California Tim
Well-Known Member
In otherwords, modern science ultimately trumps any intent demonstrated by the original authors.Vance said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In otherwords, modern science ultimately trumps any intent demonstrated by the original authors.Vance said:In short, I think that the manner in which the earliest readers thought about Genesis is a very important factor in how WE should read it, but not conclusive. I think it provides us with the best "default" position to start from, and we should depart from that only upon convincing evidence, as Augustine tells us, that a different interpretation is more likely what God intended.
California Tim said:In otherwords, modern science ultimately trumps any intent demonstrated by the original authors.
You cannot seriously expect me to believe you seek out the "whole truth", alone free of any personal bias. I can see you place a high esteem on the level of education you obtained and use it like a battering ram to discredit any opposing point of view, but that is not conclusive in and of itself. You seem to feel you've already learned all there is to know on the subject. First of all, I can rather confidently assume much of your college exposure was slanted to the liberal-skeptic orientation. It is the nature of higher education in the world today. "Start from the premise that nothing is as it seems. Question everything. Reject objective truth and build your ideal from a blank slate." In this case I will use your own quote to demonstrate how hypocritically you throw your accusations of narrow-mindedness while in violation of the very same:Given your lack of knowledge on this subject to start, my guess would be that you would simply have gone out to seek an opposing view, rather than reviewed the subject in some detail and reached a conclusion. If so, it is a matter of course that you can find somebody to say what you want to hear. My understanding on this subject is based on my own education on the subject over many, many years. I have a degree on this stuff, and have learned under those who are experts in the field. That is why I took the time to ask one such expert, and one who is a Christian.
That's like saying "I actually voted for the $87B package before I voted against it". Or maybe like telling me Ted Kennedy actually grew up in a conservative family. The starting point does not always dictate the bias. But I appreciate the fact you have at least a usable understanding of the truth of Genesis due to your exposure early in life.Vance said:Ah, but Tim, you are forgetting that I did NOT enter into this investigation with a bias against literalism. I WAS a literalist when I started. I WAS a YEC when I started. So, any bias I had was on that side.
California Tim said:That's like saying "I actually voted for the $87B package before I voted against it". Or maybe like telling me Ted Kennedy actually grew up in a conservative family. The starting point does not always dictate the bias. But I appreciate the fact you have at least a usable understanding of the truth of Genesis due to your exposure early in life.
grmorton said:No, Genesis 1 is in a different writing style. Genesis 2 on is not.
The JEDP theory is a case in point. Those sources are no where mentioned in the Bible and they are nowhere mentioned in extrabiblical ancient literature. One doesn't KNOW how the Bible came to be because we have NO, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, LEENG evidence. So your statement is an assumption and needs to be treated as such.
How do you write Genesis 1:1 with a different purpose other than telling us that God created the heavens and the earth?
Then you really haven't looked at what is said about ancient literature written in admiration of a person. During Jesus' time it was quite common to have the stars proclaim the birth of a noble personage. You are applying one standard to Genesis but another to the gospels. I know several atheists who can argue the case quite well that the Gospels were no different than the adorational literature written to praise a bigwig politician in that era. Why don't we apply the same standard to the Gospels that we apply to Genesis?
Vance said:Glenn, you are being too much the scientist here! :0) You are being, ironically, somewhat uniformitarian in your view of Scripture. You are a trained scientist, so it is even harder for you to place yourself in the mindset of the ancient writer or reader. We are all products of a post-Enlightenment upbringing in which empirical data establishes "truth" and "falsity", and we have come to discount any literary vehicle other than strict historicity or accurate narrative for the conveyance of essential truths, both of in events and spiritual truths.
Genesis IS true in the sense that it tells us a lot of very true things and conveys many great "truths", but this is not at all dependent upon it being literal history.
Consider the book of Job. Most Christians of all stripes do not consider that to be telling literal history.
William Edelen said:Edelen's World
Easter Pathology
by William Edelen
The image of a god, buried in a tomb, being withdrawn and said to live again, is thousands of years older than the Jesus stories. Of all the resurrected savior gods that were worshipped before and at the beginning of the Christian myth, none contributed so much to the mythology developing around Jesus as the Egyptian Osiris. Osiris was called "Lord of Lords," "King of Kings" and "the good Shepherd." He was called "the resurrection and the life," the god who made "men and women to be born again." He was the "god man" who suffered, died, rose again and lived eternally in heaven. They thought that by believing in Osiris they would share eternal life with him. Egyptian scripture reads: "As truly as Osiris lives, so truly shall his followers live also."
The coming of Osiris was announced by Three Wise Men. His flesh was eaten in the form of communion cakes of wheat. Only through Osiris could one obtain eternal life, they believed. The much loved 23rd Psalm of the Bible is a modified version of an Egyptian text appealing to Osiris, "the good shepherd," to lead the dead "to green pastures and still waters," "to restore the soul" to the body and to give protection in "the valley of the shadow of death."
http://www.banned-books.com/1997archive/124_1/81_edelens.html
accessed 8-19-04
But would you say that it is not telling us the Truth? Would you say that the messages God is giving us in that book are equally true regardless of of whether it is historically accurate?
Now, look at Genesis 1, what are the Truths that are undeniable in that account, whether it is being told as literal history or a figurative account.
Either way, it is STILL telling us that God created the whole universe, that He is in control of everything, that it was "good", that He created with a plan and with an orderly progress, that He created Man in His image, etc, etc.
These would have been seen as absolutely true statements derived from this account, regardless of whether the literary vehicle of the "days" and the exact order of events (which is set out in a two tiered poetic format) is historically accurate. That is why there is a big difference in the ancient mind between "true" and "historical". They can, and did, accept all of these important truths in Genesis without knowing or caring whether the details were historical.
I understand this is difficult for our modern minds to accept, but it is simply the truth about how they thought. And they were the ones who wrote it, so we need to understand and respect where they were coming from.
Now, where you are having a problem, I think, is in grasping that even a figurative story can tell many literal historical truths as well. Such as the historical fact that God DID create everything. That He DID create Man in His image, etc. These are both historical truths and theological truths and they are powerfully conveyed in an overall figurative account. This is not inconsistent at all, it is just a matter of seeing the essential truths within the story. For some reason, these are very obvious to me, and I have no problem accepting them AS wholly true events even while realizing that the structure of "days" and chronology are not meant to be historically accurate or scientifically accurate.
Now, turning to the second Creation account, and the Adam and Eve story. First of all, this is also NOT written in the same literary style as the Patriarchal stories. In fact, starting with Abraham, there is a very clear shift in style and presentation. Again, this is greatly muted in our modern translations, but it is still pretty obvious. The Creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Tower of Babel and the Flood all fit into a very different style and genre than we see starting with Abraham.
As for the multiple accounts of stories, this is true of Hittite and Sumerian cultures that I can recall off the top of my head, possibly Egyptian as well. Not to long ago I completed a university level course on Neareastern Mythology, and was reminded of these accounts, and I can dig up those exact examples again, if you like. Otherwise, it has been 20 years since I got my degree in ancient history, which is why I confirmed by recollection on these points from one of the leading scholars in the area, and a Christian to boot.
In regards to the Gospels, yes, there are those who want to argue that those can not be read as historically accurate, and I do not find this very persuasive. Remember, this is my area of study, it is what I have a degree in, so I am not just spouting off without a great deal of background. I have taken lecture courses from professors who have taught those types of minimalist approaches and know their arguments thoroughly and just find them unconvincing. If you would like a further explanation as to why, I can do that in a separate thread. Further, there is the "check" of theological consistency. Christian theological essentials require that these Scriptures be historically accurate in the salvation essentials.
Now, this is not some newfangled idea, held on to by modern, liberal, marginal Christians.
It is actually how most Christians around the world read Genesis. That does not make it correct in and of itself, but I keep getting the impression that here in the U.S. Christians really think that the literal/historical approach is just what Christians believe.
Vance said:Glenn, so that we can clarify a bit here, the original post presented the idea that the peoples of the ancient near east would not have viewed the stories about the past as strictly historical, but would still have thought of them as very "real" in that they conveyed truths about many issues (see my "thought experiment" thread on this point). This concept is one I first learned in my undergraduate studies many moons ago, but had recently come across again in two lecture series I listened to by prominent experts in the relevant fields. So, in support of that point, I cited a quote from one of these experts, Professor Johnson. I also presented separate evidence in that ancient cultures often had multiple and conflicting stories about their past, but believed both of them. Thus, they could not believe them both to be true history, since they were conflicting.
Why is this important? Because if the ancient writers and readers of these stories did not view them as strict literal history, then why should we?
I am still not sure whether you accept this premise, that ancient cultures would have viewed them non-historically, but questioned my point that ancient cultures had conflicting stories. I went back and re-listened to the relevant parts of the lecture series entitled "Ancient Neareastern Mythology" by Shalom L. Goldman. Here is his bio:
"Shalom L. Goldman is an Associate Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature in the Department of Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies at Emory University. He completed his undergraduate work at New York University and received his M.A. from Columbia University. He went on to earn his Ph.D. in the study of Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern texts from New York University. Prior to taking his position at Emory, Professor Goldman taught at Dartmouth College. He has been a visiting professor at Brown, Case Western, and Ohio State.
Professor Goldman is the editor of Hebrew and the Bible in America, and the author of Gods Sacred Tongue: Hebrew and the American Imagination."
I also sent the same question to Dr. Goldman (although I did not follow up with the Paul inquiry since Professor Johnson is the real expert on NT times), and he also agreed with my position. He also referred me to a book about the ancient mindset regarding such matters, which I have ordered used from Amazon. In the meantime, here are two quotes from that lecture series (which is excellent, btw):
"Now, the gods in those creation stories [speaking here of the Egyptian creation stories] appear in multiple and conflicting accounts. There is no attempt at consistency either within any given account or across accounts."
He then goes on to compare this with the similar contradiction between the two Hebrew creation accounts. Then, later:
"Among the Hittites and among the Caananites, in those cultures, there are mulitple and sometimes conflicting accounts [of creation]. There is no attempt at consistency and no claim to consistency."
And, yet, these ancients still believed these stories, and told them all even though they conflicted. They were still "real" in a very important sense even though they realized these various accounts could not all be strictly historically accurate. Those factual inconsistencies didn't seem to bother them in the least.
So, my question is whether this is sufficient evidence for the idea that cultures in the ancient near east had conflicting accounts of their past?
And, if this is sufficient, do you dispute that this is some evidence that the Hebrews also would not have considered their own stories to be literal history, even if still very "true" and "real", as both of these professors (and my own earlier studies) have confirmed?
As for the Gospels, yes, people make all those arguments, and I have heard them all. But we MUST take each text on its own merits, and argue the likelihood of historicity separately. The fact that the ancients would have the early Genesis stories figuratively, and even the fact that Paul would have viewed those same Genesis stories that way, does not argue AT ALL that the Gospels should be read that way. And, conversely, if one concludes that the Gospels should be read as literal history, this says NOTHING about whether the early Genesis stories should.I see no argument on your part. Good argumentation entails the presentation of evidence of why one account is different than the other. Haven't seen that. Good argumentation requires the presentation of what the ancients themselves say about what they beleived, not what modern professors say that they beleived. My view of your position, a position held my many in this day in age, is that it is no less ad hoc than is the YEC position. You just do the ad hoc thing in a different place.
As I said, I have considered all those arguments regarding the Gospels and have concluded that they should be read as literal history. We can start a separate thread on that very issue if you like, but the point here is that these are two separate texts and the arguments must be considered and conclusions drawn separately. Just because "there are arguments" in regards to both texts does not mean that we have to reach similar conclusions regarding both of them.
Once again, you provide only your conclusion. Conclusions don't count. What is the data, the raw data upon which you based your conclusion. One simply can't have conclusion first data later, you know. Why is it so difficult to get out of you the reasoning that went into your conclusion--reasoning including the raw data not what a professor said.
And I do think Job can't be left out of this comparison. Do you take Job as literal history? If not, why not? Are the messages any less true? Does that mean you take it less "seriously"?
I see no reason to say that Job is not based upon some guy's life.
We need to see Genesis and the Gospels as different types of texts, as we should take Job, Revelation, the Epistles, the histories and Wisdom literature all as different types of texts and consider how God intends us to read them.
I don't care what you see. I want to know what your data is upon which you base what you see. Until you do that, I will consider the position you hold ad hocism.
What disturbed me a bit is your description of taking the Gospels seriously and not Genesis. This is a very deep misconception of how I (and others of the same approach) view Genesis. We DO take it VERY seriously. Every bit as seriously as the Gospels in fact, since it tells essential facts us about God, about Man and their relationship and many other incredibly important things. The fact that God is telling us these truths in a figurative manner does not lessen their seriousness or their truth. They are still Holy Scripture, God's messages to us.
I have 13 different interpetations of Genesis 2 all of which claim to be true, all of which are promulgated by modern professors, most of which are mutually exclusive. Which interpretation is THE interpretation of Genesis 2? I will post them separately.
The fact that I believe this approach about Genesis does not mean that I take the same approach to the Gospels for one simple reason. There are factors which argue in favor of literalness in the Gospels which simply don't apply to Genesis, which I discuss in some detail in an ealier post.
Why should the time factors matter. Those who argue against the Gospels say that the people in the Roman empire at the time (which was being swept by mystery religions) were gullible. Time doesn't answer that charge.
Vance said:Ah, I see, you want a statement from the ancients that says "I don't read that as literal, I read that as figurative". Now, this is actually very unscientific for a scientist.
Very often you will not have direct evidence of something, and the conclusion has to be inferred from the evidence. We see this all the time from YEC's in regards to evolution, since the evidence is often not direct, but logical inferences from the evidence we see. And, we rightly turn to experts in each field (like yourself for geology) to provide insights as to the proper inferences that can be drawn.
The evidence that the ancient Hebrews would not have viewed their texts as literal history is that other cultures did not view it that way. The evidence that they did not view it that way is that they had conflicting accounts, followed by a similarly conflicting account in their own text. Now, is your problem with the existence of the conflicting accounts (for which I can gather the exact examples) or in the usefulness of that evidence in determining what the ancient Hebrews thought?
As for your two quotes, the first does not make any statement at all about whether that creation story is to be read as literal history, and the second seems to be saying what Augustine later proposed, that all things were created together, but they did not all show up at the same time, while still providing meaning to the "days". Bt then, we are starting to see the writing of histories and attempts to make them accurate. That is why we can have some viewing it both ways. Augustine, using Philo, for example to NOT read it as strict literal narrative.
Really, though, we are not going to get a clear statement about literalness from the actual first writers and readers (1000 years earlier than your quotes), so we will have to draw inferences from the evidence.
The fact that WE read it is narrative history with our modern minds is of little evidence at all, since we are so far removed. We have to determine how ancient people thought and how they would have likely felt about such writings.
Let's just say he's "halfway home" while most TE'ists remain in the starting blocks.Vance said:I think something for any YEC who reads this forum to see is that even someone who is so staunchly in favor of a literal reading STILL accepts an old earth and evolution.
Vance said:Well, Glenn, your post is very disappointing. Of course I have read the texts! How can you get a degree in ancient history without having read the texts?
California Tim said:Let's just say he's "halfway home" while most TE'ists remain in the starting blocks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?