Offense? What I saw was nonsense not offense. You didn’t answer the question. WHAT is it you imagine I am coping with?
The truth is that I only find Christianity believable BECAUSE of evolution. Without evolution the problem of evil would sink theism into an ocean of foolishness.
I have and always had many options. Atheism looks more than fine to me. I routinely defend it as a perfectly rational option. Rather than frightening, I find the idea of nonexistence after death rather comforting and cool. Then there are other religions like Buddhism (minus the reincarnation nonsense) which sound pretty good to me. I am frank about my readiness to drop Christianity and the Bible into the garbage and would do so rather than accept descriptions of God which sound demonic and criminal to me, eager to go with hopeless defiance like Camus in “Myth of Sisyphus.”
Only for literary scholars studying the Bible. I am not the slightest bit interested in that. What do I care about the foolish notions of some long dead culture whose comprehension of reality extends only a few thousand miles around them and a few thousand years into the past and future?
LOL The only question I have is whether to shelve this book with the fantasy books next to “The Odyssey” and “Lord of the Rings.” I have little reason to care what someone has decided to imagine is in the head of someone who died thousands of years ago – most like putting those things in that person’s head for reasons of their own. That is one I will definitely shelve with the fantasy books.
That would be the same connection with reality which tells me that Tolkien likely didn’t believe in magic rings and goblins. Sure it is possible those Bible book writers believed in talking animals and magic fruit because schizophrenia is real after all. But like I said, such imaginings is no concern of mine.
I can’t speak for Mitchell but I don’t think he’s making his biblical interpretation fit science. That’s concordism. He’s not changing the Bible to teach science. He’s saying the Bible is not scientific work. So when he’s reading something and it seems to be anti scientific or historical knowledge that tunes him into knowing it’s not literal. That may not be the only lens he uses just a tool to helping get to a better interpretation.
Inspiration doesn’t have to be limited to one person, so it could apply to everyone who has passed on the oral traditions, those that wrote them down, those that trascribed and edited them, and so on.
I also don’t see a problem with Genesis being both inspired and mythical. Jesus taught in parables, so it seems appropriate for the same teaching tool to be used in the Old Testament. I also suspect that we in the post-modern science era put way more emphasis on literal facts than ancient peoples did.
Judging by what is in the Old Testament, the original authors thought the Earth was flat and stationary while the Sun moved about it. So what do we do with this? Do Christians then need to adopt a Flat Earth or Geocentrist stance? Was the Roman Catholic Church in the right when they persecuted Galileo for daring to propose that the Earth moves about the Sun?
Ah, I understand now, thank you. Ways of describing the world that seem to contradict our current knowledge about nature and science can be viewed as examples of accomodation. That is what you’re getting at, right?
What are the other options? One could go down the science denial route, or one could conclude that the Bible is false because it doesn’t accurately describe the universe around us.
The main thing that makes me uncomfortable with this idea I think is that it introduces a whole lot of uncertainty. We have no idea how many versions of creation, fall, flood, etc. existed and we also have no way of knowing if these are theologically (not scientifically or in their physical detail) consistent with the final version. The idea that the OT narratives and texts “evolved” over time gives room to the possibility that some versions portrayed or told things about God that contradict the final canon we have now. You get me? I was brought up and always believed in the idea that Genesis and the rest of the OT books were simply written down by an author who was inspired by God. But if they were developed over generations, then again, it is possible that God himself changed with these texts, since we don’t have a “definitive” version of it. This renders Christianity as man-made as non-theists view any other religion, doesn’t it?
Being a non-theist, I don’t believe in divine inspiration for any religious text. However, I don’t see how having many authors would negate the possibility of divine inspiration. It seems that you are more uncomfortable with changing the beliefs you were raised with than with the idea of ongoing and unfolding inspiration.
I think you are right about this honestly. It just makes me very uncomfortable, but now that I think it about it, it really just shifts my faith in inspiration from one definite, original author (Moses or whoever) to generations of people who retold and maintained the story, perhaps as @Christy said to have it serve different purposes based on a given context. The text is still divinely inspired, it simply has more divinely inspired retellers, editors, etc., not just one. And to return to the original question, the fact that the final compiler/editor saw fit to put these next to each other around 600 BC still shows that ancient israelites (as well as the divinely inspired editor/compiler) were not concerned with both creation narratives being contradictory in the physical, modern-historical, “what really happened” sense, therefore the intended purposes of these narratives can still be affirmed to not be giving a physically true, detailed account of how the cosmos and life came to exist, but to serve theological purposes.
At this moment I think this is my conclusion and what I’ve learned from this thread. I would appreciate if @Christy and @jpm could tune in, their answers so far were very helpful.
Now that much I think is entirely reasonable. I think it VERY likely this was told in an oral tradition long before it was written down. And I think this was long before the specialization of human activities into such things as history, law, philosophy, religion, and entertainment, so I am certain it served a great variety of those purposes. In fact, I believe this is what gives this and so many other stories told a recognizable mythical character. Doesn’t mean it is a work of fiction or that the people in the stories didn’t exist – not at all. It is more like how we have learned that memory works, more based on what we see as important, and on what we have learned from the past, rather than the simple recording of events.
But as for this divinely inspired business, I am not quite so stingy with that attribute. I think divine inspiration pours down upon us in a torrent in everything. So I think a bit more of the Bible than just that – a book authored by God using people and events as His writing instruments, given authority over Christianity, and God with the intellectual property rights which no one should alter as they see fit.
For me, that could come under the category of trivializing it a bit too much. Depends on how you mean that I guess.
For me, that could come under the category of trivializing it a bit too much. Depends on how you mean that I guess.
Can you elaborate on that please? By writing that I meant that I don’t think ancient israelites (whether the people spoke Genesis, wrote down Genesis, or edited/compiled Genesis) were intending to convey a physically true account like what we today consider to be “history”, but to convey messages about God’s character and how he relates to us.
Also I apologize for my incorrect statements earlier, I only recently adopted the view that Genesis wasn’t meant as fundamentalists interpret it and despite reading a lot of articles on BioLogos and making/reading several posts here, I still have basically no answers and only questions. This currently causes me a lot of confusion and I am very emotional about all this, as I’m questioning my base view of chrisianity, which is the base of my worldview, lifestyle, etc. I understand that reinterpreting the entirety of Scripture in this non-fundamentalist way is a lifetime journey or reading the texts, commentaries, articles, books, etc. but for now I honestly just want to be confident that there is a plausible interpretation of Genesis 1-2 that allows for an acceptance of evolution, old earth, etc. Until yesterday I mostly based this science-compatible interpretation on the fact that Genesis 1-2 tell different creation narratives, meaning that surely they weren’t originally meant to serve as literalistic reconstructions how how the world came to exist materially. That basis has now been all but destroyed it seems, and now I’m still left with the possibility that ancient israelites may very well have intended it to be a literalistic reconstruction (since they weren’t aware of the contradictions), so I’m now looking for other evidence of the same interpretation. I know this isn’t the forum to discuss this, but as I’ve stated, this situation leaves me in a very disturbed emotional state, so again, do excuse me please if I say nonsensical things, because A, I’m not in a clear emotional state and I probably won’t be until I’m assured to a certain degree and B, I have very, very little knowledge on all these things, and I’m simply here to learn, not to discuss, since all of you are clearly much more knowledgeable on these things.
Looking forward to your reply, @mitchellmckain
I am sorry for the distress you feel, and think it is very understandable and appropriate, as I still have some of the same feelings at times. One thing that I have learned along the way is to be more comfortable with uncertainty, and even with doubt. We don’t have to know everything, and in fact, those who think they do most likely are deluded in some respects. Enns is a controversial writer at times, but his thoughts on that issue is helpful in dealing with uncertainty.
It helps to read and see how different views of scripture can be truthful. I plan on reading “The Manifold Beauty of Genesis One” soon which gives several different views of Genesis, relatively free from the origins debate side.
Blessings on your journey.
Thinking about it afterwards . . . if God is all knowing and all powerful I don’t think more than one author would be a problem for getting his message across.
I do understand the discomfort, though. When you have believed something for decades it can be uncomfortable to question it and consider alternatives. I think that is a human trait we all share.
Even in modern times we have urban myths and embellished stories. For example, George Washington didn’t chop down a cherry tree, but the truths and social meaning of the story mean a lot more than the historical accuracy of it. Does it really bother anyone that the story was invented by George Washington’s campaign manager? Not really. Does it mean that lying is actually moral because the story was invented? Absolutely not.
Sorry… it was mostly a knee jerk reaction thinking that if this was just about someone’s theological opinion then that would seem a bit trivial to me. But… then I realized you could mean something quite different by this, i.e. that this was theological content and I am hardly thinking that something is trivial just because it is theological which basically means about God.
Yeah, I am afraid, I am coming rather from left field (pun with “left” not intended LOL) for most people. It is only natural that it takes a few exchanges for my meaning to become more clear.
And I am coming from the opposite direction in all this. And a big part of it was to understand the limitations of the objective approach of science. It is all very good and I will defend science tooth and nail if it is challenged. But I went for religion and Christianity because I came to understand that the objective observation approach in science is hardly appropriate for life in general. Life requires subjective participation. The result is that for me, religion and objectivity are like oil and water. Any supposed objectivity in religion is purely imaginary and I certainly make no pretense of it. For me affirming the reality and importance of the subjective is the whole point of religion.
I am reminded of Socrates’ search for wisdom… LOL At least know that you don’t know…
We all have different areas of expertise, though. Mine is masters in physics and a masters in divinity… and the latter is a smattering of different subjects (philosophy, Biblical sudies, church history, psychology, world religion) and only a bare introduction in these really.
Thank you, I found your reply interesting. Regarding your religious beliefs, I would like to ask based on how you explained objectivity and subjectivity and how they relate to religion and science, whether or not you believe that the Christian God is a real entity? I don’t require much elaboration, it’s just a trivial question that came up in me while reading your reply.
I think objective basically means it is the same for everyone and subjective means it is different for different people. Our basic access to reality is subjective and the objective is an abstract construction. I think we have good evidence that there is an objective aspect to reality but I don’t see any evidence supporting the claim that reality is exclusively objective. Thus I believe there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality itself. I pretty much identify the objective with the physical and the subjective with the spiritual. This means that while that physical is based on mathematical space time laws of nature (which is what makes the physical the same for everyone), the spiritual is very responsive to our beliefs and desires.
Yes I believe God is real, though the Christian description is only a very limited access to a God who is infinite in nature. What makes Him fundamentally subjective is that God can never be studied under a microscope. Our only access is the extremely limited experiences of finite beings whose contact with the infinite cannot even hope to encompass God in their understanding – thus different for different people as well as very responsive to our beliefs and desires, just as I defined the subjective.
There is always a lot to say about inspiration and it’s a nuanced topic. I don’t personally believe the Bible is inspired because it is a conclusion one draws from reading the texts. (Like some people reason the Bible is just so correct or beautiful or true, it has to be inspired because there is no other explanation for how it could be the way it is. I don’t think that is very good reasoning, or why the church accepts the Bible as the inspired word of God.) I don’t think that is how the canon was decided. The idea of “the Bible as the inspired word of God” didn’t exist before the Bible existed. I believe the canon was decided under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and that God’s spirit was involved in the whole process of bringing the authors and texts to their current form and more importantly God’s spirit is involved in using those texts over and over again in all different times, cultures, places, and languages to reveal the character of God, reveal what God wants from humanity and what he has done to bring us into relationship with him, and discipline believers in wisdom and righteousness.
Here is a (free) article on inspiration from Bible scholar Michael Bird that I like a lot.
This comes from who we believe God is and how we believe God communicates with us. These are faith claims, not something we can prove from the uniqueness of the text. I believe them because it is the testimony of the church through history and based on my own experience with God using Scripture in my life to do all the things I just mentioned.