The Golden Rule of the Creationist

[gluadys]

Consider this, in Job 41 there is the metaphor of the Leviathan. We can interpret as representing a number of different things like God, the devil, or nature but I don't think anyone is seriously trying to establish the existance of fire breathing dragons based on this.

Actually, I have run across literalists who do seriously believe this passage establishes the literal existence of dragons.

And please, Leviathan is NOT a metaphor. Saying that simply indicates your ignorance of what a metaphor is. The interpretations you have outlined above are allegorical interpretations, not metaphors.

Here are examples of figures of speech you should learn to use correctly:

22 Strength resides in his neck; personification
dismay goes before him. personification
24 His chest is hard as rock, simile
hard as a lower millstone simile.
27 Iron he treats like straw simile
and bronze like rotten wood. simile
28 ... slingstones are like chaff to him. simile
29 A club seems to him but a piece of straw;... metaphor
30 His undersides are jagged potsherds, metaphor
leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge. simile

All from Job 41’s description of Leviathan. (KJV)

A metaphor is always an implied simile; it is a comparison without the explicit use of a comparative word such as “like” or “as”. Compare the simile in v. 28 to the metaphor in v. 29 to see the difference.

In the context of Job, Leviathan itself is not a metaphor. It is simply a fearsome sea creature (probably a crocodile). It is only in terms of theological interpretation that Leviathan can become an allegorical personification of nature, chaos, the devil, whatever. Since the book of Job is not a sustained allegory (like Pilgrim’s Progress), such interpretations are not essential to the meaning of the text, but imposed by the will of the interpreter. One can fully interpret Job without the use of allegory at all.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but understand, Christian theism has never embraced naturalistic assumptions as a primary consideration.

That depends on what you mean by “naturalistic”. Christian theism has always accepted that God can and does work through “secondary” (=”naturalistic”) causes as well as impinging directly upon nature through super-natural direction. Theists do not accept the atheistic notion that natural causes exist which exclude or deny the action of deity. If you think “natural” = “without the action of God” you are excluding yourself from the ranks of theists and affirming a basic assumption of atheism.

I'm open to it I just don't accept that we must bend explicit, foundational, doctrinal passages to naturalistic assumptions.

Given the theistic assumption that all causes, including natural causes, originate with God, what is being “bent” by these assumptions?

It is important that we understand that Genesis and Job makes statements of material fact (admittedly in poetic prose) that are necessarily true or false dispite the occasional metaphor. The Bible is not a mythology it chronicles the redemptive history of the Living God who created the world by the speaking of words and intervenes in human affairs in ways that seem impossible to our natural minds.

I already dealt with “material fact” above. It is true the Bible as a whole is not a mythology. We have to remember that the Bible is a library, not a single piece of writing. Each book, sometimes each part of a book, must be considered separately.

Its been years since I read Mere Christianity but I remember the thesis so elegantly defended was that a person may not be confronted intellectually but you cannot escape the moral impact of the Gospel. He is trying to focus the reader on the convictions that are essential to Christian theism. Repentance is more then a change of mind, it is an inversion of the seat of moral reflection. C.S. Lewis like passages of Scripture must be taken in context.

Agreed. But this is beside the point of his attitude toward biblical myth as “true myth”.

Again I strongly disagree with this, if called to testify in a murder trial and asked what I witnessed at a murder scene I might say. "He pointed the cold black weapon at the pleading victim and a thundering flash silenced his pitifull crys forever". The material fact would be that the victim was shot to death dispite the use of dramatic poetry.

And if you were writing a murder mystery in which a witness said exactly the same thing, the material fact would be the same in the context of the novel even though no such murder had taken place outside the novel. The existence of material fact in a work of fiction does not change it into a documentary.

You are not describing naturalistic assumptions here, a naturalistic assumption says that it cannot be true if it does not corrospond with the principle of natural science.

You mean an atheist assumption says that it cannot be true if it does not correspond with natural science. That is not the assumption of a theist inquiring into natural scientific explanations of phenomena. A theist assumes that natural science deals with only part of reality, part of the truth, not with all of it.

So if it cannot be determined empirically that God spoke the world into existance it is therefore a myth.

Yes, and the myth is truth.

It doesn't come from science since divine science (theology) is as much a source of rational systems of order.

It doesn’t come from natural science, since natural science is incapable of dealing with what is beyond nature. I agree that theology is just as much a source of rational system as natural science.

The Scriptures are not subject to the tools of textual analysis or private interprutation.

Neat trick. Equating one thing with something else entirely irrelevant. No the scriptures are not subject to private interpretation. Yes, as historical documents, they are subject to textual analysis. Inspiration coming to a prophet or psalmist or poet of the 5th, 8th or 10th century BCE does not cause the person so inspired to think, speak or write according to linguistic habits of a 21st century CE American. The person inspired to convey God’s word will do so according to the habits of thought and language of his/her own place and time. And those habits of language particular to a time and place (and even to an individual person) are the stuff of textual analysis.

Subjecting Holy Scripure to redactory criticism has proved itself worse then useless. We should be carefull not to treat the Bible as just another peice of literature.

Unsupported personal opinion noted. We should also be careful to remember that the bible IS a piece (or rather many pieces) of literature as well.

Job in not a novel and neither is Genesis.

Agreed. But that doesn’t make them direct reportage either. There are many other options.

 

[gluadys]

First, a reminder that all these terms (farce, myth, analogy. metaphor) are NOT synonyms all meaning the same thing. They don't even mean the same class of thing. "Myth" is a literary genre and a theological category. "metaphor" and "analogy" are comparisons. And "farce" is a type of theatrical presentation. Most myths are taken quite seriously and not as farce; though a satirical dramatist might choose to present a myth as a farce. (An action that would likely be considered blasphemous and get him into hot water.)

You lost me... ... a farce is a fiction, a myth is a fiction. I really don't know what you were trying to say here.

Sorry. First myth is not necessarily fiction. It can be true. What it is not is scientific. Nor is farce necessarily fiction. Farce is a style of presentation, especially in theatre. But what is presented in this style can be entirely factual.

A comedian who opposes the current American government and its policies, for example, could write a very funny stand-up routine based entirely on factual events and statements of the president and his advisors, which lampoons them as foolish and laughable. That would be a type of farce, but it would not be fiction.

My point is that you need to learn the correct meanings of the terms you are using. You lump them all together in a box labeled DISMISSED.

To wit:

The thing is that fundamentalists like myself refuse to have the Scriptures diminished to a mythology.

Job is not a myth even though it is laced with poetic metaphor, it does matter whether or not Job was real, in fact it is absolutly crucial.

Because reducing material facts to metaphor is a dismissal and I have been clear on this point.

That's an interesting rationalization but you just dismissed Scripture (what part I am not sure) as literature as opposed to history. Then you said this is not dismissive. You write some really lovely things but this is not one of them.

You have allready equated literature with fiction so this dismisal is just a rephrasing of the same premise.


We should get into an expostition of Job sometime because it is clear that when you dismiss the opening and closing passages as dramatic hyperbole the whole package is pointless.

“diminished” “reduced” “dismissed” For you anything remotely literary about scripture, any study of scripture which reveals its literary qualities, comes down to these three words. You have no need to sort out metaphor from myth, farce from fable, allegory from analogy, leit-motif from legend, personification from poetry because all of these spell only one thing to you: it is not inspired scripture. Inspired scripture can only be fact and nothing but fact. Truth can only be fact and nothing but fact---hard, empirical fact or inferences rationally and logically derived from hard, empirical fact.

Now, that is actually an atheist position. The idea that only what is empirically and historically verifiable is true is a relatively recent notion based on the belief that natural science has developed the sole means of ascertaining truth. Hence, anything non-scientific is not true.

That is a ridiculous position for a Christian to take. Natural science investigates nature. It is very good at investigating nature. But taking the position that only what natural science can provide evidence for is true means God is not an empirical fact and hence does not exist.

Since, for a theist, it is axiomatic that God does exist, there is no need for a theist to constrict the meaning of “truth” to empirical, scientific truth. Indeed, the theist must assert that history and science do not exhaust the limits of truth. Truth must include the mythical, the poetic, the metaphysical, the symbolic, and be accessible through a variety of verbal and non-verbal expressions. Truth includes fact, but it also transcends fact. And the truth that transcends fact may be, indeed often is, of greater spiritual import than mere fact.

Nor is there any objective need to impose the straight-jacket of empirical and historical truth on all of scripture, willy-nilly, whether that standard is warranted or not. Where such a need exists, therefore, it is not rational or logical, but subjective, personal and emotional.

Your theology drives you to prove your conclusion: that stories like that of Job are necessarily literal accounts, for otherwise they would not be legitimate scripture.

True...so what?

So what? It means you are dictating a limit on how God may choose to self-reveal. You are commanding God to self-reveal only by means of hard, verifiable fact. You are setting a limit to the nature of inspiration, of legitimate scripture, that comes from your constricted (essentially atheist) notion of what constitutes truth.

For you, Job can only be true if it is a documentary reporting a historical event. You will accept it as scripture only on that basis. Removal of that basis constitutes “dismissal”.

For me, Job is scripture irrespective of my personal preferences. As God-given, God-inspired, Job is true whether or not it is also fact.

You set limits on the nature of inspiration; I don’t. You claim God cannot commission an author to write inspired fiction. I claim God is free to do whatever God chooses. You claim we cannot be confident of God’s truth unless it is also historical and/or scientific fact. I claim we can always be confident of God’s truth because God is God.

You assume that you can set standards of legitimacy for scripture which permits you to dismiss what does not qualify. I assume that all literature, factual and non-factual, inspired by the Holy Spirit is scripture.

Of course, you don’t actually dismiss scripture, but in order not to dismiss it, you shoe-horn it into your standards of legitimacy whether it fits or not. I simply accept scripture for what it is: history sometimes, law sometimes, legend sometimes, parable sometimes, myth sometimes, symbol sometimes, whatever. What scripture is, in terms of its literary form and origin, has no bearing on whether or not it comes from God. None of it is dismissable on that basis. None of it is untrue on that basis.

Not unless it is presented as a fact which clearly Job and Genesis are, then certain things must be true or false.

But you are making an unsupported assumption that they are presented as fact. An analysis of form and presentation in the historical context of their origin, does not bear out that assumption.

The person and work of the Holy Spirit has something to do with it as well. God's revelation is evident and obvious in nature and Holy Scripture so I dare say that you are expressing a very limited understanding of what actual evidence consists of.

The text of scripture is evidence. It doesn’t change. Nothing is added to it. All changes lie in changing interpretations of the text. Yes, the Holy Spirit has a lot to do with it. As the old hymn says “There is yet more light and truth to break forth from the word.” That is the work of the Holy Spirit---to take the unchanging text and illumine it anew for new times; to help us discover in the unchanging text truths we never noticed before. That is another reason that trying to tie scripture down to one way of communicating (via fact) and one single interpretation is a vain and idolatrous endeavour. New interpretations of scripture are the vehicle of new revelation brought to light by the Holy Spirit.

Darwin's homology and morphology is a farce, his superfluous facts and mythical monstrocities produced cleaverly devised fables that he admitted have never been seen or demonstrated in science. They do not exist in nature, only in the mind of the Darwinian. Natural selection is a myth, not a methodology and certainly should not be confused with a fact of science since they are analogies.

Your position might have some credibility if you had ever demonstrated that you even know what a farce or myth or analogy is. You have not done so. I expect your lack of comprehension extends as well to morphology and homology and methodology. You just throw around words like farce and myth to indicate contempt and dismissal. That is why you reject applying them to scripture, even when they clearly do. And that is why you apply them to evolution, even when they clearly don’t.

 

[mark kennedy]

It will take me some time to deal with the things I encountered in these posts but I just wanted to offer a word to describe my reaction...delightfull. Of course, I will respond to it in parts but it will take hours to wipe the smile from my face. I would give anything if fundamentalists were this fired up about expostitional studies. You are a firebrand and believe you me, I will be delighted to respond to this one.
Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

It will take me some time to deal with the things I encountered in these posts but I just wanted to offer a word to describe my reaction...delightfull. Of course, I will respond to it in parts but it will take hours to wipe the smile from my face.

Glad I made your day bright!

I would give anything if fundamentalists were this fired up about expostitional studies.

One of the ironies of life is that those who style themselve literalists are often woefully ignorant of the actual text of scripture and its literal meaning.

Of course, that is also true of non-literalists as well. Sadly few church-goers are truly interested in taking secondary (much less post-secondary) study in matters of faith. They seem all too content with the basics learned in Sunday School and don't choose to upgrade the understanding they had when they were 12.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, I have run across literalists who do seriously believe this passage establishes the literal existence of dragons.

There are reasons to believe that this figure of speech was some kind of a literal creature.

Christian Courier

I am convinced that there is a far more important meaning behind this dramatic imagary. Frankly this is not a reference to anything natural, this is a referance to either a demonic host if not Satan himself. Job had equated invoking a curse with arousing a Leviathan (Job 3:8), the Leviathan is spoken of as having multiple heads (Ps. 74:14), it is imported into the highly figurative language of the Revelation (Rev. 13:1-10; 12:7-9). Whatever this imagary was taken from, the substantive meaning is implicitly and explicitly demonic.

And please, Leviathan is NOT a metaphor. Saying that simply indicates your ignorance of what a metaphor is. The interpretations you have outlined above are allegorical interpretations, not metaphors.

Here are examples of figures of speech you should learn to use correctly:

22 Strength resides in his neck; personification
dismay goes before him. personification
24 His chest is hard as rock, simile
hard as a lower millstone simile.
27 Iron he treats like straw simile
and bronze like rotten wood. simile
28 ... slingstones are like chaff to him. simile
29 A club seems to him but a piece of straw;... metaphor
30 His undersides are jagged potsherds, metaphor
leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge. simile

All from Job 41’s description of Leviathan. (KJV)

A metaphor is always an implied simile; it is a comparison without the explicit use of a comparative word such as “like” or “as”. Compare the simile in v. 28 to the metaphor in v. 29 to see the difference.

If memory serves you said, correct me if I am wrong, that you teach literature. At any rate, I will be a little more carefull about how I characterize a literary device from now on.

In the context of Job, Leviathan itself is not a metaphor. It is simply a fearsome sea creature (probably a crocodile). It is only in terms of theological interpretation that Leviathan can become an allegorical personification of nature, chaos, the devil, whatever. Since the book of Job is not a sustained allegory (like Pilgrim’s Progress), such interpretations are not essential to the meaning of the text, but imposed by the will of the interpreter. One can fully interpret Job without the use of allegory at all.

For one thing this is a mythical sea creature with multiple heads and was a common one at the time. I have often thought that there should be an area of Bible study called Leviathanology (the study of Biblical monsters). This is a mythical creature used for its dramatic effect but as you pointed out that doesn't mean it doesn't describe something very real.

That depends on what you mean by “naturalistic”. Christian theism has always accepted that God can and does work through “secondary” (=”naturalistic”) causes as well as impinging directly upon nature through super-natural direction. Theists do not accept the atheistic notion that natural causes exist which exclude or deny the action of deity. If you think “natural” = “without the action of God” you are excluding yourself from the ranks of theists and affirming a basic assumption of atheism.

Thats a little extreme, don't you think? Because I make a distinction between natural causation (secondary causes) and divine intervention (supernatural manifestation) I am breaking ranks with theistic reasoning? Nature is itself subject to the sovereign will of God, Now while I do not take offense to this statement (which is your opinion) I find it an unfair and untrue characterization.

Given the theistic assumption that all causes, including natural causes, originate with God, what is being “bent” by these assumptions?

The one that comes to mind specifically is the discussion at the opening of the book between God and Satan. The events in Job that are described as actual events cannot be myths and still be true. You have a habit of discussing the Scriptures without regard to the content of specific verses so when you say that something can be a myth and true at the same time I get puzzled. In other words, I have a hard time understanding how it relates to specific passages.

I already dealt with “material fact” above. It is true the Bible as a whole is not a mythology. We have to remember that the Bible is a library, not a single piece of writing. Each book, sometimes each part of a book, must be considered separately.

The Leviathan is clearly a mythical creature but Satan is not. I understand that the Bible is a collection writings from different people seperated by time, region, culture and we have to understand the context these things were written in. However, when we discuss "material fact" it is important to distinguish the specific passages that are presented as material fact.

Agreed. But this is beside the point of his attitude toward biblical myth as “true myth”.

I don't really remember his discussion of 'true myth' so I can't speak to that point. I know his thesis and the heart of the emphasis was on Christian conviction (moral) and he considered intellectual problems to be secondary.

And if you were writing a murder mystery in which a witness said exactly the same thing, the material fact would be the same in the context of the novel even though no such murder had taken place outside the novel. The existence of material fact in a work of fiction does not change it into a documentary.

That is the whole point, Job is not a novel and the hypothetical was with regards to sworn testimony in a murder trial, not a murder mystery. You can use figures of speech but only as emotive language. If you misrepresent a material fact in a courtroom its called perjury, a fiction is another word for a lie in that context.

You mean an atheist assumption says that it cannot be true if it does not correspond with natural science. That is not the assumption of a theist inquiring into natural scientific explanations of phenomena. A theist assumes that natural science deals with only part of reality, part of the truth, not with all of it.

That is fine as far as it goes but theology (God, the supernatural...etc)is outside the realm of reality for the atheist. If God is the explanation for anything then to the atheist it is pure fiction particularly with regards to our origins.

Yes, and the myth is truth.

God speaking the world into existance is not a myth, is an account of an event. This would seem to be where we are having our differences specifics are sparse here.

It doesn’t come from natural science, since natural science is incapable of dealing with what is beyond nature. I agree that theology is just as much a source of rational system as natural science.

Theology is a science it just includes the supernatural as a matter of course. In natural science you are restricted to naturalistic explainations, even for the supernatural, thats the self-imposed discipline of the scientist. Science is based on experiential knowledge and requires demonstration (observed or repeated). Theology demands both as well, it just does not require empirical proofs necessarily. These would be secondary considerations for theology.

Neat trick. Equating one thing with something else entirely irrelevant. No the scriptures are not subject to private interpretation. Yes, as historical documents, they are subject to textual analysis. Inspiration coming to a prophet or psalmist or poet of the 5th, 8th or 10th century BCE does not cause the person so inspired to think, speak or write according to linguistic habits of a 21st century CE American. The person inspired to convey God’s word will do so according to the habits of thought and language of his/her own place and time. And those habits of language particular to a time and place (and even to an individual person) are the stuff of textual analysis.

A hypercritial textual analysis is a private interpretaion and liberal theology is laced with it. I have allready said that the context a passage was written in is an important consideration but a material fact is necessarily true or false dispite the context it is written in. This isn't about using figurative language its about presenting a material fact. The books of Job and Genesis do this explicitly, textual analysis while important are secondary considerations.

Unsupported personal opinion noted. We should also be careful to remember that the bible IS a piece (or rather many pieces) of literature as well.

And now we have your unsupported personal opinion noted as well.

Agreed. But that doesn’t make them direct reportage either. There are many other options.

That is exactly what I have been disputing from the beginning, there are specific claims made that must be true or false. The Genesis account of creation is one of the most important.

Ok, I will get to the second one shortly but for now I am breaking for lunch.

 

[mark kennedy]

Myth-A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena. (Oxford English Dictionary )

Sorry. First myth is not necessarily fiction. It can be true. What it is not is scientific. Nor is farce necessarily fiction. Farce is a style of presentation, especially in theatre. But what is presented in this style can be entirely factual. Here is a farce where ’the Rabshaskeh ’lampoons them as foolish and laughable”:

“But the Rabshakeh said to them, “Has my master sent me to your master and to you to speak these words, and not to the men who sit on the wall, who will eat and drink their own waste with you?” Then the Rabshakeh stood and called out with a loud voice in Hebrew, and spoke, saying, “Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria! “Thus says the king: ‘Do not let Hezekiah deceive you, for he shall not be able to deliver you from his hand; ‘nor let Hezekiah make you trust in the LORD, saying, “The LORD will surely deliver us; this city shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.” (2 Kings 18:24 KJV)

My point is that you need to learn the correct meanings of the terms you are using. You lump them all together in a box labeled DISMISSED... “diminished” “reduced” “dismissed” For you anything remotely literary about scripture, any study of scripture which reveals its literary qualities, comes down to these three words. You have no need to sort out metaphor from myth, farce from fable, allegory from analogy, leit-motif from legend, personification from poetry because all of these spell only one thing to you: it is not inspired scripture. Inspired scripture can only be fact and nothing but fact. Truth can only be fact and nothing but fact---hard, empirical fact or inferences rationally and logically derived from hard, empirical fact.

Myth and fable are the same thing, an example of a farce is provided above. So what if a myth contains some truth, so do most lies. Here’s how the father of lies deceived Eve with true statements:

“Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. “For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4,5)

They didn’t drop dead on the spot when they ate the fruit and they’re eyes were opened. While there was some superficial truth to what he said, this was in fact a lie. The truth is that a ‘true myth’ is opposed to a fact, it may well be true in a very general way but generalities make serious expositive studies next to impossible. Here is an example of something I think is not quite as figurative as some would have you believe. The Song of Songs, while it is laced with metaphor, allegory, and highly figurative language, it does have a discernable literal storyline. I’ve seen it interpreted as some kind of mysticism but the figures of speech are not cryptic they’re emotive. Revelations is another prime example where passages have been interpreted as purely figurative and, while much of it is highly figurative it does represent actual events that have yet to take place. You mentioned personification, here are a few from Revelations:

Israel:
“Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. (Revelations 13:3,4)

Babylon
“And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.” (Rev. 17:5,6)

Now, that is actually an atheist position. The idea that only what is empirically and historically verifiable is true is a relatively recent notion based on the belief that natural science has developed the sole means of ascertaining truth. Hence, anything non-scientific is not true.

That is all true but it is not my position, I take much of Scripture quite literally and when events are related whether it is a miracle, a debate in heaven, or a discussion between someone in heaven and someone in hell, I have every confidence these are anything but figurative.

That is a ridiculous position for a Christian to take. Natural science investigates nature. It is very good at investigating nature. But taking the position that only what natural science can provide evidence for is true means God is not an empirical fact and hence does not exist.

Where do you get these extreme generalities? I have simply held to the position that a material fact in the context of Job, Genesis and even those of personification or the many other figures are crucial. The fact that you wrote the post I am quoting is a material fact, it may or may not be considered empirical. I don’t equate an empirical fact with a material fact since a scientific inquiry and the account of an historical event are different things. The criteria, context, and content may have similarities but obviously they are not the exact same thing.

Since, for a theist, it is axiomatic that God does exist, there is no need for a theist to constrict the meaning of “truth” to empirical, scientific truth. Indeed, the theist must assert that history and science do not exhaust the limits of truth. Truth must include the mythical, the poetic, the metaphysical, the symbolic, and be accessible through a variety of verbal and non-verbal expressions. Truth includes fact, but it also transcends fact. And the truth that transcends fact may be, indeed often is, of greater spiritual import than mere fact.

Nor is there any objective need to impose the straight-jacket of empirical and historical truth on all of scripture, willy-nilly, whether that standard is warranted or not. Where such a need exists, therefore, it is not rational or logical, but subjective, personal and emotional.

Here we go again, when I take something literally in Scripture it must be a highly subjective and emotional opinion. John Locke called the mere opinion and when the standard is warranted then the facts are not extraneous, they are vital to the truth of the passage. C.S Lewis did say that you could read the Gospel and never be confronted intellectually (I am paraphrasing since I don’t have the quote), but you can’t read it without being confronted morally. I tend to agree, even though you can be confronted intellectually and thus there is an evident and obvious need to examine material facts dispassionately and objectively. Sure there are transcendent principles that are more important then certain facts, but that’s a generalization, it doesn’t always hold true.

So what? It means you are dictating a limit on how God may choose to self-reveal. You are commanding God to self-reveal only by means of hard, verifiable fact. You are setting a limit to the nature of inspiration, of legitimate scripture, that comes from your constricted (essentially atheist) notion of what constitutes truth.

God’s revelation is evident and obvious both in the natural world and the Scriptures. If you respond to the lesser light of revelation of God’s glory reflected in nature then you will respond to the one in Scripture. You keep insisting that for me to take things literally if Genesis, Job and other places is somehow atheistic reasoning. This doesn’t set limits on God’s revelation, He may well reveal events we can’t really know without Him, like the original creation, the conversation between God and Satan in Job, the rich man and Lazarus have a basis in fact or they are fiction.

For me, Job is scripture irrespective of my personal preferences. As God-given, God-inspired, Job is true whether or not it is also fact.

You set limits on the nature of inspiration; I don’t. You claim God cannot commission an author to write inspired fiction. I claim God is free to do whatever God chooses.

I was confident of God’s trustworthiness before I started finding things like the description of a coming storm in Job and the prophecy of the cross in Psalm 22. Would it dramatically alter my theological ideals were I to decide that Job or the Song of Songs cannot be taken literally? Probably not. However, historical narratives represent redemptive history as actual events and explicitly warns the reader to be mindful of the limits of their own understanding.

“Who is this who darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me.
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
(Job 38:2-5)

But this is a material fact and insisting that this is a literal whirlwind is not atheistic, its what the text says:

“Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:"(Job 38:1)

You assume that you can set standards of legitimacy for scripture which permits you to dismiss what does not qualify. I assume that all literature, factual and non-factual, inspired by the Holy Spirit is scripture.

The Hobbit, Harry Potter, and Star Wars all have transcendent principles like honor, valor, loyalty but they are fictional and can’t be compared to the veracity of Scripture. The Scriptures lay claim to things that only God is capable of doing, signs, miracles and wonders lay claim to Divine confirmation of the Word going out.

“The many striking miracles which Moses relates are so many sanctions of the law delivered, and the doctrine propounded, by him. His being carried up into the mount in a cloud; his remaining there forty days separated from human society; his countenance glistening during the promulgation of the law, as with meridian effulgence; the lightnings which flashed on every side; the voices and thunderings which echoed in the air; the clang of the trumpet blown by no human mouth; his entrance into the tabernacle, while a cloud hid him from the view of the people; the miraculous vindication of his authority, by the fearful destruction of Korah, Nathan, and Abiram, and all their impious faction; the stream instantly gushing forth from the rock when struck with his rod; the manna which rained from heaven at his prayer;—did not God by all these proclaim aloud that he was an undoubted prophet? If any one object that I am taking debatable points for granted, the cavil is easily answered. Moses published all these things in the assembly of the people. How, then, could he possibly impose on the very eye-witnesses of what was done? Is it conceivable that he would have come forward, and, while accusing the people of unbelief, obstinacy, ingratitude, and other crimes, have boasted that his doctrine had been confirmed in their own presence by miracles which they never saw?”
(Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin)

Of course, you don’t actually dismiss scripture, but in order not to dismiss it, you shoe-horn it into your standards of legitimacy whether it fits or not. I simply accept scripture for what it is: history sometimes, law sometimes, legend sometimes, parable sometimes, myth sometimes, symbol sometimes, whatever. What scripture is, in terms of its literary form and origin, has no bearing on whether or not it comes from God. None of it is dismissable on that basis. None of it is untrue on that basis.

Not unless it is presented as an event, particularly with regards to God’s intervention in human affairs especially with regards to redemptive history.

“Great and marvelous are Your works,
Lord God Almighty!
Just and true are Your ways,
O King of the saints!
Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name?
For You alone are holy.
For all nations shall come and worship before You,
For Your judgments (righteous deeds in NIV) have been manifested. (revealed, NIV)”
(Rev. 15:3-4)

But you are making an unsupported assumption that they are presented as fact. An analysis of form and presentation in the historical context of their origin, does not bear out that assumption.

I have spoken at length about the forms, presentation, historical context, and the repeated assertion that the Scriptures are often revelations of actual events is rooted and grounded in the clear teaching of the Scriptures, Christian theology and scholarship. The insistence that is due to a subjective and emotional need is itself a baseless assertion and misrepresents the position I have attempted to defend.

The text of scripture is evidence. It doesn’t change. Nothing is added to it. All changes lie in changing interpretations of the text. Yes, the Holy Spirit has a lot to do with it. As the old hymn says “There is yet more light and truth to break forth from the word.” That is the work of the Holy Spirit---to take the unchanging text and illumine it anew for new times; to help us discover in the unchanging text truths we never noticed before. That is another reason that trying to tie scripture down to one way of communicating (via fact) and one single interpretation is a vain and idolatrous endeavor. New interpretations of scripture are the vehicle of new revelation brought to light by the Holy Spirit.

The sacred message of the Scriptures is the work of the Spirit as is the enlightenment of the believer with regards to the mystery of the Gospel. (Ephesians 1:16-18)

That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God. (Eph. 3:16-19)

To grow in grace and knowledge is to expand you understanding on many levels. A material fact is still necessarily true or false but cold academics and mindless emotional impulses are both extremes.

“ Hence he who aims at the intermediate must first depart from what is the more contrary to it, as Calypso advises
Hold the ship out beyond that surf and spray.
… But we must consider the things towards which we ourselves also are easily carried away; for some of us tend to one thing, some to another;”
(Aristotle, Ethics)

 

[gluadys]

There are reasons to believe that this figure of speech was some kind of a literal creature.

Well, it can't be both. As presented in Job 41, it could well be a literal creature such as a crocodile. The figures of speech are part of the description. Although the animal could be literal, the description of it is not. The author uses many figures of speech to describe it and some poetic licence as well. These ought not to be understood literally.

However, you also pointed to other passages, including Job 3:8 which allow the possibility that Leviathan was not seen as a literal creature but as a legendary and mythical monster.

Now Job 3:8 is interesting. It is not a matter of equating a curse with rousing Leviathan but of asking those who have the power to rouse Leviathan to curse the day Job was born. What does Job mean by those who have the power to rouse Leviathan and why does he ask them in particular to curse the day he was born?

According to the study notes in one of my bibles, it was believed that certain magicians had the power to cause an eclipse of the sun by rousing Leviathan to attack it. (That an eclipse of the sun was due to a dragon seeking to consume it is a common mythological explanation of this phenomenon.)

Now place v. 8 in the context of the rest of Job's lament.

v.3 Let the day perish in which I was born....
v. 4 Let that day be darkness!
May God above not seek it,
or light shine on it.
v. 5 Let gloom and deep darknessclaim it.
Let clouds settle upon it;
let the blackness of the day terrify it.

He goes on to say much the same about the night, concluding in v. 9
Let the stars of its dawn be dark;
Let it hope for light, but have none.

Emphasis added.

Obviously v. 8 is a call to those who can create darkness by eclipsing the sun to exercise that power over the day Job is cursing by adding to the darkness he calls down upon it.

But now, why do the magicians call on Leviathan to attack the sun? The NRSV translation of Job 3:8 is interesting. It says "Let those curse it (the day of Job's birth) who curse the Sea, those who are skilled to rouse up Leviathan."

It is the only translation I found that mentions the Sea. Although we know even from chapter 41 that Leviathan is a sea creature. However, the Sea is also a metaphor with mythical significance. We find it again in the passage from Psalms you pointed to.

"You divided the sea by your might;
you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.
You cut openings for springs and torrents;
You dried up ever-flowing streams."

Here the multiple heads (not found in the description of Job) definitely indicate a legendary monster, not a literal one. If the writer of Job knew this Psalm or the tradition of Leviathan as a legendary monster, then it is quite likely he intended chapter 41 to be a description of the legendary beast and not of an actual animal.

The other important point is that the passage from Psalm 74 is a description of creation. And here the bells ring loud and clear. For all through Mesopotamia, the creation-myth of Babylon was well-known. And in that myth a sea-monster figures prominently. She is Tiamat, the sea-monster (sometimes with multiple heads) who is eventually conquered and slaughtered by her son Marduk (chief god of Babylon). From her body, Marduk creates the heavens and the earth. Her veins and arteries are cut open to become "springs and torrents". Her bones become hills and mountains covered with vegetation to provide food for the animals made from her tissues and organs.

It would seem that the Psalmist, like the author of Genesis 1, is taking a well-known myth of the great civilization of the day and re-working it to adapt it to the monotheistic perspective of the Jewish faith. Marduk and the other pagan gods disappear to be replaced by YHWH. Tiamat is not a goddess, but transformed into Leviathan the monster of the Sea. Both Leviathan and the Sea it dwells in are symbolic references to the forces of chaos and darkness---forces which God overcame in creating the universe. (The description of the earth as "a formless void" in Genesis 1:1 is, in Hebrew, two words "tohu" and "bohu" together conveying the idea of chaos. In this chaos, the earth is also completely covered by the primeval waters--another symbol of chaos.)

Transferring the mythological meanings back to Job 41, then, when God asks Job "Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook,....etc." it is not merely a question about hunting a strong and ferocious, but literal animal. In effect God is asking "Can you tame chaos?"

I do not take the references in Revelation to apply to Leviathan. Revelation owes more to Daniel 7 than to Job. Neither Daniel nor Revelation name the beast they describe Leviathan. In both Daniel and Revelation, the multi-headed beast is purely symbolical, but not of primeval chaos. Rather of the political powers who were persecuting God's people. (The Seleucid empire in Daniel, the Roman empire in Revelation.) These beasts are demonic, but Leviathan is more of a force of nature than demonic.

The Leviathan is clearly a mythical creature but Satan is not.

This is probably the watershed that separates our views. If the only biblical description we had of Leviathan was that in Job 41, I would say it was fairly clear that Leviathan was literal and Satan is mythical. Now the other descriptions of Leviathan suggest it can also be mythical (or possibly a literal animal is being used as a symbol of a mythical reality). In the case of Satan, however, there is no literal referent at all. All the appearances of Satan in scripture suggest a mythical concept not a factual one.

Now remember please that "myth" does not mean "false". Mythical concepts point to realities, not to imagination. As a mythical character, Satan is a pictorial representation of the reality of sin and temptation. Satan's words and actions, both in Job and in other scriptural passages, convey with graphic conciseness the way sin works in our lives to separate us from God. The invention of Satan, and the development of the character of Satan, signify developments in the theology of post-exilic Judaism.

 

[artybloke]

Myth-A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena. (Oxford English Dictionary )

Quoting dictionary definitions of words doesn't mean anything. Dictionaries don't define the meaning of a word, they merely record how a word is generally used; their actual use in sentences (and therefore in a specific context) determines meaning. An ordinary person in the street may well use the word myth in that way; but talk to an anthropologogist, a theologian, a classicist or a student of literature, and glaudys is right. "Myth" is any story or stories which serve a specific purpose in building up a community's sense of itself. Whether David did or not kill Goliath doesn't make the story any more or less defining of nationhood for the society that told it (a long time after it happened.) The English and the Welsh are both supposed to descend from King Arthur's time, a king who may or may not have existed (but probably didn't.)

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

And selective quoting from dictionaries is even more useless:

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, it can't be both. As presented in Job 41, it could well be a literal creature such as a crocodile. The figures of speech are part of the description. Although the animal could be literal, the description of it is not. The author uses many figures of speech to describe it and some poetic licence as well. These ought not to be understood literally.

However, you also pointed to other passages, including Job 3:8 which allow the possibility that Leviathan was not seen as a literal creature but as a legendary and mythical monster.

There is little doubt that the Leviathan was a mythical sea creature often depicted as having seven heads. I really don't see how in can be understood any other way, when an image like this is depicted in Scripture there must be something in the immediate context indicating that it is a figure of speach.

"Literally, "coiled". In the Bible, and especially the Old Testament, the Leviathan is some sort of chaos animal in the shape of a crocodile or a serpent. In other bible texts it is taken to mean a whale or dolphin, because the animal is there described as living in the sea. Later the Leviathan became a symbol of evil, an anti-divine power (some sort of devil) which will be destroyed on Judgement Day.

The Leviathan appears in more than one religion. In Canaanite mythology and literature, it is a monster called Lotan, 'the fleeing serpent, the coiling serpent, the powerful with the seven heads'. It was eventually killed by Baal. The Leviathan is also the Ugaritic god of evil.

"This great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts. There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein."
-- Ps. civ, 25-26 "
Encyclopedia Mythica Leviathan

I was enjoying the exposition you did even though I was wondering where you were going with it. Of course the Leviathan is taken from mythology but it represents something very real as do the ones in Revelations. However, this does not follow:

It would seem that the Psalmist, like the author of Genesis 1, is taking a well-known myth of the great civilization of the day and re-working it to adapt it to the monotheistic perspective of the Jewish faith. Marduk and the other pagan gods disappear to be replaced by YHWH. Tiamat is not a goddess, but transformed into Leviathan the monster of the Sea. Both Leviathan and the Sea it dwells in are symbolic references to the forces of chaos and darkness---forces which God overcame in creating the universe. (The description of the earth as "a formless void" in Genesis 1:1 is, in Hebrew, two words "tohu" and "bohu" together conveying the idea of chaos. In this chaos, the earth is also completely covered by the primeval waters--another symbol of chaos.)

Some of the pagan mythical images are used in the Old Testement but that doesn't mean that Genesis is adapted from it. Genesis 1 is a revelation given directly to Moses and accompanied with signs, miracles and wonders. This 'age of miracles' continued through the time of Joshua, the next one was during the time of Elijah and Elisha, the last one in redemptive history was Christ and the Apostles. Genesis 1 is not mythic poetry its an account of Creation described by the only one who could make such an account, God Himself.

The use of poetic imagary in the OT is not a rehash of the mythology of the pagan world. The differences are readily discernable and Christian scholarship bears this out.

"The Old Testament has many passages that read much like these showdowns in the sky. One example is: “Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord ... Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon? Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters of the great deep ...?” (Isa. 51:9–10). Or Psalm 74:13–14: “Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.” We find similar declarations in the New Testament, in connection with the great red dragon with seven heads and 10 horns, defeated by Michael and his angels (Rev. 12:3–17).

(James I. Packer, Merrill C. Tenney and William White, Jr., editors, Nelson’s illustrated manners and customs of the Bible [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1995. )

Transferring the mythological meanings back to Job 41, then, when God asks Job "Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook,....etc." it is not merely a question about hunting a strong and ferocious, but literal animal. In effect God is asking "Can you tame chaos?"

Obviously you are examining this as literature and the imagary is describing something like a firebreathing dragon. There is a way of understanding the underlying meaning, the heart of the emphasis with regards to the explicit message is easy enough to find:

"His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth"
(Job 41:15-21; The King James Version, 1769)

"Behold, let that night be barren; let no joyful sound come therein;Let them curse it that curse the day, who are ready to rouse Leviathan;"
(Job 3:7,8; 1890 Darby Bible)

Job and his friends thought God was punishing him, his friends in trying to defend God's righteousness, slandered Job. Job defended himself and in the process foolishly indicted God as punishing him unjustly. Job like many in the Scriptures complained to God for the injustice and wickedness in the world. God is taking Job to the woodshed at the end of the book, but afterwards reaffirms what He had said to Satan in the opening discussion. He turns to Jobs friends and says:

"And it came to pass after Jehovah had spoken these words to Job, that Jehovah said to Eliphaz the Temanite, Mine anger is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; for ye have not spoken rightly of me, like my servant Job."
(Job 42:7,8 1890 Darby Bible)

This is the praise that comes from God rather then from men. This becomes absolutly meaningless if reduced to myth, the material facts presented, while shrouded in poetic imagary are essential to the underlying meaning.

I do not take the references in Revelation to apply to Leviathan. Revelation owes more to Daniel 7 than to Job. Neither Daniel nor Revelation name the beast they describe Leviathan. In both Daniel and Revelation, the multi-headed beast is purely symbolical, but not of primeval chaos. Rather of the political powers who were persecuting God's people. (The Seleucid empire in Daniel, the Roman empire in Revelation.) These beasts are demonic, but Leviathan is more of a force of nature than demonic."

God's revelation is progressive and The Revelation has been called the 'grand central station' of the Bible. Christian scholars have puzzled over this book because it is so complicated and bears imagary from every part of Scripture. I have no real problem with your statement that Daniel and Revelations are more closely related then Job and Revelations. The imagary however is identical to Job's Leviathan and its pretty clear that I am not alone in believing this. So you don't think its demonic? Thats you opinion and I honestly have no problem with it as far as it goes.

This is probably the watershed that separates our views. If the only biblical description we had of Leviathan was that in Job 41, I would say it was fairly clear that Leviathan was literal and Satan is mythical. Now the other descriptions of Leviathan suggest it can also be mythical (or possibly a literal animal is being used as a symbol of a mythical reality). In the case of Satan, however, there is no literal referent at all. All the appearances of Satan in scripture suggest a mythical concept not a factual one.

I mentioned that the Leviathan was a dragon like creature, the dragon at the final revelation is Satan and the demonic host that accompanies him is cast out of heaven with him.

"And there was war in the heaven: Michael and his angels went to war with the dragon. And the dragon fought, and his angels; and he prevailed not, nor was their place found any more in the heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, the ancient serpent, he who is called Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole habitable world, he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
(Rev. 12:7,8; 1890 Darby Bible)

There is nothing in this verse to indicate that Satan is a myth while the imagary of the Dragon, Leviathan, or the Beast are real creatures. The Scriptures simply do not support this kind of an assertion, in fact, it says exactly the opposite.

Now remember please that "myth" does not mean "false". Mythical concepts point to realities, not to imagination. As a mythical character, Satan is a pictorial representation of the reality of sin and temptation. Satan's words and actions, both in Job and in other scriptural passages, convey with graphic conciseness the way sin works in our lives to separate us from God. The invention of Satan, and the development of the character of Satan, signify developments in the theology of post-exilic Judaism.

That is simply an extrabiblical rationalization of the clear meaning of the text. Myths are poetic imagary by definition and an antonym is a fact. The discernment of fact from figures of speach are essential to an expostition of the Scriptures and frankly you have this backwards.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading your posts very much and would just love it if fundamentalists were as interested in studying the Scriptures.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Quoting dictionary definitions of words doesn't mean anything. Dictionaries don't define the meaning of a word, they merely record how a word is generally used; their actual use in sentences (and therefore in a specific context) determines meaning. An ordinary person in the street may well use the word myth in that way; but talk to an anthropologogist, a theologian, a classicist or a student of literature, and glaudys is right. "Myth" is any story or stories which serve a specific purpose in building up a community's sense of itself. Whether David did or not kill Goliath doesn't make the story any more or less defining of nationhood for the society that told it (a long time after it happened.) The English and the Welsh are both supposed to descend from King Arthur's time, a king who may or may not have existed (but probably didn't.)

Words mean things and definitions from a dictionary are essential tools in understanding both the common usage and etymology of the word. Myth is defined as fiction in every dictionary I am aware of. You may want to rationalize the Bible's account of David's slaying of Goliath as myth, but its not the legend of Kind Aurther and the Scriptures do not bear this out. Mythical imagary are a part of the Bible and this should not distract us from the material facts throughout redemptive history. It does matter if David killed Goliath and statements to the contray diminish the authority of Scripture in a profound way.

 

[aeroz19]

Indeed, many people may believe in evolution, but how do Jews and Christians especially get evolution from scripture?

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
20 And God said....

As can be seen, it clearly says that all of these events happened in a day, defined by v 3-5. Of course, if someone wants to debate the "lets make our a day a few million years" idea, how can all of these creations be kept alive facing the sun for millions of years (half of their "day") at a time? It sounds foolish. In light of that (laugh at my puns!) no reasonable Christian could believe that evolution could happen in the course of a couple thousand years, at least in the degree we have seen it. The Bible clearly states that "God said...And it was so." The Bible does NOT say "God said for it to happen, and gradually the beings came into existence." There is no gradual anything implied. There is only room for one interpretation: the way the Bible gives it. Also note in some languages, there is a difference between action that happened at one point in time, and another that continued for a time in the past. In the Vulgate, the verbs used are fecit, creavit, etc. The i/vi sub-endings are in the perfect tense (from the perfect stem, 3rd principle part of the verb), meaning it happened at a point in time. When an action took a while or was repeated, you will se a ba sub-ending, as in faciebat. (My homeland speaks Latin) In others texts, similar patterns appear. It was purely intentional that the Bible says it happened at a point in time. How are we getting a debate about evolution from "Christians"!?

Exactly. The verses you quoted also indicate that the creatures reproduced after their own kinds, not other kinds. THere ws no change.