 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
 Scripture isn't broken |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 6:29 pm |
|
| James Toews wrote: | | When I read Genesis, however, I can't think how it could possibly be improved. What would you add or take away? |
I love Genesis, especially the first chapters. I've studied them more than any other part of the Bible; my favourite two chapters of Scripture are the first two. So, I don't have any suggestions for what to change. All I would like to change is the way many people approach Genesis, and the lenses they wear as they read it.
| Quote: | | I don't think that the Hebrews were big on charts like that. |
I don't think the claim is that the Hebrews made that chart, but that the chart summarizes the physical structure of the universe they described in their writings. The chart uses a modern style that represents everything literally, quite different from ancient drawings. The Egyptians, who had a similar cosmology and were big on charts, drew it far more symbolically like this:
Nut, the Egyptian sky goddess, is the arch of the firmament, with stars covering her skin. Geb, the earth god, is reclining in a way that makes his body represent valleys and hills (in some paintings, he is green and plants are depicted springing from his body). Shu, the air god, is the father of both and is placed between the two, supporting his daughter Nut. (source)
Does Genesis agree with this view of creation, or the view we find in other Mesopotamian cultures from a similar time? Absolutely not. The other gods are either removed or turned into creatures submissive to the one true God. But while Genesis challenges the theology, it retains the cosmology. The picture is still basically one of a snowglobe world: a flat earth surrounded by waters and covered by a dome. Genesis 1 reads much more naturally if we recognize this, rather than trying to make it line up with our view of the universe.
So why do I like the account even though I think the cosmology is antiquated? Because I fell in love with the beauty of the account once I stopped thinking it was a simple history lesson and started treating it as an inspired literary masterpiece. Coupled with the next chapter, it conveys an amazing number of insights about God in two simple stories. It uses exquisite symmetry in its structure that, when recognized, make questions of what yom means moot. It lays a basis for creation stewardship that is too often ignored in favour of debates over how best to turn its prose into science. It's a beautiful story told by and directly for a different people in a different time, but it's as relevant as ever, and as majestic as ever, if we're willing to give it a closer look.
| Neto wrote: | | (It would be well to also acknowledge that scientists, at least good ones, do not claim to have the final word on a subject – they recognize that they have built on the discoveries of those who went before them, and the probability that others will also build on what they themselves have discovered.) |
I totally agree, and had written something similar in my last post to you which I trimmed when trying to make it shorter. I didn't mean to imply otherwise, and I'm also sorry for the general terseness of that post. I chopped it down a bit too much, and it came out sounding harsh. |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| Re: Scripture isn't broken |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 7:31 pm |
|
| Marshall wrote: | | Neto wrote: | | (It would be well to also acknowledge that scientists, at least good ones, do not claim to have the final word on a subject – they recognize that they have built on the discoveries of those who went before them, and the probability that others will also build on what they themselves have discovered.) |
I totally agree, and had written something similar in my last post to you which I trimmed when trying to make it shorter. I didn't mean to imply otherwise, and I'm also sorry for the general terseness of that post. I chopped it down a bit too much, and it came out sounding harsh. |
That is something I should do more of – paring down a response. I’m just not good at it. My wife tells me that I always answer lots of questions the other person isn’t asking, and never get around to answering the one they actually asked. (Or something like that. I guess it’s the way I think…) I didn’t think your response was harsh, I just thought I had been misunderstood.
Your comments about the concept of the world are interesting, as the Indians with whom we lived have a somewhat similar view of the “world” above them. They say that the blue of the sky is a hard dome, and people in their past attempted to build a tower up to it, to live on the other side. They say that the sun goes across this dome, and they say that it travels around the other side (in order to come up again the next day), but they have no developed concept of what is on the other side. Their world was incredibly small when we first got to know them – they knew of several cities, and were surprised when they saw a jet take off in another direction. (We had taken the first family we had with us in the city to the airport to see the jets, thinking they would be impressed with how many people got off of the plane, but that didn’t seem to draw their attention at all.) See, there I go again….. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| A Cautionary Tale Of Too Quick An Answer |
Posted Mar 16, 2010; 11:54 pm |
|
Hi Marshall and Todd
I reread the posts and my replies and realized again- that dashing off comments on complex matters is almost certain to add to confusion.
My question addressed to Marshall-
| Quote: | | When I read Genesis, however, I can't think how it could possibly be improved. What would you add or take away? |
was actually meant to be directed to Todd.
I think we have a disagreement that we may just have to live with. To me that the various re-constructions of what the cosmologies of the writers of the Hebrew were don’t ring true to the text I’m reading. I see the Biblical texts mixing poetic language and simple observation of the world they live in- they same world we live in. For example we still speak of the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening. That doesn’t reflect a cosmological understanding- it’s just how it looks and it has looked that way since the beginning of time. Along side of that the Bible uses the language of poetry which also rarely has a definitive cosmology the way philosophers like to define it. I see the Genesis account in contrast to all man made cosmologies- including our own. That’s why I don’t think that the Scriptural cosmology is dated.
To me that makes sense- after all the universe observed from the perspective of the Creator won't look the same as it does to us. This may not make sense to others but for a few years now that's where I've settled in. But who knows? |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| Re: Creation & the Cosmology of the Biblical Writers |
Posted Mar 17, 2010; 6:28 am |
|
| James Toews wrote: | To me that the various re-constructions of what the cosmologies of the writers of the Hebrew were don’t ring true to the text I’m reading. I see the Biblical texts mixing poetic language and simple observation of the world they live in- they same world we live in. For example we still speak of the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening. That doesn’t reflect a cosmological understanding- it’s just how it looks and it has looked that way since the beginning of time. Along side of that the Bible uses the language of poetry which also rarely has a definitive cosmology the way philosophers like to define it. I see the Genesis account in contrast to all man made cosmologies- including our own. That’s why I don’t think that the Scriptural cosmology is dated.
To me that makes sense- after all the universe observed from the perspective of the Creator won't look the same as it does to us. |
LIKE (Shouldn't a person making a scientific observation use scientific language? ...Weathermen use the same terminology - sunrise & sunset.) |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: A Cautionary Tale Of Too Quick An Answer |
Posted Mar 17, 2010; 9:20 am |
|
| James Toews wrote: | Hi Marshall and Todd
I reread the posts and my replies and realized again- that dashing off comments on complex matters is almost certain to add to confusion.
My question addressed to Marshall-
| Quote: | | When I read Genesis, however, I can't think how it could possibly be improved. What would you add or take away? |
was actually meant to be directed to Todd. |
I'm quite inspired by the creation text. I see it as a call for social justice, bringing order in a world filled with chaos. I wouldn't propose changing it. I haven't tried to think of ways it could be better. I don't read the Bible expecting literary perfection, with inerrant claims on science, or 100% applicability to the modern context, or that it would be straight-forward reading without some education regarding the ancient Hebrew/Mesopotamian context.
I often prefer a scholarly approach to understanding what the text is saying. I'll follow the truth wherever it may lead. (Okay maybe I'm not that unbiased. I’m consciously aware of some of my own biases, and I can’t overcome all of them).
| Quote: | I think we have a disagreement that we may just have to live with. To me that the various re-constructions of what the cosmologies of the writers of the Hebrew were don’t ring true to the text I’m reading. I see the Biblical texts mixing poetic language and simple observation of the world they live in- they same world we live in. For example we still speak of the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening. That doesn’t reflect a cosmological understanding- it’s just how it looks and it has looked that way since the beginning of time. Along side of that the Bible uses the language of poetry which also rarely has a definitive cosmology the way philosophers like to define it. I see the Genesis account in contrast to all man made cosmologies- including our own. That’s why I don’t think that the Scriptural cosmology is dated.
To me that makes sense- after all the universe observed from the perspective of the Creator won't look the same as it does to us. This may not make sense to others but for a few years now that's where I've settled in. But who knows? |
I understand (and I’m willing to be challenged on this point) that the Biblical cosmological context is consistent with not just with ancient Hebrew cosmology, but also the cosmologies of the surrounding areas. It’s not just the Biblical text which indicates the form of cosmology that the ancients had, but there are various others to consider as well, many of which are quite explicit. The biblical terminology is consistent with these cosmologies. Today, we might use these terms more for artistic flavour, but the genesis of these terms are in actual cosmological frameworks. I’m willing to grant that the sun setting doesn’t indicate much. Chances are, imo, that they did believe that the earth was static and that the sun moved around the earth, but I believe this to be the case regardless of the Bible using the terms “sunrise” and “sunset”.
But there are much more challenging passages. The Tower of Babel doesn’t make sense in a modern cosmological framework. The separation of the waters below and the waters above, is not consistent either.
I just think that if these stories are understood allegorically, and not historically, then whether the implied cosmological context is accurate, doesn’t really matter. From a scientific/historical perspective, early Genesis isn’t based on history. If you are willing to grant that, then it is not too much a stretch to suggest that the scientific validity of the cosmology used in these allegories may not be scientifically valid either.
I think the challenge to your view is that people really did accept this ancient view of cosmology as reality in ancient times, and the Bible’s terminology is consistent with what those people understood. The most plausible explanation is that the Biblical writers accepted this cosmological framework as true. If a scholarly approach to this topic suggests that people really didn’t believe in a cosmology similar to the sketch I attached, then I will gladly change my mind. From what I’ve read, most scholars would agree with my general premise. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: A Cautionary Tale Of Too Quick An Answer |
Posted Mar 17, 2010; 10:08 am |
|
| James Toews wrote: | | I see the Biblical texts mixing poetic language and simple observation of the world they live in- they same world we live in. For example we still speak of the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening. That doesn’t reflect a cosmological understanding- it’s just how it looks and it has looked that way since the beginning of time. |
We still use that language, but it does reflect a cosmological understanding. Similarly, the way we call the first day of the week "Sunday" reflects a certain theological understanding. It's not an understanding that we still share -- we don't worship the sun and probably rarely notice the reference to it in the name. Yet, in the past the name meant more. In the past, saying the sun rose in the morning meant more. In the past, saying the heart (or kidneys) was the seat of emotions (or the intellect) meant more. I believe it's a mistake to think that the ancients were just talking about the way things looked and not the way things were. It's a mistake to think that because some of our figures of speech come from biblical times, that they were always just figures of speech.
The Bible goes well beyond speaking of the sun rising and setting, the way a weatherman would. Rather than seeing the sun's motion as steady around the earth, the teacher of Ecclesiastes says, "The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hurries to the place where it rises" (Ecclesiastes 1:5). At that time, they didn't know how the sun got back to where it started, just as in the following verses the author didn't know how water that flowed into the sea got back to the tops of the streams. But, he assumed it just hurried back to where it started, somehow getting there unseen. Reading evaporation into verse 7 is as anachronistic as reading a ball-shaped earth orbiting the sun -- or even a ball-shaped earth being orbited by the sun -- into verse 5. Those are concepts foreign to the text.
This matters because of cases like that of Luther I mentioned earlier. Luther knew it was literal when Joshua commanded the sun -- not the earth -- to stand still. Yes, that is the way the event is recorded, but if we recognize the cosmological perspective of Joshua and the author, we'll be guarded against taking the same hard line that Luther did. God can hear a request for the sun to stand still and know what is meant, even as he also knows that taking the request literally is not in the petitioner's best interest. Yes, we could misunderstand passages in which an ancient cosmology is preserved. But perhaps it isn't unrealistic to expect that if we have the advantage of greater knowledge of how our solar system is structured, we should also have the good sense to know how to read a document that comes from before that knowledge was common.
This is why I think it's the wrong approach to try and convince ourselves that the Hebrews were talking just as we still do, using the same figures of speech we use today with the same meaning. That assumes that our culture is their culture. When we constantly try to make the Hebrews talk in our vernacular, it causes us to miss what God inspired them to write. For instance, if we're subconsciously trying to make the firmament of Genesis 1 line up with something in our conception of the universe, we'll have to be so loose and fuzzy with the language that far more will drop out than an ancient cosmology. I think it's far safer to be aware of the distance between the text and us, conscious that a different culture and cosmology shaped the words we read, while we prayerfully grapple with what the authors were trying to communicate, and what God wants us to hear.
| Quote: | | I see the Genesis account in contrast to all man made cosmologies- including our own. That’s why I don’t think that the Scriptural cosmology is dated. |
I see the Genesis account in contrast to all man made theologies and philosophies -- including our own. Yes, the cosmology (the physical description of the universe) is dated, but why should that surprise us? Its technology is dated too! I don't expect the authors of Scripture to have shared my culture, cosmology or technology, but that doesn't prevent me from learning from their words that God inspired and preserved to convey his message to humanity, including 21st-century humans like me. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Mar 17, 2010; 10:16 am |
|
| Marshall, I should just let you do the talking. Very well put. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Mar 17, 2010; 10:23 am |
|
Like a lot of other threads on this forum, we soon seem to have leave the main topic (e.g. reconciling evolution and scripture) and get into discussing our varying views on how to understand scripture. And I am OK with that, because as anabaptists who claim that scripture is "the infallible word of God" our final authority on everything in life, that is probably inevitable and a good thing.
No scripture was the writer's own idea, but men of God wrote as they were carried along by the Spirit of God. 2 Peter 1:20-21 All scripture is God-breathed. 2 Tim 3:16
So does the content of Genesis reflect the Egyptian cosmology in which Moses was educated, or it is "God-breathed" (of no private origin, not written by human will) and thus, arguably above and outside of human understandings?
Is the real Jesus the messiah as foretold by prophets who likely had no clue at times that they were writing about a future messiah nor how what they were writing could possibly happen? Is he the one revealed in the 4 gospels and the other NT writings, or is the "real Jesus" one or more of the mutiplicity of persons described by "the scholars?" |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Mar 17, 2010; 10:49 am |
|
| lornewel wrote: | | Like a lot of other threads on this forum, we soon seem to have leave the main topic (e.g. reconciling evolution and scripture) and get into discussing our varying views on how to understand scripture. |
I think cosmology and evolution are related topics. Perhaps somewhat off the main topic.
| Quote: | | So does the content of Genesis reflect the Egyptian cosmology in which Moses was educated, or it is "God-breathed" (of no private origin, not written by human will) and thus, arguably above and outside of human understandings? |
I doubt Moses had any role in the Genesis 1 creation narrative. I would subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis with regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch. (I can't say with certainty that Moses had no role. The written sources that were compiled by a redactor, may have come from oral tradition, which may have been influenced by Moses centuries earlier. However, there are likely other influences, some that are from a context that is after the Babylonian exile). I don't take "all Scripture is God breathed" to imply that every pen stroke was dictated. The background cosmology isn't what is God-breathed, in my opinion. The life of Scripture isn't in the scientific details. It is in what the Scriptures teach us about the nature of God.
| Quote: | | Is the real Jesus the messiah as foretold by prophets, who likely had no clue at times that they were writing about a future messiah nor how what they were writing could possibly happen? Is he the one revealed in the 4 gospels and the other NT writings, or is the "real Jesus" one or more of the mutiplicity of persons described by "the scholars?" |
I think a scholarly perspective can help constrain what is true from what is not, but when the physical evidence is limited, the conclusions that can be confidently drawn from sound academic study, are also limited. Whenever possible, if the evidence gives a clear picture of what happened, then we should respect that. Oftentimes, a scholarly approach does support the historical context in various Biblical stories. I don't think it is necessarily slanted against orthodox Christian beliefs. |
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| |
Posted Mar 17, 2010; 11:29 am |
|
I suspect at the core of the disagreement is our understanding of who the primary author of the Scriptures is. I believe it is God. Todd apparently believes it is Wellhausen [that is a joke, of course :) ] This is an argument that we have gone around before and probably will again. Thankfully, from my perspective, the most important thing about the Scriptures, like any real medicine is that they are imbibed according to the prescription. According to this metaphor, the wrong view of the Scriptures can have consequences [a friend who spent time in Indonesia told of the people carrying their antibiotics around their necks like a charm rather than ingesting them] but doesn't change the work of the active agent. If the Scriptures are truly God’s Words and we study them and if the Holy Spirit has access to our hearts- they will do their work.
Is that a truly Anabaptist response, or what? :) |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Mar 17, 2010; 11:35 am |
|
| lornewel wrote: | | No scripture was the writer's own idea, but men of God wrote as they were carried along by the Spirit of God. 2 Peter 1:20-21 |
Actually, it says no prophecy of Scripture, not no Scripture. The following verse reads, "no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:21, NRSV). It's talking about prophecies (including those in Scripture), not all Scripture. This passage is one reason why I think there are grounds for saying that not all Scripture is on the same level, even while it is all inspired by God. In a given passage, the words "Thus saith the Lord" aren't the word of the Lord in the same sense as the words that follow, yet both are in some sense.
| Quote: | | So does the content of Genesis reflect the Egyptian cosmology in which Moses was educated, or it is "God-breathed" (of no private origin, not written by human will) and thus, arguably above and outside of human understandings? |
If you mean that the second option rules out the first, that's a false choice. As a wise person once wrote:
[I]t occurred to me that the same weaknesses of human sensibility which characterize us as readers or hearers of scripture were affecting the human writers of the scriptures. If the "word of the Lord" came to prophets by dreams, visions, or inner knowings, how is their recollections of those, which they later wrote down, more "objective" than the dream or vision? The only thing that I recall God writing himself was the tablets of stone.
Since God is infinite and the human writers of scripture were not; since his thoughts are higher than ours, his ways past finding out, then surely the scriptures as we have them are not the "original data." The word of God in the mind of God may be, but the understanding the prophet took from the vision in which that word was conveyed, his recollection of it, the language in which he wrote it, were all human.
I love the Bible. I trust it. I think God watches over his word and has amazingly preserved the scriptures. But I am quite nervous about claiming for the Bible what I don't exactly see God claiming for it. I do believe men of God wrote as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. But we do not have a book which was carried down from heaven by angels nor found inscribed on gold tablets in a cave somewhere. Our sacred book is composed of a variety of writings penned over a long time span by various men. For reasons I cannot fully grasp, but of which I am in awe, God said (roughly) "let us make man n our image and likeness and give him dominion in the earth." Throughout all human history, God has worked with and through man. Even to redeem, reconcile and restore the whole creation he took on human form. And he has revealed to us by his Spirit that which even angels longed to know. It is fantastic. But for reasons unknown to me, God has thereby chosen to limit himself in the earthly realm. His plan includes us with all our human limitations. Likewise his revelations come to and us humans and via us humans to others. (source)
Like Todd, and like the person I quoted, I don't believe God dictated Scripture or prevented it from containing evidence of who wrote it and what their culture and cosmology was like.
Islam claims that their holy book was written by an illiterate man, so the words are entirely divine in origin and should not even be translated. In contrast, the Bible unabashedly acknowledges -- indeed celebrates -- the mystical interplay between humans and the Holy Spirit that produced our Scriptures. Just as God stooped to take on flesh and humbled himself to both a crude manger and a cruel cross, God also stooped to speak to us through human vessels. He didn't use some high language created specifically for the purpose, but in the case of the New Testament, lisped through the rough Greek of the common people that was used for daily transactions. This is a word from God that can be translated -- that must be translated again and again -- so that it always remains the incarnate message condescended through people and language to a form our ears can hear. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Mar 17, 2010; 12:16 pm |
|
Touche, Marshall, for quoting me to me.
But that does not change my argument. I am not arguing (neither in the quote nor now) that God dictated scripture and that the humans involved were mere scribes who wrote it down. But I am arguing that its content is God-breathed, not of human origin. Therefore, its content often contradicts what human societies held as true then and now. I don't claim Genesis 1 and 2 to be a science lesson either, but to the extent it presents a view of the cosmos, it is God's view, not the Mesopotamian view.
And Todd, if Moses was not the writer of the five books of Moses, who was? I am not at all learned in ancient manuscripts, but I tend to trust Jesus and he calls that Torah part of the scripture "the book of Moses." Mark 12:26 Luke 16:29,31 |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Mar 17, 2010; 12:46 pm |
|
| James, I agree with your perspective. (Of course, saying you believe Scripture is authored by God, isn't well defined.) |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| Lorne - Moses obit ? |
Posted Mar 17, 2010; 1:11 pm |
|
Lorne,
I haven't been able to engage on this topic. But regarding the who wrote all the book(s) of Moses question.
Does believing Moses wrote these documents mean we have to believe he also wrote his own obituary?
It seems likely he didn't and a 'final editor' did. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Mar 17, 2010; 1:11 pm |
|
| lornewel wrote: |
And Todd, if Moses was not the writer of the five books of Moses, who was? I am not at all learned in ancient manuscripts, but I tend to trust Jesus and he calls that Torah part of the scripture "the book of Moses." Mark 12:26 Luke 16:29,31 |
I think amongst theologians and Biblical scholars, the idea that Moses wrote the five books of Moses is a minority view. It is the orthodox view of Orthodox Jews. I think pretty much all the mainline denominations and the Roman Catholic Church rejects this perspetive. I think the documentary hypothesis is the most widely accepted view, but there are plenty of challenges to it, too (but the challenges don't really lead toward Mosaic authorship).
The documentary hypothesis is a theory that the Pentateuch was formed after the Babylonian exile from mainly 4 source documents, which are called J, E, P, and D which were written between the 5th and 10th century BC. They were put together by a redactor(s?).
For more info, I would read the wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
I can't attach this graph, but it shows how the four sources were interwoven through the Pentateuch. The creation narrative was from the Priestly source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Documentary_Hypothesis_Sources_Distribution_English.png
As an interesting aside, the Flood story has a lot of weaving between narratives. It explains some of the apparent internal discrepancies. The Priestly account is the biggest source of the Levitical cleanliness rules, and these ideas seem to have been back-dated to the early Genesis narrative. The J source seems unaware of these rules.
Jesus would have called the Pentateuch by the same name the other Jews called it. Tradition says that Moses wrote them, and this may have been the tradition at the time. But there is no doubt that Moses is the central human figure of the Pentateuch, so the name works for that purpose as well. Whether Jesus was aware of how the Scriptures came to be, is not something I know.
Similarly, suppose evolution is true. Was God aware of it? (Obviously, yes). Was Jesus aware of it? How omniscient was Jesus? Personally, I think in being fully human, that Jesus was unaware of much of the Earth’s history, geology, and cosmology, unless the Father thought it was important for him to know. |
|
|
|
|
|
