The Deception of Genesis

[Outrider]

Furthermore, if it was only God's intention to transmit spiritual truths, then if those spiritual truths were transmitted properly then there was no lie. If God did not intend to transmit scientific truths, and as a result the creation story was unscientific - well, who can fault God for what He chooses to say or not to say?

Why would you assume that it is God's purpose to only transmit spiritual truth? Is this presupposition consistent with what God transmits throughout the Bible? Has God no interest in transmitting any other kind of truth but spiritual truth? Does he not transmit historical, social, anthropological and many other kinds of truth where he sees fit? After all, he is the creator of all creation and he called it "very good". He is the lover of the cosmos, not just man, but all of it from atoms to galaxies. It is an unfounded assumption upon the inner counsels of the God and the nature of revelation to hold that God has restricted himself to teaching moral lessons while keeping his hands out of the disciplines that belong to us. So we turn him into a myth-maker. Jesus doesn't follow you well. He teaches lessons using the things we understand best, animals, plants, weather, human industry and economy, celestial bodies. He also carefully avoids speaking to men in their own sinful, seof-deceptive terminologies and seeks to lift up their thinking rather than to dumb it down with faitry tales.

 

[Outrider]

It was a figure of speech, stop being pedenatic. I cant think of one time since I have had the ability to reason on the subject that I have objectively thought that a literal 7 day creation was true. Nothing has been "trained" out of my thinking. I daresay there are plenty of other people here who will echo my sentiment on this one.

Brownsey, the West has been bathed and baptised in Darwinism through its command of the educational system for long time. If you come at long-day naturally, its not because it is the most natural way of reading Genesis one, but by an imposition of brainwashing onto the text.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Assuming that the purpose you have ascribed is his purpose. If you say its wrong to interpret dinosaurs (I use your example, since its handy-I'm not into evidentialism, I approach the theistic evolutionary debate conceptually) from Genesis 1 because it is a misappropriation of the intended purpose, the onus is upon you to prove that the purpose you ascribe is indeed God's purpose... otherwise, you may be the misappropriator. A Six-Day creationist (or a person who believes Genesis was written to be used as toilet paper for that matter) has just as much right to levy that judgment as a TE.

Onus is on the literalists to prove that the text is not something other than what it states? really now. that seems a bit backwards.

 

[Outrider]

Onus is on the literalists to prove that the text is not something other than what it states? really now. that seems a bit backwards.

I think you mistake the message to which I responded. The poster stated:
"The Bible is a tremendously insightful and useful book when it comes to spiritual matters and human nature - because neither God nor man has changed much in the passing of those 6000 years since Adam. But when I want to know, say, when the dinosaurs went extinct, I don't see much purpose reaching for Genesis 1. To take something given to us for a certain purpose, and then claim and use it for another, is misappropriation and quite wrong to do."

My response is that the onus was upon this poster to prove that the Bible's purpose is to reflect spiritual matters and human nature without ever entering into the realms of science, history, or whatever. I might well be informed about the demise of dinosaurs by going to the Bible, by good and necessary consequence. The poster assumes I cannot because the Bible is not a science book. I don't need a science book to inform me about the demise of the dodo bird. I sense that the poster is trying to warn off the "religious book" from invading the sacred precincts of science. Why, then, should the "religious book" be allowed the sacred precincts of poetry, I wonder?

 

[Uphill Battle]

I think you mistake the message to which I responded. The poster stated:
"The Bible is a tremendously insightful and useful book when it comes to spiritual matters and human nature - because neither God nor man has changed much in the passing of those 6000 years since Adam. But when I want to know, say, when the dinosaurs went extinct, I don't see much purpose reaching for Genesis 1. To take something given to us for a certain purpose, and then claim and use it for another, is misappropriation and quite wrong to do."

My response is that the onus was upon this poster to prove that the Bible's purpose is to reflect spiritual matters and human nature without ever entering into the realms of science, history, or whatever. I might well be informed about the demise of dinosaurs by going to the Bible, by good and necessary consequence. The poster assumes I cannot because the Bible is not a science book. I don't need a science book to inform me about the demise of the dodo bird. I sense that the poster is trying to warn off the "religious book" from invading the sacred precincts of science. Why, then, should the "religious book" be allowed the sacred precincts of poetry, I wonder?

I stand corrected.

 

[Outrider]

BTW, Your signature is profound:
We are not God. We never were intended to be. The more we try to be, the more like Satan and less like God we become.

 

[Uphill Battle]

BTW, Your signature is profound:
We are not God. We never were intended to be. The more we try to be, the more like Satan and less like God we become.

thanks. Stolen.

 

[Uphill Battle]

thanks. Stolen.

should have clarified. It's a quote my friend uses on his email, I took it from him, but it isn't his either... neither of us know the original author though. If I did, I would be sure to credit them.

 

[Outrider]

Well, its appropriate to this discussion. Myth is god-making. It leads away from godliness and toward the ungodliness of Satan. I find it difficult to believe God would make use of it for revelation.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Well, its appropriate to this discussion. Myth is god-making. It leads away from godliness and toward the ungodliness of Satan. I find it difficult to believe God would make use of it for revelation.

Agreed. I personally think God is a bit of a WYSIWYG kind of revealer.

 

[justified]

If we learn that God is the Creator, not Marduk... why did we ever need myth to teach that? Was man so abysmally stupid that he could not understand such a thing (especially when we are assured by Paul that that very knowledge is already in his in radice make-up) if it were laid out to him in objective terminoloogies?

Well, I'm going to let be your comments which seem to indicate you know how God should do things. Instead, let's talk about this: why did we need a myth to teach that? Well, now, here you are messing things up. A re-worked myth is more than a myth if it is redacted to the truth. The myth was Marduk and Tiamat or Baal and Mot; the truth is that only YHWH acts.

I think it's good to ignore the anachronistic use of Paul, don't you?

What do you find in the First Testament that is done objectively? Everything in the OT is of four genres: didactic (that is, law [which is casuistic] and proverbs); apocalyptic, prophetic, and stories. Everything is religious, and mixed with religion. Why didn't God just come and say "and this atom went there?" You know, as long as we're second-guessing God....

I also think there are legitimate points about cosmology and such; you are arguing a rhetorical reasoning against my myth-redaction idea; argue instead against the evidence I brought to bear on the question.

 

[Brownsy]

Brownsey, the West has been bathed and baptised in Darwinism through its command of the educational system for long time. If you come at long-day naturally, its not because it is the most natural way of reading Genesis one, but by an imposition of brainwashing onto the text.
[/font]

This of course makes the pressumption that I was part of that educational system, which is not tha case. I attended a protestant school which I assure was not "bathed and baptised in Darwinism". Quite the contrary.

And can you explain to me why you believe the TE stance must be a result of brainwashing? Could it not be that it is by far the most plausible scneario? Or is it not possible that the proponents of TE are sufficiently educated to make their own decision on the validity or otherwise of the presented evidence?

Blessings to you all

 

[shernren]

So, when I hear people saying that biblical myth speaks to the thought processes of that time, I hear a generality so broad that its useless. I also think I’m hearing a reflection of philosophical determinism based on Darwinian ideas, that man starts out animal and works his way up through various stages of intellectual development to modern thinking with all of its skeptical methodology. The evidence suggests, rather, that man starts out (in the earliest written records) highly intelligent and then dumbs down over generations. So-called “primitivism” is not the last traces of the hominid, but a slide backward from a more advanced state due to displacement, environmental stresses, separation from the main bodies of knowledge, etc. Savagery can develop very rapidly.

And when I hear people saying that Genesis 1 speaks to the scientific thought processes of today, it sounds like the sort of generalization one gets from believing (in effect) that Genesis 1 was written in English for Westerners. There is no philosophical determinism, only scientific advancement; the philosophical ideas behind Genesis 1 remain the same and timelessly applicable whatever their scientific garb.

Why would you assume that it is God's purpose to only transmit spiritual truth? Is this presupposition consistent with what God transmits throughout the Bible? Has God no interest in transmitting any other kind of truth but spiritual truth? Does he not transmit historical, social, anthropological and many other kinds of truth where he sees fit?

You're right; I was hasty to use the word "only". But I would instead substitute: It was God's primary intention to communicate spiritual truth. And I'm sure you'll agree with that.

One more thing. God warned the Israelites that they were not to study the ways of the Canaanites and wonder by what means they lived. (This is not a suggestion that we not study mythology, mind). The purpose for this mandate was that they not adopt the mindset of ancient days. Why, then, would God bend to the system to teach them Creation, then turn about and instruct them to avoid such things?

Which passages of the Bible are you taking this from, specifically? I'm interested to hear how you derived this aversion of God to myths, especially when Jesus had no trouble using them as parables for the communication of truth when He was incarnate on earth.

Assuming that the purpose you have ascribed is his purpose. If you say its wrong to interpret dinosaurs (I use your example, since its handy-I'm not into evidentialism, I approach the theistic evolutionary debate conceptually) from Genesis 1 because it is a misappropriation of the intended purpose, the onus is upon you to prove that the purpose you ascribe is indeed God's purpose... otherwise, you may be the misappropriator. A Six-Day creationist (or a person who believes Genesis was written to be used as toilet paper for that matter) has just as much right to levy that judgment as a TE.

How does one approach the creation-evolution debate "conceptually"? Since this is ultimately a debate about creation, how can one divorce the debate from the seen characteristics of creation?

Let me show you a few passages that, to me, point to the primary purpose of Scripture as spiritual instruction.

2 Timothy 3: 12In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Notice firstly that Paul is talking about living a godly life, and not just believing godly beliefs. The false teachers he describes in the preceding passage are shown for who they are by their evil deeds: their minds are "deceived" because the deception gives rise to ungodly behaviour. So we see that the purpose of being "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" is to live a godly life that is worthy of a saved person to exhibit. Furthermore, the many uses of Scripture (v.16) are aimed towards thoroughly equipping the man of God for every good work.

So is it necessary for Scripture to be unequivocal about the origins issue to thoroughly equip the man of God for good deeds? No. TE or YEC, we still tithe, evangelise, pray, have Communion ... a good life can be lived regardless of origins beliefs.

John 20: 30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Now we have a passage about the purpose of the Gospels. They were written so that people may believe that Jesus is the Christ and that people may repent to receive His eternal life. They were not written to prove YECs right, the way they are used by some in this modern era.

Joshua 1: 6 "Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their forefathers to give them. 7 Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. 8 Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful. 9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go."

Now we have a passage specifically about the Torah. What is the purpose of God commanding Joshua to meditate on it day and night? It is to be careful to do everything that is written in it. This supports the idea that the Torah ("Law") was written as a set of commands or instructions for living; what is not command within it was written to support the commands given. Not to teach them how the world was created, but what to do with the world God had created in light of the fact that He created it and not some other god or entity.

 

[ebia]

Well, its appropriate to this discussion. Myth is god-making. It leads away from godliness and toward the ungodliness of Satan. I find it difficult to believe God would make use of it for revelation.

Argument from incredulity and ignorance?

 

[artybloke]

Why would you assume that it is God's purpose to only transmit spiritual truth?

Why would I go to a 2000 year old book for information about things we didn't even know existed till yesterday? Why would I use a 2000 year old book for information about science and history and geography and medicine and psychology and mending internal combustion engines and all kinds of other stuff? What would be the point? Reading the Bible will do my spirit a lot of good, but it won't mend a shirt and it won't help me to find the best bargains in the market.

Why would the Bible tell me about science? What is the purpose of telling me about things that are not going to help me spiritually? What is the Bible telling me when it says that pi equals three or that some birds have four legs or that the earth was and has to have been created in 6 days? Of what spiritual import is the Bible's bad science?

 

[Outrider]

Well, I'm going to let be your comments which seem to indicate you know how God should do things.

How disappointing. I expected better than this.

Instead, let's talk about this: why did we need a myth to teach that? Well, now, here you are messing things up. A re-worked myth is more than a myth if it is redacted to the truth. The myth was Marduk and Tiamat or Baal and Mot; the truth is that only YHWH acts.

I don't think Moses was highly enfluenced by Assyriology. Strange that he doesn't rework Egyptian mythology in his account. What's your evidence?

I think it's good to ignore the anachronistic use of Paul, don't you?

No. I think Paul understood his time better than we do and since he lived while mythology was fully operational, he understood its nature and impact upon society at large.

What do you find in the First Testament that is done objectively?

History.

Everything in the OT is of four genres: didactic (that is, law [which is casuistic] and proverbs); apocalyptic, prophetic, and stories.

You left out history.

Everything is religious, and mixed with religion.

Everything is mixed with religion in life. But the Bible is not exclusively about religion. Its about life. God is not the God of religion alone. He is the God of all creation which includes history, science, poetry, prophecy, geography, mathematics. The Bible reflects life and the prescribed relationship between God and man on all levels, not just religion. The religious aspects of the Bible do not nullify any areas in which the Bible touches other disciplines.

Why didn't God just come and say "and this atom went there?" You know, as long as we're second-guessing God....

Your view that the Bible was not written to accurately express where it touches on other disciplines besides religion is an assumption upon divine purpose in revelation. Your accusation is reflexive. Having read the Bible repeatedly, I do not see where your view is warranted. I would say that it is entirely up to you to prove that the Bible is restricted to your narrow parameters. I don't think you can.

I also think there are legitimate points about cosmology and such; you are arguing a rhetorical reasoning against my myth-redaction idea; argue instead against the evidence I brought to bear on the question.

What evidence. I've heard speculation without foundation with regard to the nature of revelation, not evidence.

Which passages of the Bible are you taking this from, specifically? I'm interested to hear how you derived this aversion of God to myths, especially when Jesus had no trouble using them as parables for the communication of truth when He was incarnate on earth.

Deuteronomy 7 and particularly Deut. 12:29-32 (ESV)
"When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, [30] take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, 'How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.' [31] You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.
[32] "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.


God repeatedly instructs Israel to walk "in his ways" and distinguishes those ways from those of the pagans surrounding them. Since mythology was "the way" of the heathen, I find it difficult to believe that God would use those ways to be his ways and then make such a stark distinction between his ways and their ways.

 

[Outrider]

Why would I go to a 2000 year old book for information about things we didn't even know existed till yesterday? Why would I use a 2000 year old book for information about science and history and geography and medicine and psychology and mending internal combustion engines and all kinds of other stuff? What would be the point? Reading the Bible will do my spirit a lot of good, but it won't mend a shirt and it won't help me to find the best bargains in the market.

Why would the Bible tell me about science? What is the purpose of telling me about things that are not going to help me spiritually? What is the Bible telling me when it says that pi equals three or that some birds have four legs or that the earth was and has to have been created in 6 days? Of what spiritual import is the Bible's bad science?

Why don't you take these questions up with someone whose argument is remotely related to the question.

 

[Outrider]

Argument from incredulity and ignorance?

I'm very willing to enter discussion, ebia, whenever you're ready to come out of your smug defense of whatever and actually enter into one. In the meantime I'll give your comments what they deserve, negligence.

 

[Outrider]

Which passages of the Bible are you taking this from, specifically? I'm interested to hear how you derived this aversion of God to myths, especially when Jesus had no trouble using them as parables for the communication of truth when He was incarnate on earth.

Strange that the "myth defenders" are so silent about this assessment. Ebia and justified... would you define Jesus' parables as myths?

Notice firstly that Paul is talking about living a godly life, and not just believing godly beliefs. The false teachers he describes in the preceding passage are shown for who they are by their evil deeds: their minds are "deceived" because the deception gives rise to ungodly behaviour. So we see that the purpose of being "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" is to live a godly life that is worthy of a saved person to exhibit. Furthermore, the many uses of Scripture (v.16) are aimed towards thoroughly equipping the man of God for every good work.

The next step is to show where a spiritual life is lived in some ethereal realm and not on the solid matter of the earth and concerned with all that we are concerned with here, economy, politics, etc., etc. God create man a spiritual/physical being. The Bible is indeed going to deal with our spiritual life AND the working out of that life in our attitudes, behavior, decisions and actions. In other words, the spiritual life is played out in the material world, ergo, the Bible is concerned for both, not just the one to the exclusion of the other. The view that spiritual is separate from the physical in the outworkings of man is the pedestal upon which gnosticism stands. Hence, reading the books of the Law (in which the book of Genesis is couched) we find God setting up a relationship between the moral outworkings of man and the condition of the earth (the crops, the herd, the land), which is as propositionally a part of the concerns of revelation as the spiritual stuff. In other words, they're together and interpretations of Scripture that separates them are false interpretations that ignor the nature of revelation. Myths indeed tend to float around in a timeless, spaceless sort of existence. Not so the Scriptures. The spiritual truths are well grounded in physical reality and that is one thing that makes the revelation so unique in ancient literature, its realism and honesty.

Now we have a passage specifically about the Torah. What is the purpose of God commanding Joshua to meditate on it day and night? It is to be careful to do everything that is written in it. This supports the idea that the Torah ("Law") was written as a set of commands or instructions for living; what is not command within it was written to support the commands given. Not to teach them how the world was created, but what to do with the world God had created in light of the fact that He created it and not some other god or entity.

I see nothing in any of your passages that instruct us not to use Scripture for any other usage than what is stated. Paul certainly doesn't follow your hermeneutic rules, nor does Christ, but both take Scripture out of its primary purpose and use Scripture in other ways. An excellent example is Jonah. David wrote the Psalms for what purpose? Songs and poetry? Jonah used the Psalms as prayers. According to your method, he was wrong to do so. I think your hedging the purpose of revelation in order to protect your view from violation instead of dealing with a true biblical hermeneutic using the examples of Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, et al exhibited in Scripture. Books do not stay confined in certain categories as much as you imagine they do, but cross over into several kinds of usages. Besides, the Bible just doesn't behave accordingly. Throughout the Scriptures we find a mixture of types and categories. Prophecy has history and poetry, Psalms are theological and prophetic, the gospels are homiletic, theological, prophetic. It is the hand of an Author who is master of literary device, not of a slave to a single device as you seem to suggest.

 

[justified]

I don't think Moses was highly enfluenced by Assyriology. Strange that he doesn't rework Egyptian mythology in his account. What's your evidence?

He doesn't? Wait, I thought the whole "God speaking" thing and then creation came right out of the Memphite Cosmogony. Hmm. There are as well the pre-formative chaos waters in Egyptian mythology (nun) which is in Genesis 1:2. I'm not trying to tell you that Moses simply reproduced other people's myths. I'm trying to tell you that he used them to show who was boss.

No. I think Paul understood his time better than we do and since he lived while mythology was fully operational, he understood its nature and impact upon society at large.

First, the quote from Paul had nothing to do with the topic. Second, Paul is worlds away from the authors of Genesis. Paul was a Hellenistic diaspora Jew! The writers of the Hebrew bible were Israelites living in the land-between.

You left out history.

History is done in story form. Moreover, most ancient histories are not up to our standards of historiography. If you want to debate that accepted conclusion, it's up to you.

Everything is mixed with religion in life. But the Bible is not exclusively about religion. Its about life. God is not the God of religion alone. He is the God of all creation which includes history, science, poetry, prophecy, geography, mathematics. The Bible reflects life and the prescribed relationship between God and man on all levels, not just religion. The religious aspects of the Bible do not nullify any areas in which the Bible touches other disciplines.

Nor did I say the religious aspect "nullified" others.

Your view that the Bible was not written to accurately express where it touches on other disciplines besides religion is an assumption upon divine purpose in revelation. Your accusation is reflexive. Having read the Bible repeatedly, I do not see where your view is warranted. I would say that it is entirely up to you to prove that the Bible is restricted to your narrow parameters. I don't think you can.

It's not an assumption, and I think you are mis-characterizing what I believe. But regardless, see post 17 above. This is the evidence I want you to interact with. If you refuse, we've got nothing with which to work. Besides, in terms of logic, if you're right, it should be easy for you to prove that the Bible is not restricted. But I'd much rather have you interact with the evidence from #17 above.

God repeatedly instructs Israel to walk "in his ways" and distinguishes those ways from those of the pagans surrounding them. Since mythology was "the way" of the heathen, I find it difficult to believe that God would use those ways to be his ways and then make such a stark distinction between his ways and their ways.

You're right; the polemic of Deuteronomy is basically separatist. Yet I think what Shernen has said has gone right over your head.