so they are not confused with Catholics, whom they would call Roman Catholics.)

So, the Methodists did not grow up in a Catholic milieu but an Anglican Protestant one, or an American Protestant one, which they did not find met their spiritual needs. So they became a religion of individualistic spiritualists, working together in an episcopal structure to "do good in the world", and this, in mindset and structure, makes them much more like Catholics than the other Protestant denominations. Episcopalians, Lutherans, Calvinists and Baptists are very consciously NOT Catholic. Methodists are too far removed from the Reformation to focus on that. They're just spiritualists with bishops, essentially, they're Protestant Catholics.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Because the Methodists were not "protesting" anybody, really, and were not "coming out of" the Catholic Church, the rough edge of Protestantism that separated, say, Lutherans and Calvinists from Catholics was not there. There is no memory in Methodism of conflict with the Catholic Church, as such, because the Methodists came out of the Anglican Church, not the Catholics.
Funny you should say that. My dad was ordained in the Wesleyan Methodist denom circa 1950. He had extreme animus against the Catholic church. The "falsest of false religions..." was what he called it. Having read a good bit of Benson's Commentary (London, 1860s) that he used in seminary, there was a lot of "harlot of Babylon" type comments about the Catholic church throughout the entire NT.

Seems pretty "rough" to me.

ETA: What I find sadly humorous is the fact that Methodist doctrine and practice is so much closer to Catholicism than the Reform or Lutheran branches of protestant christianity. Of course my dad would have EXPLODED in rage if I ever had expressed that opinion to him.
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Funny you should say that. My dad was ordained in the Wesleyan Methodist denom circa 1950. He had extreme animus against the Catholic church. The "falsest of false religions..." was what he called it. Having read a good bit of Benson's Commentary (London, 1860s) that he used in seminary, there was a lot of "harlot of Babylon" type comments about the Catholic church throughout the entire NT.

Seems pretty "rough" to me.

ETA: What I find sadly humorous is the fact that Methodist doctrine and practice is so much closer to Catholicism than the Reform or Lutheran branches of protestant christianity. Of course my dad would have EXPLODED in rage if I ever had expressed that opinion to him.

Huh. Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I have been impressed by the lack of that in the Methodists I know. I guess it was there back then. I never saw it.

Anyway, all of those old-line Churches with their rigid doctrines are dying on the vine, emptying out, drying up. Bile and rage can only sustain people for awhile. Then they grow up, know too many of the kind they're supposed to be angry at, and decide - usually without formally saying so - that the things they were taught are a load of hooey, and they walk away.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, and those that have not dried up have changed a lot.

How familiar are you with the Wesleyan Holiness movement? I have seen many denoms that came from that stream scale WAY back in their practice and teachings.
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, and those that have not dried up have changed a lot.

How familiar are you with the Wesleyan Holiness movement? I have seen many denoms that came from that stream scale WAY back in their practice and teachings.

I'm not familiar with much on the Protestant side. I usually try to figure out what the "big idea" of the particular brand of Protestantism I'm looking at is. I try to figure out when it branched off from another Protestant Church, and which strand it comes from (Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist, Anabaptist). And that's about it.

I've read the catechism, so I know Catholic doctrine rather well, but I'm only really interested in a small subset of it.

I do religion the way I do it, and I don't pay all that much attention to others doing it their way.
 
Upvote 0