Support for ancients not viewing their stories as literal history

[grmorton]

This was obviously a poor night to attempt a lighter, more humorous appoach in this forum. I've seen more angst among the TE crowd than ever before. If you wish to talk about the truly bizarre and sad, it's the extent to which the evolutionists take this subject to the personal level and resort ever-increasingly to the insulting tactic of dismissing the perceived intelligence or sincerity of those who'd question man before God. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend how intense this latent need seems to be to "educate" us backwoods, barr-foot, inbred simpletons in such a way as to practically force us into confrontation.

Tim, when one is nearly driven to atheism by the beliefs of a group of people who will not listen to scientific data, one doesn't always want to hear what you said. I won't go back to what I correctly described. I insist upon one reality, not two as most TEs hold. YECs want to hold to one reality (which is good) but they chose very poorly and never ever seem to consider the damage they do to guys like me. Some of my crises of faith have been so deep and so black that even my wife thought I would come to her and tell her I was no longer a believer. I have the YECs to thank for this.

I have met face to face almost all the leaders of the YEC movement, Ken Ham, Henry Morris, John Morris, Duane Gish, Paul Nelson, John Woodmorappe, Steve Austin, Russ Humphreys, etc etc etc. I have heard enough of their twisting of the data to fill a craw for a lifetime. We are called to truth, and YEc simply isn't it. I blame them more than guys like you, but you do unthinkingly accept their stuff. You may not like what I am saying but sometimes tough things need to be said bluntly. What triggered me was your attempt to capitalize on the small difference between Vance and I. I didn't appreciate it.

 

[Vance]

Glenn,

I really don't see the two realities you are mentioning. Texts in every age have been written in different styles, genres, etc. Sometimes they are figurative, using symbolism, typology, poetic style, etc. I am sure you would agree with this. I also assume you would agree that we see many of these varieties with the compilation of texts, written over many hundreds of years by dozens of different hands, for as many purposes, we call the Bible. To recognize this fact does not at all mean that the Scripture is not the holy message from God. Further, accepting that some of these texts are passing that message to us using a figurative literary style does not in ANY way indicate that the message is errant. I, just as much as you, believe the Scripture is entirely inerrant. Even if it is factually incorrect, it is still inerrant. This is not a difficult concept to accept, really.

So, we look at Genesis and we look at the Gospels. These are two different set of documents written many hundreds of years apart, maybe up to 1,000 years apart. To attempt to read them as written in a uniform style just doesn't make any sense. That, I would strongly suggest, is the product of the modern mind and our own predilictions added to the fact that it is bound up in a single volume, as if it is a contemporaneous and singular product. No, the PRESUMPTION must be that they should not be read in a similar manner, and the burden would be on the one attempting to read it similarly to explain why that should be the case.

I would very much like to get your reaction to both the article by your ASA colleague and the analysis of Jewish interpretation I posted above. I would like to hear where you think they have gotten it wrong, where they have their facts and analysis incorrect since, in truth, they say it all better than I could. Here is the link again:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/6-02Watts.html#Making%20Sense%20of%20Genesis%201

Also, the ASA article happens to give some of the analysis of the ANE texts I have been referring to. In fact, he did such a better job on the various Egyptian and Akkadian variations, that I will refer you to that article for them. I will cover the Sumerian here.

The early Sumerian cultures had two simultaneous creation myths, the Nippur texts and the Eridu texts.

The Nippur texts describe a "cosmic" union of heaven and earth, in a sort of sacred marriage, from which all of life emerges. Heaven was personified as the god An and the earth was the goddes Ki. They gave birth to the air god Enli, who then separated heaven from earth and brought the universe into being in the form of heaven and earth separated by air. These stories are based on six different texts, all of different literary genres (I have not read all of them, though), and were recited at different occassions. The Eridu texts (up to five different versions and, again, I have not read all of them) have the water beneath the earth (the goddes Nammu) as the major source of life. The god Enki then makes humans out of clay (another concept borrowed by the Hebrews who descended from the culture?). These accounts, all from the same culture, are conflicting.

I see that Mr. Watts has also provided the details of the Enuma Elish, which was developed in Mesopotamia in later times, so I would refer you to his coverage. There is still some question as to whether this account was told alongside the earlier Sumerian creation stories.

I will have to dig out my sources for the Canaanite texts if you are particularly interested. But you can see with just the Egytpian and the Mesopotamian cultures, there were multiple and conflicting accounts.

Another noted scholar, R. J. Clifford, in his "Creation accounts in the Anceint Near East and in the Bible", (Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, 26; Washinton DC: Catholic Biblcial Association of American, 1994), has this to say, FWIW:

"All the Akkadian creation accounts (and the Sumerian for that matter) show no interest in creation as a historical event in the modern sense but only as validating or exploring present reality."

What I will say about the Egyptian texts is that I have always found interesting the fact that the various creation myths often center around the idea that life is first brought forth from the action of the sun on the slime left behind after the receding of the Nile. This seems oddly "scientific" in light of the modern theories of abiogenesis. Regardless, the conflicts come in with the details of these accounts, but in particular the source of Atum-ra (the sun god) himself. In one version, he is seen being created out of Nun, the water goddess. In another, Atum is created by the Ogdoad, a combination of creatures representing chaos. Again, I would refer you to the ASA article for a more detailed treatment.

I would very much like your thoughts on that article and on the discussion of early Jewish thought I posted above.

 

[grmorton]

Sorry to be so slow in getting back to you. I am having some major changes in my life right now which restrict internet activity. I am not at liberty to talk about them right now.

Glenn,

I really don't see the two realities you are mentioning.

Reality--what is; nonliteral-- what we feel warm and fuzzy about, beliefs and intangible feelings.

I go back to an argument I have presented over and over.

If god is willing and able to communicate truth to us, then the Biblical account is true, historically and scientifically

If god is willing but unable to communicate truth to us, then God is impotent

If god is unwilling but able to communicate truth to us, then God may be evil

If god is unwilling and unable to communicate truth to us, then God may be evil but it is ok because he is also impotent.

I see no other possibilities. If God, who claims to be the creator, can't tell lus what actually happened at the creation, how can I know that he really is the creator? When I meet someone new, the only evidence I have that he/she is a geophysicist is that they can describe what they actually do for a living. If they can't tell me what a geophysicist does, I have every right to doubt that they are a geophysicist.

Texts in every age have been written in different styles, genres, etc. Sometimes they are figurative, using symbolism, typology, poetic style, etc. I am sure you would agree with this. I also assume you would agree that we see many of these varieties with the compilation of texts, written over many hundreds of years by dozens of different hands, for as many purposes, we call the Bible. To recognize this fact does not at all mean that the Scripture is not the holy message from God.

If the the message from God shows no understanding of what actually happened, then which of the above four categories are you going to use to explain why the message isn't true history?

Further, accepting that some of these texts are passing that message to us using a figurative literary style does not in ANY way indicate that the message is errant. I, just as much as you, believe the Scripture is entirely inerrant. Even if it is factually incorrect, it is still inerrant. This is not a difficult concept to accept, really.

Figurative language causes a problem in communication. I wrote this last year:

God is supposedly trying to communicate with mankind. That makes God the source function in information theory. He uses the channel of a written book or a story about the creation of the universe. Now, here is what Shannon says:



"If a noisy channel is fed by a source there are two statistical processes at work: the source and the noise. Thus there are a number of entropies that can be calculated. First there is the entropy H(x) of the source or of the input to the channel (these will be equal if the transmitter is non-singular). The entropy of the output of the channel, i.e., the received signal, will be denoted by H(y). In the noiseless case H(y) = H(x). The joint entorpy of input and output will by H(xy). Finally there are two conditional entropies Hx(y) and Hy(x), the entropy of the output when the input is known and conversely. Among these quantities we have the relations



H(x,y) = H(x) + Hx(y)= H(y) + Hy(x).



All of these entropies can be measured on a per-second or per-symbol basis.

"If the channel is noisy it is not in general possible to reconstruct the original message or the transmitted signal with certainty by any operation on the received signal E." C. E. Shannon, "" A Mathematical theory of Communication"" The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(1948):3:379-423, p. 19, 20 at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf





He then talks about a 1000 bit per second transmission channel. Which has a 1/100 error rate--e.g. a 0 is received as a 1 or a 1 is received as a zero.





"Evidently the proper correction to apply to the amount of information transmitted is the amount of this information which is missing in the received signal, or alternatively the uncertainty when we have received a signal of what was actually sent. From our previous discussion o fentropy as a measure of uncertainty it seems reasonable to use the conditional entropy of the message, knowing the received signal, as a measure of this missing information. This is indeed the proper definition, as we shall see later. Following this idea the rate of actual transmission, R, would be obtained by subtracting from the rae of production (i.e., the entropy of the source) the average rate of conditional entropy.



R = H(x)- Hy(x)



"The conditional entropy Hy(x) will, for convenience, be called the equivocation. It measures the averatge ambiguity of the received signal.

"In the example considered above, if a 0 is received the a posteriori probability taht a 0 was transmitted is .99, and that a 1 was transmitted is 0.1. These figures are reversed if a 1 is received. Hence



Hy(x)= -[.99log.99+0.01log0.01]

=.081 bits/symbol

or 81 bits per second. We may say that the system is transmitting at a rate of 1000-81=919 bits per second. In the extreme case where a 0 is equally likely to be received as a 0 or 1 and similarly for 1, the aposteriori probabiltieis are 1/2,1/2 and



Hy(x) = -[1/2log1/2 +1/2log1/2]

= 1 bit per symbol



or 1000 bits per second. The rate of transmission is then 0 as it should be."

C. E. Shannon, "" A Mathematical theory of Communication"" The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(1948):3:379-423, p. 20 at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf



Now if we have a situation in the God-communicates-to-humans-system a case where we have every single part that we can't tell whether it is meant to be taken as historically true or historically false, then we are in the situation at the last case. The probability for each part is 1/2 true and 1/2 false. Then Hy(x) equals 1 bit per symbol or the rate of transmission of the divinely inspired message is zero.



That is what is wrong with the allegorical and mixture approach. Communication becomes impossible and I will cite the noisy channel theorem of Shannon! (How is that for applying science to theology?) It is clear that christians of various stripes see various things as true and various things as 'allegorical'. Bultmann, [sic?] I think felt that even Jesus as the Christ was allegorical. Jesus was a man and the Spirit of God abandoned the poor fellow on the cross. Because of this, if the story is simply given a 50-50 chance of being right, there is no communication at all by God. All is random.



In geophysics we would call this the case where the signal to noise ratio is 1. I try to record a seismic signal from reflections off of rock layers. But if the wind is blowing strong enough in some places, the tree roots act as a seismic signal. When that signal is as great as my seismic source, the signal to noise ratio is 1. Half the samples we record in that situation are correct. Half are false. We don't know which is which. We can't unscramble truth from fiction.



Making the Bible have a signal to noise ratio of 1 we won't be able to separate truth from fiction.

So, we look at Genesis and we look at the Gospels. These are two different set of documents written many hundreds of years apart, maybe up to 1,000 years apart. To attempt to read them as written in a uniform style just doesn't make any sense. That, I would strongly suggest, is the product of the modern mind and our own predilictions added to the fact that it is bound up in a single volume, as if it is a contemporaneous and singular product. No, the PRESUMPTION must be that they should not be read in a similar manner, and the burden would be on the one attempting to read it similarly to explain why that should be the case.

If this is the product of a modern mind, why is it that you are always quoting modern minds rather than actual ancient documents in support of your view? I at least am citing original sources which lived and wrote thousands of years ago. You are citing modern professors. It raises the question of who is using the modern view and who isn't.

I would very much like to get your reaction to both the article by your ASA colleague and the analysis of Jewish interpretation I posted above.

My reaction is that you are not doing as I asked. Cite the ancient authors and show that what they themselves said is taking the accounts as non-literal. If you can't do that, then frankly this discussion is a waste of both our times. You keep quoting modern sources. Please cease doing that. Cite an actual ancient document.

All of your quotes were from modern authors. Please dig into the ancient lit.

 

[artybloke]

Reality--what is; nonliteral-- what we feel warm and fuzzy about, beliefs and intangible feelings.

Ahhh - modernism. Sorry, but I disagree: non-literal truth isn't what we feel "warm and fuzzy" about.

In fact, all our language about God is "non-literal" by its very nature, because God Himself does not belong to the universe of things that we can observe using empirical reason. As soon as we talk about God as Trinity, or Jesus as the Son of God, we're using metaphorical language to describe something that is beyond words to describe.

I think this is something that all the great theologians have always known. The models we use to picture God are just that - models. At the heart of the universe is a mystery who chooses to relate to us (that "who" is a metaphor too.)

But does that make me "warm and fuzzy"? Not one bit; it makes me nervous and awe-struck at the same time. I can no more comprehend the Creator of the universe than a flea could comprehend a human being; yet he chooses to relate to us.

And truth isn't a nice set of easily-digestible propositions or facts. Facts and propositions can be ticked off the clipboard and you can sit back confident in the "knowledge" that you've reached the bottom of it.

But truth is a relationship with the Mystery that created the universe.

 

[seebs]

I think it would be informative to look not just at the Genesis account, but at the rest of the Hebrew "history" in the OT. Much of it appears to be false. Did they know? Did they care? I am not sure that our post-enlightenment understanding of "truth" was part of their worldview.

Furthermore, it seems likely that the people who are trying to reconcile the stories will be most likely to see them literally; if you don't see them literally, there's no need to try to reconcile them with anything else, because they are no longer in conflict with anything else.

 

[grmorton]

Ahhh - modernism. Sorry, but I disagree: non-literal truth isn't what we feel "warm and fuzzy" about.

In fact, all our language about God is "non-literal" by its very nature, because God Himself does not belong to the universe of things that we can observe using empirical reason. As soon as we talk about God as Trinity, or Jesus as the Son of God, we're using metaphorical language to describe something that is beyond words to describe.

I think this is something that all the great theologians have always known. The models we use to picture God are just that - models. At the heart of the universe is a mystery who chooses to relate to us (that "who" is a metaphor too.)

But does that make me "warm and fuzzy"? Not one bit; it makes me nervous and awe-struck at the same time. I can no more comprehend the Creator of the universe than a flea could comprehend a human being; yet he chooses to relate to us.

And truth isn't a nice set of easily-digestible propositions or facts. Facts and propositions can be ticked off the clipboard and you can sit back confident in the "knowledge" that you've reached the bottom of it.

But truth is a relationship with the Mystery that created the universe.

Ahhhh Post-modernism, where one can beleive what one wants without having to actually worry if it matches any reality except one's own.

 

[artybloke]

Ahhhh Post-modernism, where one can beleive what one wants without having to actually worry if it matches any reality except one's own.

Ahhh modernist stereotypes of post-modernism, so warm and fuzzy.

 

[seebs]

So, if we can't agree on what we believe, why should we assume the Hebrews agreed about what they believed?

 

[gluadys]

So, if we can't agree on what we believe, why should we assume the Hebrews agreed about what they believed?

Indeed, why should we? Remember the canonical books were chosen by committees of the like-minded. Of course, they excluded texts which expressed a different --- though equally legitimate --- Hebrew opinion.

Yet even in what they did include there are many variances and nuances suggesting different schools of thought.

 

[Vance]

Sorry to be so slow in getting back to you. I am having some major changes in my life right now which restrict internet activity. I am not at liberty to talk about them right now.

I hope it all works out OK, you are a valuable member of many communities on the internet.

Reality--what is; nonliteral-- what we feel warm and fuzzy about, beliefs and intangible feelings.

Ah, well, if that is how you view non-literal/historical texts, then I can understand your reaction to that approach. But do you feel that the parables are just about warm fuzzies? Or do you not see them as concrete and essential statements of truth. When I read Genesis figuratively, I still read it as telling us very concrete and "real" things. God made the universe and everything in it, God made Man in His image, etc. These are not just intangibles, they are statements of facts from the text, just like God expects us to love our neighbor is a FACT in the Good Samaritan parable, it is "what really is".

I go back to an argument I have presented over and over.

If god is willing and able to communicate truth to us, then the Biblical account is true, historically and scientifically

But this is begging the question of HOW God communicates truth to us. Do you assert that God only communicates truth to us via literal history? I think the Biblical account contains a great deal that is meant to be read as literal history, but not all of it. If God wrote Genesis 1 and 2 in a literary style which was not meant to be read as literal history, then it is no less TRUE if it is not literal history. If God was intending to convey that He is God and created everything, Man in His image, etc, and those things are TRUE, then where is the falsity?

If god is willing but unable to communicate truth to us, then God is impotent

If god is unwilling but able to communicate truth to us, then God may be evil

If god is unwilling and unable to communicate truth to us, then God may be evil but it is ok because he is also impotent.

I see no other possibilities. If God, who claims to be the creator, can't tell lus what actually happened at the creation, how can I know that he really is the creator? When I meet someone new, the only evidence I have that he/she is a geophysicist is that they can describe what they actually do for a living. If they can't tell me what a geophysicist does, I have every right to doubt that they are a geophysicist.

But saying that He told us what happens in a figurative manner which wonderfully conveys literal truths in a powerful, but non-literal literary vehicle is not AT ALL saying that he can't tell us what actually happened. I just don't think he was attempting to give us the literal, historical details. Just a broad overview of true events, which is best told in symbolic, typological and figurative language.

If the the message from God shows no understanding of what actually happened, then which of the above four categories are you going to use to explain why the message isn't true history?

None of them. The possibility you are leaving out is that He is able to communicate truth to us, and DOES communicate truth to us, but just isn't attempting to communicate all the details about the creative process. He IS conveying every truth that is is attempting to convey, and is doing it very well. You are insisting that God must be attempting giving us a scientific and historical account, and if thus the attempt must be successful because He is God. I don't think that was His intent at all.

Figurative language causes a problem in communication. I wrote this last year:

[snip of quoted material]

That is what is wrong with the allegorical and mixture approach. Communication becomes impossible and I will cite the noisy channel theorem of Shannon! (How is that for applying science to theology?) It is clear that christians of various stripes see various things as true and various things as 'allegorical'. Bultmann, [sic?] I think felt that even Jesus as the Christ was allegorical. Jesus was a man and the Spirit of God abandoned the poor fellow on the cross. Because of this, if the story is simply given a 50-50 chance of being right, there is no communication at all by God. All is random.

But that is where I disagree, you simply need good exegesis. It is not a matter of a 50-50 chance, it is a matter of seeking good hermenuetics and the guiding of the Spirit. The problem with the approach you have set out is that it reduces all text to either literal or it being false. Revelation: false. Song of Solomon: false. Most of the Psalms: false. Instead, it is a matter of accepting the simple and true fact that God communicates to us using a variety of literary styles, and then realizing we have to use correct analysis to determine which is which. You DO read Revelation as figurative language for a series of literal truths, so you DO go through this process. It is not a foreign or modern approach.

In geophysics we would call this the case where the signal to noise ratio is 1. I try to record a seismic signal from reflections off of rock layers. But if the wind is blowing strong enough in some places, the tree roots act as a seismic signal. When that signal is as great as my seismic source, the signal to noise ratio is 1. Half the samples we record in that situation are correct. Half are false. We don't know which is which. We can't unscramble truth from fiction.



Making the Bible have a signal to noise ratio of 1 we won't be able to separate truth from fiction.

But that is just it, it is ALL truth, that is accepted as a matter of faith. The only thing we have to do is gather the truth out of the text. NONE of it is fiction. Is a parable fiction? I don't think so. It is a literary device, or vehicle, to carry the truth.

If this is the product of a modern mind, why is it that you are always quoting modern minds rather than actual ancient documents in support of your view? I at least am citing original sources which lived and wrote thousands of years ago. You are citing modern professors. It raises the question of who is using the modern view and who isn't.

I also gave you direct references to the ancient sources which indicate pretty clearly what I am saying.

My reaction is that you are not doing as I asked. Cite the ancient authors and show that what they themselves said is taking the accounts as non-literal. If you can't do that, then frankly this discussion is a waste of both our times. You keep quoting modern sources. Please cease doing that. Cite an actual ancient document.

No, I cited you directly to the very specific ancient texts and explained exactly how they support what I am saying. This is definitely not the place to set out the full texts of those ancient writings, and they are fairly easily found and reviewed.

All of your quotes were from modern authors. Please dig into the ancient lit.

But that is just it, I have dug into them and this is the conclusion I reached. It is also the conclusion just about everybody who has also dug into them has reached. I have not just quoted modern authors, but cited you to the actual texts themselves. I also explained why I believe those texts support what I am saying. Now, after reviewing the texts yourself, you don't think that they support that position, then fine. I will be happy to hear why.

 

[grmorton]

I hope it all works out OK, you are a valuable member of many communities on the internet.

thanks it will.

Ah, well, if that is how you view non-literal/historical texts, then I can understand your reaction to that approach. But do you feel that the parables are just about warm fuzzies?

I did grad work in philosophy after an undergrad in physics. What I saw in philosophy was that each successive philosopher would set up a perfectly consistent system of thought based upon a set of assumptions. The next guy, with a different set of assumptions would come along and rip the previous guy to shreds. Then, the next guy would do the same to the first 2 etc ad nauseum. the point I learned was that the only place where truth can actually be determined is where I had just left--physics. Physics and other sciences determine truth by experimentum cruces--crucial experiments which falsify one view and support another. Philosophy, theology, parables etc don't have such a means to determine truth.

Who can prove that we should love our neighbor? If God is a god of love, then we should. If He is a bloodlusting war god, then that is not the truth. My rejection of what I call the warm and fuzzies is because they can only be accepted IF and only IF one assumes God's nature is a fact. Islam tells at least some of its adherents in a wahabi interpretation that they are to destroy the infidels. If their god is the real god, then they are right and the theology of killing our fellow men is true. If God is a god of love then they are wrong. The kind of truth you places such a firm foothold on can't bear any weight if one considers that it must assume that all other God's are false and only this one is true. So the question of how the believer gets to that point is never raised, yet the theology is believed to be 'true'.

When I read Genesis figuratively, I still read it as telling us very concrete and "real" things. God made the universe and everything in it, God made Man in His image, etc. These are not just intangibles, they are statements of facts from the text, ".

Once again, you have to previously assume that the God of the bible is the ultimate reality. That assumption prevents you from seeing that logically you can't prove that God created without that previous assumption. If atheism is correct, then god didn't create diddly. This view is intangible to me because the basis upon which it rests is a box you can't seem to look out of.

But this is begging the question of HOW God communicates truth to us. Do you assert that God only communicates truth to us via literal history? I think the Biblical account contains a great deal that is meant to be read as literal history, but not all of it. If God wrote Genesis 1 and 2 in a literary style which was not meant to be read as literal history, then it is no less TRUE if it is not literal history. If God was intending to convey that He is God and created everything, Man in His image, etc, and those things are TRUE, then where is the falsity?

The entire argument begs nothing. It outlines all possible positions. you are free to chose the option you like, but there are no other options. With willing and its negation, and able and its negation there are a total of 4 possible positions. Chose your poison. don't chose one and claim that it must be wrong. You must look at the whole argument in its entirety rather than piecemeal.

But saying that He told us what happens in a figurative manner which wonderfully conveys literal truths in a powerful, but non-literal literary vehicle is not AT ALL saying that he can't tell us what actually happened. I just don't think he was attempting to give us the literal, historical details. Just a broad overview of true events, which is best told in symbolic, typological and figurative language.

If god doesn't tell us literally what happened, then option 1 is ruled out and you must chose from options 2,3 or 4. Pure and simple. The non-literal approach means that we have to guess what God is trying to say. I have collected lots of guesses of the interpretation of the Genesis 2 story. Here they are. Tell me which one is really the true non-literal message God intended to convey.

○"Some have gone further and claimed the geographical
allusion is to a fantasy. For Cassuto, 'The Garden of Eden
according to the Torah was not situated in our world.'
Skinner claimed: 'it is obvious that a real locality
answering the description of Eden exists and has existed
nowhere on the face of the earth...(T)he whole
representation (is) outside the sphere of real geographic
knowledge. In (Genesis 2) 10-14, in short, we have...a
semi-mythical geography.' For Ryle, 'The account...is
irreconcilable with scientific geography.' Radday believed
that Eden is nowhere because of its deliberately tongue-in-
cheek fantastic geography. McKenzie asserted that 'the
geography of Eden is altogether unreal; it is a Never-never
land.' Amit held the garden story to be literary utopiansim,
that the Garden was 'never-known,' with no real location.
Burns' similar view is that the rivers were the entryway
into the numinous world. An unusual mixture of views was
maintained by Wallace, who held that the inclusion of the
Tigris and Euphrates indicated an 'earthly geographic
situation,' but saw the Eden narrative as constructed from a
garden dwelling-of-God motif (with rivers nourishing the
earth) combined with a creation motif, both drawing richly
from those motifs as found in Ancient Near East mythological
literature. The variety in these recent proposals is more
than matched by the variety put forward during the Christian
era prior to the middle of the nineteenth century; W. Wright
covered this history in detail in 1860.
○"If actualism in Eden's geography is considered
doubtful, then the story may be interpreted as a homiletic
exposition built on primeval residue, or as a late
sociological commentary. It might be a 'picture of
paradisal beatitude,' the idyllic goal of life in obedience
to the Torah. One interpreter saw it as a faint
recollection of the conflict involved in the transition from
hunter-gatherer to farmers. Another found from its
Sumerian/Akkadian parallels an allusion to the royalty of
gardener-kings: man is not a servant of the gods but has
been made a king himself. Other interpreters found in it a
political allegory dealing with conflict between the
Judahite royal social and economic elite and the peasant
class, or a sexual allegory, or a polemic against Canaanite
religion, or a parable of the deposition and deportation of
a king to Mesopotamia (hence the inclusion of 2:10-14)/
Differences from the Sumerian paradise myth and the
Gilgamesh epic led Bledstein to perceive the Eden story as
intended to reduce men 'from heroic, godlike beings to
earthlings.' and to separate females from the extremes of
goddess or 'slavish menials of men.' In Genesis both '(m)an
and woman are equally human...' and their creation lacks the
usual Middle Eastern fertility cult overtones." ~ John C.
Munday, Jr., "Eden's Geography Erodes Flood Geology,"
Westminster Theological Journal, 58(1996), pp. 123-154,p.
128-130





Ok, which one of the above non-literal 'messages' is the REAL message? come on, you gotta chose one.

None of them. The possibility you are leaving out is that He is able to communicate truth to us, and DOES communicate truth to us, but just isn't attempting to communicate all the details about the creative process.

Tell me which truth he is conveying in Genesis 2.

You have moved the goal post here. You said he was not communicating literal truth now it is that he is not communicating ALL the truth. There is a difference here. I have no problem with a god who commicates only part of the truth. All communication is of that nature. But to have one not communicate literal truth, well that is something quite different.

He IS conveying every truth that is is attempting to convey, and is doing it very well. You are insisting that God must be attempting giving us a scientific and historical account,

I think I can do a better job than God of communicating what really happened in very simple language. Why couldn't god have simply said, "out of the mud life arose"? That is communicating truth but a literal truth according to modern science. It doesn't communicate all the truth as I said, that isn't important. But he isn't talking about trees before the sun either or trees before the fish.

But that is where I disagree, you simply need good exegesis. It is not a matter of a 50-50 chance, it is a matter of seeking good hermenuetics and the guiding of the Spirit.

Your dismissal of the the noisy channel theorem with a wave of this paragraph shows that you do not apply the laws of nature to your own views. The noisy channel theorem is one of the most fundamental communication theorems around. To dismiss it is akin to a YEC dismissing the constancy of the speed of light. Sorry, but this looks like you are merely avoiding science to save your theological position--something the YECs do all the time.

But that is just it, it is ALL truth, that is accepted as a matter of faith. The only thing we have to do is gather the truth out of the text. NONE of it is fiction. Is a parable fiction? I don't think so. It is a literary device, or vehicle, to carry the truth.

which of the 11 interps of Genesis is the real TRUTH?

I also gave you direct references to the ancient sources which indicate pretty clearly what I am saying.

Maybe I missed it but all I saw was conclusions from modern writers saying things about ancient writers, but no actual statements by the ancient writers themselves.

No, I cited you directly to the very specific ancient texts and explained exactly how they support what I am saying. This is definitely not the place to set out the full texts of those ancient writings, and they are fairly easily found and reviewed.

Please then do it again and don't mention a single modern person. quote the passage and tell my why you think what you think.

But that is just it, I have dug into them and this is the conclusion I reached. It is also the conclusion just about everybody who has also dug into them has reached.

Not the conclusion I have drawn when I dig into them. Quote them or point me to where you quoted an ancient writer, and didn't quote the conclusion of a modern prof. Maybe I missed it.

I have not just quoted modern authors, but cited you to the actual texts themselves. I also explained why I believe those texts support what I am saying.

You keep saying that but so far I don't recall them. You could have given me one in your reply as an example but you didn't.

I would be glad to review the texts if I knew what they were.

 

[seebs]

There is at least one other option, which is that the correct message is not one of the specific messages you cite, but rather, the experience of thinking about the question.

 

[artybloke]

There is at least one other option, which is that the correct message is not one of the specific messages you cite, but rather, the experience of thinking about the question.

Tell me which truth he is conveying in Genesis 2.

I'm afraid I agree with Seebs. The problem is that - just like the wahabi muslim in one way - you want your truth to be pin-downable. Wrap it up in a nice set of "provable" statements. Nominalism - the idea that truth = things.

And it doesn't work that way. Take that statement about God being a "fact." In what way is God's existence "factual?" Can you point to any empirical evidence for God's existence that is not at the same time evidence for his non-existence? You say that God is not vindictive - and yet we've just seen an example of over 200,000 people dying in a tsunami. Did God cause that? No, of course not, it was caused by natural phenomena - natural phenomena God is supposed to be in charge of. Well, did God cause it or not?

And if God did cause it, where is your evidence? God's handiwork leaves no empirical sign of his presence. If he didn't, where is your evidence?

It's all down to faith; and while faith isn't blind, it is a leap. There is never any time that God's existence isn't problematic; but faith is not a set of neat formulas, it's not a notion (as the Quakers say) it's a way. Yes, the philosophers do tend to argue themselves round in circles; that's the way truth is I'm afraid. God is not someone we can grasp with our mind, or touch with our fingers. We take him on trust, and either run with that trust or not.

 

[artybloke]

http://www.jacketmagazine.com/27/arman-essay.html

There's some interesting thoughts here about the materialism of fundamentalism, from someone who is a poet. I like what she says about metaphor in particular.

 

[Vance]

Glenn,

The choices you gave simply are not the only choices, so you have created a false dichotomy. You have excluded the choice that God is presenting specific and essential truths, but presenting them in a literary framework other than literal historical and scientific writing. Do you at least agree that this IS a legitimate method of presenting truths, and that God actually does use this method elsewhere in Scripture?

Now, will this method of presentation lead to differences among readers as to what God is saying? Of course. But that is true even among the presentations of truth in the literal/historical literary style. Look at those who read Genesis 1 and 2 literally. We see everything from YEC to Hugh Ross to your TE approach. So, the fact that there are differing interpretations does NOT mean that the literary style being assumed is incorrect.

And, no, it is not a matter of guesswork. Do we have to guess at the meanings of the parables, even when Jesus does not provide the specific meaning? Do we need to guess at the messages in Psalms, the prophets and Revelation? No, we just need to study and pray and use good exegesis. This is necessary even with the historical/literal writings. What about all the various readings of the Gospel accounts? No, reading historically does not do away with thoughtful consideration of what is meant.

As for the Garden of Eden, I believe that it could have been a literal place, or it could have been a symbolic place. It could be a representative description of some other literal reality, or not. I disagree that we have to choose, since whether there was a literal Garden or not makes no difference to anything essential in God’s message. The messages given are JUST AS TRUE either way. I think it is this “just as true” part that you have trouble with.

You say that you have a problem with a God who does not convey “literal truth”, and actually I would agree. Any truth conveyed needs to be the actual, literal truth. But what about conveying that truth non-literally? A parable is the perfect example. God is conveying a “literal truth”. What He is saying is actual and real and must be followed. Yes, we should love our neighbor just because God tells us to. This is a hard and fast fact, a rule, a truth, a literal message. Yes, this requires faith and this requires us to accept that God’s nature is a fact. But look! He conveyed that true and literal message, thus revealing His true nature, through a non-historical, a non-literal literary style.

And, no, I am not simply saying that God did not convey the whole truth. While I believe it is impossible for God to convey the whole truth to any human with our limited understanding, my point was that he was not even attempting to convey the types of truth you are expecting to find there. I think it is clear that God was conveying only general overviews of what happened historically, and using very specific typological and symbolic language, along with a poetic framework, to present the essential messages, which I have set out elsewhere. Those messages are just as believable and just as able to be accepted as true whether they are conveyed using the literal/historical style of writing or a more figurative style of writing. This is simple fact, evidenced by the millions of people who HAVE believed these essential messages while, at the same time, NOT reading it as literal history. If your theory was correct, no one could actually believe these messages if they read it within a figurative style. But they do. So, obviously, this IS an effective method of presenting those messages. Your presentation of the “noisy channel system” notwithstanding, the message IS getting through loud and clear. The message IS being received and accepted. So, I don’t see the problem with this method of communication at all.

As for the ancient literature, please go back and see what I presented in the earlier post. No, I did not post a long series of quotes from those ancient texts, since that would not be practical in this forum. What I did was point you to the specific texts and what they say, as well as what I believe about them. And no, you will see that I give my own analysis as well as that of others. When I saw that one of your own ASA colleagues has presented my own thoughts better than I could have done, I simply referred you to his comments (also considering that, if you don’t accept my own interpretation of these texts, you might consider his).

In the same way, I have often quoted you in regards to geological issues. Not because I don't understand the points, or have not studied the issue, but for two simple reasons. First, you say it better than I do. Second, you are an expert in that field, which means you have a better perspective and, very simply, your opinion carries more weight than mine in geology and other scientific areas. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not every opinion is equally valuable on a given subject. Your opinion in geology is simply more valuable than my opinion. I have read enough to have concluded that you know your stuff, and I understand enough to be able to present the point, but it is perfectly valid for me to quote you on the issue of varves, for example.

I could, indeed, take up a lot of space by typing in some of those texts from my sources at home, but after that, I would just give you the analysis that I have already given. What I have asked of you is to simply go and read the texts I have cited you to, if you like, and then consider the analysis I have given and tell me where you disagree. I don’t think that is too much to ask.

 

[California Tim]

I disagree that we have to choose, since whether there was a literal Garden or not makes no difference to anything essential in God’s message. The messages given are JUST AS TRUE either way. I think it is this “just as true” part that you have trouble with.

It seems terribly presumptuous to assume what part of God's word or what message is "essential" IMO. If you wish to quantify it by saying perhaps a particular message is not directly related to an essential "salvation" message, then fine. We agree that one may be saved regardless of how the Genesis account is understood. However, to assume that the message is not profound, true or "essential" in another way is unwise. You do the text injustice by assuming true only those messages which can be applied across multiple methods of interpretation as personally accepted or understood by you.

For example: What if God wanted you to accept His miraculous action of creation IN SPITE of the relentless humanistic attacks on its credibility? Are you in a position to categorically deny that possiblity? You speak of "messages" that are true no matter what. Well, what if one of the "messages" laid out by Genesis was one of accepting God on faith alone - against all odds or secular reason? You see contradiction - false evidence. I see a once in an (eternal) lifetime to exercise such faith that few words adequately express its power. If everything were laid out in such a way as to be indisputable, then what part would "faith" play in our lives? In fact, I see only two things we will no longer be able to do in heaven with our Father - exercise "blind faith" and witness to the lost. Those two privileges will be lost forever while the consequence of how we spent our opportunities here endure. So before you dismiss offhand the potential of far deeper "truths" in a literal Genesis, I recommend you reflect on who our Holy Father is and what He wishes for and of us.

 

[Vance]

It seems terribly presumptuous to assume what part of God's word or what message is "essential" IMO. If you wish to quantify it by saying perhaps a particular message is not directly related to an essential "salvation" message, then fine. We agree that one may be saved regardless of how the Genesis account is understood. However, to assume that the message is not profound, true or "essential" in another way is unwise. You do the text injustice by assuming true only those messages which can be applied across multiple methods of interpretation as personally accepted or understood by you.

Yes, I agree, I worded that poorly and what you say is exactly how I see it. EVERY part of Scripture is a direct message from God and, thus, essential to our lives in some way. But what I mean is that the true messages of Genesis 1 and 2 are not impacted by whether you believe it is read literally or non-literally. What is the message God is giving us there? I believe that it is that God created the universe, everything in it and is in control of all things. He did so with a plan and a purpose and that "all was good" (notice not "perfect", btw). That Man was created in His image and woman for man as a partner. That He wanted full communion with Mankind, and gave Mankind every opportunity for that communion, but also gave Mankind free will to accept that communion or pursue selfish desires. Mankind chose the latter, falling to temptation of Satan, and lost communion with God. We are ALL in that fallen state and all have that same selfish nature. There is also many other messages in there (Man's nature to blame others for their own action, the framework for the Sabbath, our ability to crush Satan, etc, etc).

None of these truths are any less true, or less believable, if the text is read figuratively. Unless you have been taught that if it is not literal history then it is not true, in which case if you come to believe that something in text is not historically accurate, you then doubt the WHOLE of Scripture. Thus the incredible danger of this teaching.

For example: What if God wanted you to accept His miraculous action of creation IN SPITE of the relentless humanistic attacks on its credibility? Are you in a position to categorically deny that possiblity? You speak of "messages" that are true no matter what. Well, what if one of the "messages" laid out by Genesis was one of accepting God on faith alone - against all odds or secular reason?

Yes, that is a possibility, and one I considered long and hard. And I do not categorically deny any such possibility. But, after a thorough review of the Biblical evidence and evidence from God's Creation, I simply do not believe that this is one of the messages God is giving us in the text. I really do not see any reason whatsoever to think that this might be the case. Taking the text alone, I don't see it as giving a detailed, literal historical narrative. So, that, added to the evidence from God's Creation itself, which I believe God created in a way that can be accurately understood, results in no basis for such a belief.

You see contradiction - false evidence. I see a once in an (eternal) lifetime to exercise such faith that few words adequately express its power. If everything were laid out in such a way as to be indisputable, then what part would "faith" play in our lives? In fact, I see only two things we will no longer be able to do in heaven with our Father - exercise "blind faith" and witness to the lost. Those two privileges will be lost forever while the consequence of how we spent our opportunities here endure. So before you dismiss offhand the potential of far deeper "truths" in a literal Genesis, I recommend you reflect on who our Holy Father is and what He wishes for and of us.

I agree, but you are simply picking a valuable trait and assigning it to a proposition that you already believe. I see the acceptance of the simple fact that God created the universe and everything in it as the same level of faith. Even without any ability to rationally "prove" God exists and created everything, I have complete faith that this is simply true. To me, a belief in the mere method of Creation is minor by comparison. I have complete faith that God could have created it in six literal days, but simply see no reason to think He did so. I don't see God telling me in Scripture that He did it that way, since I don't read the text as literal history to begin with.

It would be like a modern geocentrist suggesting that you believe in geocentrism and reject that the earth revolves around the sun, etc. How is that for an extension of faith over human knowledge! There is definitely support for it in Scripture, if you read it literally enough, the modern geocentrist would say. You would be showing that you truly are willing to set aside all worldly knowledge and understanding and just have complete and utter faith in God's Scripture he would say. He would urge you not to miss out on this even GREATER opportunity to show your utter and complete faith and not miss out on the deeper messages of a literal Scripture.

Would you do so? No, of course not. Because you would simply respond that you don't have any reason to believe that is how God created the universe because you don't read those Scriptures the way he does at all. That, added to the level of evidence we have about how the solar system really works, leads you to the conclusion that this would be misplaced faith, not a greater level of faith simply due to the degree it conflicts with modern science.

 

[California Tim]

Thanks for your rapid reply. While we agree on many things, evidently our differences on Genesis are irreconcilable. As I read your response, I could feel the direction leading to this following statement:

It would be like a modern geocentrist suggesting that you believe in geocentrism and reject that the earth revolves around the sun, etc. How is that for an extension of faith over human knowledge! There is definitely support for it in Scripture, if you read it literally enough, the modern geocentrist would say.

Which leads me to ask: Exactly how much of your argument depends on this correlation? Because you know full well by now, the Bible does NOT support nor teach geocentrism, nor does it mislead anyone in that regard. People have, throughout the ages taken isolated passages and developed erroneous doctrine and theory, but the Genesis account is not an "isolated verse" or passage obscure in its delivery of a concept. Its style and historical nature are not misleading. It is not ever until modern humansitic science offers a contradictory picture (one full of conjecture and flaw itself) that the Genesis account was ever considered potentially allegorical and called into question. By itself, it is about as clear as a passage can be made short of witnessing it personally. But I digress. We've already hashed these points a number of times.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It is not ever until modern humansitic science offers a contradictory picture (one full of conjecture and flaw itself) that the Genesis account was ever considered potentially allegorical and called into question. By itself, it is about as clear as a passage can be made short of witnessing it personally. But I digress. We've already hashed these points a number of times.

Sorry, this is simply not true.

Again, I refer you to http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm where this issue is addressed.

 

[Vance]

Thanks for your rapid reply. While we agree on many things, evidently our differences on Genesis are irreconcilable. As I read your response, I could feel the direction leading to this following statement:
Which leads me to ask: Exactly how much of your argument depends on this correlation? Because you know full well by now, the Bible does NOT support nor teach geocentrism

No, it does not teach geocentrism, but God did let it be written from a geocentric perspective. Oh, and it really is not a basis at all for my position, just an analogy which is very useful due to its parallels.

nor does it mislead anyone in that regard.

Well, that is not true. Not only did this writing from a geocentric perspective mislead a lot of people throughout history, it still causes many to believe in geocentrism today. God is not misleading, of course, but He let Scripture be written exactly as it was (since we both believe that Scripture is inspired by God). Did He know that it would cause many to insist that Scripture teaches geocentrism? Sure, He is God. Did He WANT for it to cause people to cling to their traditional readings even after the evidence from His creation proved that their reading was not correct? No. But it did cause much confusion and angst, and even loss of faith, for a very long time. That is part of our free will in action, I guess.

People have, throughout the ages taken isolated passages and developed erroneous doctrine and theory, but the Genesis account is not an "isolated verse" or passage obscure in its delivery of a concept. Its style and historical nature are not misleading. It is not ever until modern humansitic science offers a contradictory picture (one full of conjecture and flaw itself) that the Genesis account was ever considered potentially allegorical and called into question. By itself, it is about as clear as a passage can be made short of witnessing it personally. But I digress. We've already hashed these points a number of times.

Yes, but that doesn't mean I can't restate my points here!

First, the Church was just as positive about the absolute clarity of reading of those Scriptures regarding geocentrism as you are about Genesis 1 and 2. You should read Calvin and Luther and the Catholic fathers on this. They were adamant and positive.

Second, it is simply not true that a figurative reading of Genesis 1 and 2 were not considered, and even believed, before modern science pointed in that direction. I have provided ample evidence of that in the past.

Third, when I read Genesis, I am also convinced that it is crystal clear, but in a very different way. I don't see it telling me that God created in six literal days in the least! Any more than I think revelation refers to a literal "dragon", etc. Genesis 1 and 2 do not read like straight history, but like an account of true past events presented in a figurative literary style familiar to the people who would hear it for thousands of years before our modern minds began insisting on literal narrative history. That is what I get loud and clear when I read the text.