Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Oh, btw, here is a bit I found that I wrote many years ago about the flood:
Yes, the historical implications of a global flood in 2300 BC (the date if you stick with the young earth chronology) are just mind-boggling to consider. Here we have a thriving civilization in Egypt (and Sumeria, India and China), which is clicking along swimmingly. Then, the flood, and they are all wiped out, but all their artifacts remain intact including some items which would seem to have had a VERY difficult time surviving (much less remaining in place) the type of flood we are talking about.
Then (and this is the kicker), with only a handful of humans left, a group quickly repopulates each previously civilized area and takes up COMPLETELY where the previous culture left off, including language, customs, religious beliefs (now THAT part is hard to explain!), and political structures. AND in each case (Egyptian, Indian, Sumerian and Chinese), they did this so quickly and completely as to leave no discernible gap in the historical record.
I say this is just a non-starter.
__________________ In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
Sometimes I just belive what is said in the Bible because its in the bible.
Actually, no you don't. You believe what you think the Bible says, but the Bible is a far richer and stranger set of ancient writings than you think it is.
Genesis, for instance, is not the same kind of writing as the Gospels. If I were to be completely honest, I'd have to qualify what I say about the Gospels with some large caveats, but, to keep things simple:
The Gospels are historical.
Genesis, however, is closer to epic poetry, and was never intended to be taken as literal historical or scientific writing. It was meant to communicate the truth of God being the creator through story; in a similar way (again with large caveats) to Jesus telling parables.
It seems to me that behind the "literalistic" interpretation lies the simplistic philosophy of "common-sense materialism." That Truth=Fact and only Fact. But, while all facts are true, truth is a far deeper thing than mere fact. Truth can be revealed through story, poetry, even art and music.
Thats what Genesis is: it's poetry. And, whether factual or fictional, is true.
__________________ "Call some place paradise/Kiss it goodbye"
The Eagles, the Last Resort
Liberal Christians do it in context
"Literalism is the first line of defense of a mind that wants to put itself to sleep." Walter A Davis
Actually, no you don't. You believe what you think the Bible says, but the Bible is a far richer and stranger set of ancient writings than you think it is.
Genesis, for instance, is not the same kind of writing as the Gospels. If I were to be completely honest, I'd have to qualify what I say about the Gospels with some large caveats, but, to keep things simple:
The Gospels are historical.
Genesis, however, is closer to epic poetry, and was never intended to be taken as literal historical or scientific writing. It was meant to communicate the truth of God being the creator through story; in a similar way (again with large caveats) to Jesus telling parables.
It seems to me that behind the "literalistic" interpretation lies the simplistic philosophy of "common-sense materialism." That Truth=Fact and only Fact. But, while all facts are true, truth is a far deeper thing than mere fact. Truth can be revealed through story, poetry, even art and music.
Thats what Genesis is: it's poetry. And, whether factual or fictional, is true.
To add a bit of nuance to that, I would say that Genesis is a "poetic" telling of actual events. God DID create everything, and He DID create Mankind in His image, etc. Those are very real, historical, even literal, events. But the literary genre God chose to allow the events to be conveyed is, very simply, the style of writing at the time. They did not write in our modern style back then. They preferred to write about their past using figurative, symbolic and typological (or, as you put it, poetic) language.
__________________ In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
Actually, no you don't. You believe what you think the Bible says, but the Bible is a far richer and stranger set of ancient writings than you think it is.
Genesis, for instance, is not the same kind of writing as the Gospels. If I were to be completely honest, I'd have to qualify what I say about the Gospels with some large caveats, but, to keep things simple:
The Gospels are historical.
Genesis, however, is closer to epic poetry, and was never intended to be taken as literal historical or scientific writing.
Well you're doing the same mistake.
How do you know that Genesis is meant as poetry? And which part of Genesis? Is the first creation story poetry, or the second, or both?
Genesis gives no hint that it is not meant as a historic record. Normally, when you encounter poetry in the Bible the context gives a clear hint that it's poetry. This is not the case with Genesis.
You think it's poetry because it contradicts scientific observations? However this is not a valid argument because the people who wrote it didn't know of today's science. So, science has no affect whatsoever on what Genesis was supposed to mean.
Last edited by ClearSky; 20th January 2008 at 03:32 AM.
Is the first creation story poetry, or the second, or both?
The first is poetry, the second is a mythical narrative.
Genesis gives no hint that it is not meant as a historic record.
It certainly does. Historic records are not usually structured as poetic liturgy. Nor are they usually filled with mythical images and metaphors.
Of course, that doesn't mean the poetry or the narrative cannot also refer to history. In some sense they do. But they are not typical historic records in which the focus is primarily on the events.
Normally, when you encounter poetry in the Bible the context gives a clear hint that it's poetry. This is not the case with Genesis.
The "hint" is not always in plain sight in the form of an announcement. Usually, it is the form and structure that tells the reader it is poetry.
You think it's poetry because it contradicts scientific observations?
No, I think it is poetry because it is poetry. Poetry does not necessarily contradict scientific observations. It could be poetry and also be scientific.
It happens, however, that in this case it is not.
However this is not a valid argument because the people who wrote it didn't know of today's science.
Agreed. That is why they wrote in terms of the science they knew. That is why they wrote of a firmament holding up water, not outer space, and of the moon as a light, not a satellite reflecting light, etc.
So, science has no affect whatsoever on what Genesis was supposed to mean.
Agreed. That is why we should not read it as a science text book, but take the truth it expresses poetically as it was intended.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Vance - thanks that's a good take I hadn't heard before.
Poetry isn't the easiest thing to diagnose in Hebrew translated into English. Semitic poetry isn't like english poetry. It doesn't have obvious feet or rhyme. It uses patterns of words, and most importantly several typical structures. These forms are also typical of highly artful prose, however.
The book of Ruth, for example, is highly poetic prose, and is likely to have originated as a performance tale.
Of course even these subtle differences get completely trampled by the translation. In English, Ruth reads like plain prose, but if someone read you just the first line in Hebrew you'd hear the throb.
The biggest problem with the English bible is that the whole thing is normally translated according to strict consistency standards by a small group of people under one overarching translation goal.
The hebrew and greek, however, couldn't be more different. The hebrew of Daniel, for example, compared to that of Genesis, is a bigger difference than Shakespeare is to JK Rowling. In fact more like Chaucer to Rowling. The greek of Revelation compared to that of John's gospel, even. Traditionally held to be written by the same person. Is night and day.
It is no wonder we don't pick up on the sheer variety of literature in the bible. Nor is it any wonder we don't pick up on the linguistic cues.
I know for a fact that this is absolutely false. Genesis is written in HISTORICAL narrative.
__________________ You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
I know for a fact that this is absolutely false. Genesis is written in HISTORICAL narrative.
[/size][/color][/font]
Wow, then you must have some specific inside information to make such a dogmatic statement about it. Why do you say so?
__________________ In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
Wow, then you must have some specific inside information to make such a dogmatic statement about it. Why do you say so?
It's the way it's written in the hebrew. In hebrew, there's a different sentence structure for poetic or historical narrative (I forgot what the structure was). Genesis has the historical narrative sentence structure.
__________________ You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
Linear Mode
