The entire area of history, stories and language is fascinating - I found out when I did a few history units at college, that much of what was recorded by ancient rulers (Egypt, Babylon and Greek/ Macedonian, were put down in tablets, papyrus, architecture etc., more to please the particular self-centred ruler, and not to provide an accurate record. I still have the impression that stories narrated by small tribal communities had far more truth content and communal value, that these official ‘make-up’ stuff.
It is also worth noting that the question(s) of language, written or spoken, within the context of the Judean/Christian faith, were (I think for the first time) seriously considered when discussing revelation. The Patristic writings in particular, discussed a lawful utterance regarding God, especially because they realised the limitations of human speech, and human understanding. Inspired by the Holy Spirit is an especially important area, as it cannot include forced into understanding - thus the topic will eventually turn to meaning that is contained within a human being, bringing in the often discussed (and also very poorly understood) notion of subjectivity.
This type of talking is in my opinion, a perversion of both language and meaning. If it is true in a different sense, then it is false in the normal sense, not as a value judgement, but as a matter of fact.
I agree with this. And this makes the way we understand it quite different from much other ancienct literature, even though ocassionally we may find other some examples of ancient literature also approaching the veracity and reliability of scripture. The standard is different for scripture. Of course, there is a bias, but a bias does not imply a necessity for false facts, or for unreliability; a bias can simply be evident by the facts chosen, or by the interpretation applied to the facts. Arguing that a bias justifies or explains unreliability is a whole different thing.
Well as christians we ought to step outside of modern and ancient paradigms anyway. That should be our norm. Perhaps one modern paradigm is that we assume that ancient stories cannot tell the unvarnished truth. Perhaps that is one modern paradigm that we should separate ourselves from.
Yes, authority lies with the speaker, especially if the speaker is God, or if a prophet of God. ( Although even prophets often were disregarded.) But this applies only to original speech. If an ancient story is well known, and a speaker is constantly getting it wrong, then the listeners will lose confidence in the speaker, whether in a modern or ancient culture. In that way the story teller will lose authority. In fact, a good story teller would sometimes make deliberate errors just to test the memory of his listeners, who would often listen to the same story over and over again, primarily to allow the younger members of the society to learn the story for themselves. It is wrong to imply stupidity to ancient cultures, as if they would inevitably be unaware of or careless of contradictions and errors. Of course, history is controlled by those with power, and audiences would not quickly contradict kings, if kings told the story. But we cannot argue that this applies necessarily to all stories, and especially not to scripture. With a written culture, oral culture would lose some of its guidelines and rigidity, since it would be used less often, and would not be relied on as much.
The stories of genesis would retain their reliability mostly because of the multi-generational oral transfer, which allowed the constant verification. Think of how many generations could listen to the same story at the time of Methuselah, or Noah, or Shem. Telling the story twice a year meant that some people would hear the same story hundreds of times, and they would know it as well as many people today know Psalm 23, or the parable of the sower, or the prodigal son. How else would they remember the ages of all their ancestors.
Because any given word or phrase only ever has one sense and can only ever be used in one way?
There is no such thing as “the normal sense” of a word. You’re mind is always working to find the most relevant sense to the context of the senses you are aware of, which may not be all of them. (Which is why when we read about someone being 900 years old, we pause, because given our culture’s use of numbers, that does not strike us as a relevant use of numbers for the context. Maybe for different people it was.)
If you have figured out a 100% accurate way to discern the intended meaning of a word/phrase used by someone two thousand years ago in a different language, there are a lot of translators who would love in on the secret. The truth value of an utterance is always relative to the reality it describes and the meaning we ascribe to the words used in our attempt to comprehend it. It isn’t some absolute thing. We don’t have absolute knowledge about the reality being described or the language used to communicate about that reality.
That may indeed describe how oral tradition is passed along in some cultures. You cannot assume it is the way oral tradition is passed along in every culture, or that the value you have for “historical accuracy” and avoiding factual “errors” is shared by every culture. It isn’t. In many cultures, the keepers of the history have a certain amount of latitude to shape the text to their audience and context. This is not considered a “corruption.”
The truth is, we don’t know what cultural rules were in operation as the oral tradition that our Scripture is based on was handed down through multiple generations in multiple languages and cultures until it was recorded in its current form. We do know the people’s language changed dramatically and they were at different times enslaved or exiled in other cultural contexts, which surely had an effect on their culture. Scholars believe that the recorded text we have of Genesis was written down after the Babylonian exile. When was Genesis Written and Why Does it Matter? - BioLogos
I believe the Holy Spirit guided the process and ensured that what we have is what God wanted to reveal to the church. But it is imposing our own modern values on the process to insist that the story never changed, was never embellished “factually” speaking, and contains nothing that is not literally historically true. You can believe that if you want to, but it’s not likely, necessary, or helpful to actually understanding the meaning sometimes.
@johnZ
It seems to me that a lot of what you are saying goes against mainstream science and therefore requires major miracles. One of the articles on the BioLogos website said there are type 1 and type 2 miracles. Type 1 miracles are those of natural means which God arranges in his special timing (he can easily do that when he is above time and he can see what the future will be and, perhaps many years in advance, arrange something to happen in the future at just the right time). Type 2 miracles are those like the virgin birth, which require something quite contrary to natural processes. BioLogos’ evolutionary creationism assumes God working extensively through natural means, not discounting occasional Type 2 miracles.
An example is animals in the ark. Getting huge numbers of animals in an ark is not accepted by mainstream science. Getting all the animals to march into the ark could not be done by human or natural means, and it seems to me, requires a series of Type 2 miracles. I don’t see how you could come up with a flood story that is literal (with little room for interpretation of scripture or variation in the translation over time), that does not require a big series of Type 2 miracles - which is wholly incompatible with very strong mainstream science. When you invoke extensive arguments that require Type 2 miracles, that pretty much cuts out further discussion. People can believe anything claiming a Type 2 miracle. You are welcome to believe what you want, but I think you are going to find that, given BioLogos’ beliefs, you aren’t going to find much agreement here.
“These old stories contained verifiable and valuable factuality”
From what the ‘white culture’ has been able to understand (and it is very little), the accuracy therein was remarkable - in fact scientists have begun projects that try to understand methods used perhaps as far back as 40,000 years ago, on caring for the environment - the information, when understood, has withstood scientific scrutiny. Yet when these stories are viewed as religious utterances, we loose any insights, because of the huge differences in our outlooks.
My background is European and I am certain that I cannot fully appreciate what Aboriginal culture has to say - but I have listened (alas a very small amount of information is accessible to me) to our old people narrate (almost like a song or story) how our ancestors were related, and it seems to me that remarkably accurate details are provided that go back centuries - all of this is spoken from generation to generation. Yet the manner of speaking is as interesting (and as important) as the content. I think this is a lost art these days and we are the poorer for it.
This is a problem. If science cannot accept type 2 miracles, too bad. Why should I be concerned about that. While it would be a miracle to me that the animals all came to the ark and got into it, yet it is not an impossible miracle in the sense that the ark could not hold them. Even the flood itself is written in a way to be a possible miracle, not a one day global flood, but instead a flood with a process of prediction, timing, rising, and receding, over the course of at least a full year. And a flood that has never been repeated, also as predicted.
Of course, it is a miracle, no one denies that. Science cannot have the perogative to deny miracles, since miracles contradict normal science. Yet, even miracles are observable, ie., factual, visible. The Israelites passing thru the red sea, the blind man beginning to see, the lame man to walk, Lazarus rising from the dead, etc. Thus miracles have a demonstrable aspect to them, as Thomas seeing and touching the holes in Jesus hands and feet, and yet seeing the live Jesus.
In the same way, while it was miraculous or semi-miraculous, how the animals came to the ark, yet it was an observable phenomenon, measureable, visible, although not repeatable.
I am quite sure that most people on biologos believe that miracles occurred.
That is the problem isn^t it, how we are limited by our own paradigm, to imagine the possibility of things being different in the past. Yet we believe they have been different in the past… so we pick and choose what we will accept based on our paradigm. In the case of age of people however, we cannot attribute significance to the numbers if the numbers were only false. The problem is that the bible gives no indication why there would be a change in the way numbers were used, or why these numbers would begin to change at the flood, and yet not totally change but only gradually change. The most obvious explanation is that they should be taken exactly for what they say, and not an attempt to reinvent the numbers. None of the posited theories of number significance really work for these numbers, the way they might work for the sumerian numbers.
Yes there is such a thing as the normal sense of a word. Even while words can have different connotations, these connotations are normal, and yes the context will provide the normal connotation. If a person was born at a certain age of his father, and lived a defined number of years before having a particular son, and then lived a defined number of years before his death, the normal sense in any context would be as stated. In scripture, this would be particularly emphasized because of the transition of reduction of old age after the time of Noah. To suggest that 900 years is true in a different sense is to imply it is not true in the normal sense, unless it is true in both senses. To suggest this, even when this different sense is unknown and undefined, is grasping at straws, in my opinion.
This is true, but yet rather irrelevant. We do not need absolute knowledge on it, only sufficient knowledge to gain a reasonable understanding. We have seen this in other passages translated, where because of syntax, a variety of possiblities exist. Recently reading Job 9:3 it is interesting that some would translate as Job taking God to court, or contend with him, or God taking someone to court. All different ways of saying, with different emphasis, yet coming to the same point of a dispute between God and man. So we donèt have absolute knowledge, yet it is sufficient.
While this may be true, it does not define or demonstrate anything about scripture. Many cultures commonly accept bribes in order to subvert laws, or to conduct business. This does not mean that we should call theft or bribery something other than what it is, nor does it impact the message of scripture, as if scripture or God must be doing the same thing. After all, the biggest emphasis in scripture, including in the old testament, is to reject the pagan gods and cultures, not to accept them or follow them. This would include not bearing false witness.
It may be exactly the other way around. It may be imposing our own modern values to insist that the story did change, was embellished, and contains falsehoods. I would suggest that this is more likely.
There are a couple of problems with this. One is that I don’t see that God uses type 2 miracles often (a lot of miracles can be seen as type 1 miracles) and when he does, they tend to be ‘one off’ (once at a time) situations.
Secondly, it’s a problem when supposed type 2 miracles leave contrary evidence in the archaeological or scientific record. For a flood, despite the claims by Young Earth Creationists otherwise, there is no widely accepted scientific accepted evidence of a worldwide flood or even a catastrophic regional flood around 3000 BC. that wiped out all but 8 humans. There is no evidence of a sizable human population bottleneck, unless you go back to 50,000 years ago. It would have been impossible for there not to be major evidence in archaeological, population tracking, and DNA evidence. So,did God not only create the big series of type 2 miracles but also cover up the evidence of them, as some Young Earth Creationists seem to claim regarding the age of the Earth? Does it make sense that a holy God would perpetuate or even countenance massive deception?
You have arguments around the edges of lots of things, but what is your flood belief and how do you deal with the large number of major scientific problems?
There appears to be lots of evidence for flood and catastrophe. Much more than for slow deposition. Arguable whether it applies to global flood, but nevertheless… I won’t spout off on dna bottleneck, except that constant rates of mutations cannot be clearly proven to the ages claimed, despite the claims. So, I suggest, not impossible. Your questions about did God deceive or cover up is presumptuous in the sense that just because we haven’t seen or understood yet, doesn’t mean God covered anything up. It is also a non-starter question because the same question could be applied to the apparent counter deception in scripture.
I do believe there was most likely a global flood, based on common stories, the vast amount of catastrophic events creating fossils, the ability of moving water to lay down layered water, and the general condition of aquatic fossils found in all places of the globe. Fossils have been shown to form rapidly, growth rates of coral reefs have in some cases been measured as quite rapid, and polystrate fossils also demonstrate more rapid burial. We hope to visit mt. St. Helens in two weeks and much of that also gives real evidence of processes much quicker than the resultant debris, layers, and erosion would lead people to suppose, if they didn’t have the actual photos and human witnesses.
How do you deal with these major scientific problems?
They are not major scientific problems. The problems you mentioned have been shown to be false by many scientific fields of investigation including geology and genetics. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, life on earth started about 3.4 billion years ago. Mammals such as you and I have been around for about 300 million years. People of the species Homo Sapian have been around for about 200,000 years. The ancient books were written by pre-scientific people no more than a few thousand years ago. This is all proven scientific fact. If you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise, go right ahead as the fundamental truth about the universe doesn’t changes because YOU believe otherwise.