The Scripture as Story

chaoschristian · Feb 18, 2006

I view the Bible as a collection of stories written by various authors, inspired by God, over the course of time in an attempt to understand man's relationship to God.

I acknowledge that the texts are written in various styles and genres, focused on delivery particular messages to particular audiences at particular times.

I have questions regarding the modern formatting of the scripture, and wonder what kind of impact the form of the codex has had on how we view the nature of scripture. This is related to questions that I have regarding the impact post-literate culture has had on our view of scripture.

One of the most influential experiences that I had in regards to scripture was witnessing Dennis Dewey, a Biblical storyteller, recount the creation story in Genesis, as well as other parts of the Old and New Testement. It made me realize that there was an aspect to scripture that was lost when the text is experienced only through the act of reading. So much so that I think I want to be a Biblical storyteller when I grow up.

All that to say that I found this rather remarkable book on science written by a storyteller, Joy Hakim. The book is "The Story of Science: Aristotle Leads the Way." I recommend it to one and all.

Here is a snippet that I believe is pertinent to our discussions here, and reflects my own thinking on the subject:

Joy Hakim said:
Ancient Peruvians thought the universe was a huge box with a ridge for a roof where the great god lived. Hesiod and the others were attempting to explain the universe - its mystery and its power - in the days before there was science to help with the explaining. How do we tell myth from science? Why aren't origin stories science? It's not because the myths and stories are wrong. Accepted science sometimes turns out to be wrong. Myths are imaginative attempts to explain what seems unexplainable. They appeal to emotions. No one can prove a myth, and that's the measure: Science is about proof. But the ancient myths were important; they were part of a process that would stretch minds. Those myths got people thinking, as good science fiction usually does. The Story of Science, p11-12

OldWiseGuy · Feb 20, 2006

I quite agree. I think mythology may be more truth than fiction. Most myths deal with god-beings and their relationsips with other beings that are close to or related to them. The stories deal with all of the intrigues that we are familiar with, and may well reflect the intrigues that occurred in Gods spirit kingdom leading up to Lucifer's rebellion. Most of human (and other bioligical) life is a physical reinactment of those intrigues as well as the actual rebellion, and is reflected on every level and in every aspect of physical existance. (IMO of course).

artybloke · Feb 21, 2006

I think mythology may be more truth than fiction

I don't think you've quite got it (or maybe you're nearly there) - myths are a form of fiction, rather like a sonnet or a prose poem are both forms of poetry.

Fiction, along with poetry and philosophy, is a non-factual way of expressing or exploring ideas, truths, and ways of behaviour between human beings, and betwen human beings and both the divine and the natural worlds. Myth is that branch of fiction that deals with the gods.

Fiction is opposed to fact, not truth; it's a form of imaginative exploration that has been used for a far longer time than objective scientific investigation, it's a way to explain ourselves to ourselves.

As such, it's a beautiful vocation and the writers of the myths in Genesis should be celebrated for their profound and holy imaginations, not turned into dry-as-dust 19th century rationalists who can't see further than facts.

LoG · Feb 21, 2006

artybloke said:
As such, it's a beautiful vocation and the writers of the myths in Genesis should be celebrated for their profound and holy imaginations, not turned into dry-as-dust 19th century rationalists who can't see further than facts.

We could say the same about Darwin and his myths regarding common ancestry. To think that God divinely inspired all the books of the bible through His prophets and then gave the greatest truths about our origins to a self admitted atheist boggles the mind.

Willtor · Feb 21, 2006

Lion of God said:
We could say the same about Darwin and his myths regarding common ancestry. To think that God divinely inspired all the books of the bible through His prophets and then gave the greatest truths about our origins to a self admitted atheist boggles the mind.

I think differently. In my experience, science is useful to the scientist and to the common man by way of the engineer. Myth is useful to anyone who will listen. Besides that, science doesn't offer the truth. If we are to believe Jesus, who identified himself as the truth, then the truth is from God and is God, by way of the Son. Although this would invalidate most myths, a myth from God would necessarily be true.

Again, it is not my experience that science deals in truths, but only facts. If Genesis were communicating something scientific, it would be unfortunate, indeed, that we have only been able to come to this realization in the last few hundred years.

DailyBlessings · Feb 21, 2006

Christianity has been called the "religion of the book" and I think this cripples it in some ways. We were not always dependent on pen and ink to define our faith- it was carried by the heart and mouth for centuries before it ever entered the great literary paradigm. Codices have their limits, and some are very severe. I dislike the numbering system, for instance, as I think it encourages picking and choosing verses outside of their context. When not talking with fundamentalists, I usually say "As it says the gospel of Mark" and leave it to the listener to find chapter and verse if they are interested.

artybloke · Feb 23, 2006

We could say the same about Darwin and his myths regarding common ancestry.

Except, unlike the lies of the creationists, science is based on the close observation of facts.

To think that God divinely inspired all the books of the bible through His prophets and then gave the greatest truths about our origins to a self admitted atheist boggles the mind.

What are the greatest truths about our origins? That we come from a creation of God. Once again, you're making the category error of confusing "truth" - which refers to universal and divine knowledge, and which can only come through revelation - and "facts." All facts are true; but the fact that certain chemical combined to form the first stirrings of life, or that evolution is the theory of how life developed into the diversity it has today in no way negates the universal truth that we are a creation of God.

The Genesis story is about truth, not fact.

Dannager · Feb 23, 2006

Lion of God said:
We could say the same about Darwin and his myths regarding common ancestry.

Well, you could, but that'd be a worthless criticism, since as a scientific discipline evolutionary biology doesn't need to concern itself with anything other than the facts and the theories that explain them.

To think that God divinely inspired all the books of the bible through His prophets and then gave the greatest truths about our origins to a self admitted atheist boggles the mind.

God works in mysterious ways.

Didaskomenos · Feb 23, 2006

Great thread. This is something modern Christianity, and especially evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity, has lost. If the Bible were seen as individual narratives strung together to tell the larger story of the growing relationship of God and man from man's perspective, we wouldn't see so many people treating it as a paper pope.

LoG · Feb 23, 2006

artybloke said:
Except, unlike the lies of the creationists, science is based on the close observation of facts.

Science attempts to interpret the facts that it observes into the evolutionary model. It no longer goes where the facts lead in this discipline. When a scientist is no longer willing to go where the facts lead, then they are prone to error.

What are the greatest truths about our origins? That we come from a creation of God. Once again, you're making the category error of confusing "truth" - which refers to universal and divine knowledge, and which can only come through revelation - and "facts." All facts are true; but the fact that certain chemical combined to form the first stirrings of life, or that evolution is the theory of how life developed into the diversity it has today in no way negates the universal truth that we are a creation of God.

The Genesis story is about truth, not fact.

I'm not sure what your definition for "truth" and "fact" is but the one I see is:
truth

Conformity to fact or actuality.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
Sincerity; integrity.
Fidelity to an original or standard.
Reality or actuality

From that definition if truth and fact do not line up then truth is false irregardless of how you want to twist and turn it. If a person chooses to believe that Genesis is a story because they believe the supposed scientific interpretation of the facts, then they are not believing the "truth" that is contained in the Creation account.

LoG · Feb 23, 2006

Dannager said:
Well, you could, but that'd be a worthless criticism, since as a scientific discipline evolutionary biology doesn't need to concern itself with anything other than the facts and the theories that explain them.

Evolutionary biology only tries to explain the evidence from a naturalistic viewpoint. If they are not willing to consider a spritual aspect to biology then it will remain a myth since there is a missing element to the equation.

God works in mysterious ways.

He does, but He also is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow. God's consistency is an important aspect. If He were to give important truths to those who hate or don't acknowledge Him, how do we determine false prophets? The "fruit" of the theory of evolution has not glorified God.

chaoschristian · Feb 23, 2006

Lion of God said:
From that definition if truth and fact do not line up then truth is false irregardless of how you want to twist and turn it. If a person chooses to believe that Genesis is a story because they believe the supposed scientific interpretation of the facts, then they are not believing the "truth" that is contained in the Creation account.

Why such a narrow definition of truth? Truth transcends fact, in that truth - especially God's truth - will maintain in the face of error.

I, for one, accept both what Creation reveals about God's truth and what scripture reveals about God's truth. The two are not mutually exclusive.

And the fact the Genesis is a story makes it no less truthfull.

chaoschristian · Feb 23, 2006

Lion of God said:
Evolutionary biology only tries to explain the evidence from a naturalistic viewpoint. If they are not willing to consider a spritual aspect to biology then it will remain a myth since there is a missing element to the equation.

Why the false dichotomy between nature and spirit? Some very articulate and thoughtful folks have posted elsewhere on this forum as to why this dichotomy is false. I believe the summation is that nature does not equal an absence of God. The TE position is that God has been and remains a very active participant in the natural processes that are responsible for the diversity of life as observed on the planet Earth over the course of time.

That said, science itself is not concerned with that which is not verifiable, either through direct observation or extension of reasoning. Asking biological sciences to prove the spiritual aspect of creation is like using a hammer tighten a screw - wrong tool with bad results, even if you accomplish . . . something.

He does, but He also is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow. God's consistency is an important aspect.

God is eternal and unchanging. Amen!

If He were to give important truths to those who hate or don't acknowledge Him, how do we determine false prophets? The "fruit" of the theory of evolution has not glorified God.

But what gives you the right to box up God like that? And since evolutionary theory is consistent (something that's important to you) with the revelation of Creation itself, then how can it not do anything else but glorify God, since it is an accurate account of His truth?

Now. let's bring this back on track a little: what do you think about the story of Creation? How does it speak to you?

Dannager · Feb 23, 2006

Lion of God said:
Evolutionary biology only tries to explain the evidence from a naturalistic viewpoint. If they are not willing to consider a spritual aspect to biology then it will remain a myth since there is a missing element to the equation.

Evolutionary theory functions as is. Occam's Razor suggests that the involvement of extraneous entities should be removed in order to achieve the most parsimonious explanation. Add to this the fact that science as a discipline cannot include the supernatural, and you have a pretty air-tight case for not involving the spiritual in any way.

EDIT: I give you my 1000th post!

ebia · Feb 23, 2006

Lion of God said:
Evolutionary biology only tries to explain the evidence from a naturalistic viewpoint.

Aeronautics only tries to explain how aeroplanes stay in the air from a naturalistic viewpoint. Does this stop you getting on an aeroplane?

If they are not willing to consider a spritual aspect to biology then it will remain a myth since there is a missing element to the equation.

The missing element is who created and why; science has no tools to discuss that. That doesn't make the aspect that science does investigate invalid any more than the fact that aeronautical engineers ignore the influence of the prayers of the passengers and the possibility of angels holding up the wings makes getting on an airbus a dangerous idea.

He does, but He also is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow. God's consistency is an important aspect. If He were to give important truths to those who hate or don't acknowledge Him, how do we determine false prophets?

Evolutionary theory is not an important theological truth. Are you seriously suggesting that scientific, mathematical and other progress can only be made by Christians and is a false if it is discovered elsewhere? :doh:

Perhaps you had better stop using the vast majority of modern mathematics that is built on important principles like the existence of zero (discovered in non-Christian India), algebra (developed by Islamic Arabs),...

The "fruit" of the theory of evolution has not glorified God.

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about God either way, but that makes it no less valid than the theory of gravity or any other scientific theory, that also has nothing to say about God. It's creationism that makes Christanity a laughing stock and puts a stumbling block in front of many.

The Scripture as Story

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

O Christianos Cryptos; Amor Vincit Omnia!

Well-Known Member

Back in Town

Voiced Bilabial Spirant

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Back in Town

Senior Contributor

Similar threads