Why a literalist presumption?

[TwinCrier]

But the problem is that it is not "just what you believe". You are telling others they should believe what you believe in this regard. You are telling others who believe differently that they are wrong. So, the question is valid: WHY do you believe what you believe? Why presume literalism in the case of these creation accounts?

And, yes, we have a very good idea of what they ancient near east cultures, including the ancient Israelites, would have believed about these texts.

As do you. As do everyone on this forum. Your point is?

 

[TwinCrier]

The ancient Israelites would be that group descending from Abraham, as described in Scripture.

As for what they would have believed about the texts: I have explained this in more detail in the mirror thread in the other forum, but basically they would have considered it an account of past events that is real and true and believable in the general areas of who, why, etc., but not one which attempts to be historically accurate in the exact details. They would have thought that God created the universe and the planet, but would not necessarily have believed that it actually took place over six 24-hour periods, for example. The exact order of the events would not be deemed to be absolutely historical, and they would have accepted that much of the story was told using symbols and types representing essential truths and not actual history.

Why do you assume that the story of Abraham is a literal interpretation? Abraham is no more real than Adam and Eve.

 

[Remus]

The ancient Israelites would be that group descending from Abraham, as described in Scripture.

I was hoping for something more specific.

As for what they would have believed about the texts: I have explained this in more detail in the mirror thread in the other forum, but basically they would have considered it an account of past events that is real and true and believable in the general areas of who, why, etc., but not one which attempts to be historically accurate in the exact details. They would have thought that God created the universe and the planet, but would not necessarily have believed that it actually took place over six 24-hour periods, for example. The exact order of the events would not be deemed to be absolutely historical, and they would have accepted that much of the story was told using symbols and types representing essential truths and not actual history.

Are you referring to your post where you link to Watts' article?

 

[Vance]

Well, I am not sure how much more specific you want regarding the Israelites given the point being made. The writer of these accounts, and any oral accounts from which the arose, was part of the general ANE culture. The Bible describes them as having descended from Abraham, a Sumerian, having lived among the Canaanites and the Egyptians. They were part of that world and those cultures.

Not just Watts article, but also my own analysis in that thread as well as citations to other sources.

Very simply we have a lot of evidence that they would NOT have read them as literal historical narrative, and so far, I have not seen a single piece of evidence that they WOULD have read it that way. If you are objectively trying to determine how they would have read it, and not starting with any presumption that they would have read it literally, then I can't see how someone could conclude that they read it that way.

I think the only way to come to that conclusion is to start with a presumption that people of all times and cultures read accounts about their past as literal historical narrative unless there is a specific and clear reason not to.

 

[Remus]

Where I see your argument failing is that you are making the presumption that everyone at that time read accounts about their past in the same way. You compare how mythical accounts were read with how Scripture was read and you try to make the case that Scripture (be it oral or written) was treated in the same fashion. The fact that the Jews were “entrusted with the oracles of God” would automatically set them apart from everything else.

BTW, I haven’t read the entire thread that you are referring to, so I may have missed something that has addressed this issue.

 

[Vance]

Where I see your argument failing is that you are making the presumption that everyone at that time read accounts about their past in the same way. You compare how mythical accounts were read with how Scripture was read and you try to make the case that Scripture (be it oral or written) was treated in the same fashion. The fact that the Jews were “entrusted with the oracles of God” would automatically set them apart from everything else.

BTW, I haven’t read the entire thread that you are referring to, so I may have missed something that has addressed this issue.

The point is that we have NO evidence of ANY culture in that time and place reading their accounts about their past in a literal way. All we have is evidence of the contrary, so again we are left with evidence only going one way.

Yes, the Israelites viewed their texts as sacred accounts, but so did the other cultures I am speaking of. The Egyptian stories were being told by their priests and scribes, as were the Sumerian texts. But, even if this were a distinction, it would still provide no evidence that they would have read the texts literally. There is no evidence that even sacred would require literal. We have seen that these ancient cultures could view an account as valid, true and even essential WITHOUT needing to view it as strictly literal.

Further, we have the other evidences. First, these accounts have much of the literary style and are in the same genre as much of the other ANE literature. In fact, very often these stories sound very similar not just in style, but in content. In ancient Sumerian, long before the writing down of the Torah, we have accounts of a primeval garden, a snake and a first couple. Abraham and his family grew up in this culture and would have been raised on those stories.

Second, we have the internal evidence itself. Just like in the other ANE cultures, the two creation accounts don't correspond exactly, and I think it highly unlikely that culture would have viewed each of them as historically literal in chronology and details. As I have shown, this "multiple, but conflicting accounts" phenomenon is seen in the other ANE cultures as well. Today, modern fundamentalists have come up with some ways of forcing them to correspond, but that is the result, again, of already drawing the conclusion that they MUST both be literal. When you start without such a presumption, this is very strong evidence that they did NOT view them as literal history.

Again, unless you have some particular need to have these accounts be written in a literal/historical genre, and read the evidence from that perspective, I just don't see how you get there. So, my question is what is the need for them to have been written in that way?

 

[Remus]

The point is that we have NO evidence of ANY culture in that time and place reading their accounts about their past in a literal way. All we have is evidence of the contrary, so again we are left with evidence only going one way.

Yes, the Israelites viewed their texts as sacred accounts, but so did the other cultures I am speaking of. The Egyptian stories were being told by their priests and scribes, as were the Sumerian texts. But, even if this were a distinction, it would still provide no evidence that they would have read the texts literally. There is no evidence that even sacred would require literal. We have seen that these ancient cultures could view an account as valid, true and even essential WITHOUT needing to view it as strictly literal.

Further, we have the other evidences. First, these accounts have much of the literary style and are in the same genre as much of the other ANE literature. In fact, very often these stories sound very similar not just in style, but in content. In ancient Sumerian, long before the writing down of the Torah, we have accounts of a primeval garden, a snake and a first couple. Abraham and his family grew up in this culture and would have been raised on those stories.

I’m not arguing one way or the other; I just believe that your comparison is invalid. You are saying that other cultures could view their stories as valid and true when in fact, they were neither true nor valid. Comparing this to the Scripture which is true and valid is not comparing apples to apples.

Second, we have the internal evidence itself. Just like in the other ANE cultures, the two creation accounts don't correspond exactly, and I think it highly unlikely that culture would have viewed each of them as historically literal in chronology and details. As I have shown, this "multiple, but conflicting accounts" phenomenon is seen in the other ANE cultures as well. Today, modern fundamentalists have come up with some ways of forcing them to correspond, but that is the result, again, of already drawing the conclusion that they MUST both be literal. When you start without such a presumption, this is very strong evidence that they did NOT view them as literal history.

Actually, the internal evidence suggests that the creation account is literal.

Again, unless you have some particular need to have these accounts be written in a literal/historical genre, and read the evidence from that perspective, I just don't see how you get there. So, my question is what is the need for them to have been written in that way?

You ask the wrong question. It’s not a “need” to be read this way. It’s interpreting it based on other passages in the Bible. Again, it’s a conclusion and not a presumption. For example; since it says in multiple places that everything was created in six days, then this gives a strong indication that the creation account means what it says.

 

[SBG]

If anyone is diligent enough to truly want to understand how the Jews viewed their history, from creation to Fadus the Procurator to Florus, you ought to read the Antiquities of the Jews.

In the first chapter, Josephus, reports on creation and how the Jewish people viewed it. It seems it goes against the teachings of TE's that it was commonly viewed as a myth.

Josephus also goes on the talk about how the Jewish people all believed it was a global flood, not a myth as the TE's here try to tell you.

There is a problem when someone thinks that the mythical stories told in those days are equaled to God's Word. These people here may not outright say this, but they show that they do, by judging the Bible according to how ancient people viewed mythology.

Josephus, in his many works, shows how the Jewish people truly believed, when it comes to God's Word.

This is in reply to Vance's claim that the Israelites - Jewish people - believed what happened before them and to them was just a myth. This is deceptive teaching, to lead those who have not read more about these things, astray.

 

[Vance]

I’m not arguing one way or the other; I just believe that your comparison is invalid. You are saying that other cultures could view their stories as valid and true when in fact, they were neither true nor valid. Comparing this to the Scripture which is true and valid is not comparing apples to apples.

But, see, you are showing your presumption that something is only "true and valid" when it IS literal. You actually say that those things which are not literal are not "true and valid". Thus you are starting off with a biased presumption. My entire point is that in many literary genres, things that are very true and valid are presented in figurative terms. Your modern cultural indoctrination is showing there. You refuse to accept that an account about the past CAN be written in figurative terms and still be entirely true and valid. Thus, you do, indeed, have a presumption at work.

Actually, the internal evidence suggests that the creation account is literal.

References to a figurative account in the manner it is stated figuratively is not a problem. Again you are reading all of it as needing to refer to literal events.

You ask the wrong question. It’s not a “need” to be read this way. It’s interpreting it based on other passages in the Bible. Again, it’s a conclusion and not a presumption. For example; since it says in multiple places that everything was created in six days, then this gives a strong indication that the creation account means what it says.

No, that is no evidence at all, since it is the SAME culture making the same reference. This is exactly what they WOULD do, even if they considered it a figurative account.

And one phrase above gives you away: "that the creation account means what it says". You are again equating "meaning what it says" with a literal historical account. This exposes your presumption that, in historical accounts, true = literal. Your entire interpretive mindset is founded on that notion, as indicated every time you discuss it. Until you break your mind free from that modern cultural bias, you can not approach the text objectively. It is not even yet a matter for you which way the evidence leans, since you are still pressing on one side of the scale.

Just as with the science, the vast majority of the evidence all points one way, and it is only your personal bias in favor of another conclusion that tips the scales the other way for you.

 

[Remus]

I've just got to ask you this Vance. And please don't take this the wrong way. Do you actually believe your own bs?

 

[Vance]

I've just got to ask you this Vance. And please don't take this the wrong way. Do you actually believe your own bs?

Well, I wholeheartedly and sincerely believe everything I have said, so while I am not sure which "bs" you are talking about, the answer is definitely "yes". And, since I have backed up everything I have said with examples and evidence, I think I have reason to. I have not yet heard a single piece of evidence that any ANE culture, including the those that wrote Scripture, read these types of accounts as strict literal history.

So, evidence on the side of a presumption of literalism = 0. Thus ANY amount of evidence against such a presumption makes it the more persuasive position.

 

[Remus]

Whatever

 

[invisible trousers]

Remus, if you're unable to defend your beliefs, shouldn't that tell you something about you believe? Even though you've been proven totally wrong, I don't think you'll change your beliefs.

Vance, thanks for all this ancient history stuff. History isn't my area of study, so it's nice learning all sorts of new things.

 

[shernren]

sigh. will not say any more.

 

[Vance]

Here is a bit more from the other thread, since I didn't quote it here:

There are a couple of really good lectures on these subjects from The Teaching Company, and they all concur with this understanding of the past, and what I recall way back when I got my degree in ancient history. One of these is Ancient Near East Mythology by Shalom S. Goldman. In those lectures he said:

"Now, the gods in those creation stories [speaking here of the Egyptian creation stories] appear in multiple and conflicting accounts. There is no attempt at consistency either within any given account or across accounts."

He then goes on to compare this with the similar contradiction between the two Hebrew creation accounts. Then, later:

"Among the Hittites and among the Caananites, in those cultures, there are mulitple and sometimes conflicting accounts [of creation]. There is no attempt at consistency and no claim to consistency."

And, yet, these ancients still believed these stories, and told them all even though they conflicted. They were still "real" in a very important sense even though they realized these various accounts could not all be strictly historically accurate. Those factual inconsistencies didn't seem to bother them in the least.

Another of these professors, Robert Oden, from Harvard, now President of Carelton College, wrote me back from an email on this very issue. After agreeing entirely with the description of ancient thought I described above, he said.

"I do think that the kind of facticity we seek to find in history was not what many ancients were after. The parade examples come from ancient Egypt, and I was standing before one such example deep beneath a pyramid only last week * where several "historical" events, all triumphant, were attributed to a certain pharaoh, and where the same events were also attributed to other pharaoh both centuries earlier and centuries later. Either a remarkable number of Egypt's enemies died in remarkably identical fashion during remarkably identical battles, or they conceived of history as being and doing something other than what it does and is for us. And I also completely, agree, as it happens, with your reading of Genesis."

And another, in response to an email question on this very issue (my question first, his response in blue):

"My studies of ancient neareastern cultures and their creation stories (my now distant BA in history, and some more recent lecture series from the Teaching Company) has taught me that they simply didn't view the stories about their past as we do with our modern, emperical minds. I don't think they would have viewed those stories as literal history, but would still have thought of them as "true" or "real" in a way that is difficult for us to "get our heads around". *****Yes, exactly."


And another:


"I think that your are in general absolutely correct about the attitude, not only of ancient people, but also of ordinary folk, concerning tales about the past. What matters most is whether they are "true" in some existential sense, not whether they correspond to "facts" in every respect."


And from a discussion on Maimonides and the view of Jewish community regarding literalism:

"The feverish concern of the "scientific creationists" to protect a literal reading of the story in Genesis 1 reflects a conviction that devotion to the Bible requires one to interpret it -- particularly Genesis 1 -- literally and accept it in its literal sense. But, as Steven Katz notes in his "Afterword" to Jastrow (p. 159), "In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so." In fact, as we shall argue below, even the compilers of the Bible do not seem to have been concerned with a literal reading of the text. They were prepared to have at least parts of it read non-literally.
In the Middle Ages, Saadia Gaon argued that a Biblical passage should not be interpreted literally if that made a passage mean something contrary to the senses or reason (or, as we would say, science; Emunot ve-Deot, chap. 7). Maimonides applied this principle to theories about the creation. He held that if the eternity of the universe (what we would call the Steady State theory) could be proven by logic (science) then the Biblical passages speaking about creation at a point in time could and should be interpreted figuratively in a way that is compatible with the eternity of the universe. It is only because the eternity of the universe has not been proven that he interpreted the verses about creation at a point in time literally (Guide, II, 25), but he still insisted that the creation story as a whole was written metaphorically (Book I, Introduction).

And, in a book I am currently reading, entitled "The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man", which covers the ANE cultures specifically. Here are a few quotes:

"Now, the primitive mind cannot withdraw to that extent from perceptual reality. Moreover, it would not be satisfied with our ideas [scientific explanations of causality]. It looks, not for the "how", but for the "who", when it looks for a cause."
Thus, their descriptions will naturally be a celebration of the WHO and not the HOW.


"We have seen that they are likely to present various descriptions of identical phenomenon side by side even though they are mutually exclusive."

And, when discussing the inconsistencies of facts and details within their sacred texts, including their creation accounts:

"Modern scholars have reproached the Egyptians for their apparent inconsistencies and have doubted their ability to think clearly. Such an attitude is sheer presumption. Once one recognizes the processes of ancient thought, the justification is apparent. After all, religious values are not reducible to rationalistic formulas."

Lastly, here is a link to the article on this very subject that Remus mentioned earlier, and some discussion of my own on this subject from elsewhere:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bibl...f%20Genesis%201

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.

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.

 

[Remus]

Remus, if you're unable to defend your beliefs, shouldn't that tell you something about you believe? Even though you've been proven totally wrong, I don't think you'll change your beliefs.

I see. Very well then. I will “defend [my] belief” just for your benefit.

Oh, and it’s nice to meet you too.

 

[Remus]

But, see, you are showing your presumption that something is only "true and valid" when it IS literal. You actually say that those things which are not literal are not "true and valid". Thus you are starting off with a biased presumption. My entire point is that in many literary genres, things that are very true and valid are presented in figurative terms. Your modern cultural indoctrination is showing there. You refuse to accept that an account about the past CAN be written in figurative terms and still be entirely true and valid. Thus, you do, indeed, have a presumption at work.

I'm not saying that at all Vance. You are jumping to conclusions. The only presumption that I'm guilty of is presuming that the Bible is true and the accounts from other cultures cannot be held to the same standard as the Bible. Also, your response is also a prime example of an ad hominem fallacy since you completely ignored my argument and focused on me.

References to a figurative account in the manner it is stated figuratively is not a problem. Again you are reading all of it as needing to refer to literal events.

What does "not a problem" mean? We're talking about evidence. You gave "two creation accounts don't correspond exactly" as evidence. This topic has been discussed and answered many, many times. This does not meet the criteria of “very strong evidence”.

No, that is no evidence at all, since it is the SAME culture making the same reference. This is exactly what they WOULD do, even if they considered it a figurative account.

Let's see if we can recap this portion of the thread. You asked, "what is the need for them to have been written in [a literal/historical genre]” and I responded telling you that it wasn't a need, but a conclusion. To this you respond to by telling me I’m wrong? If you really want to know why someone believes something, then don’t do this. If you just want to argue, at least acknowledge that you heard their reasoning before you tell them they are wrong.

To what you said, that is what is being debated here so you can't use it as an argument to support itself... you know, the circular argument thing.

And one phrase above gives you away: "that the creation account means what it says". You are again equating "meaning what it says" with a literal historical account. This exposes your presumption that, in historical accounts, true = literal. Your entire interpretive mindset is founded on that notion, as indicated every time you discuss it. Until you break your mind free from that modern cultural bias, you can not approach the text objectively. It is not even yet a matter for you which way the evidence leans, since you are still pressing on one side of the scale.

This is the best part about posting here on CF. There’s always someone to tell you what you believe and you usually get the added bonus of them telling you that you are wrong and you shouldn’t believe what they say you believe. Even though this is very convenient and can save a lot of time by not having to be here to participate in a debate, it might be best if people base their opinions on what I believe from what I say I believe since I am the authority on what I believe.

So, what I’ve said so far is my reasoning for a literal reading for the creation account is based on a conclusion and not a presumption. Since it is a conclusion, it is impossible for me to have the presumptions that you accuse me of having (at least in the way you have defined “presume”). Additionally, my statements are in line with the conclusions that I’ve reached and are in no way indicative of a presumption.

 

[b*unique]

I've just got to ask you this Vance. And please don't take this the wrong way. Do you actually believe your own bs?

Better your own,than someone elses

 

[Remus]

Better your own,than someone elses

LOL

 

[shernren]

it's only a matter of time before this thread either gets vacated or gets closed, like all those other "I believe you don't know what you believe about what I believe you should say about what you believe" threads. -_-;;