Scripture and origins ~ [open] thread for all. Bring snacks as we're running low...

[stumpjumper]

I'm a big fan of Genesis and reading scripture and, maybe it's me, but I just don't see scripture, in this instance (talking the primordial creation accounts), telling us about things that literally happened as depicted.

Now I know that taking the Bible literally really means reading the passages as the author intended them to be read not pulling allegorical interpretations from that fit one's preconceived notions as that was the point of Luther in his arguments against the Catholic allegorical interpretations of scripture.

In the great reformers own words:

Yet these remarks must not be understood to mean that we condemn all allegories indiscriminately , for we observe that both Christ and the apostles occasionally employ them. But they are such as are conformable to the faith, in accordance with the rule of Paul, who enjoins in Rom. 12:6 that prophecy or doctrine should be conformable to the faith.

When we condemn allegories, we are speaking of those that are fabricated by one's own intellect and ingenuity, without the authority of Scripture. The others, which are made to agree with the analogy of the faith, not only embellish doctrine but also gives comfort to consciences

One of the things we have to keep in mind is that allegory can be stretched to it's limit and this can be seen in the writings of the magisterium that went so far as to say that Genesis 1:16 represented the papacy...

Anyway, tangents aside, why should the narrative account in Genesis be read as literal or scientific history?

What portions of the text make one believe that it is a historical account versus the Jewish spin on Babylonian creation myths in a myth of their own*?

*Albeit one that is more accurate theological and ontologically and, I would say, inspired in some way by the living God...

 

[shernren]

*brings along specially-created popcorn that appears popped though it has never been popped, and sits down to watch the show.*

 

[stumpjumper]

Oh snap.

I have a bag of popcorn in the pantry...

Off to pop me some too

 

[HypnoToad]

What portions of the text make one believe that it is a historical account versus the Jewish spin on Babylonian creation myths in a myth of their own*?

Actually, the tablet theory pretty much removes the possibility that Genesis could be based on any other pagan myths.

According to the theory, God may have written Gen.1 Himself (like He wrote commandments on stone for Moses), and Adam would have written Gen.2-4.

Being written by them, it's impossible for the creation chapters to be based on pagan myths, since the other stories wouldn't exist for quite some time yet.

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/Toledoth.html

 

[crawfish]

Actually, the tablet theory pretty much removes the possibility that Genesis could be based on any other pagan myths.

According to the theory, God may have written Gen.1 Himself (like He wrote commandments on stone for Moses), and Adam would have written Gen.2-4.

Being written by them, it's impossible for the creation chapters to be based on pagan myths, since the other stories wouldn't exist for quite some time yet.

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/Toledoth.html

I have a bit of problem with the word "proven" given this hypothesis. A hypothesis is simply an "educated guess" - similar to, but weaker than, a theory. By using this hypothesis as proof would directly contradiction the typical creationist's claim that evolutionary "theory", because it is only a theory, cannot disprove the bible.

Apart from that, I have a few problems with that hypothesis; I think they have an interesting premise to work from but offer scant and weak support of that premise through facts. However, a full analysis would take too much of my time. For brevity's sake, I'll stick to one point.

The author assumes that by the claim that the Genesis creation account springs from Babylonian influences, the meaning is that it derives directly from the Babylonian creation account in the same way Roman mythology derives from the Greek. This is a mistaken assumption. The Genesis account is not a retelling of the Babylonian story, but a denial of it! God is placed, one day at a time, as the creator of the entities that the Babylonians worshiped, through the order of their pantheon as we understand it. It is essentially a de-mythologizing of creation, putting all things under God's hand and putting man at the pinnacle.

 

[HypnoToad]

I have a bit of problem with the word "proven" ....

Where are you getting "proven" from?

The author assumes that by the claim that the Genesis creation account springs from Babylonian influences, the meaning is that it derives directly from the Babylonian creation account in the same way Roman mythology derives from the Greek. This is a mistaken assumption. The Genesis account is not a retelling of the Babylonian story, but a denial of it! God is placed, one day at a time, as the creator of the entities that the Babylonians worshiped, through the order of their pantheon as we understand it. It is essentially a de-mythologizing of creation, putting all things under God's hand and putting man at the pinnacle.

Obviously, Christians who believe the Bible can see the creation account as you say it, but skeptics have no reason to see it as a "denial" rather than a retold form of it, if the Biblical version was written after the Babylonian.

 

[Assyrian]

A problem with the full blown tablet hypothesis, that God, Adam, Noah etc were the authors of these portion of Genesis is the lack of any evidence that writing has been around that long.

In fact in Genesis itself apart from the labels used for these sections of Genesis, I don't think there are any references to writers or writing, people reading ot having books that fill the rest of the bible. The earliest references to the word for writing refers to counting (Gen 15:5) which matches what we know of the origin of writing as a form of account keeping rather than writing text.

 

[HypnoToad]

In fact in Genesis itself apart from the labels used for these sections of Genesis, I don't think there are any references to writers or writing, .....

Lol, yes, once you remove the references about writers from Scripture, there are no references to writers in Scripture.

That's like saying, apart from the passages that mention Jesus, Scripture doesn't mention Jesus.

 

[busterdog]

Where are you getting "proven" from?


Obviously, Christians who believe the Bible can see the creation account as you say it, but skeptics have no reason to see it as a "denial" rather than a retold form of it, if the Biblical version was written after the Babylonian.

As much as I recoil from the word "context" these days, the context of this version is the creation of national Israel. National Israel was given a number of distinct burdens. Seperateness was one of them.

This is the first time that there was a nation. Could Abraham's family or the race of slaves in Egypt be prepared to be "seperate"? This was the first and best opportunity to estblish that regime. How else do you have a "law" like this -- a perfect law for salvation (though apparently too rigid to be satisfied without mercy).

When else would have the ability to create a professional class of scribes to preserve this word? This was the first time that this was possible in a meaningful way.

The whole context for the history of Israel is a way in which us inerrancy freaks put together a sense of why this Word is as holy as it is. (We also do have some pretty direct scripture on the subject.) Once you regard national Israel with suspicion and imply ulterior motives for the Word, you are already on a road that cannot lead to inerrancy or a literal view of Mt. SInai.

God created this nation so that his descent on Mt. Sinai would not be wasted. If this is just a different spin on Gilgamesh intended to advance national politics, other things start to fall at that point.

If you want to assume that this is an amalgamation of middle eastern myths, then Israel is just a political body with propaganda from which some inspiration might coincidentally emerge in the form of scripture. At that point, there is no significance to its restoration in the books of Amos and Nehemiah or in 1948, there is no purpose to the coming tribulation, there is no second coming to defeat the enemies of Israel and there is no throne of David for Jesus to sit on.

 

[HypnoToad]

As much as I recoil from the word "context" these days, the context of this version is the creation of national Israel. National Israel was given a number of distinct burdens. Seperateness was one of them.

This is the first time that there was a nation. Could Abraham's family or the race of slaves in Egypt be prepared to be "seperate"? This was the first and best opportunity to estblish that regime. How else do you have a "law" like this -- a perfect law for salvation (though apparently too rigid to be satisfied without mercy).

When else would have the ability to create a professional class of scribes to preserve this word? This was the first time that this was possible in a meaningful way.

The whole context for the history of Israel is a way in which us inerrancy freaks put together a sense of why this Word is as holy as it is. (We also do have some pretty direct scripture on the subject.) Once you regard national Israel with suspicion and imply ulterior motives for the Word, you are already on a road that cannot lead to inerrancy or a literal view of Mt. SInai.

God created this nation so that his descent on Mt. Sinai would not be wasted. If this is just a different spin on Gilgamesh intended to advance national politics, other things start to fall at that point.

If you want to assume that this is an amalgamation of middle eastern myths, then Israel is just a political body with propaganda from which some inspiration might coincidentally emerge in the form of scripture. At that point, there is no significance to its restoration in the books of Amos and Nehemiah or in 1948, there is no purpose to the coming tribulation, there is no second coming to defeat the enemies of Israel and there is no throne of David for Jesus to sit on.

So, is that supposed to refute my point? I don't know what you're really saying here.

 

[busterdog]

So, is that supposed to refute my point? I don't know what you're really saying here.

Yikes! I thought I was agreeing with you. I lament my poor communication. (Gave you reps )

If I reply to someone I agree with, it is hopefully less provocative.

 

[crawfish]

Obviously, Christians who believe the Bible can see the creation account as you say it, but skeptics have no reason to see it as a "denial" rather than a retold form of it, if the Biblical version was written after the Babylonian.

Skeptics can believe what they want. If the Babylonian account was written first, so be it - it makes no difference.

When we avoid things because it makes us uncomfortable, we end up giving skeptics more ammo, anyway.

 

[HypnoToad]

Yikes! I thought I was agreeing with you. I lament my poor communication. (Gave you reps )

If I reply to someone I agree with, it is hopefully less provocative.

Yeah, I just couldn't tell if that was agreeing or disagreeing with what I had said.

 

[HypnoToad]

Skeptics can believe what they want. If the Babylonian account was written first, so be it - it makes no difference.

When we avoid things because it makes us uncomfortable, we end up giving skeptics more ammo, anyway.

I'm not avoiding anything due to "discomfort". I'm providing a theory that removes a skeptic claim altogether, rather than simply saying, "well I see it differently" - which makes it nothing more than a difference of opinion, instead of a valid refutation of the skeptic view.

 

[crawfish]

If you want to assume that this is an amalgamation of middle eastern myths, then Israel is just a political body with propaganda from which some inspiration might coincidentally emerge in the form of scripture. At that point, there is no significance to its restoration in the books of Amos and Nehemiah or in 1948, there is no purpose to the coming tribulation, there is no second coming to defeat the enemies of Israel and there is no throne of David for Jesus to sit on.

I think I agree with parts of what you said, but I'm not really sure I completely understand what you're saying. No offense intended.

I prefer to see the formation of Israel in this way: it's like preparing a field for the harvest. You till the ground, remove rocks, weeds and other obstacles, fertilize it, and one day it's prepared for planting. In this case, the perfect seed was Christ and His church.

To facilitate this, and to keep it as pure as possible, the nation needed to somehow set itself apart. God did this through the Law, and through the stories of shared history that illustrated God's place in the world and theirs as well. You see stories, like the creation story, that set them apart from Mesopotamians. You see stories like Lot with his daughters that set them apart from the Canaanites. You see stories like Joseph's that set them apart from the Egyptians. Do these stories need to be 100% true? I have no doubt that most came from actual events and people, but I also have no doubt that those stories were shaped to make the point God wanted in ways that weren't 100% accurate.

I'd hope we all agree on this: whether or not the stories are true, the messages that God wants us to take from them are identical for everybody. I seriously doubt that God inspired the creation story to tell us exactly how creation occurred; he wanted to specify both His and our place in it.

 

[Assyrian]

Lol, yes, once you remove the references about writers from Scripture, there are no references to writers in Scripture.

That's like saying, apart from the passages that mention Jesus, Scripture doesn't mention Jesus.

If we were arguing about whether Jesus of Nazareth was ever called Jesus Christ during his ministry the only passage you could look at was John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

You could not use
Matt 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Matt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
or Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Because these are all later comments by Gospel writers written after Jesus ministry, they do not tell us he was called Jesus Christ during his ministry.

The only reference to a book or writing in Genesis before Abraham is Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. This does not tell us that Adam had a book, but that the person who first wrote this story down had a book.

Compare this to: Josh 8:34 And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law.
and
1Sam 10:25 Then Samuel told the people the rights and duties of the kingship, and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before the LORD. Then Samuel sent all the people away, each one to his home.
Joshua and Samuel did have some sort of books. We are not told that Adam ever did.

 

[HypnoToad]

The only reference to a book or writing in Genesis before Abraham is Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. This does not tell us that Adam had a book, but that the person who first wrote this story down had a book.

No, those aren't the only "references" to writing. The toledoth phrases are all reference to writing, since archeology has found tablets that are signed in a similar fashion.

It's like writing a letter today - at then end you have something like "sincerely, John Q. Public."

Since we know that today, letters are often signed like that by the author of the letter, we can certainly say that the above signature line is, in fact, evidence that John Q. Public did write the letter. The finding of other tablets with similar signature lines show that the toledoths are evidence of writing by people before Abraham.

 

[crawfish]

I'm not avoiding anything due to "discomfort". I'm providing a theory that removes a skeptic claim altogether, rather than simply saying, "well I see it differently" - which makes it nothing more than a difference of opinion, instead of a valid refutation of the skeptic view.

Does it? You're underestimating the skeptics.

Truthfully, I can see some huge problems that both secular and religious scholars would have with that particular theory. Most involve the assertions of things that don't match up historically with the evidence we have.

I don't really care what the skeptics say, as long as we work to honestly find the answers. I even appreciate the skeptics because without them, we might not discover the full truth of God's glory.

 

[stumpjumper]

Actually, the tablet theory pretty much removes the possibility that Genesis could be based on any other pagan myths.

According to the theory, God may have written Gen.1 Himself (like He wrote commandments on stone for Moses), and Adam would have written Gen.2-4.

Being written by them, it's impossible for the creation chapters to be based on pagan myths, since the other stories wouldn't exist for quite some time yet.

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/Toledoth.html

The problem with that is that there is absolutely no evidence (internal or external) for the tablet theory let alone that it makes absolutely no sense.

How did God write Genesis 1? Does He have hands?

Let alone the fact that there is no evidence for the tablet theory there is a great deal of evidence (again internal to the Torah and external) that the Torah had four authors as well as a northern and southern source for the redaction.

The Four Author hypothesis is still the dominant scholarly view.

In regards to similarities between Genesis and the Sumerian myths, this link is pretty informative: http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/CREATIONSTORIES.html

My main issue would be that even if Moses (or God for that matter) authored Genesis there is still no internal reason that it should be read literally as science and history.

The meaning is in the theological truths that it points toward within it's mythical framework. I don't see the meaning in any claims of science or history...

 

[Scotishfury09]

How did God write Genesis 1? Does He have hands?

Did Moses write the 10 commandments all by himself? Why does this have to be any different? Even if Adam didn't write down what God said, are you questioning what God could or couldn't do? Why is it so absurd to think God could give Adam a written tablet?