Is Genesis literal or a myth

[djconklin]

Genesis is full of symbology and the book is heavily idealised.

Would you give us some examples of each?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Jim wrote:

I honestly believe the limitations of the books are personally contrived in the minds of those who would question their validity for people living today. If you study the Bible with the attitude that it can't answer any of your questions then it can't and won't.

Well that is a nice tangent, I have no idea what it has to do with the discussion other then to try and portray me as someone who contrives to limit the Bible.

This is not about questioning the Bible it is about seeing how inspiration works and how it progresses in steps of knowledge, just like every other type of knowledge. Apparently seeing the Bible this way strikes fear into the hearts of those who see the Bible as beginning with man having a whole lot of knowledge about God the universe the devil and angels. Yet amazingly the Bible records none of that. So it seems to me your view is a whole lot more contrived.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Well that is a nice tangent, I have no idea what it has to do with the discussion other then to try and portray me as someone who contrives to limit the Bible.

This is not about questioning the Bible it is about seeing how inspiration works and how it progresses in steps of knowledge, just like every other type of knowledge. Apparently seeing the Bible this way strikes fear into the hearts of those who see the Bible as beginning with man having a whole lot of knowledge about God the universe the devil and angels. Yet amazingly the Bible records none of that. So it seems to me your view is a whole lot more contrived.

This thread has been abandoned for quite some time for reasons I don't want to expound upon here. However, I want to ask RC_NewProtestants and or DoctorSupid a couple of questions to clarify in my own mind where they stand on the Bible.

1. How do you choose what part of the Bible to assign a status of being mythological? Please be specific, i.e. a text or passage cannot be literal because what it says can't be verified by known scientific phenomenon? Or a text is a quasi similar example of local legends or myths from the cultures at that time?

2. How do you view inspiration of the Bible? Again, be specific in what your philosophy is on this.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[chibitofu]

literal.Everythimg in te Bible is true.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

This thread has been abandoned for quite some time for reasons I don't want to expound upon here. However, I want to ask RC_NewProtestants and or DoctorSupid a couple of questions to clarify in my own mind where they stand on the Bible.

1. How do you choose what part of the Bible to assign a status of being mythological? Please be specific, i.e. a text or passage cannot be literal because what it says can't be verified by known scientific phenomenon? Or a text is a quasi similar example of local legends or myths from the cultures at that time?

2. How do you view inspiration of the Bible? Again, be specific in what your philosophy is on this.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

I have said previously how I read Genesis. There is a significant argument for believing that the creation narratives were written to explain things to a people that lived in a previous paradigm.
On the question of inspiration, the Bible is inspired by God, yet written by humans. It also had an original audience. The beauty of the book is that it has meaning to all ages.
Currently, we live in a world of relativistic physics, quantum physics, pluralist cultures, competing historical narratives, psychology, evolutionary biology. The Bible still has meaning and can still be important in our faith.

I believe you are wanting specific evidence for Genesis as a mythological story. I have previously spoken in this thread about my views in regards to other cosmological literature of the time. Also I see the issue of the authorship as something I am trying study more of.

 

[Jimlarmore]

I have said previously how I read Genesis. There is a significant argument for believing that the creation narratives were written to explain things to a people that lived in a previous paradigm.

I don't think there is any doubt about that. However, when you look at the narrative and it's content no matter how primitive it is, the bottom line is fantastic and beyond observable known scientific phenomenon. So you either accept it on faith or you reject it. It either happened or it didn't. You can't crawl in bed with the enemy and come out unsoiled. This tangential way of describing the inspiration of God for this writing as RC_NewProtestants has been trying to do is dangerously close to invalidating the Bible for what it is. Your stance is that something that is mythical may or may not be a literal account of historical events. However, I can tell you from my perspective when I read you or anyone calling the Bible and it's stories a myth it makes me think you are second guessing at the minimum God's word.

On the question of inspiration, the Bible is inspired by God, yet written by humans. It also had an original audience. The beauty of the book is that it has meaning to all ages.
Currently, we live in a world of relativistic physics, quantum physics, pluralist cultures, competing historical narratives, psychology, evolutionary biology. The Bible still has meaning and can still be important in our faith.

I'm glad to hear you say this, however, I don't see the relativistic aspects of our modern society as being a barrier to accepting Biblical truth. I have an extensive scientific background and it was a deep study of the cell that drove me back to the Bible and many other religions as I was seeking the truth of God. Some of the highest trained scientist around are now coming to believe in an intelligent creator designer. You speak of quantum physics. Are you aware of the Omega Observer in copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics?

I believe you are wanting specific evidence for Genesis as a mythological story. I have previously spoken in this thread about my views in regards to other cosmological literature of the time. Also I see the issue of the authorship as something I am trying study more of.

I want you to really comit yourself one way or the other on this issue of whether or not you believe the Genesis account is a literal event or a copy of cultural legends being passed around at the time. You've already said you believe the Bible is inspired but you muddy up the waters when you talk about the stories may be a redo of stories already known from the local culture. IOW, did God give the inspiration to Moses on what happened during the creation week or was his Egyptian culture and education playing in on this?

My belief on this is , that even though you can't unlearn what your culture has brought you to . I think God told Moses directly what happened and he relayed it in his own way that would best serve the folks who would be reading it at that time. How do you think it happened?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

The question you asked of us could just as easily be asked of you. How is it that you assume that the entire Bible is literal and historical. Well first you would say that it is not, that it has other elements. So even in your own view you know that your assumed presupposition has exceptions.

How do you know what you read in the newspapers, is it all literally true. You may believe it is true but generally the closer to the story you are the more likely you are to see errors in the story. In every thing you have to look at all the factors available to you to make your decisions.

In the case of Genesis, it was not written by eyewitnesses and it has a point of view which is directed at the establishment of the nation of Israel. There is a tradition of verbal inspiration that is still prominent in Christianity and they hold to the tradition that Moses wrote Genesis and what he wrote was dictated by God. They ignore any evidence to the contrary such as the glosses in the stories and things that indicate they were rewritten by others. As long as they hold to the verbal dictation method they think they have literal history because God would not lie to people. Which again is an assumption that a myth is a lie. Jesus told us the story in Luke 16 of the Rich man and Lazarus. Was that story a lie? He told many parables did they all happen or are they lies? In both those cases they are not lies because they were never claimed to be representations of reality, they were stories used to make a point.

So if God incarnate can use stories to teach, stories which we have no way of knowing if they were true of not or history or not why must we assume that God could not teach through stories in the Old Testament. Particularly to a nation coming our of hundreds of years of slavery. With little knowledge of how to function as a society and little personal knowledge.

None of this destroys the validity of the stories or the Bible, it interprets them in a different way then the old assumptions however. And that is probably a good thing as old assumptions have tended to be wrong very often.

 

[freeindeed2]

The question you asked of us could just as easily be asked of you. How is it that you assume that the entire Bible is literal and historical. Well first you would say that it is not, that it has other elements. So even in your own view you know that your assumed presupposition has exceptions.

How do you know what you read in the newspapers, is it all literally true. You may believe it is true but generally the closer to the story you are the more likely you are to see errors in the story. In every thing you have to look at all the factors available to you to make your decisions.

In the case of Genesis, it was not written by eyewitnesses and it has a point of view which is directed at the establishment of the nation of Israel. There is a tradition of verbal inspiration that is still prominent in Christianity and they hold to the tradition that Moses wrote Genesis and what he wrote was dictated by God. They ignore any evidence to the contrary such as the glosses in the stories and things that indicate they were rewritten by others. As long as they hold to the verbal dictation method they think they have literal history because God would not lie to people. Which again is an assumption that a myth is a lie. Jesus told us the story in Luke 16 of the Rich man and Lazarus. Was that story a lie? He told many parables did they all happen or are they lies? In both those cases they are not lies because they were never claimed to be representations of reality, they were stories used to make a point.

So if God incarnate can use stories to teach, stories which we have no way of knowing if they were true of not or history or not why must we assume that God could not teach through stories in the Old Testament. Particularly to a nation coming our of hundreds of years of slavery. With little knowledge of how to function as a society and little personal knowledge.

None of this destroys the validity of the stories or the Bible, it interprets them in a different way then the old assumptions however. And that is probably a good thing as old assumptions have tended to be wrong very often.

But this would require a paradigm shift and we humans often don't like change, especially when it's related to religion, even more so when we believe completely that we already have the truth. (Didn't they used to believe the earth was flat?) Are we really much different today?

(Not saying I believe it this way or that, only that we are resistant to change, even with evidence staring us in the face. Things that we thought were true 1000 years ago we learned were not true at all. The truth didn't change (as in progressive truth), only our understanding of what the truth is did (our progressive understanding of truth). Truth itself is not progressive AT ALL.)

 

[Jimlarmore]

The question you asked of us could just as easily be asked of you. How is it that you assume that the entire Bible is literal and historical. Well first you would say that it is not, that it has other elements. So even in your own view you know that your assumed presupposition has exceptions.

The Bible either stands or falls on it's validity as the inspired word of God. The searches I have made over the years have convinced me that this anthology we call the Bible is inspired by God. Your so called different way of looking at it may be good for you but it defames and invalidates the Bible for me. I think we get on dangerous ground when we approach the scriptures with an irreverant attitude like you do. So I reject your philosophy on the stories of Genesis.

How do you know what you read in the newspapers, is it all literally true. You may believe it is true but generally the closer to the story you are the more likely you are to see errors in the story. In every thing you have to look at all the factors available to you to make your decisions.

Indeed facts can be skewed and stories can be made to appear to be something totally different than what was intended originally. However, in this case we are talking of a foundational belief system. When you impune the creation story in Genesis you just as well throw out the entire Bible for spiritual truth or growth. Either God exists and the story is true or He doesn't and the story is a myth or legend, which ever way you want to lable it semantically.

In the case of Genesis, it was not written by eyewitnesses and it has a point of view which is directed at the establishment of the nation of Israel.

You can't assume this. How do you know that God didn't give the writer of Genesis a vision of the creation event making him an eye witness after the fact?

There is a tradition of verbal inspiration that is still prominent in Christianity and they hold to the tradition that Moses wrote Genesis and what he wrote was dictated by God. They ignore any evidence to the contrary such as the glosses in the stories and things that indicate they were rewritten by others.

I've read some of these allegations in the workings of the Biblical skeptics on the internet infidels discussion forum. I've discounted all of them based on this and writing style. Why? I've looked at my own writings over the years from when I was young to now. I can see a vast change in style and content. If you looked at my writings from then to now you would think it was two people also . If these books took several years ( decades ) then that could account for writing style changes that could occurr naturally with aging.

Why do you constantly go and study the works of atheist's for finding truth? Don't you realize that their presuppositions are that God does not exist? You have already said in a past post that you use talkorigins as a source for truth relating to evolution and science. Are you not aware that talkorigins is an atheist entity? Doesn't that matter to you in the least?

As long as they hold to the verbal dictation method they think they have literal history because God would not lie to people. Which again is an assumption that a myth is a lie.

What I have found is complete verification of major prophecies in the Bible that is confirmed by history. As far as the myth issue goes, you could probably pole a 1000 folks and out of that 990 would say a myth is not something to be taken as a literal story.

Jesus told us the story in Luke 16 of the Rich man and Lazarus. Was that story a lie? He told many parables did they all happen or are they lies? In both those cases they are not lies because they were never claimed to be representations of reality, they were stories used to make a point.

Exactly, but the stories of the flood and creation were not related as parables or stories but as authentic factual events. We don't find any clues to assume they were parables from the original language. Additionally, there is a vast difference between the symbology of a parable/s and the literal account of fiat creation by an Almighty Intelligent God during the creation event and the flood event.

So if God incarnate can use stories to teach, stories which we have no way of knowing if they were true of not or history or not why must we assume that God could not teach through stories in the Old Testament. Particularly to a nation coming our of hundreds of years of slavery. With little knowledge of how to function as a society and little personal knowledge.

None of this destroys the validity of the stories or the Bible, it interprets them in a different way then the old assumptions however. And that is probably a good thing as old assumptions have tended to be wrong very often.

I think you are wrong. When you interpret the Bible's account of creation as something different than what it says then you are certainly destroying the validity of the story or the account of the literal event. I'm open as anyone to new ideas of what the Bible may be saying but when you say the story of creation or the flood may have been symbolic or not literal but a simpleton way of explaining something to primitive minds then you go to far with your imaginings.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

We don't like change yet we change all the time. We often even like the change. If the change makes things better, more relevant or simply of benefit to us we like the change. So fear of change can never legitmately be a reason, it is rather an excuse for being unwilling to change.

 

[Jimlarmore]

We don't like change yet we change all the time. We often even like the change. If the change makes things better, more relevant or simply of benefit to us we like the change. So fear of change can never legitmately be a reason, it is rather an excuse for being unwilling to change.

You are right we don't like change, however I have experienced some massive changes in my life and I have been willing to change if the truth demands that. What I have found is that Christ can make the change a lot easier than if I try to do the changing on my own. I've never had a serious dialogue with anyone outside of an atheist circle that hold the same philosphies as you do. I refuse to accept a philsophy that impunes the very foundation of the Bible and that is Genesis uno.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

The Bible either stands or falls on it's validity as the inspired word of God. The searches I have made over the years have convinced me that this anthology we call the Bible is inspired by God. Your so called different way of looking at it may be good for you but it defames and invalidates the Bible for me.

In fact from my conversations with Atheists and Agnostics it is your fundamentalist views of the Bible that convinced them it was not true at all. That is why most Atheists look at the Bible in a fundamentalist way. So when they read a story like the creation story and it does not fit with reality they discard the story. Your method while you think it validates the inspiration of the Bible is destroying the inspiration of the Bible.

And in all this I have not dealt with the terrible cruel history of the Bible. Look at those ten commandments and then see what the results for breaking them was at that time period. Sabbath breaking = death, Adultery = death, dishonoring your parents = death, worshiping any other gods =death. Those are to the fundamentalist the infallible words of God. You should be able to understand why the Western world has been abandoning Christianity. All the wonderful humanitarian accomplishments of Christianity through time can be destroyed by the fundamentalist who gets control and thumps his Bible and says we must enforce the infallible rules of God.

If you can't explain why those rules no longer apply, being as the fundamentalist believes the infallible inerrant word of God then you have presented a non workable philosophy. The literalness that you apply to the Bible is destroying the reason Christ came to show us God.

The reality is that we must apply interpretations which take into account the time and place and knowledge of those who the writing was given. something fundamentalism does not do with any consistency. Instead when it suits them their answer is this is what the Bible says and if you don't agree you are going against the inspiration and the very word of God. Why? well they can't really give us a reason but since it is their belief we must accept their way of looking at things. This is the danger of fundamentalism, when reason must concede to a belief, a belief which is generally based upon poor reasoning.

 

[Jimlarmore]

In fact from my conversations with Atheists and Agnostics it is your fundamentalist views of the Bible that convinced them it was not true at all. That is why most Atheists look at the Bible in a fundamentalist way. So when they read a story like the creation story and it does not fit with reality they discard the story. Your method while you think it validates the inspiration of the Bible is destroying the inspiration of the Bible.

I don't want to get into trouble for flaming here so I want to put this as delicately as I can. What you have done is call me a fundamentalist, whatever that is, and turned the tables around or blamed the fact that atheist reject the truth in the Bible on these fundamentalist's faith in the literalness of the Bible? Well, I'm sorry but that about takes the cake.

And in all this I have not dealt with the terrible cruel history of the Bible. Look at those ten commandments and then see what the results for breaking them was at that time period. Sabbath breaking = death, Adultery = death, dishonoring your parents = death, worshiping any other gods =death. Those are to the fundamentalist the infallible words of God. You should be able to understand why the Western world has been abandoning Christianity. All the wonderful humanitarian accomplishments of Christianity through time can be destroyed by the fundamentalist who gets control and thumps his Bible and says we must enforce the infallible rules of God.

So now we are attacking the whole Bible story and it's history is that right? The Bible says the wages of sin is death , Rom. 6:23. So it has been from the onslot of sin in our world and it will continue to the time Christ comes back. Those who lived with the shikinah glory of God shining at night out of the tabernacle and a cloud over their heads in the heat of the day. Given food in a place where there was no food at all. Yeah, I can see why God said if you are stupid enough to break my laws and get caught you will be put to death. The critics of the Bible love to use this type of attack on the Holy Scriptures but they have a secular attitude of irreverance when they study it's pages so they have a misguided perception of what was right or wrong for God to do.

If you can't explain why those rules no longer apply, being as the fundamentalist believes the infallible inerrant word of God then you have presented a non workable philosophy. The literalness that you apply to the Bible is destroying the reason Christ came to show us God.

How can making the fact that God created the heaven and the earth or that there was a literal flood destroy the reason Christ came to show us God? Your not making any sense.

The reality is that we must apply interpretations which take into account the time and place and knowledge of those who the writing was given. something fundamentalism does not do with any consistency. Instead when it suits them their answer is this is what the Bible says and if you don't agree you are going against the inspiration and the very word of God. Why? well they can't really give us a reason but since it is their belief we must accept their way of looking at things. This is the danger of fundamentalism, when reason must concede to a belief, a belief which is generally based upon poor reasoning.

Your's and my reasoning have a base that is founded on fallible flesh. The Bible is founded on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Now after saying that I am not saying we should abandon reasoning and logic in our interpretation of scriptures. The Bible says we need to compare line upon line here a little there a little and in the process of doing that we need to use our God given abilities to think. However, unless I have totally misunderstood what you are saying about all of this you are going way beyond healthy logic and reasoning and saying something that is essentially corrupted and well within the philsophies of atheists and agnostics.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[freeindeed2]

Your's and my reasoning have a base that is founded on fallible flesh. The Bible is founded on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Now after saying that I am not saying we should abandon reasoning and logic in our interpretation of scriptures. The Bible says we need to compare line upon line here a little there a little and in the process of doing that we need to use our God given abilities to think. However, unless I have totally misunderstood what you are saying about all of this you are going way beyond healthy logic and reasoning and saying something that is essentially corrupted and well within the philsophies of atheists and agnostics.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Would you please give a reference for where the Bible instructs us to do this?

 

[Jimlarmore]

Would you please give a reference for where the Bible instructs us to do this?

Isa 28:9-10. Now I know you are going to make a big deal out of context on this. However, if you look at the commentaries this is a valid text to support this concept.

 

[freeindeed2]

Isa 28:9-10. Now I know you are going to make a big deal out of context on this. However, if you look at the commentaries this is a valid text to support this concept.

I won't make any deal here. Please just tell me which commentaries you're using for your support of this passage. Thanks for the reference.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

What you have done is call me a fundamentalist, whatever that is, and turned the tables around or blamed the fact that atheist reject the truth in the Bible on these fundamentalist's faith in the literalness of the Bible? Well, I'm sorry but that about takes the cake.

Do you want me to quote the definition of a fundamentalist. I am sure you know the definition but here is from Wikipedia dealing with the area we were talking about:

In particular, fundamentalists reject the documentary hypothesis—the theory held by higher biblical criticism that the Pentateuch was composed and shaped by many people over the centuries. Fundamentalists assert that Moses was the primary author of the first five books of the Old Testament. Some fundamentalists, on the other hand, may be willing to consider alternative authorship only where the Biblical text does not specify an author, insisting that books in which the author is identified must have been written by him.

I believe earlier you said you were a fundamentalist, in any case it seems to fit your beliefs as I have seen them expressed here. I am surprised you have not realized the fundamentalism that the atheists manifest. It is abundantly evident in their writing and why should it not be there, fundamentalism has been a powerful force since the latter part of the 1800's. When you talked with the atheists did you never bother to find out what they thought of the Bible or why they did not accept it? Do you really think they reject the flood story because they believe it describes a flood in the Black sea region? No it is literalism of Christianity that has pushed many into rejecting Christianity. Certainly that is not the only reason and different people have different reasons but for many it is fundamentalist literalism

Even your defense is fundamentalist, not taking into account the context of the Bible verse you use, which is in reference to the mocking and drunkeness of Epraim:

Isa 28:8 All the tables are covered with vomit
and there is not a spot without filth. 9 "Who is it he is trying to teach?
To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk,
to those just taken from the breast?
10 For it is:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule [a] ;
a little here, a little there."
11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,
12 to whom he said,
"This is the resting place, let the weary rest";
and, "This is the place of repose"—
but they would not listen.
13 So then, the word of the LORD to them will become:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule;
a little here, a little there—
so that they will go and fall backward,
be injured and snared and captured.
14 Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scoffers
who rule this people in Jerusalem.
15 You boast, "We have entered into a covenant with death,
with the grave [b] we have made an agreement.
When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
it cannot touch us,
for we have made a lie our refuge
and falsehood [c] our hiding place."

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

You speak of quantum physics. Are you aware of the Omega Observer in copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics?

I am aware. I don't regect theistic evidence in science, particularly molecular biology and physics. It is marvelous to look at parts of nature and see reflections of what we call God. It affirms my faith that this collection of writings (the Bible) has meaning for my life.

Edit:
Don't get me wrong, I think there is some great evidence for Intelligent Design.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Do you want me to quote the definition of a fundamentalist. I am sure you know the definition but here is from Wikipedia dealing with the area we were talking about:

I spent the better part of two years debating atheists on the infidels internet forum and suffered a lot of abuse from them. Most of them were Ph.D's in their fields so you had to know what you were talking about or they would eat you alive. I did a lot of research during that time. For a while they tried to keep the language civil there but after they stopped enforcing the rule that you couldn't use vulgar language I got off and have not been back. While I was there I have discovered that by far the majority of the atheists I dialogued haven't given the Bible a chance. They just reject it off hand and assume a prejudice against anything that has metaphysical aspects to it at all. The ones who do make the Bible a study do it to invalidate it anyway they can. This is where I encountered a host of Bible skeptics.

I got called a fundie while I was there but I never heard the definition you gave concerning Moses and the pentatuach, that's a new one on me. What I did know is the belief in the Bible being a literal account of events like the creation and the flood.

It's kind of funny in a way because not one time in nearly two years did I hear one of them tell me that it was my belief in the literalness of the Bible that made them reject the Bible or the existence of God. I gotta admit that accusation really shocked me.

I believe earlier you said you were a fundamentalist, in any case it seems to fit your beliefs as I have seen them expressed here. I am surprised you have not realized the fundamentalism that the atheists manifest. It is abundantly evident in their writing and why should it not be there, fundamentalism has been a powerful force since the latter part of the 1800's. When you talked with the atheists did you never bother to find out what they thought of the Bible or why they did not accept it? Do you really think they reject the flood story because they believe it describes a flood in the Black sea region? No it is literalism of Christianity that has pushed many into rejecting Christianity. Certainly that is not the only reason and different people have different reasons but for many it is fundamentalist literalism.

What has caused the majority of atheists to reject Christianity and the Bible is their personal beliefs that are based on false scientific theories like macro-evolution, the big bang and modern cosmology.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I think Jim you are under the misapprehension that your experience on some origins website is the sum total of of the situation. I have seen what you have used as evidence and I can see why they would be brutal toward you. You asserted that there were human footprints along with dinosaur footprints. You even held to that belief after I posted our own SDA creation science website that debunked that view. Then you use out of context verses like Isaiah 28: 9-10 and say that this is how commentaries use the verse. It is simply wrong


ISA 28:8 All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth.

ISA 28:9 "Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast?

ISA 28:10 For it is: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule n; a little here, a little there."


From the Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
9-10 As the prophet declared the word of God in this drink-dominated setting, his hearers made their response. The NIV is probably right in treating both these verses as a quotation of the words of the drunkards. They felt insulted. Were they not themselves spiritual leaders, well able to teach others? What right had this man to place them in the classroom and teach them the spiritual ABC's? There is some thing ironic about the reference to milk (v. 9) in such a context.
Many commentators have been puzzled by v. 10 and have wrestled to make sense of the Hebrew. The truth of the matter seems to be, as the NIV margin suggests, that it is not meant to make sense. Isaiah's words had hardly penetrated the alcohol -impregnated atmosphere that surrounded his hearers. What they picked up were simply a few stray syllables, some of them repeated, like the baby-talk that delights the child but would insult the adult. They mouth this gibberish back at the prophet. The transmitter was as strong and clear as ever; it was the receivers that were at fault. Their judgment, meantime, lay in their failure to hear the word that could have led them back to God; but there was another judgment on its way, most appropriate in its form. Their sin had turned the word of God through Isaiah into a meaningless noise that might just as well have been a foreign language.

11-13 Very well, then, the next message will come through foreigners (v. 11). The Assyrian devastation of Judah (cf. 1:5-9) is surely in view. There is a striking aptness about this, because just as the drunkards picked up a few familiar sounds but no connected meaning, so the people of Judah would detect some similarities between the Akkadian of the Assyrians and their own Hebrew (both being Semitic tongues), without being able to understand what was being said. Of course, in reality it was through the Assyrians' swords rather than their words that God would speak his message to Israel.
Was drunkenness the peoples main sin? No, for more serious still was their failure to hear God's word offering rest to those who insisted on rejecting it (v. 12). The prophet was dearly speaking of the call to faith. This had been refused by Ahaz (cf. chs. 7-8), and attempts to link up with Egypt (cf. 30:1-3; 31:1-5, and the Introduction, pp. 5-6) were contemporary examples of the same sin. Their disobedient refusal of the way of faith in God was therefore a continuing condition preventing the word from getting through to them. The effects of drink may pass off, but unbelief can be a permanent barrier to God's word.
The language of v. 13b is strongly reminiscent of 8:14-15, and this very fact conveys a message. On an earlier occasion, in the days of Ahaz, God had pointed out the way of faith and had warned the people against the consequences of rejecting this. Times might have changed, but not the principles of God's dealings with his people. The call to faith then had been accompanied by a warning of the consequences of walking in another way, and those consequences were the same now. It is possible, especially in view of the repetition of the drunkards' syllables from v. 10 that their fall is thought of first of all as a result of their drunken staggering (v. 7); but the range of analogies is then extended to the picture of the hunter's snare. If this is so, the wording is similar to 8:14-15 and the essential message the same, but the imaginative vehicle the message comes through is a little different. The inspired ideation of this prophet is so rich!