Why should a narrative (or poem) conceived (but not necessarily written down) before God revealed anything at all about Himself be deadly accurate and continue to be theologically significant?
Just asking. (No specific personal view included)
Richard
Good question.
Modern scholars appear to think that Genesis was a late, rather than early scripture. We do not know how old the oral stories are but the final Hebrew version was apparently compiled and edited from earlier oral and written pieces during or after the Babylonian Exile, somewhere between 600-200 BCE.
Even if the first oral stories would have been really ancient, at least the Hebrew version was written in a context where the message about the Most High, YHWH-Elohim, had been told earlier and many believed it despite all the polytheistic versions of creation that were told among the ANE nations.
My understanding is that Genesis 1-3 includes theologically significant narratives but if we assume that they are ‘deadly accurate’ in a modern sense, we miss the mark.
I like your way to approach these questions. It gives the impression of an honest approach and thinking in front of challenging questions.
Do we know God’s plans and what matters to Him?
I guess we can only know what God has told us through the scriptures and guess something about His ways to act through what we can deduce from the study of the creation and life. We can speculate much but real knowledge remains hidden behind the curtains that prevent us from seeing the future.
It is sometimes difficult to understand the plans of God. The very long time periods of creation and the way how God sometimes seem to wait for centuries before acting challence our expectations that God should act rapidly, now and here. Losses of dear persons to disease or other cause, even when tens of believers are praying for healing and God could have easily healed the person, can be hard to understand. Yet, God is the one who decides, who gives and takes. We can only try to adjust our expectations to what God has done and is doing.
Even when we cannot understand the ways of God, we can believe in what He has promised. Jesus died for us and we have the promise of the Holy Spirit being with us. That tells something about how much we matter to Him.
Do you honestly think God made humans special? Or is that just human vanity.
The Fall, Original Sin (and variants), all rely on this one premise. Is there any evidence from God Himself that humanity was ever special or in a position to fall from. Or even that we are made in His image.
Richard
Jesus died for us and we have the promise of the Holy Spirit being with us. That is quite special.
It is a matter of interpretation what being made in His image means.
I support the interpretation that it refers to the role or task God gave to humans. God is Spirit, so we are hardly a picture of a physical God.
The Fall, Original Sin and variants are a matter of interpretation. I do not believe that corruption and physical death came into our world because of a wrong decision made by two historical individuals, A & E. Someone else needs to speak for these doctrines - as you have seen, there have been such comments on this Forum.
First of all, I want to say that I do not question the possibility of the Creator communicating with human beings. Moreover, I believe that the Creator has not abandoned us and continues to be involved in our lives at every moment.
I can readily imagine dreams, inner promptings, images arising in a person’s mind, and many other possible ways of such interaction.
But I think we need to clarify the question I was raising.
One thing is how the Creator may interact with a person, inspire them, help them find solutions, or enable them to create something. Quite another is how divine Revelation intended for all humanity is communicated through a human being.
Inspiration can concern almost any area of human activity. Someone may struggle with a difficult personal problem, think about it for a long time, and suddenly see something that was previously beyond their understanding. Why should we exclude the possibility of divine involvement in such a process?
But does this mean that the Creator intended to communicate something to all humanity through that individual?
I see no reason to make that inference automatically.
As Christians, we recognize Genesis as part of divine Revelation. In other words, we regard it not simply as the work of an ancient author who may have been inspired by God, but as a text through which the Creator intended to communicate something to human beings, including generations living thousands of years after it first appeared.
And whether individual people recognize this Revelation or not does not determine whom it is intended for.
Let me recall my own words from our earlier exchange.
Now consider a few examples.
Take Thomas Aquinas or C. S. Lewis. I am quite willing to believe that the Creator inspired them in their theological work. Indeed, I find it difficult to see why we should rule out that possibility in advance.
But does it follow that their writings have the same status as Genesis as divine Revelation?
Or consider Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper.
Personally, I am convinced that this work reflects not only Leonardo’s extraordinary talent but also divine inspiration.
Yet can we conclude from this that the historical Last Supper took place exactly as he depicted it? That Christ and the apostles were arranged in precisely that way, with those particular facial expressions, gestures, and postures?
Clearly, the possibility of divine inspiration does not, by itself, establish the historical accuracy of the scene depicted by the artist.
And what about science?
Could the Creator have contributed in some way to the intellectual work of Newton, Mendeleev, or even Darwin? Why not?
But we do not call their scientific works divine Revelation. We examine and assess their content on appropriate grounds, independently of how their authors arrived at their discoveries.
And this brings me back to your explanation.
You yourself emphasize that such messages require caution in their interpretation and transmission. And, as I understand your description, your community does not automatically regard every such message as reliable and binding on all Christians, much less on all humanity.
But suppose someone really does receive an image in a dream or experiences an inner prompting that they believe comes from God. The way that experience occurs does not, by itself, establish either the divine origin of its content or that the Creator intended to communicate something through it to future generations.
For me, Genesis stands in a different position.
I regard it as the Word of God conveyed through an ancient human author. I agree that it speaks through images familiar to its time (young-earth creationism is not my position). But I am not prepared simply to divide its content into what comes from God and what is merely “the taste of the vessel.”
This is precisely why I cannot claim to understand how divine Revelation was transmitted in this case. Describing possible forms of interaction with a human being is not yet an explanation of how the content and authority of Revelation are conveyed.
So I have two questions.
What allows us to distinguish a human work produced under possible divine inspiration from a text we recognize as genuine divine Revelation intended for all generations?
And how can we determine what the Creator intended to communicate through such a text, if its transmission is inevitably shaped by human language, concepts, and personal experience?
And one more thing.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this part of my previous comment. I also appreciated your thoughtful reply about God’s plans and how much we matter to Him.
There are still some other questions from my previous comment that we have not yet explored.
In particular, I remain interested in why such noticeable differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2–3 were preserved through their presumed transmission across generations and subsequent editing, and on what grounds we determine the limits of Revelation’s meaning by reference to the intellectual horizon of its earliest listeners.
I would genuinely be interested in hearing your thoughts on that side of our conversation as well.
Good questions. In this, I trust the judgement of the early church who had the apostolic teaching. What has been passed on as canonical writings has more authority than the other teachings.
I do not think that there is necessarily a strong division between inspired canonical writings and all the other Christian writings. There may be some degree of inspired teaching in the other writings but these other writings do not have such trust as the canonical scripture. We may take what is good from the writings and leave what is judged as less reliable or even false in these other writings.
I do not think that the canonical scriptures should be treated like God Himself had written the text. The scripture is inspired (God-breathed), not dictated. This follows what is written, for example in 2 Timothy:
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NIV)
The text is not the same as God and should not be treated like God. It is not either the Word of God, who is Jesus.
Scripture is an aid to guide us towards a life that is righteous and is living close to God. The scripture includes words that are told to be straight messages from God but much of the biblical scriptures is other types of text. The canonization was ‘a stamp’ that declared that the teaching is generally recognized as God-breathed and trustworthy in matters of faith, not that it is direct speech of God. We need to understand what type of text each passage and book in the library (Bible) is.
An example of this is Proverbs 16:3:
“Commit to the Lord whatever you do,
and he will establish your plans.” (NIV)
Many have taken this as a promise from God because it is written in the Bible. It is not a promise, it is a proverb. Proverbs are general wisdom telling what usually happens in life, based on common experience. Proverbs do not claim that this happens always.
Proverbs also include one of the apparent contradictions, Proverbs 26:4-5:
" Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes."
Which advice is true?
Both, you just need wisdom to see which alternative to apply in a situation.
Dogma? Cessationism? Stubbornness? Ignorance? Lack of faith that God can still speak through modern people? The wrong view of Scripture? The wrong view of Inspiration? A strang4e view of how God communicates? A lack of faith in modern Preachers and/or authority or connection to God?
The list might go on.
it would seem to boil down to a view of Scripture, though.
Forgive me, but that would seem to rely on a specific belief about apostolic teaching and the continuance of it
Relies on the view that God had any control at all in a text that was based on oral tradition long before Gd had revealed anything at all about Himself.
Again it is a dogma about the nature and content of Scripture.
Clearly the original compilers of Scripture. both Jewish and Christian valued the early chapters of Genesis, but their reasons for it are not documented, only guessed at.
Clearly Scripture should start with Ceation bit no human was there. We rely on…
what or who?
The first Creation is clearly about establishing the Sabbath and God’s sovereignty. If that is all, then perhaps that is enough?
The Garden?
I think I have made my views on it clear before now, but Tradition and human vanity prevail over common sense, and observation..
Richard
@St.Roymond already told one perspective to the question.
Based on textual differences, it is probable that these narratives had spread as oral tradition separately. It seems quite safe to assume that those compiling the final Hebrew version of Genesis saw truths in both narratives and included both narratives for that reason. As @St.Roymond explained, contradictions between the stories may be apparent, at least in the eyes of the ANE people.
The biblical scriptures are a rich source of wisdom and revelation. Even when you have read a text for years, you can suddenly realize a new viewpoint in the text. Some treat this kind of phenomena as the Holy Spirit opening the eyes of the reader to some truth in the text.
How the earliest audience understood the narrative is just a starting point, not the end to all interpretation. As long as we claim the same message as the earliest audience understood in the story, we are on safe ground. Other interpretations may complement our understanding but we easily end up on much softer ground with the other interpretations.
Why should textual differences be the only criteria? Surely it is the purpose of the writing that matters not the linguistics.
What is the purpose of the Garden narrative. What does it teach, and what does it assume. Clearly it is not meant as reality yet that is precisely how people seem to want to take it and use it. Why? Why does the status of humanity matter, rather than the teaching that we must be responsible for our actions and not deny them or excuse them.
There seems to be a reluctance to confront such ideas, with a prefferance on dismissal on theological or even personal grounds.
Richard
The text says so, though being imagers of God seems like more of a burden than a blessing.
And?
Who authored the text? Using what information
(God had not revealed Himself to humanity yet)
Richard
I think it was Origen who delineated seven levels of meaning of “the word of God”, starting with Jesus and ending with sermons/homilies.
That fits how Peter effectively defines inspiration: as being “moved by God”.
Good point – especially since neither account qualifies as history.
Amen – the trick is delving into that starting point so points of comparison can be made.
For example, the opening Creation account is a polemic against the gods of Egypt (and by extension of Babylon). But how does that apply to us, given not many people worship such pantheons any longer?
I think by what Knor meant, “textual differences” includes the literary genre, and genre is a big pointer to the intent/purpose of the writer.
As far as I can tell, the first version came from Moses writing down oral tradition; there are signs of editing around the time of the late southern kingdom – some argue that Jeremiah’s’ scribe Baruch did those – and others at the time of the Exile.
Oral tradition.
Precisely.
There is little doubt that the first story has been adapted to enforce Jewish doctrine, but the garden appears to have less significance, in fact, according to a Jewish web site, the Fall is not seen as tenable.
The whole notion of humanity being made perfect or elevated is found throughout all early manuscripts no matter the culture or faith. it is a very human view of humanity.
I would suggest that the insistence of the Fall in Christian Doctrine has ulterior or biased motives aimed at Eternal Life while playing down the value of forgiveness in this earthly life.
Richard
It was common in the ANE to regard humans as flawed and undependable at best. Regarding humans as starting out “very good” or even just “good” is in fact unique to the Tanakh in the ANE. References to humans being good tend to be to kings (but not all) or priests (again not all).
As far as I can find, the closest assessment to “good” was among indigenous American peoples and some others who portrayed the first humans as working right (which Walton might argue is what Genesis means, too).
I am not sure what you are saying or trying to prove. We were and are born Morally/spiritually neutral. That is as near logic as most religions get. From then on? Nature v Nurture + free will = individuality.
There are very few instances where one size fits all. I see no reason to include religion amongst them.
Of course that might tempt others to claim a disrespect of Scripture, but then, I do not care what others think, only God matters, and He seems Ok at present. Maybe someday I will find out exactly. When that day comes? It is out of my hands anyway so what the heck.
Richard
You were claiming that a high view of humanity was common to religion. I showed that it isn’t.
Y e s, simplistic to the last.
I haven’t got time now.
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.