The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

[Vance]

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.

 

[artybloke]

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.

 

[Vance]

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.

 

[ClearSky]

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.

 

[gluadys]

How do you know that Genesis is meant as poetry?

Because it is structured as poetry.

And which part of Genesis?

Several parts.

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.

 

[artybloke]

Genesis gives no hint that it is not meant as a historic record.

It is structured as semitic poetry, includes refrain and poetic imagery and reads like poetry.

It sure seems like poetry to me.

Nobody in the age in which Genesis was written would have had any idea what a scientific account of anything would even look like.

 

[sago]

#8

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.

 

[RichardT]

Because it is structured as poetry.

I know for a fact that this is absolutely false. Genesis is written in HISTORICAL narrative.

 

[Vance]

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?

 

[RichardT]

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.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Being narrative and even being historical does not mean it is not poetry.


http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43231399&postcount=14

By the same token, being prose narrative does not mean it is history either.

Hebrew certainly discriminates between prose and poetry. But how well does it discriminate between poetic prose and narrative poetry?

And how do you determine when any of these forms is referring to history?

It is simply false, in any language, to say "narrative=history" and "poetry=/=history".

 

[Vance]

And, to add to what Gluadys said, don't equate non-poetic prose with literal historical narrative. You can have a figurative, symbolic and typological prose account of past events.

 

[artybloke]

The parables are prose, are they not?

Well, I was in Quaker Meeting this Sunday, and one of our members gave a testimony by reading from the Parable of the Good Samaritan, and proceeded to give his interpretation. He asked the question, who, for us, is the man who has fallen among theives? He said it could well be the asylum seeker. Throughout the rest of the meeting, I and about six others gave alternate readings. I asked who the Samariton was, someone else asked if Jesus had actually answered the question that the man had asked, and decided, no he hadn't, etc... One man compared the story to Jesus' escape to Egypt, where he would have been himself an "asylum seeker."

All in all, it was an object lesson in biblical interpretation - indeed, literary interpretation. Everybody who heard that story heard it slightly differently, and came to it with a different set of questions. Not one of their interpretations was "wrong." They all had something to add to the meaning of the parable.

That's what I mean when I say that the Creation narratives are "poetic". It doesn't matter whether they are "narrative" in structure or "poetic" in structure.

It was what we call in Quaker circles a "gathered" meeting. The Spirit was truely with us yesterday.

 

[Gukkor]

I've always thought that I'd fit in very well among Quakers, were it not for my lack of pacifism

 

[artybloke]

I've always thought that I'd fit in very well among Quakers, were it not for my lack of pacifism

In the words of George Fox (to the ex-soldier William Penn) "Wear thy sword as long as thou canst."

Not being a pacifist shouldn't stop you from attending a Quaker meeting; if you think you'll find it beneficial, you'll be most welcome.

 

[Ben12]

I am not sure what category I would be in but I do not put a timeline on the earth (to include the Garden of Eden) and the universe; or God. God has always been here and will always be here.

When it comes to Adam and Eve I know they are literal (but the message is spiritual), nor will I limit them to 6000 years. Especially the part of Adam that was made in God’s Image.

I do find it strange that science can only go back 4-5000 thousand years when it comes to man in civilization. Many of their so called early man fossils they find are far too apelike to take serious.

I believe there is one Adam but two totally different different natures of Adam in Genesis; one made after God’s image (spirit); and one who God changed to a living soul and later carnal flesh.
Gen 1:26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Then in the next chapter and who how short or long this period is:
Gen. 2:7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Then we get the deep sleep:
Gen: 2:21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 3:6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat

 

[gluadys]

I believe there is one Adam but two totally different different natures of Adam in Genesis; [/COLOR]one made after God’s image (spirit); and one who God changed to a living soul and later carnal flesh.

Interesting. Have you checked out cleminson's Genesis Enigma series in the TE sub-forum. It looks like you two have some ideas in common.


btw, I don't personally accept this idea either as you express it or as cleminson does. To me it requires an unacceptable distortion of the text.

 

[Ben12]

Interesting. Have you checked out cleminson's Genesis Enigma series in the TE sub-forum. It looks like you two have some ideas in common.


btw, I don't personally accept this idea either as you express it or as cleminson does. To me it requires an unacceptable distortion of the text.

I see no distortion of the text; Genesis is the foundation point of all scripture; if you cannot find reference to a belief in Genesis there is error in the belief. I do not follow religious dogma so no I have not read “Clementon’s Genesis Enigma”.

 

[gluadys]

I see no distortion of the text;

Of course, you don't, but I do.

Genesis is the foundation point of all scripture; if you cannot find reference to a belief in Genesis there is error in the belief.

Could you clarify this? Do you mean another Christian belief? Another belief based in scripture?

I do not follow religious dogma so no I have not read Clementon’s Genesis Enigma”.

It's cleminson, not Clementon. And it is not dogma. It is just an interesting point of view like yours. I thought you might like to take a look at it because of the similarity with your own view.

 

[Ben12]

Of course, you don't, but I do.



Could you clarify this? Do you mean another Christian belief? Another belief based in scripture?



It's cleminson, not Clementon. And it is not dogma. It is just an interesting point of view like yours. I thought you might like to take a look at it because of the similarity with your own view.

What I mean is Genesis is the foundation, the beginning of the Bible; it was divinely written by men inspired by God’s Spirit. So if you have some doctrine, creed or idealism and you cannot glean the example in Genesis; then it is error.

Take religion? What was the first religious act?

If you have a problem with what I quoted; then what is it. I mean to say to have a problem and not express what it is a bit vague.

If you want to correct me thank you, but common names start a capital letter.

Besides I do not waist my time reading about some long dead church members opinion; God’s Word is progressive.