And editors.
Yes – we are reading other people’s mail.
2 Likes
This discussion is interesting. What caused me to do a lot of investigation and pondering is the question of whether my own beliefs have to mirror or parallel the beliefs of the biblical authors, editors, compilers, etc. who were (supposedly) inspired by the Holy Spirit to produce a (supposedly) inerrant text.
Whatever Paul believed the Genesis story to be, he believed in an historical Adam. Jesus seems to as well. But then again they both also believed in a three-tier universe. So must I believe now what they believed then? The beliefs and assumptions about the world they had, some of them at least, are false. Jesus believed untrue things. Paul believed untrue things. The rest of the Biblical authors believed untrue things. As science and knowledge and understanding of the world grew andncontinues to grow, we see more and more the untrue things they believed. I would put in that category of “believed untrue things” the historicity of the flood. Jesus believed in something that did not happen (at least not in the way Genesis 6 describes it). I also include the Exodus and Conquest accounts. Did something happen? Yes. But what happened was ancient Israelite (former Canaanites) people re-interpreted and changed and expanded the story to turn it into an origin story. It did not happen the way it is recorded in the books of Genesis-Joshua.
But Jesus and other OT & NT authors believed in events recorded there. It seems to me they believed it actually happened.
Must I believe what they believed? Or did they believe false things? Did they write their letters with a mistaken understanding of the “actual facts”? My answer is yes. But I would be interested to hear the ways others answer this question. Thank you.
2 Likes
Absolutely Nick. So if Jesus were God incarnate, fully human with ignorance and enculturation, then his understanding of his mission is included. All we need is a fossil of transcendent Love, to make all the meaningless suffering of creation irrelevant. He acted in absolute good faith.
1 Like
- To those who see in the Shroud of Turin the material testimony of resurrectional transformation, it is “a fossil of Love”.
1 Like
Yeahhhhh. I meant an unequivocal one. Such as doesn’t exist in nature or the story. No [blind] faith required.
1 Like
Authority is targeted not absolute. So the question of the authority of scripture must specify the target… authority for WHAT? Authority for computer repair? NO. Authority for medicine? NO. Authority for the details of how the universe came into being? NO. Authority to dictate what God can do? NO. Authority on ethics? NO.
What authority does it have then?
It has authority for what Christian belief consists of. This is its authority in both Christian consensus and practice… though this is in addition to agreements on its creed. Christians feel obligated to back up claims about what Christian belief consists of by finding support for it in the text of the Bible. It is the general consensus that support from the text of the Bible is authoritative for what Christian belief consists of. The very fact that Christians argue over what the texts actually means only supports this all the more.
There is no consensus that support from the text of the Bible is authoritative for other things.
So does Genesis 1 mean that Christian belief consists of creationism and opposition to evolution? No. This is because Christians understand that details on how the universe came into being is not what Genesis 1 is addressing. Instead, it is addressing the rather common belief that things like sun, moon, stars, sea, animals, and plants are gods to say instead that these are things created by one God.
2 Likes
It sounds like you would really get on with a former member of this forum - @Klax looks to me like you two would have a lot in common. If you do, ask him if he happens to have a fossil of transcendent Love in his cabinet of curiosities
1 Like
How would I contact him marta? What happened to him?
I seem to be following what you are saying. But my understanding of the nature of the doctrine of Creation is that WE…modern day “science-minded” Christians posting here on BioLogos, readers of John Walton, and others who have made a view like this popular, WE have decided what Genesis 1 is and is not about. The early church, the creeds, theologians for hundreds (thousands?) of years before us did not agree with us. Of course there was no univocal understanding and interpretation, but it certainly wasn’t what many here believe or think about those texts. My guess (and it is a bit of a guess) is that they would be horrified.
Here’s what my question boils down to: If Jesus believed something and talked about it in a way that seems to indicate they believe it was an historical event (Adam & Eve, Flood, Jonah, etc.), do we have to believe that like he did? If an inspired writer believed something, must we believe it too? Why or why not?
How does a poetic, ancient text describing events that didn’t happen point you to confidence in God’s creation?
I’m not trying to be controversial. This is genuine wrestling I am doing. I am at this point in time in my life a former Evangelical turned agnostic Christian. And these are some of the issues that are at the heart of my doubts and confusion. Thanks!
1 Like
No, I think it is what the writers intended.
I think Augustine would disagree with you.
Of course it is true that many of the uneducated thought or assumed many incorrect things like the Earth being flat (and perhaps even some of the writers of the Bible thought this too).
But I think the church fathers were more intelligent and educated than you assume as well as more focused upon the essential message of the gospel. I think it likely that most didn’t even ask the question of how God created things but simply assumed this was something beyond their understanding.
1 Like
Science may be one motivation or at least aspect, but in my case it’s the text and treating it as the ancient literature it is.
Given that serious scripture-based suggestions for the age of Creation ran as high as billions (and one guy went for a trillion) of years, and they knew that sheep could be bred for better characteristics, I think most would go, “Huh – isn’t God awesome?”
“Seems to” is key here: Jesus may have been just accommodating to His audience, the way Yahweh did all along in the Old Testament.
That depends on the particular instance. If you mean the first Creation story in Genesis, it was never meant to be “describing events” in any scientific or material way, it was – using temple inauguration and royal chronicle – describing truths through setting out mytho-theological accounts. It isn’t poetry, though both those literary types use poetic elements, but they are far from being scientific or historical assertions.
2 Likes
In which case he wasn’t fully human. And exercised no faith at all. Including that he’d been Yawheh. God the Killer.
The church fathers et al. were fallible humans, apparently with many wrong assumptions about the world. When they wrote about the creation and picked examples from there, they demonstrated their ability to teach the listeners and at the same time, their lack of knowledge. For example, the first letter of Clements used the phoenix bird as an example in a manner showing that the writer believed in the stories told about this bird. At some point in church history, it was discussed whether 1 Clements should be included in the canon. It was not included but if it would have been, our Bibles would include a long description about the biology of the phoenix bird.
It should be noted that the phoenix bird or the other examples taken from the creation (or assumed creation) were literary means used to help the listeners to understand and accept the message, not part of the core message itself. The basic teaching may have been healthy, the teaching was just illustrated with examples taken from the worldview of the listeners.
Sometimes the wrong beliefs about the creation or other matters may have lead to conclusions that may be hard to defend today. For example, some conclusions made by the church father Augustine of Hippo are controversial and debated. Some take the conclusions accepted by the contemporary church leaders as truths (anathema if you do not accept them), many think that we should inspect his conclusions with healthy criticism - accept or reject depending on what stands or does not stand (constructive) critical evaluation.
Augustine was a highly educated person that would have been classified as an ‘academic professor’ according to modern use of language, so his conclusions were as intelligent and educated as was possible during that time. That does not quarantee that the conclusions were correct.
4 Likes
The same can be said of the some of the greatest early scientists. He he…
As for Augustine… I am not really much of a fan. Some of his ideas were horrific. But he did believe Christians should avoid opposing the findings of science.
3 Likes
Methinks you are not very serious about Christianity,
Perhaps there is a difference between what the Jews (AKA authors of the Old Testament) thought, and what God actually did. or made happen.
Your words have a judgemental overtone that is not befitting of refering to God
Richard
1 Like
No – in which case He wasn’t a fallen human.
Not “been”, was (and still is ).
Not much of a student of literature, are you? People don’t write objective material, they write what they understand.
Try reading this: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25413286-a-more-christlike-god
1 Like
Or at least has a very shallow understanding.
1 Like
The authors of scripture were writing in the best knowledge they had at the time of how the universe worked. We do the same today, we know more than they did, but also the way science works makes it likely we believe something now that in the distant future will be considered false.
God accommodates us in our understanding at any given stage of human development. Same as a parent does their child when explaining something complex. Same as my physics professor In college did when teaching me algebra based physics instead of calculus based as I couldnt comprehend calculus. He saw something elegant and beautiful in the calculus of it, but it was beyond my understanding.
1 Like
Thank you for your words Dogdoc (and work taking care of furry friends…if you are a vet 
)
I definitely understand what you are saying. But I am not convinced enough by the idea of accommodation that I don’t still have further questions. One reason I am not convinced enough is that accommodation assumes that the Bible is (or at least contains) some kind of communication that comes from God. God only needs to accommodate to these ancient people if God were actually communicating with them. I am just not so sure anymore that God was.
If the Bible is God’s accommodated communication to the ancient people of Canaan, the actual words and stories are secondary to some kind of “hidden” meaning, then why not also say the same thing about the communication to the ancient people of the Indus Valley for example that came to be known as Hindus with their own sacred texts? If the communication is taking myths to communicate truths, then do the myths really even matter? Couldn’t any myth be used then for this purpose? And then other sacred stories and books may just also be of the same character as the story in Genesis 1. Why was God communicating only to Israel in Genesis 1 and not also to Babylonians through the Epic of Gilgamesh?
My belief at this time is that the Bible is not God’s communication to people. The Bible is an attempt by ancient people to explain the unexplainable (creation, sin, death, love, suffering, worship, etc.). It is the reaching up to God/Heaven/Meaning (not God handing down God’s words).
God has not accommodated modern humans living now. All we have is a 2000+ year old book that is confusing! I would LOVE some modern day accommodation! 
1 Like