 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
 Truth can be expressed in more than literal history |
Posted Dec 2, 2009; 11:25 am |
|
I appreciate what others have written. Had I seen it all when I started writing this response, I may not have bothered.
| lornewel wrote: | | What I mean by that is not merely to say, "Some other parts of scripture are clearly allegory so I say Genesis 1 - 11 is that." What I would like is for someone to point me to some things in scripture that say that either outright or by necessary implication. |
Genesis 1-11 appears to be distinct from what follows (in particular, those chapters parallel other Mesopotamian myths, yet while the form is similar, the theology is radically different). The specific form of allegory is, in my opinion, used in the Eden account of Genesis 2:4-4:26. Scripture rarely includes a statement saying, "This next section is allegory." There is no such statement in Genesis 2:4, yet I see many reasons to read it as allegory, as I've outlined in detail elsewhere.
| Quote: | | For example Jude 1:14 says Enoch was the seventh from Adam and quotes what Enoch prophesied concerning the state of mankind in Jude's day. |
Jude may simply be referring to Enoch's position on a list (seventh from Adam in the genealogy), rather than making any more detailed claims about how many ancestors he had. The quote appears to be from the apocalyptic Book of Enoch, which is quite far removed from any historical Enoch.
| Quote: | | Did not he expect us to consider Adam "real" and Enoch "real?" In Jude 1:11, he puts Cain, Balaam and Korah into one sentence together. So that is one from the mythical part of Genesis and two from Numbers as though they were all equally real, it seems to me. |
The difference is in our way of looking at allegory. I don't see it as unreal. I don't think characters in an allegory need to be never mentioned, or if so only in a whisper, while only historical individuals can be spoken about in a normal tone of voice.
| Quote: | | As for "the omission of Eve when speaking of the first sin" I did not encounter that omission when I read 1 Tim 2:13-14 |
Nor did I. That passage is one of the two exceptions I mentioned that does include Eve. Elsewhere, Adam's sin encompasses the actions of both human characters, such as in Romans 5:12-14.
| Quote: | | Do some of you think Jesus did not consider Noah or Jonah or Abel as real historical individuals when he referred to them in his teachings? If so, upon what basis? If not, i.e. if Jesus thought them "real" why would not I? |
I think Jesus thought these characters were part of inspired Scripture; beyond that, I don't know. I don't think their historicity mattered. Jesus refers to "Just as it was in the days of Noah" and "the sign of Jonah". The stories do not need to be literal to be able to apply their events to another situation. Again, that would only be true in a shrunken view of literature that considers everything that is not literal history to be worthless.
When Jesus mentions Abel to Zechariah, he appears to be referring to the stories of bloodshed that begin and end the Jewish Scriptures, as they were then organized. No doubt there were other innocent people killed after Zechariah and before Jesus spoke, but Jesus' point isn't to mention the first and last historical events, but rather the first and last events in Scripture.
| Quote: | | Bottom line, who are any of us to think we know better than Jesus, Paul, Luke, Jude about the "reality" of Adam and others in the first 11 chapters of Genesis and about the "reality" of the events recorded there about them? |
We shouldn't claim to know whether Jesus, Paul and others thought Adam was historical or not. To claim they must have, or they were liars or stupid if they didn't agree with us, is a serious error on our part.
| Quote: | | Oh, it occurs to me that we could assume the Hebrews got their word for "humanity" from the person Adam and not vice versa. We see many examples of that in scripture. |
Sure. It is even possible that the city Jerusalem got its name from the literal woman described in Ezekiel 16. It could be, but I wouldn't bet on it. I think both make more sense the other way around.
| Quote: | | May I ask if those who think there was no real individual Adam and Eve, actually believe that God did not in fact create any one individual man as the first man. Rather God is the creator alright, but his method was that he made some primordial mud from which all living things evolved over millions of years, or something like that? |
I believe God created a universe endowed with all the properties necessary for it to obey his creative commands. I don't think there ever was a time when humanity was limited to a single male, or a single couple. I do think biological evolution explains where our bodies come from, yet God is as sovereign over evolution as he is over gravity and electromagnetism. At some point, God elevated a population of primates to bear his image. I think Psalm 8:3-5 reads naturally as describing God raising us to a position we did not in any way inherently deserve. In the extremely unlikely event that evolution is completely discredited tomorrow, I would still see allegory in the Eden account.
| Quote: | | Because if one does not believe that there was an actual, individual first man literally created by God (whether his name was Adam or Joe does not much matter for this purpose) that has implications for all kinds of other Bible topics, doesn't it? |
Just as reading the Eden account as being literal history would have wide-ranging implications. It would mean the serpent was just a serpent, in no way connected to Satan. Further, the serpent's curse would just be about one of Eve's sons getting bit by a serpent he stepped on. And, finding the tree of life somewhere in Iraq would give us an alternate path to immortality, in case we didn't want to go through Jesus.
Now, chances are you have explanations for those things, even though you largely interpret the Eden account as literal. It's no different for those of us who take it allegorically. I think it makes the account more powerful and meaningful, and leads to a more cohesive theology. But yes, it does affect how one looks at some things, such as original sin. I think it points to a more biblically consistent understanding of sin, and one that doesn't require lots of gymnastics and immaculate conceptions when we get to Jesus and suggest infant baptisms when we get to children.
| Quote: | | If really, mankind kind of evolved in possibly several places in various stages over eons, that whole Genesis story of paradise lost and the consequent theology is bogus, isn't it? |
A thousand times no! Again, while you claim to accept that Scripture can contain other genres of writing, in practice you treat them as worthless, at least when it comes to Genesis. Is Ezekiel's whole story of unfaithful Jerusalem and the consequent theology bogus? I am not repeatedly referring to this story to say that because it is allegory, parts of Genesis must be too. I'm trying to get you to see that the way you treat the possibility of allegory in Genesis is entirely inconsistent with how you (hopefully) appreciate it elsewhere.
| Quote: | | If there was no Adam and no Eve who was deceived by the serpent, then Paul's explanation in 1 Timothy 2 of the correct order in the church based on the order of creation and who was deceived by a serpent was totally false and out of order. |
Again, the idea that if a story isn't plain history, it must be useless, and there's no way to refer to that story to make a point. I can't disagree more strongly. If you'd like to discuss this passage in some depth in another thread, I'm game.
Last edited by Marshall on Dec 2, 2009; 11:32 am; edited 2 times in total. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 2, 2009; 11:28 am |
|
Lorne wrote: | Quote: | | If there was no Adam and no Eve who was deceived by the serpent, then Paul's explanation in 1 Timothy 2 of the correct order in the church based on the order of creation and who was deceived by a serpent was totally false and out of order. Could this be why in the discussions on women in ministry leadership I and some people arguing for a different viewpoint seemed to often be talking past each other? |
I quite simply take the early Genesis narratives as talking about God's relationship to the universe we inhabit. There is the procession of events in the stories (since there are two  ) These as "big" stories - large sweeping narratives. They are 'historical' in that they talking about life as it 'came into being' within 'time and space'.
In terms of a primal 'first human"  To have human life today, it follows logically and biologically that there had to have been both a first male and female - God-created primal human life that could procreate.  Human life is generative in a continuous fashion, following 'one after the other' as generations. The narrative of life is a process of generations and events. The biblical stories provide both geneologies and time-placed narratives.
The early narratives has this flow of events:
1. God IS as 'Elohim'.
2. God Speaks and the universe comes into being in an orderly procession.
3. The creation events occur 'one after another' in a linear fashion involving 'time' - days or eons.
4. At the end or climax of this creative procession, humankind (Adam) is created as 'male and female'.
5. Humankind is uniquely created in the 'image of God' differentiating humans from other material and biological life.
6. Humans have the ability to choose to obey or disobey God.
7. Following the temptation of the natural world (the serpent being the craftiest of the wild animals God made), Eve sinned first.
8. Following the temptation of the natural world (his wife ) Adam also sinned.
9. God follows through on the warning that they would die if they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10. God cares for Adam and Eve by dressing them (covering the shame of their nakedness) before banishing them from the Garden of Eden and sending them out into a less than perfect world - the world that would be shaped by their making.
11. God follows them out of the Garden of Eden, talking with them and accepting or rejecting their acts of worship.
12. And so here we are - in a similar place - humankind - male and female - created by God - being cared for by God as God provides a covering for our shame - both female and male - dealing with our knowledge of good and evil, and our ability to obey or disobey - listening to God with tender hearts or hard hearts - facing death and resurrection - offering acceptable and unacceptable worship. Not much has changed 
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Dec 2, 2009; 4:48 pm; edited 2 times in total. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| Option 4 and Beyond |
Posted Dec 2, 2009; 11:49 am |
|
I’ve been sitting patiently over in the “What Is Theology?” discussion, waiting for Lorne to answer my last question of him :) and so have not participated on other interesting discussions, but I can’t resist responding to WCFOM’s 3 options. I think that Lorne has just demonstrated that there is at least one more option that I would describe as “I don’t quite understand how all the ducks line up here- so I won’t jump to conclusions that look premature.”
BTW I think that there are other options as well but that is the one that I am also most comfortable on this issue for many of the reasons Lorne raised. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 2, 2009; 12:13 pm |
|
I, too lean towards option # 4 for various reasons. However, this sermon I mentioned to start this thread has now become a 'field of ministry' that is being provided at our church for those who wish to join in and study this topic. However, the materials used I believe are all from this creationist museum so I doubt that there will be fair presentation of opposing views. It seems that any acceptance of an evolutionary process is being associated with all kinds of evil.
IMO, it is not evolution that should be the focus for battles but rather the focus should be on presenting the simple Gospel message and believing that God will miraculously work in the hearts of people to receive it. It seems to me that behind some of these arguments to make certain beliefs more rational to human thinking, is a belief that God needs our help to get people beyond certain roadblocks in their thinking. Personally, I think that God doesn't require that of us but rather just to be faithful in presenting the simple Gospel and He will do the rest.
I encouraged my brother and sister who feel lead to put on this course to do what they feel God leading them to do but also explained why I will not be participating. I will be checking in with them to see how it is going.
Regarding how we approach scripture, I still believe above all we need to let God, through scripture, speak to us regardless of it's historical or any form it comes in. It is easy to get side-tracked, IMO, with what scripture meant in that day and that culture, etc, etc and miss out on allowing God to speak to us now through it for what we need to know to live our lives for Christ. If our hearts are not being changed and just our heads only, I think we have missed it's value. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Dec 2, 2009; 12:20 pm |
|
James,
The 3 options were just something I banged off over coffee this a.m. before work. And this post is pumped out on a break. I’m quite ready to hear your other option. Regarding Lorne’s ‘i don’t know but will choose to accept the Bible.’ Sure, that works for me – I don’t know a whole lot and am willing to admit to my ongoing stupidity.
I’m guessing, however, that anything other than some version of the three options will involve ‘silo’ thinking where indepth historical/theological study does not interact much with ‘modern’ science. And we end up, with people who have done serious study and have ‘street creds’ in the scientific field have difficulty retaining Christian faith that is acceptable to evangelicals. Further, those of us who’ve tried to understand the biblical materials in a historical/theological fashion are viewed with suspicion by our more conservative brothers/sisters.
But I’m all ears (in this case eyes). |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Bursting the bubble |
Posted Dec 2, 2009; 1:34 pm |
|
Just this morning I came across a paper by Darrel Falk about Concerns of the Typical Agnostic Scientist. It echoes what Westcoast just said about barriers to Christianity being put in front of scientists and academics that have nothing to do with the core of our faith. Falk discusses five layers of a bubble that we can place Christians in, and that when broken free of, block re-entry to faith. A quote about the first layer, "The story of Adam and Eve must be viewed as history":
What the church can, and in my opinion must do, however, is to make it clear that there are two ways in which evangelicals view this story. One is historical, the other, allegorical. To publicly acknowledge that and to make it clear that the latter view does not in any way disengage an evangelical from their faith would be of considerable significance. [...]
The agnostic misses the profundity and the beauty of the story of Adam and Eve, and it is our fault. Sometimes it almost seems we prefer to keep the richness of the story as our trade secret. We have so stressed the historicity that instead of profundity, the agnostic sees a man in a deep sleep, a God who reaches in and pulls out a rib and fashions it into a woman. He sees a talking snake, fig leaves, an apple in the hand of Eve, and flaming swords. He is so taken by our insistence on its historicity that we are almost blocking him from seeing its meaning. If the message is missed, do we bear some of the responsibility? [...]
Some evangelicals will always feel it necessary to conclude that this is history pure and simple, and we will always want to respect that. After all, we believe that Jesus rose from the dead and if that’s not true, as Paul put it “we are of all men most miserable.” We are called to believe things that take us out of the everyday world that can be examined by scientific tools. It’s perfectly okay for some people to believe that Eve really was created from Adam’s rib. However, the notion that evangelicals have no choice but to believe this is a cultural layer surrounding a bubble––the body of data is enormously overwhelming that it is a parable, and we need to make it clear that there are many deeply committed Christians who see it that way. We must, in my opinion, peel back this layer and no longer let it block entry into the kingdom of God. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 2, 2009; 4:11 pm |
|
I do agree with this article that some Christians have added to the roadblocks in people's thinking to keep them from Christ but I also think bringing down strongholds involves more than removing obstacles we are creating like those mentioned. A couple of texts - 2 Cor. 4:4 and 2 Cor. 10:3-4. Seems to me the world's weapons include things like humanistic wisdom, philosophy, psychology, etc. But this is a spiritual warfare that requires spiritual weapons such as righteous living, gospel proclamation, faith, love, hope and persevering prayer. It is not a battle we can win. The battle is the Lord's.
I wonder what this writer thinks of the roadblocks involving hell which is a big one for many. Seems like the beginning and the end of things are the bigger obstacles in people's thinking today. But God is able to deliver anyone, atheists included, by His mighty power. My guess would be that a lack of obvious counter-culture, Kingdom living and lack of persevering prayer with believing and expecting the supernatural are some major hindrances to bringing down these strongholds today. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 2, 2009; 4:50 pm |
|
I think sometimes the greatest 'stronghold' to an open and meaningful dialogue can be prejudices and rigid presuppositions.
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Dec 2, 2009; 5:00 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 2, 2009; 5:00 pm |
|
Fact or fiction Are there other options
Lorne wrote: | Quote: | | One corollary of that is that if scripture records that Jesus, Paul, Luke, Jude, etc. seemed to accept as factual something in the OT, then so will I. I will not assume that I with the benefit of my modern knowledge know better that Jesus and his apostles. This holds certain mysteries for me - so be it. |
The third option Lorne provides is mystery. Could Genesis 1-5 be giving the reader a relatively simple allegorical narrative for the mystery of God's tremendous act of Creation?
Lorne, in light of this - could Jesus, Paul, Luke, Jude, etc. frequently be talking about 'mysteries' in understandable terms? Earlier I asked you why you thought Jesus often taught using parables? I would like to repeat this question.
As well - this addition to the original post: Reading Jude's reference to Enoch (the seventh from Adam) as prophesying (Jude 1:14) raises all kinds of other things to discuss. For example, see the Wikipedia for the Book of Enoch or http://exodus2006.com/5enoch.htm
Last edited by gay lynn voth on Dec 2, 2009; 6:16 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| |
Posted Dec 2, 2009; 5:44 pm |
|
| Marshall wrote: | | The only view it doesn't fit with is the idea that Kansas has always been a dry wasteland, … |
LOL I hadn’t ever noticed that Kansas is a dry wasteland….. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Sea turtle: "We're not in Kansas any more" |
Posted Dec 2, 2009; 6:00 pm |
|
Exactly. That view expects that people's knowledge of Kansas will be limited to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz:
When Dorothy stood in the doorway and looked around, she could see nothing but the great gray prairie on every side. Not a tree nor a house broke the broad sweep of flat country that reached to the edge of the sky in all directions. The sun had baked the plowed land into a gray mass, with little cracks running through it. Even the grass was not green, for the sun had burned the tops of the long blades until they were the same gray color to be seen everywhere. Once the house had been painted, but the sun blistered the paint and the rains washed it away, and now the house was as dull and gray as everything else.
The real Kansas is far more interesting, both now and in its geologic past. This is why fossils of sea creatures in Kansas aren't problematic to the mainstream view. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| Parables |
Posted Dec 2, 2009; 10:00 pm |
|
I guess I should respond to gaylynn's question about Jesus and parables, since she has now asked twice. What she asked is what I think about why Jesus often taught using parables. My answer, if I had not read Matthew's gospel, would have been that I would have supposed it was so that he could illustrate aspects of the mysterious, invisible Kingdom of God by using things his audience was familiar with like sheep, yeast, seed, etc. In other words, to enlighten them. But Jesus' own explanation in Matthew 13 seems to be to the opposite effect, no?
10The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'[a] 16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
This is one of those biblical passages that seems to support the Calvinist view more than the more Armenian atmosphere in which I was raised. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 3, 2009; 12:31 am |
|
Hi WCFOM
I’m not proposing an option that is a variant of “If the Bible says the world is flat- then I believe that the world is flat” even if that is also an option that I have heard sincerely expressed. What I am suggesting is that there are times when none of the explanations work.
To me an ancient earth and early humanity seems as obvious as the generally accepted belief that the earth is round. If being a Christian meant that I had to believe the world is flat it would also make Christian faith impossible for me as well.
On the other hand, for me the myth explanation of Genesis 1-11 also don’t work.
So in the end I don’t have a big problem, with “I don’t know” if Adam and Eve are historical or archetypical.
This means that I tend to quibble with those who are very sure they know since IMO the Bible doesn’t give either conclusion enough to warrant certainty.
While I quibble with those who are very sure- on either side- I have big problems with those who, after coming to their conclusions- draw further implications based on what I consider to be shaky premises. IMO any theological opinion that can't handle either interpretation is suspect. |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| |
Posted Dec 3, 2009; 7:01 am |
|
I have hesitated to respond to any of these issues here, because opinions are well-formed and set (mine are too, I suppose), but for the sake of lending my voice of support to those who maintain that the creation accounts of Scripture are meant to be taken as truth, I will cast in this bit.
Allegories or symbolic stories such as presenting God’s relationship to the people of Israel in the sense of a marital relationship (the “woman” “Israel”, or “Jerusalem”) are clearly different than the stories to which they have been compared here in this thread, such as the stories of Adam & Eve, Jonah, and Job. Allegory and symbolism is used throughout scripture; such as Jesus’ comparing himself to a mother hen, Paul’s use of Sarah and Hagar to depict the attitude of salvation through faith as opposed to blood-line entitlement. The comparison of unfaithful Israel to an unfaithful wife is also carried into the NT with the presentation of the “church” as the bride of Christ. These presentations are a far cry from the presentation of the story of the beginnings and the flood, and of the lives of men like Jonah and Job.
WCFOM states that if he needed to accept all of this as factual in a literal sense then he would probably not be a follower of the Christ (I hope I have accurately represented you, WCFOM). For me, it is more or less the opposite. If I could not accept these accounts of creation and God’s dealings with early humankind as “actual factual”, then I also could not accept any of it, including that the Christ is God, and that he died so that in some miraculous way I can come into a relationship with the holy God, and be saved from my deserved destiny.
Someone brought up dinosaurs. While the Bible does not purport to be a complete description of animal life, the book of Job contains descriptions of animals which fit more with dinosaurs than with a hippo or alligator, as some translations tend to render these passages. Remember that this is the book that some would like to relegate to the pure allegory or myth-with-a-purpose class.
As concerns evolution (in the sense of development of entirely different species), it is interesting that the traditional stories of the tribal society in which my family lived put pretty much the opposite spin on this: they believe that all animal species came from men and women who made choices which changed them into animals, that humankind has degenerated into these other life forms. Yet even here the characters in these stories almost always bear the name of the species into which they would change. The exceptions (where a character with a name changes into a fish, or bird, or animal) deal with otherwise unexplainable recent events, such as to explain why after this certain man fell from a pole “bridge” and drowned there “suddenly” were fish in a small stream where there previously hadn’t been any. (The story states that he changed into fish.)
I know that I have not dealt with every issue presented here. I also realize that some of you will think I’m just plain stupid, or have my head in the sand on this issue; I guess I can live with that. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| James + Neto |
Posted Dec 3, 2009; 8:30 am |
|
Thanks for both your posts - I'm sure we will all give them some thought.
Neto, you haven't quite understood what I've said. This was me "Not primarily because of the evolutionary debate but because, of my experiences in interactions/readings of folk with a flat, literalistic view of the Bible."
Neto, for what it's worth I completely affirm (without mental reservation) that God is the Creator and see this as critical to a biblical worldview.
Neto, I don't think any of the Forum members will think u are 'stupid.' by the way, Happy American Thanksgiving (better late then never!) |
|
|
|
|
|
