Were the events of Genesis 1 revealed to humans via a dream?

Faith & Science Conversation
, ,
41

Why do you feel compelled to force a natural explanation on an obviously miraculous story in the Gospels? Don’t you actually believe Jesus rose from the dead? Once the supernatural camel gets its nose in the tent, just let him all the way in. Unless you have good reason to think God can raise Jesus from the dead, impregnate a virgin, heal countless people, walk on water, control the weather, multiply fish, change water into wine, control demons, create the whole physical universe and on and on …but somehow is incapable of making the afternoon sky turn dark?

I just think the darkness is apocalyptic language. Narrative dressing so I don’t think it’s historical. It very well could be but I’m not really sold. I certainly don’t reject it because it’s miraculous, however.

Vinnie

42

What do you see as historical in Genesis?

43

Huh? Genesis is not in the gospels. Heymike3 was referring to Genesis 1:1. You must have tripped back to another topic talking about the darkness at Christ’s death.

I would agree that the gospels are more historical, with a measure of metaphor mixed in. And think the darkness there may well have been a paucity of photons hitting Jerusalem, but more than than was a spiritual darkness that spread as the Light of the World had died.

1 Like
44

Oh yeah, I completely misread that and mixed threads :joy:

Honestly, nothing and I don’t mean that in a bad way. Genesis describes events that happened many thousand of years ago that are singly attested hundreds or thousands of years later. Even if there are doublets they are again hundreds or thousands of years after the facts they narrate and in no way can claim independence.

None of Genesis is really open to historical investigation. I mean, I do read some things that like look like ANE mythology and my thoughts are not historical.

But the truth is we can’t analyze most of Genesis from a historical perspective because the academic discipline of history requires sources in close proximity to the events or established and known lines of transmission. We have very little of that. Most of Genesis is beyond history and internally not really concerned with the issue as we are. The verdict is non liquet. Historicallly speaking we can’t evaluate much of what actually happened or didn’t in regards to specific stories 4,000 years ago because we have no data from the time. Sure archaeology helps in places but again, what sources do we actually have describing Abraham? Genesis written 1000 to 1500 years later? How does one do history with that.

Much of it could be historical, much of it might not be. There is no way to know historically. Not being able to affirm something is historical does not mean it did not happen. It just means that using probability based arguments and the sober canons of history, I do not have enough evidence to authenticate such and such story.

All I believe as a Christian is this is my sacred scripture and I am meant to read and learn from it. The incarnate Son of God also used it. Meditating prayerfully on its contents should bring me closer to God.

I mean, are we even sure the genre is “history” as we understand the word? From something I wrote:

Derek Kidner wrote the following:

We have in the Bible some of the most beautiful poetry: pious, lyrical and erotic, and also some of the angriest. We have narratives of epic proportions, aetiologies and folktales that are at times stunningly profound and evocative, romances and adventure stories, some of them are ideologically tendentious or moralistic. There is patent racism and sexism, and some of the world’s earliest condemnations of each. One of the things the Bible almost never is, however, is intentionally historical: that is an interest of ours that it rarely shares. Here and there, the Bible uses data gleaned from ancient texts or records. It often refers to great figures and events of the past . . . at least as they are known to popular tradition. But it cites such ‘historical facts’ only where they may serve as grist for one of its various literary mills. The Bible knows nothing or nearly nothing of most of the great, transforming events of Palestine’s history. Of historical causes, it knows only one: Palestine’s ancient deity Yahweh. It knows nearly nothing of the great droughts that changed the course of Palestine’s world for centuries, and it is equally ignorant of the region’s great historical battles at Megiddo, Kadesh and Lachish. The Bible tells us nothing directly of four hundred years of Egyptian presence. Nor can it take on the role of teaching us anything about the wasteful competition for the Jezreel in the early Iron Age, or about the forced sedentarization of nomads along Palestine’s southern flank. . . . The reason for this is simple. The Bible’s language is not an historical language. It is a language of high literature, of story, of sermon and of song. It is a tool of philosophy and moral instruction. To argue that the Bible has it wrong is like alleging that Herman Melville has got his whale wrong! Literarily, one might quibble about whether Jonah has it right with his big fish, but not because the story could or could not have happened. On the story’s own terms, the rescue of Jonah is but a journeyman’s device as far as plot resolutions go. But no false note is sounded in Jonah’s fig tree, in Yahweh’s speech from the whirlwind in the Book of Job, or in Isaiah 40’s song of comfort."

Genesis 1-2 and clearly, many other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures are, as we would expect, steeped in the mythology and background knowledge of their day. They are not interested in the same modern questions that we are and most of what we see is not meant to be fact-literal history. As a final example, in Job 41, God asks Job about the Leviathan, “were not even the gods overwhelmed at the sight of it?” Are we to take this as an indication that not only the Leviathan but also these other ancient-near eastern gods are real? This is, after all, a question straight from God’s mouth per the narrative. Or is the essential point of the story to show God’s superiority over everything around Him using the background mythology of the day? In lieu of this we should exercise tremendous caution in how literal we demand Genesis and parts of the Bible to be. If we want to get God’s word right, we must understand it in context and that requires getting the genre correct.

There is a lot of history in the Bible but it’s just not as interested in history as we are. It a pre-enlightenment and pre-scientific text.

1 Like
45

So you were going to take me to task about a natural explanation for a miraculous event in the Gospels afterall :grin: and here I thought you were seeing apocalyptic imagery for Genesis 1

I can be a little flexible when it comes to Genesis 1 and the specifics of the flood, but not with Abraham or the covenant God established with him.

1 Like
46

The Abrahamic covenant is certainly a key part of the story of scripture and even how we see Jesus and salvation history. Maybe not absolutely necessary in the logical sense but certainly and integral part. It’s not in the Nicene Creed but it gives it context.

I see no reason to say God didn’t establish a covenant with an ancient patriarch as a Christian. As a historian there is really not much evidence either way so no judgment can be reached. But one might say the texts of the Biblical narratives reflect 1st millennium BC ideas and have been adapted to those times. This doesn’t preclude them from being ancient stories that revolved and were later codified. A historical core is simply beyond evaluation even if the account as it stands may reflect a later situation. So we are safe in believing it and commit no errors in doing so on say the authority of Jesus or the forest of inspired scripture.

My primary trouble with the OT is moral in nature…murdering babies and rape are kind of deal breakers for me…

1 Like
47

And cutting off your enemy’s foreskin is acceptable?

48

Women and children hit harder for me but the list of objectionable morality in the OT is very long…

49

It can still be read with care and understanding

50

Yeah, I just need to find a meaning that doesn’t involve God and mass murder —which is very much the straightforward and plain meaning of the text.

51

You read the chapter Longman wrote on sexuality in COTC. I thought his work on divine violence was his strongest position. You may find it interesting. This video is a great introduction, if you are interested in seeing him speak.

52

Greg Boyd’s “Crucifixion of the warrior God” presents such a hermeneutic. But of course, it makes those committed to simplistic “straighforward readings of the text” uncomfortable…

53

Sounds to me like you want proof. Then you need to be referred to the threads where we discussed why there is no proof. Here is a link to my post in that thread.

I am sorry but I think those who want proof are those who seek to use religion as a tool of power. I think we need to make a stand against this for the sake of liberty, faith, and rationality.

54

Longman calls him out by name in the video, “irenically and respectfully.”

This quote was a major takeaway from the video for me:

“What we have in the Old Testament, particularly the Conquest, is an intrusion of end time ethics where the wicked are punished and the righteous are redeemed… So I consider what we read in the Old Testament as a preview and warning as what will happen at the consummation.”

55

To turn it around again, how can anyone accept those miracles in the text as actual events if the text cannot even get the small things right?

I’m stuck on this thought. If the story in Genesis is just as unscientific and miraculous as any other creation story, WHY should the Bible be given leniency, or even a chance at all, when none of you would do the same for any other creation story? The Bible MUST contain something to separate it from other religious texts, otherwise I cannot see any reason it should be treated differently. As much as I want it to be the truth. As much as I want to believe it. You don’t get to just decide what you want to be true. It HAS to line up with reality if it’s making claims about reality.

56

Don’t we all want proof? I understand that is not going to happen unless God wills it to. Or I live to see some prophecy unfold.

I do not have any desire to use religion as a tool of power. I find the fact that it is, disgusting.

My sole reason for being here on this forum is that I am having a faith crisis. An existential crisis.

I brought two, beautiful children into this despicable world under the belief that there was a meaning to life and that God was that meaning. That the Bible held that meaning within it’s pages. That whatever they went through in life, it would be worth ending up with God than never having been born at all.
I NEVER would have brought children into this hell without that belief. I do not believe anyone has the right or reason to without that belief. For me to have done so and for there not to be a God, well, I have then condemned my children, two beings I love more than anything else, to the burden of a pointless existence, the anguish of meaninglessness and done so in a world that I wonder if it could get any sicker. A world where I cannot offer them any hope. I would be guilty of doing them the greatest of wrongs. Imagine creating new life, when you have no answers and no hope to offer it? That is evil.

My parents offered me nothing. I doubt they considered the seriousness of what they were doing when they had me. People just have kids because it is expected, for some reason. Or because they cannot control themselves. In fact, without faith in God, I would have committed suicide in my early Twenties and just been done with it all.
Life is a burden to me. Not a joy. The suffering, the confusion… These things are not worth whatever fleeting pleasures I have experienced here. I’m high-functioning. But I am desperately sad and lost.

Is that pathetic? Yes. But well, there it is.

I am satisfied with faith. But I need good reasons to hold onto it, other than because I need to. I need it to make sense. I need it to be a solid rock for me to stand on. But it’s becoming more clear that I don’t know up from down regarding the Bible. Least of all whether it is actually true. Or rather, the more I learn about the Bible, the more I don’t believe.

If I just wanted false comfort, I’d be a drug addict.

Honestly, without the character of Jesus, I would have thrown out the entire thing. The Old Testament God is indeed an awful monster. The stories in the OT are nonsensical. And the Israelites are the worst of creatures. Not to mention the modern Christian Church itself, what a disgraceful MESS!

57

Nope.

You could have equally asked… Don’t we all want power?

Again the answer is no. And they are frankly much the same. Perhaps you should ask what God wants. What he wants is love not power, faith not proof. Love requires faith. Proof is for power.

Then perhaps you can learn something from the very different direction I am coming from. I was not raised Christian or theist, but only with criticisms of Christianity. And yet I found value in Christianity… not because the criticisms were wrong… but in spite of them.

But this world is not hell. Much of it is a paradise, even though some people have managed to make a hell of parts of it. And many of those people have used religion to do it.

I have three children. Teaching them that the world is hell is a big mistake for they are only too likely to find the falsehood in this. The message of Christianity is not for the child but for the sinner lost to the brink of despair. I am not and cannot be the messiah for my children. Salvation is the work of God. This is a big part of the truth I found in Christianity.

My parents offered me a great deal… lessons in both what to do and what not to do. They were only human just as I am.

People have children for a great many reasons and most of the time I suppose those reasons are far from good ones. For my parents it was mostly accidental, and for me it was because I felt I had love to give. I have often thought having children is one of the most arrogant things we do. But if we let children be our teachers, to allow them to teach us to become what they need… then perhaps we can do better.

Yes… I observed that God played such a role for believers and it became my working definition of God… that faith in God was a faith that life is worth living. This was the start of the journey which led me to Christianity.

Life requires subjective participation where what we want is important. Science which is based on objective observation (and written procedures which give the same result no matter what we want or believe) cannot help us with this. So a pretense to objectivity in religion is not only delusional but pointless. It is all about deciding who we want to be.

Faith doesn’t make love false… quite the contrary, faith is what makes it real. And just because we want and even need love doesn’t make it a drug.

Yes many atheists like Mao Tse Tung like to say that religion is a drug and a disease. But there is nothing more delusional than a belief that we can live according to the objective observation of science. Religion is just the way we choose to live and that choice is something none of us can avoid.

The good parent has to be what their children need. The good parent for the two year old is not a good parent for the teenager.

1 Like
58

Without any desire to personally offend you. Just about everything you typed there is unhelpful to me.

If the criticisms were not wrong, why then believe? How then believe?

I like this though.

59

No one requires you to accept many miracles in the text. There are some related to Jesus (resurrection) that seem necessary to being a Christian in my mind but it doesn’t matter if you think an ass really spoke or not, or if an axe head floated or not. Did this really happen? Who can actually say? The better question to ask is what is the story trying to teach us about God?

When you speak of the small things the text can’t get right I don’t think the text really tries to do what you expect it to. I’ve always looked at the big picture of scripture.

Genesis 1 is a masterpiece in my mind and it has a purpose and it achieves it. It tosses aside rival conceptions of God. I actually believe everything in Genesis 1 when understood against the backdrop of competitive ANE conceptions of the gods and understand it speaks through its own worldview and cosmology.

The Bible does get things right. The things it intends to, not the things we fact-literal, post-enlightenment, Cartesian-westerners want it to. The purpose of scripture is to make us wise for salvation and to equip us to do good works, not to teach us facts about the past.

I think the central issue is this. You’ve, like so many of us, drank the Kool Aid of historical apologetics and are plagued by top down models of inspiration. You seem to think we certify and prove the Bible then have faith in it. To me that is not at all how it works. Faith is not based on our ability to get facts right about the past. For me, faith is based on current experience with the transforming and risen Jesus, not on historical reconstructions of the past or apologetics. We open up and accept God. The Bible shows many people just naturally drawn to Jesus based on just hearing about him. They didn’t sit there and assess all the facts. Faith is deeper than pure intellect. The intellect rationalizes our experience with God. Many of us have had life-altering changes and felt what we think is the undeniable forgiveness and love of God. The Bible mediates the sacred. It doesn’t need to be inerrant to be useful or reliable for its intended purpose.

Beyond Church authority, Biblical self claim (which rests on church authority since the very term Biblical requires canonization as all these texts were discrete works) and our experiences with God, there is no proof of the Bible. It’s normative for Christian faith. Most of the books have been for 1850 years or so. We have to take on faith that the Church picked the right picks do we not?

And at the end of the day you seem to want to be a Bible-ian. I am not a Bible-ian. I am a Christ-ian. The sole purpose of the Bible to me is to lead us back to a proper relationship with God through his Son and equip us to do good works. There is little interest in teaching us facts of history or science. The Bible gives us what science can never provide: purpose, morality and a proper understanding of God. It always uses stories about the past to inform the present. It teaches me the important things in life and to not be worldly. It’s morality is difficult to follow and it even corrects itself in places. Many of us firmly believe scripture is not meant to be easy. We are all like Jacob… intended to wrestle with it. But for me the focus is always on Jesus. I am a Christ-ian, not a Bible-ian. There were Christians before any of the NT books were written and many Christians with only access to one or two books for hundreds of years. Salvation comes from God. We just have to let him in. Then all the doctrine, theology and rationalizing all our thoughts and worldview with scripture happens.

I think a lot of Christians have unknowingly made the Bible the 4th member of the Trinity. It is no such thing.

Though I think the story of the Bible spot on. The world is good in many places but I think at some deep level it’s broken (no I don’t accept A&E as historical or original sin nor really a fall of two primitive people that could impact 100 billion people after them), but clearly the idea of sin and worldliness the Bible speaks against is very real. It also offers quite the solution. God lowers himself and dies for us on a Roman cross. That is the essential part of a Christianity. Everything else is just a condiment.

3 Likes
60

If even ONE part of the Bible never happened, or was exaggerated, it throws the ENTIRE text into doubt, considering it’s content and what it requires one to accept. It WILL be held to a higher standard if it wants people to believe in miracles.

If the text is wrong, then the rational conclusion is to view any miracles, especially a resurrection as nonsense too. And so we have to find the truth elsewhere. People want to take Jesus out of the Bible, They cannot let Him go, but they disbelieve most of the book He’s from. The ONLY way any of us even know of Jesus is because we read the Bible.