Creation Or Evolution?

[Jothemano]

What God said is true. But the world is full of demons and blasphemy that try and trick u and turn u aginst ur beliefs. The question is, R u strong enough to overcome evil and have enough faith to not question God's word or christian beliefs?

 

[jds1977]

What about when they say, "I say this (I, not the Lord)..." (1 Cor 7:10-12)?

it would seem to me that Paul is not claiming inspiration, but letting the reader know in that instance of the marriage problem, that he was showing his apostolic authority...which associated his teaching w/ the Lord's.

What about when nothing is said about the narrator?

what do you mean? are they divinely inspired? or what?

 

[Splayd]

It should be clear from the quotation I gave that Philo didn't see both allegorical and literal meanings in the Genesis creation accounts. He rejected the literal interpretation as foolish.

I acknowledged that and in so doing he was going to an extreme that wasn't readily embraced within Judaism.

There are many passages in scripture where the literal is simply not the real meaning of the text. In spite of what the text says in Gen 49, Judah was not a lion and Dan was never a serpent. There are times when scripture has both literal an allegorical meanings. Other times the allegorical is the intended meaning.

Are you sure Judah wasn't really a lion?
No - of course they employed similes and metaphors, but they were apparent in the peshat. I'm not talking about ultra-literalism here. I'm talking about the surface understanding.

What is the meaning of Gen 3:15 Where God tells the serpent he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel? What is the peshat here? Did God speak to a snake and did the Messiah ever step on that snake's head?

Aaah - but the Messiah isn't in the peshat. He's found in the deeper levels of interpretation where the bruising of the head also has a deeper meaning. You're trying to mix the understandings.

At it's most plain - we see that God did speak those words to the serpent. That's the peshat... BUT it's not the ONLY level where this is to be understood. As we progress through layers of interpretation, we recognise that God is saying that Man and Snake will have dramas Snakes will bite men; men will tread on snakes. This is also true. Progressing further, we also recognise it to be about the relationship between man and satan and the ultimate victory through the Messiah. It's true on ALL levels and traditionally this is accepted. The deeper levels contain the greater truth here but that doesn't validate discarding the simple understanding altogether.

The problem occurs when people opt to narrow their focus to one level only. Fundamentalists occassionally tend towards the Peshat at the expense of the deeper truths and Liberals tend towards the Sod at the expense of the Peshat. In that regard, I'd suggest that the Liberals will often recognise the more important truth... BUT the danger is that by disregarding the Peshat, they remove the context for correctly interpreting those deeper levels. Consistency demands that the Remez and Midrash not contradict the Peshat. By removing it altogether, the Liberal is taking a liberty where they can determine what they want the text to say, thereby missing the simple truths altogether and potentially arriving at false deeper truth.

Peace

 

[Dannager]

What God said is true. But the world is full of demons and blasphemy that try and trick u and turn u aginst ur beliefs. The question is, R u strong enough to overcome evil and have enough faith to not question God's word or christian beliefs?

You could say that about anything you don't agree with. Saying that doesn't make it right.

 

[Assyrian]

I acknowledged that and in so doing he was going to an extreme that wasn't readily embraced within Judaism.

Josephus seemed to take a similar view. Clearly Philo is the most enthusiastic allegorist, but we have a priest from Jerusalem who thought that the intention of Moses in writing about Adam and Eve was allegorical rather than literal.

Are you sure Judah wasn't really a lion?

Who am I to deny God the power to make Judah both lion and man?

No - of course they employed similes and metaphors, but they were apparent in the peshat. I'm not talking about ultra-literalism here. I'm talking about the surface understanding.

And when a metaphor is extended it become an allegory.
Gen 49:9 Judah is a lion's cub; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He stooped down; he crouched as a lion and as a lioness; who dares rouse him?
Gen 49:14 "Issachar is a strong donkey, crouching between the sheepfolds. 15 He saw that a resting place was good, and that the land was pleasant, so he bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant at forced labor.
Gen 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent in the way, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so that his rider falls backward.
When the intended meaning is the allegorical, any attempt at more literal interpretation of the passage is nonsensical. Of courser that leave plenty of room still for midrashic interpretations, further allegorical applications drawn out of the the verses. But the primary meaning of the passages is allegorical.

Aaah - but the Messiah isn't in the peshat. He's found in the deeper levels of interpretation where the bruising of the head also has a deeper meaning. You're trying to mix the understandings.

I don't know about that. Eve was hardly a Rabbinically trained scholar, (it is pretty difficult for allegorical figures to enrole). Yet she seemed to attach great significance, even Messianic expectations, to the birth of Cain.

At it's most plain - we see that God did speak those words to the serpent. That's the peshat... BUT it's not the ONLY level where this is to be understood. As we progress through layers of interpretation, we recognise that God is saying that Man and Snake will have dramas Snakes will bite men; men will tread on snakes. This is also true. Progressing further, we also recognise it to be about the relationship between man and satan and the ultimate victory through the Messiah. It's true on ALL levels and traditionally this is accepted. The deeper levels contain the greater truth here but that doesn't validate discarding the simple understanding altogether.

The question we have to ask is who was really responsible for tempting mankind to turn from God? A talking snake? Or Satan? You may take further midrashic interpretations from the passage, but there is only room in the story for one mastermind behind mankind's downfall.

Surely it is a mistake to think as many YECs seem to that Satan (the midrash) and a snake (the pashat) were working together on this? You see Genesis says it was the snake that dun it, the rest of the bible reveals that it was actually Satan. It even tells us that Satan was the ancient serpent.

If Satan is real, rather than an allegorical personification of evil or some such, and if it is Satan who enticed mankind away from their relationship with God, Then the story of the temptation is decribing that in an allegory.

The problem occurs when people opt to narrow their focus to one level only. Fundamentalists occassionally tend towards the Peshat at the expense of the deeper truths and Liberals tend towards the Sod at the expense of the Peshat. In that regard, I'd suggest that the Liberals will often recognise the more important truth... BUT the danger is that by disregarding the Peshat, they remove the context for correctly interpreting those deeper levels. Consistency demands that the Remez and Midrash not contradict the Peshat. By removing it altogether, the Liberal is taking a liberty where they can determine what they want the text to say, thereby missing the simple truths altogether and potentially arriving at false deeper truth.

Peace

I don't know about Liberals, my background, after I left the Catholic church anyway, would have been much more along the lines of the evangelical literal meaning of scripture, with a personal dislike of 'typology' which seemed to allow any meaning people wanted.

What I have come to realise is how much God, and the people of God writing to us in the bible, loved to communicate to us in story, parable, metaphor, allegory and the figurative. True there are historical account which have deep allegorical meanings as well as the literal, but the bible is also rich in allegories whose real meaning is the figurative.

 

[Splayd]

When the intended meaning is the allegorical, any attempt at more literal interpretation of the passage is nonsensical. Of courser that leave plenty of room still for midrashic interpretations, further allegorical applications drawn out of the the verses. But the primary meaning of the passages is allegorical.

Granted - but here we're trying to marry different cultural views and simply put: they aren't a perfect match. Peshat isn't strictly literal and the deeper levels of understanding aren't strictly allegorical. It's just not a perfect fit. The Peshat is the plain reading - the apparent surface intent of the words. You don't need to be a genius to appreciate the difference. Most first graders will spot the Peshat straight away.

I don't know about that. Eve was hardly a Rabbinically trained scholar, (it is pretty difficult for allegorical figures to enrole). Yet she seemed to attach great significance, even Messianic expectations, to the birth of Cain.

It's not either/or.

The question we have to ask is who was really responsible for tempting mankind to turn from God? A talking snake? Or Satan? You may take further midrashic interpretations from the passage, but there is only room in the story for one mastermind behind mankind's downfall.

It can't just be that Satan was in the form of a snake? We have to pick one or the other What about Jesus -do we have to employ the same process to determine whether He was man or God?

It even tells us that Satan was the ancient serpent.

Exactly

 

[artybloke]

When a writer says..."the Lord said"...or "thus saith the Lord"...then, they're claiming divine inspiration.

Well, that applies to some of the prophets; but a lot of the time the passages don't say that. It doesn't say that in Genesis, or the historical books or even a lot of the Psalms, which in fact are often talking to God not through God. But even the prophets probably had no idea that people would be reading their words thousands of years later.

All of which still begs the question: why can't God inspire people to tell stories? Why must God always speak truth in facts?

I still haven't recieved an answer to the question of whether Charles Dickens is a liar because his stories aren't factual either. Is someone who tells a fictional story a liar? If not, why can't God tell stories?

 

[Splayd]

All of which still begs the question: why can't God inspire people to tell stories? Why must God always speak truth in facts?

He can. Jesus often taught by using stories... BUT it was clear that they were just stories. The same is true of fiction writers, but when an author releases fiction packaged as fact, the author generally gets discredited and may even be found guilty of fraud or slander depending on the circumstances. There was a case on the news here a couple of months back where that occured... so according to the analogy you're using then Genesis may well be considered a lie today if it's not true, while Jesus parables would be perfectly acceptable.

Mind you - trying to make any comparison between modern authors and the way they're received and ancient writers and the way they were received isn't particularly relevant. Questions about Charles Dickens don't really serve any practical purpose here.

Peace

 

[artybloke]

Questions about Charles Dickens don't really serve any practical purpose here.

Well, yes they do actually. If you say that it's OK for the Bible to use fiction, then you're free to interpret something as fiction if all the evidence you have indicates that it is fiction.

Genesis creation narratives show all these signs. I don't see how they could show these signs any clearer without putting a neon sign over them saying "STORY: DON'T TAKE LITERALLY".

The very fact that neither of the two creation narratives have any bearing on reality (ie they are about as scientifically verifiable as Grimm's Fairy Tales) is a pretty big clue for starters. I don't believe they were ever initially, or any other time, presented as "factual" accounts, certainly not scientific or historical.

They were written and presented by their first authors as stories to be told to an audience who wouldn't have known science from pressed beef.

 

[Splayd]

They were written and presented by their first authors as stories to be told to an audience who wouldn't have known science from pressed beef.

I'd generally agree that it was initially written and presented to an audience that probably had no clue about science, but again I don't see how that's pertinent to the discussion. It's either a science text or fiction???

Genesis never pretends to try to flesh out the scientific details and nothing it does say can really be addressed by science one way or the other. Science can neither confirm nor discredit the creation account. It can affirm some aspects and it can discredit some interpretations, but the actual content of the text is pretty much beyond scientific appraisal.

Why are people so intent on rushing to the extremes. It doesn't have to be fiction nor does it necessarily have to be understood entirely via clinical literalism. Both views come from trying to import an ancient understanding into a modern mindset and then either accepting or rejecting it.

Traditionally - the truth of the text isn't really questioned, though the critical mind explored the details. The ancient version of fundamentalism actually took it to the extreme of speculating about what occured in each hour of each day, while the ancient version of a liberal questioned things like how long a day was. Today - many of us leap well beyond the traditional understandings and determine that we must first of all determine whether or not it's true according to the most literal interpretation. Go figure

 

[Melethiel]

BUT it was clear that they were just stories. The same is true of fiction writers, but when an author releases fiction packaged as fact,

Oh, I don't know. In many of the fantasy books I've seen, which include such details like genealogies, maps, linguistic details, the only indicator you'll have that it is fiction (other than the occasional elf ) is a very small disclaimer on the copyright page.

 

[Splayd]

Oh, I don't know. In many of the fantasy books I've seen, which include such details like genealogies, maps, linguistic details, the only indicator you'll have that it is fiction (other than the occasional elf ) is a very small disclaimer on the copyright page.

Yeah - that and the fact that the genre is called Fantasy and it was in the Fiction section

 

[Melethiel]

Yeah - that and the fact that the genre is called Fantasy and it was in the Fiction section

But who decides that it goes there?

 

[Assyrian]

Granted - but here we're trying to marry different cultural views and simply put: they aren't a perfect match. Peshat isn't strictly literal and the deeper levels of understanding aren't strictly allegorical. It's just not a perfect fit. The Peshat is the plain reading - the apparent surface intent of the words. You don't need to be a genius to appreciate the difference. Most first graders will spot the Peshat straight away.

I think a lot of them would struggle with passages where the intention of the text is allegorical. How would a first grader read Ezekiel's valley of dry bones? Would they be able to distinguish Balaam's talking ass from Jotham's talking trees? It is a bit of a contradiction to talk of the differences between cultural views and still claim a first graders can spot a Peshat. There is a vast gulf between the ANE mindset and that of modern school children.

It's not either/or.

I think it is. You need to keep you peshat and midrash seperate. Characters in the peshat, real or fictional, are unaware of any midrashic significance people will later see in their actions. The prodigal son didn't comfort himself as he sat down with the pigs 'thank God this is only a parable'. Hagar didn't lament as she ran away that she was not only kicked out of the camp and her son is probably going to die of thirst, but also got stuck representing the lesser covanent.

If Eve expected a Messiah when Cain was born then that was the primary meaning of God's promise, not that it was a foot v snake world they were living in.

It can't just be that Satan was in the form of a snake? We have to pick one or the other What about Jesus -do we have to employ the same process to determine whether He was man or God?

No Jesus is literally divine and human. Satan is not a reptile, he never hatched from an egg in some reptilian incarnation, he does not slither on his stomach and eat dust.

Genesis on the other hand tells us that it was a snake, not someone else in disguise. The snake was an animal, the wisest of all the beast of the field. And it is the snake that God holds responsible and punishes for its sin. 'Because you have done this'.

Now we can have midrashic interpretations of this passage warning us about the dangers and subtlety of temptation, of how sin appears pleasing to the eyes at first. But the intent of the story is how Satan deceived mankind, telling it to us in the form of a story about a snake. The figurative meaning is the peshat.

Was there a literal tree of life? Or did it represent the promise of life that has been revealed to us in Christ? If you say both then you have a problem because it means there are actually two literal ways we can gain everlasting life. We can put out trust in Christ or we can try to get our hands on one of those fruit. The tree is either figurative or it stands as an alternative to Christ. In fact it contradicts Christ's claim that physical food cannot give eternal life.

No the whole story is a parable/figurative/allegorical description of mankind's creation and fall, tempted by Satan, with the promise of a Redeemer who would defeat him. That is the primary meaning of the text.

He can. Jesus often taught by using stories... BUT it was clear that they were just stories. The same is true of fiction writers, but when an author releases fiction packaged as fact, the author generally gets discredited and may even be found guilty of fraud or slander depending on the circumstances. There was a case on the news here a couple of months back where that occured... so according to the analogy you're using then Genesis may well be considered a lie today if it's not true, while Jesus parables would be perfectly acceptable.

Actually Jesus taught by using stories but he very rarely introduced them as fiction. Jotham did not introduce his talking trees as a fictional illustration either. Could that be why people got angry?

You are assuming that Genesis is 'being packaged as fact' but we don't find the rest of the bible writers treating it that way. There is no insistence of a six day creation, which should be foundation if it were literal. Instead we read on OT and New how God's days are as a thousand years. The snake comes up again and again, but from Leviathan in the OT to the dragon in the NT it is never treated as just a clever animal.

 

[Splayd]

But who decides that it goes there?

Ummm.... are we really going to keep persuing this line of reasoning? I've got my witty retort ready if we are but it seems like an awful waste of time and a major distraction.

Comparing the two cultures is like comparing chalk and cheese... but more to the point - we're not just discussing your everyday ancient Hebrew writing anyway... we're discussing Scripture. It's unique. It's a one of a kind genre all to itself - commissioned (and written depending on your take) by God Himself.

If we're going to make analytical literary assessments, perhaps considering what sets it apart is better done by focussing on the manner in which it was received by the culture it came from and how it compares to other texts from the same culture. Just a thought.

 

[Splayd]

I think it is. You need to keep you peshat and midrash seperate.

For the most part.

Characters in the peshat, real or fictional, are unaware of any midrashic significance people will later see in their actions.

I disagree emphatically. Usually a fictional character won't because it doesn't serve the purpose of the narrator, so you're right to recognise that the prodigal son wouldn't. He doesn't have any thoughts apart from those attributed to him by Jesus. As for factual characters - that's a whole other ballgame dependant on the circumstances. In fact, such determinations would present a more compelling case for a literal Eve than a fictional but I'll address it all a bit more later.

Peace

 

[artybloke]

we're discussing Scripture. It's unique.

No it isn't. There are psalms written in exactly the same form as the Biblical psalms written to the goddess Ishtar.

The Genesis accounts of creation and the flood show knowledge of, and are in some ways responses to, more ancient Near-Eastern creation and flood myths such as Gilgamesh. Much of the Biblical literature was written during the time of the Babylonian exile, and shows evidence of influence from Persian culture.

Not that they didn't develop and interpret their theology in their own unique way; but there is nothing in the OT that isn't reflected in a literary sense elsewhere in the ancient Near East.

Even the levitical law codes are not unique - codes such as the code of Hammurabi, and Egyptian codes, also existed.

To say that somehow the writers of the Bible were uniquely insulated from the rest of the known world and wrote something entirely new is not realistic. If they had written something entirely new, they would not even have been understood.

If we're going to make analytical literary assessments, perhaps considering what sets it apart is better done by focussing on the manner in which it was received by the culture it came from and how it compares to other texts from the same culture. Just a thought.

Quite. And the culture the writers lived in was steeped in stories, in myths, in songs, in wisdom literature. In the stories of heroes, gods and monsters. They were not in the least interested in history as we moderns know it. Even such ancient chronicles as we have are not over-burdened with an interest in facticity. Even the Greeks - who helped lay the foundations for scientific thinking - were largely uninterested in historical accuracy or fact-checking.

The other thing you have to remember is that the vast majority of the ordinary inhabitants of ancient society could neither read nor write. They could only be communicated to through oral story-telling. Now, I don't believe there is much evidence that the stories of Genesis come from oral traditions - at least not directly - however, they are written in such a way that they can easily and memorably be heard by an audience. I would say that the whole of the Bible - even the epistles of St Paul - was intended to be read out.

People who can't read don't have the ability to fact-check, nor the interest. But they do like stories. Everyone likes stories.