The mistake that you’re making here is that you assume that I’m defending a literal interpretation of Biblical scripture. My philosophy is simply to avoid falsehood, and I extend that to absolute every aspect of my being. If it’s true, it’s true. If it’s not true, then it’s not true. It’s so simple as that. I don’t defend a literal interpretation of scripture at all because many aspects of scripture are clearly intended to be metaphorical, just like absolutely every other example of human language. It’s not unique to the Christian bible. For instance, I doubt that Genesis 1 is intended to be interpreted literally. This is one reason why I doubt that creation was ever intended to be expressed as taking place in six days. I don’t know exactly what that means, and I don’t know how old the earth is for instance. Claims to the opposite from modern science and BioLogos notwithstanding, neither do they.
Again, I say all this to make it very clear that I’m not committed to any interpretation of reality, narrow or otherwise, because of a priori commitment to worldview.
No, it’s an irrelevant post. The question is whether the genealogical accounts in Genesis are true and intended to be true, not whether genealogies of Japanese imperial families are accurate.
First of all, I never want to “get rid of or ignore” any part of the Scriptures. There is value for me in every part of it (even in those boring genealogies ). So whether a point is made allegorically, poetically, or historically, that point is still part of teachings inspired by the Holy Spirit!
Secondly, there are consistent ways to discern the intended teaching of a particular text. Most importantly, you have to take into account that the original audience at whom most parts of the Bible were directed were people from an Ancient Near-Eastern civilization. This process is not about getting rid of anything. On the contrary, it is about developing an understanding that takes us deeper into the text and into the teaching.
Thirdly, I believe that the (local) flood was a real event and Noah an actual person. I don’t interpret the flood account allegorically. However, as Jesus makes clear in His explanation in Luke 17:26, the actual sense of the flood account is that is foreshadows the End of Times, essentially preparing humanity for it.
As I said before, my position does not entail that Jesus was all knowing on every single topic imaginable. This is in accordance with the doctrine of kenosis: the self-emptying of the Son of God in the flesh. Jesus didn’t know when the End of Times would come (Mark 13:32). Similarly, He could have had a different impression of the natural history of the world. No problem. It didn’t affect the point of His teachings in any way: “I am the Way, the Life, and the Truth.”
I admit that this is a good and rational solution to many of the objections here. The only problem is that it appears that those objections really don’t have much substance.
Hi Joseph! I’m glad that my ramblings are making some sense. Could you clarify for me what you mean to say when you state that “those objections really don’t have much substance”?
Well, concerning Matthew 13:32 which a former poster makes to be a problem isn’t necessarily. The word in question is what’s rendered as “smallest” in the KJV Bible. Importantly and remarkably, the New American Standard Bible translates the same word as “smaller.” Do you know why it does? It does because the word in question, μικρότερον, is ambiguous in that it can be either a comparative OR a superlative. Therefore, it could be translated as “smaller” or “smallest.” The most literal translation of the original Greek could therefore be “the smaller of all the seeds,” which gives a completely different impression and meaning than “the smallest of all the seeds.” In the former case, it would obviously mean that the mustard-seed is humbler than all other seeds, which fits very well with the point of the entire parable.
In addition to that, in either translation of μικρότερον, it really depends on how you interpret the concept of “small.” This could be interpreted literally, and it could be interpreted figuratively. In any case it’s not problematic, but its importance seems to have been exaggerated precisely because it’s a point that’s been made in the past by hostile critics to discredit the Christian bible. What I’m really beginning to recognize in BioLogos (though this isn’t a criticism) is that their doctrine is principally an attempt to reconcile Biblical exegesis with hostile critics.
Of course it is (indirectly) relevant, though certainly it does not settle the matter. The common assertion is that, because genealogies appear in Genesis and later (eg Chronicles), therefore this is strong evidence that those accounts are intended to be historically accurate. Really? Why? The example from Japan shows that this is not a universal “given”; it needs to be supported. What positive reason is there to think that ANE cultures, and specifically Hebrew/Israelite culture, always used genealogy in a literal sense? Without positive support, the presence of genealogy in the OT does not necessarily indicate strong historicity - that’s the point.
It has been my experience that convinced Young-Earthers and fervent New Atheists often wield their exegetical swords in comparable ways. Either way, that approach seems to be detrimental to understanding the depth of the teachings of the Scriptures.
Sure, but whether you find that ridiculous is whether you give credence to evolutionary theory, of which I’ve become quite suspicious. I could make the point that the apparently allegorical character of Genesis 1 could have very well served to support universal belief in biological evolution and deep time in a hypothetical past Christian population where the rest of the world believed that the earth was only between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, when the rest of world and indeed the secular population found the belief in deep time and biological evolution among Christians ridiculous because their bible supported it. But what does that prove? For the record, I don’t mean to say that I agree with the absolute literal interpretation of scripture that young-earth creationists present. They might be right. Maybe they’re not. Maybe everyone is wrong. But it doesn’t prove anything.
Your argument is that because Japanese imperial families present inaccurate genealogies, proof must be presented that Israelites did not do the same. This is a fallacy.
If you take the comparative meaning, you translate it “smaller than all the seeds.” How is this any different semantically than “the smallest of all the seeds”?
The point of bringing it up is to point out the inconsistency some people have in approaching the Bible like a science text book in some places (Genesis 1-11). It is obvious to most normal people that Matthew 13:32 is not a “problem” for inerrancy, even if the mustard seed is not really the smallest seed in the world. It was the smallest seed in the universe of discourse at the time and Jesus’ meaning (the Kingdom may look insignificant and unimpressive, but it will grow and turn into something substantial and lasting) has nothing to do with a botany lesson and the meaning is perfectly clear in the context.
I don’t think BioLogos cares much what atheists think of them or the Bible. We do care about the hostile critics from the young earth side, because we are supposed to be on the same team. We also think it is sad when hostile criticism of biblical literalism from atheists causes people to walk away from their faith, because biblical literalism isn’t a necessary part of Christianity.
But how is a scientific approach to Biblical exegesis even relevant here? I concede your point, but more relevantly, I pointed out that it’s not a problem since it depends on whether you literally or figuratively interpret the word. I don’t understand how what it has to do with a “scientific” approach. Why would anyone interpret it in terms of science?
Help me understand your point. You’re saying that because the genealogy of Japanese imperial families is inaccurate, it wasn’t intended to be history. I don’t understand how this follows necessarily. Additionally and importantly, it appears that historians only question the accuracy of the genealogies. So what? What does that have to do with whether genealogies in Genesis were intended to be historical?
You’re right that its difficult to assess authorial intention (or audience reception, for that matter) at such a far cultural remove. Perhaps these genealogies and similar lists were originally intended and believed to be literally true by some, or even by many. Perhaps this reception changed over time as well.
What I think we can say, though, is that the function they performed / message they imparted (legitimization of rule, or culturally-defining distinctive, or whatever) was always their primary purpose - because, as far as I know, that’s how we see them being used in context. Eg, in Matthew we see biblical genealogy being used to link Jesus back into Israel’s story from foundation (Abraham) to pinnacle (David) to exile (Jeconiah) to restoration (Jesus), as Matthew himself states. This is typical Matthew, connecting Jesus to the arc of Israel’s story to show his audience how Jesus fills-full that story. It’s his purpose, and why he considers the genealogies important. In contrast, eg, the adding-up of years in genealogies to work back to a ‘date of creation’ isn’t something seen, with how the biblical genealogies are used, until the medieval period in the West, a context quite foreign to the original.
If message and function are what has mattered, then historical intent must have been of secondary concern - and the former can perhaps standalone apart from the latter, just as with many other literary genres used in the Bible (like parable). We see this happening today in modern Japan where the Imperial family tree is still honored and “part of the story” even though hardly anyone takes it literally. Can we rule-out that was not the case among anyone in the deep past too?
And certainly there are fantastical aspects to many of these genealogies/lists - such as the tremendous ages of the Sumerian kings - that many people in the ancient world would have found just as hard to believe literally as we do. (I think it is a modern conceit that only modern people are hard-nosed and skeptical, and ancient people were universally gullible.) And yet despite that, these lists flourished. Perhaps that was because people didn’t think that literal accuracy was what they were based upon.
Putting it all together, this is what makes me suspect the intention and reception, at least among some, was that these lists were not necessarily entirely historical.
If you spend some time on some of the more prominent young earth websites, you will notice that the scientific approach to exegesis is their approach to the Bible. The ‘plain meaning’ or ‘literal sense’ of nearly every statement in the Bible that can be construed as a fact (there are some parts they concede are metaphors or imagery not meant to be taken literally) must be true in a scientific sense in order to maintain their view of biblical authority.
I have said, “The Bible isn’t a science textbook” and been told that is a liberal, unbiblical thing to say, by people who believe that every statement in the Bible about nature is an inerrant fact. (I think @martin who is participating on this thread has been one to say such things to me in the past, and he was one person Ted was responding to. Maybe Ted assumed you had this approach to Scripture too.)
So instead of saying, “Who cares? That obviously wasn’t the point!” when people mention that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed known to humanity, some young earth creationists feel compelled to come up with a convoluted explanation about how Jesus really knew that the orchid seed was the smallest, but he didn’t mention it, because only the category of “garden herb” seeds is being discussed in this context, in which case, what Jesus said is scientifically accurate.
"How the Bible is understood: Human authors wrote as inspired by God’s Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16). God supervised the exact words used originally, even to the point of the actual choice of correct idiomatic expressions, without circumventing the personalities of the writers. In this way, the Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative—whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, questions of daily life, or matters of scientific importance The Bible is the ONLY revelation authorized by God, apart from personal guidance in daily matters.
Considering the conflicts between Genesis genealogies and Chronicles genealogies… I don’t know how you can give much credibility to either …
The point of the reference to the Japanese genealogies is that a scribal desire to enhance or theologically infuse significance into the family history of those referenced is TO BE EXPECTED … rather than some sort of shocking departure…
Genesis never claims to be allegory. so to call it that without proof to back it up is error in my personal mind.as i asked before where does the true solidly founded scriptures begin and where does the allegory begin when reading the bible and how can you tell what is what? I have a Bible believers commentary that helps me and it is very conservative in thought on the scriptures. I do love it.
). So whether a point is made allegorically, poetically, or historically, that point is still part of teachings inspired by the Holy Spirit!