Waters over Firmament, Flat Earth, and whether the Bible can be factually incorrect.

[oxmixmudd]

I see what you're saying. I don't see how this gets us to 'not intended to be literal'.

Are you saying that an author writing something he knows parallels an Egyptian creation story and who purposefully places the most important gods of the Egyptians late in the story and who makes clear these are nothing more than simple 'lights' would not be aware of the fact that is what he was doing? Are you saying that those hearing that story would not at least be aware of how the story both paralleled what they already knew yet stood strongly against the theological elements?

So my point is I don't think the original author constructing this story with its similarities and differences would have been trying to create something that would function as history, but rather something that functions to define who God is relative to the gods of the cultures they came from. The right or wrongness of creating such a text is very much cultural - and that is part of what we fight trying to understand what this text is. In OUR culture it's awkward.

I do absolutely regard the entire test as inspired, as God breathed. I don't believe it is merely some human fabrication. I just think we have assigned it the wrong purpose. And I think we can see from how it is constructed and how it parallels what already existed at the time that its purpose was something other than a literal history. If it was purposed as something other than literal history, then I think it reasonable to conclude it was not intended to be literal history.

That said - it did at the very least come to be regarded as literal history - at least in some circles, and for a very long time. But that does not define what it's original intent might have been. We do have historical figures that recognized its non-literal bend throughout history. Augustine being one on the Christian side of things, Philo and Maimonides two from the Jewish tradition . So it's not like it was totally hidden and no one throughout history understood it.

Marston in his examination of this very topic as it relates to ancient Jewish traditions on this scripture states, as regards the Rabbinic traditions:

Source: http://www.christadelphian-ejbi.org/creationism/marston.pdf

The Rabbis draw on this passage greatly in their exposition of Genesis and the creation.
Many were disinterested in the literal meaning, but the text was important
as it: “was utilized as a means of combating heretical views on the dual nature of
the God-head.”

© Copyright Original Source

And he notes early on the complexity of trying to pin ancient views down into singularly defined categories:

Source: marston

It would, of course, be wrong to imagine that there were only two mutually
exclusive ways of viewing Genesis: ‘literally’ and ‘allegorically’. Often Jewish
(and Christian) writers accepted that there could be two (or more) levels of understanding
for the same passage, ie interpretations at both a literal/historical
and an allegorical level

© Copyright Original Source

Jim

[Carrikature]

Are you saying that an author writing something he knows parallels an Egyptian creation story and who purposefully places the most important gods of the Egyptians late in the story and who makes clear these are nothing more than simple 'lights' would not be aware of the fact that is what he was doing? Are you saying that those hearing that story would not at least be aware of how the story both paralleled what they already knew yet stood strongly against the theological elements?

So my point is I don't think the original author constructing this story with its similarities and differences would have been trying to create something that would function as history, but rather something that functions to define who God is relative to the gods of the cultures they came from. The right or wrongness of creating such a text is very much cultural - and that is part of what we fight trying to understand what this text is. In OUR culture it's awkward.

I do absolutely regard the entire test as inspired, as God breathed. I don't believe it is merely some human fabrication. I just think we have assigned it the wrong purpose. And I think we can see from how it is constructed and how it parallels what already existed at the time that its purpose was something other than a literal history. If it was purposed as something other than literal history, then I think it reasonable to conclude it was not intended to be literal history.

That said - it did at the very least come to be regarded as literal history - at least in some circles, and for a very long time. But that does not define what it's original intent might have been. We do have historical figures that recognized its non-literal bend throughout history. Augustine being one on the Christian side of things, Philo and Maimonides two from the Jewish tradition . So it's not like it was totally hidden and no one throughout history understood it.

Marston in his examination of this very topic as it relates to ancient Jewish traditions on this scripture states, as regards the Rabbinic traditions:

Source: http://www.christadelphian-ejbi.org/creationism/marston.pdf

The Rabbis draw on this passage greatly in their exposition of Genesis and the creation.
Many were disinterested in the literal meaning, but the text was important
as it: “was utilized as a means of combating heretical views on the dual nature of
the God-head.”

© Copyright Original Source

And he notes early on the complexity of trying to pin ancient views down into singularly defined categories:

Source: marston

It would, of course, be wrong to imagine that there were only two mutually
exclusive ways of viewing Genesis: ‘literally’ and ‘allegorically’. Often Jewish
(and Christian) writers accepted that there could be two (or more) levels of understanding
for the same passage, ie interpretations at both a literal/historical
and an allegorical level

© Copyright Original Source

Jim

I'm saying it's possible the author(s) could write what they believed to be facts in a manner that counters common beliefs of the time. It might help to consider it two pieces: form and content. Form can be a lot of things. It can use parallel descriptions, for example. It could include similar themes. None of this necessarily affects the truth of the content. We've already agreed that the two aren't mutually exclusive.

You're claim is basically that the author's focus was the form, not the content. I'm asking why we should think the content is false simply because of the form it takes. It doesn't make sense to take liberties with the truth in an effort to create a polemic against something you consider false.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm saying it's possible the author(s) could write what they believed to be facts in a manner that counters common beliefs of the time. It might help to consider it two pieces: form and content. Form can be a lot of things. It can use parallel descriptions, for example. It could include similar themes. None of this necessarily affects the truth of the content. We've already agreed that the two aren't mutually exclusive.

You're claim is basically that the author's focus was the form, not the content. I'm asking why we should think the content is false simply because of the form it takes. It doesn't make sense to take liberties with the truth in an effort to create a polemic against something you consider false.

And that's the cultural part that creates the problem. I don't know exactly how people in that time thought about these things, but everything I've read from those that have studied the issue says they didn't think about this kind of thing in those terms. The writer took what existed and modified it to be both similar and very different - where the similarities connect with the audience and the differences teach it. The writer nor the audience had no objective means of evaluating the truth of the source in scientific or historical terms, so why would he have any expectations relative to the truth of the output in scientific or historical terms? If I take a melody and I give it new words, I'm not saying a whole lot about what kind of musical genre the original melody belonged to. I'm just saying as it is, it's a useful medium for carrying my message.

We can look at it and see that the description of creation is made consistent with what we understand the author to have understood. So he describes God making the world where what is constructed matches his concepts. If the goal was to give scientific and historical information about the process, then you could say it has failed. But if the goal has nothing to do with that, if those are merely superficial aspects and the point is that the elements of creation worshiped by the authors' contemporaries are simply things God made and placed into the creation, then it doesn't matter if I convey that truth using my cultures depiction of the Universe or Our contemporary culture's understanding of the Universe. In fact, it is really more important the author use his own culture's depiction of the universe if the author's audience is to hear the message. Otherwise they will think the author daft, or get all wrapped up in trying to understand that aspect of the story and completely miss its point. By NOT changing the cultural depiction, the message is what is left to be understood.

We have the tools they did not have to sort this out. For the intervening cultures that understood neither end, mostly it just didn't matter. So in the end, as it is, it is sufficient to reach all cultures at all times with its intended message - (1) God, the one God, made the universe and created all the things in it. (2) none of those things are themselves any sort of God or gods.



Jim

ETA: by listing (1) and (2) above, I am not implying that list is an exhaustive list of messages the passage is trying to communicate.

[shunyadragon]

And that's the cultural part that creates the problem. I don't know exactly how people in that time thought about these things, but everything I've read from those that have studied the issue says they didn't think about this kind of thing in those terms. The writer took what existed and modified it to be both similar and very different - where the similarities connect with the audience and the differences teach it. The writer nor the audience had no objective means of evaluating the truth of the source in scientific or historical terms, so why would he have any expectations relative to the truth of the output in scientific or historical terms? If I take a melody and I give it new words, I'm not saying a whole lot about what kind of musical genre the original melody belonged to. I'm just saying as it is, it's a useful medium for carrying my message.

I do not believe anyone (should?) realistically expects these ancient writings to have any truth value concerning science. I believe they compiled, edited and redacted these writings believing they were true (with variations) history up to the time of Christ and beyond when the Bible was compiled into its present form. The problem comes about because many doctrines, dogmas and beliefs in traditional Christianity are dependent on these texts being true history in one way or another. The apostles and writers of the NT apparently believed these accounts were historically true. Based on this a large proportion, possibly most, of Christians today believe these accounts are literally true to some degree.

We can look at it and see that the description of creation is made consistent with what we understand the author to have understood. So he describes God making the world where what is constructed matches his concepts. If the goal was to give scientific and historical information about the process, then you could say it has failed. But if the goal has nothing to do with that, if those are merely superficial aspects and the point is that the elements of creation worshiped by the authors' contemporaries are simply things God made and placed into the creation, then it doesn't matter if I convey that truth using my cultures depiction of the Universe or Our contemporary culture's understanding of the Universe. In fact, it is really more important the author use his own culture's depiction of the universe if the author's audience is to hear the message. Otherwise they will think the author daft, or get all wrapped up in trying to understand that aspect of the story and completely miss its point. By NOT changing the cultural depiction, the message is what is left to be understood.

In the context of knowledge and culture of the time I have no doubt the intent 'was to give scientific and historical information about the process,' and to describe the relationship of humanity to God and this Creative process, which results in the belief today by many that it is in some way literally true.

We have the tools they did not have to sort this out. For the intervening cultures that understood neither end, mostly it just didn't matter. So in the end, as it is, it is sufficient to reach all cultures at all times with its intended message - (1) God, the one God, made the universe and created all the things in it. (2) none of those things are themselves any sort of God or gods.

. . . because the apostles and writers of the NT believed these accounts were literally true and based their beliefs of God on these accounts, they cared as do many people today believe they are literally true.

[oxmixmudd]

I do not believe anyone (should?) realistically expects these ancient writings to have any truth value concerning science. I believe they compiled, edited and redacted these writings believing they were true (with variations) history up to the time of Christ and beyond when the Bible was compiled into its present form. The problem comes about because many doctrines, dogmas and beliefs in traditional Christianity are dependent on these texts being true history in one way or another. The apostles and writers of the NT apparently believed these accounts were historically true. Based on this a large proportion, possibly most, of Christians today believe these accounts are literally true to some degree.

There are some in Christian interpretive circles that agree with you on this, but it's too much of a 'just man in the picture' view for me. If God is involved in the writing of scripture, then I see no reason to assume possible correlations are purely random. You approach this issue having already made up your mind these texts are merely written by men, or something very close to that, and I do not. So we are not going to see eye to eye. Especially in areas like Messianic prophesy I would expect.

In the context of knowledge and culture of the time I have no doubt the intent 'was to give scientific and historical information about the process,' and to describe the relationship of humanity to God and this Creative process, which results in the belief today by many that it is in some way literally true.

Then you would disagree with most scholars I've studied on the issue. Enns has written extensively on the subject, I would recomment "Inspiration and Incarnation" and "The Evolution of Adam".

. . . because the apostles and writers of the NT believed these accounts were literally true and based their beliefs of God on these accounts, they cared as do many people today believe they are literally true.

Again, you are not taking into account Jewish interpretive tradition and the changes in Jewish tradition as regards the interpretation of scripture, especially in the time of Paul and Jesus. It's not that he would have regarded the stories as pure metaphor, that is not what I'm saying. He would have seen them as history - as I implied - in his time and culture, he had not reason to see them any other way. But the approach to interpretation is far more fluid, and far more concerned about the lessons learned in the stories then their technical accuracy.

We don't have the luxury of remaining ignorant of the fact that the universe (and time frame) as described in the text is not the universe that exists. Applying that, and Paul's writings about them, to our current time and in our current context is absolutely consistent with the ancient approach of the Jewish people to the scriptures, of each generation interpreting them anew and in the light of the current day to bring them into their culture and their time. This can be seen most clearly in the differences in how the Chronicles and the Kings approach the same stories. How they write about them from different contexts, interpreting the events of the stories themselves in light of their changing place in the world as a nation.

The idea, from a faith perspective, is that God has placed into his word information relevant to all times and cultures, with each culture uniquely qualified to prayerfully interpret and see that which applies to them*.


Jim

*The difficulties with the Jewish approach is how to define boundaries on interpretation. The Christian tradition adds to the Jewish tradition many wise constraints in an attempt to help constrain approaches that could lead to heresy.

[shunyadragon]

There are some in Christian interpretive circles that agree with you on this, but it's too much of a 'just man in the picture' view for me. If God is involved in the writing of scripture, then I see no reason to assume possible correlations are purely random. You approach this issue having already made up your mind these texts are merely written by men, or something very close to that, and I do not. So we are not going to see eye to eye. Especially in areas like Messianic prophesy I would expect.

I suspect your correct.

Then you would disagree with most scholars I've studied on the issue. Enns has written extensively on the subject, I would recommend "Inspiration and Incarnation" and "The Evolution of Adam".

Careful with the reference 'disagree with most scholars,' because I believe your being selective here on scholars that 'may' or 'may not' agree with you.

I believe Peter Enns described the Pentateuch as primarily a post exile edited and redacted compilation using earlier sources. This I do not disagree with. I do not believe Peter Enns disagrees with me that the authors of the Pentateuch, the apostles, authors of the gospels, and the majority of the church fathers believed that Genesis, and Exodus were believed as a literal accurate history.

Again, you are not taking into account Jewish interpretive tradition and the changes in Jewish tradition as regards the interpretation of scripture, especially in the time of Paul and Jesus. It's not that he would have regarded the stories as pure metaphor, that is not what I'm saying. He would have seen them as history - as I implied - in his time and culture, he had not reason to see them any other way. But the approach to interpretation is far more fluid, and far more concerned about the lessons learned in the stories then their technical accuracy.

These interpretations are later day views. My contention still stands that the authors and compilers of the Pentateuch, and the apostles, authors of the gospels, and most of the church fathers believed that Genesis was a literal accurate history, and the doctrines and dogmas of traditional Christianity are based on this belief.

[Carrikature]

And that's the cultural part that creates the problem. I don't know exactly how people in that time thought about these things, but everything I've read from those that have studied the issue says they didn't think about this kind of thing in those terms. The writer took what existed and modified it to be both similar and very different - where the similarities connect with the audience and the differences teach it. The writer nor the audience had no objective means of evaluating the truth of the source in scientific or historical terms, so why would he have any expectations relative to the truth of the output in scientific or historical terms? If I take a melody and I give it new words, I'm not saying a whole lot about what kind of musical genre the original melody belonged to. I'm just saying as it is, it's a useful medium for carrying my message.

We can look at it and see that the description of creation is made consistent with what we understand the author to have understood. So he describes God making the world where what is constructed matches his concepts. If the goal was to give scientific and historical information about the process, then you could say it has failed. But if the goal has nothing to do with that, if those are merely superficial aspects and the point is that the elements of creation worshiped by the authors' contemporaries are simply things God made and placed into the creation, then it doesn't matter if I convey that truth using my cultures depiction of the Universe or Our contemporary culture's understanding of the Universe. In fact, it is really more important the author use his own culture's depiction of the universe if the author's audience is to hear the message. Otherwise they will think the author daft, or get all wrapped up in trying to understand that aspect of the story and completely miss its point. By NOT changing the cultural depiction, the message is what is left to be understood.

We have the tools they did not have to sort this out. For the intervening cultures that understood neither end, mostly it just didn't matter. So in the end, as it is, it is sufficient to reach all cultures at all times with its intended message - (1) God, the one God, made the universe and created all the things in it. (2) none of those things are themselves any sort of God or gods.



Jim

ETA: by listing (1) and (2) above, I am not implying that list is an exhaustive list of messages the passage is trying to communicate.

I think the central issue is preserving truth content. It doesn't need to be in scientific terms the way we think of it. That would be absurd. It does, however, need to be reasonably accurate. I don't necessarily like "just man in the picture", either, but it is a useful claim as to how that truth content was preserved.

Fluid interpretation, to my understanding, has more to do with applying the events to modern struggles rather than changing the truth content of the narratives. That's a very important distinction. Consider your examples of Chronicles and Kings: the events are portrayed differently but the truth content is unchanged. The events remain the same even while the understanding of those events do not. Likewise, Paul and his contemporaries could shed additional light on the events in the OT without changing the events themselves. The depth of understanding is increased without violating the central events.

Contrast that to your take on Joshua's extended day where you claim the event itself didn't actually happen as told. This is the same thing you end up doing with Adam and Eve, Noah, the genealogies, and so on. You've effectively denied the events in favor of a content that you feel is more readily preserved. I understand the need, but I don't think this is justified. More to the point, the content you emphasize wouldn't have been accessible to anyone prior to ~100 years ago, if that. I don't see why we should accept your concept of the content over the more obvious and accessible content that everyone else throughout history has understood to exist.

[rakovsky]

I like how this conversation has been going so far. It's been constructive. Some open minded, critical thinking, I've seen.

So here I will post a conversation that I had on another thread I find relevant. You don't have to reply to it.

It is hard to prove things one way or another. The best I think we can do is try to look at the issues as objectively as possible, open to conclusions that go against our preferences.

1. Take for example the question of whether everything in the Bible is factually incorrect when intended to be factually correct. Many Christians are divided on the question. There are stories like Noah's ark and the Great Flood, and verses like those on the flat earth, that sound so fantastic that either: (A) Reality was very warped in that time period just 5000 years ago or so, or (B) these are allegories, or (C) they are factually incorrect myths like parables with spiritual value.

If you pick (A), what you have picked does not sound realistic at all. It sounds weird to teach that the earth is flat, or that it was flat in 600 BC or so and afterwards straightened itself out. Teaching that the pairs of every animal species in the world just walked onto Noah's ark across all the continents does not make sense, just like it does not make sense that after leaving the ark, flightless birds came to New Zealand and then lost their flying ability in a few thousand years alone. How did they feed themselves on the ark? Did it simply rain and spring up from the earth in such droves that it flooded the world? Did you know that the ark would not float based on Physical principles of torque and this is why no ship has been built of wood that big? The stories sound so much like fantasy, myth, or warped reality, that it's hard to make it sound realistic at all.

If you pick (B), viewing the verses as metaphorical, allegorical, or figurative, the problem is that the verses appear as if they are meant factually. In fact, I can lay out a list of questions in a Socratic style to show as a matter of literary analysis, one would normally interpret them to be intended as factual.

Take for example Psalm 104:5 Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.
What are the earth's foundations and how do they stop it from "shaking" always ? Do earthquakes count and can a comet hit the earth to shake it from its orbit?

Or take for example the story of Noah's flood. It's quite a lengthy account and it nowhere says that it's a parable.

If you pick (C) and say that they are factually mistaken myths or parables, a basis for this is that the Bible never says that they are parables , while instead they are simply presented in a straightforward manner as if they were facts. The problem however is that in deciding that the Biblical stories in the Old Testament are fantasy, fictional miracles and made up supernatural ideas, then it means that the Bible contains fiction that is mistakenly portrayed as fact. And this in turn opens up the possibility that the stories of Jesus' extreme miracles are also made up fiction, and that we are not required to think that they are facts just by virtue of them being in the Bible.

AFTER GETTING DARFIUS' REPLY (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...243#post324243), I wrote:

Thank you for writing , DARFIUS. Yes, maybe the first sentence should be said better. "It is hard to prove things one way or another. " Maybe I should say that it's hard to prove things so strongly that people on the other side of the issue will agree. Nowadays the ideas of a spherical earth is proved so strongly that there is pretty unanimous agreement, with only a few hold outs. So it may not be generally impossible, but just very hard.

Some more people still think that the earth does NOT go around the sun, but they are in a pretty small minority at this point.

How in the world can Christians be "divided" on this? ~DARFIUS

For one, this comes up with polls or if you look at theologians' views. I know two famous Eastern Orthodox theologians disagreed over this kind of thing. One said that the Bible is not inerrant factually 100% because the titles on Jesus' inscription on the cross differed in the various gospels. But another theologian took the position that the Bible is factually inerrant when the writers intended it as such. I think he said that the cross inscriptions were intended as approximations.

The Bible itself claims that it is inspired by God and God can't make mistakes. ~DARFIUS

(HOWEVER, the Bible does not specifically claim that the Bible or anything inspired by God cannot include mistakes of fact.)

It would be like a Christian minister being inspired by the Spirit in him to say that God's way is as straight and pure as route 54, but unknown to the minister, route 54 is actually mostly quite curvy and in need of intense repair, just not at the part he has ever seen.

And your claim about the ark not floating is baloney, disproven many times before. ~DARFIUS

One way it hasn't been proven is that even though architects have built many small wooden models of the ark and even some life sized ones, they've never succeeded in making one that floats on its own . In fact, they've had to float the big models on barges because they are actually unseaworthy.



It's true that failure to build a successful life sized wood model does not disprove that it's possible. It's just a piece of evidence towards it being unrealistic.

I am fine with being proven wrong and seeing a Ark of wood floated long distance at sea. It seems to me though that the architectural issues and failures show that it's probably not realistic. This is just one of many issues. I am not aware of any known animals being seen as having lost flight ability in a few thousand years, nor does it appear realistic to think as you've suggested that Australia went into a corner of the globe in a few thousand years, or far less than that time. That is why I say it demands a warped view of reality compared to how we currently understand the laws of nature to work. Or there were extreme supernatural actions involved, like marching the lions, giraffes, siberian tigers, etc. etc. onto the Ark.

I think it's not realistic, but when someone allows for extreme miracles, I don't know how he can disprove the story of Noah's ark and the Flood. Elephants don't hibernate AFAIK, but I guess you can claim it when you allow for supernatural changes of reality. In fact, I think that the tale of Noah's Ark may be more extreme than the Resurrection as far as laws of physics and nature are concerned.

What is the foundation of any structure? The thing that keeps it stable. Know why the earth doesn't go spinning out of control through the universe? It ain't cause of turtles all the way down. ~DARFIUS

The verse says: Psalm 104:5 "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
What are the things that keep the earth stable, and do earthquakes and comets count as things by which the earth "can be shaken"?
If comets don't count, then I suppose you meant that by not shaken it just means its normal orbit when there are no comets? If so, how do the things that keep the earth stable also keep it on its orbit?

To be a Christian, you have to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. So is C really an option? ~DARFIUS

Under C you could still be saying that Jesus rose based on the evidence of witnesses, personal inspiration, and fulfillment of prophecies, etc. even though if in the Bible there are some factual mistakes.

I am not sure what more there is to say about these three alternatives, Darfius. I am not sure one can totally prove the answer of those three to everyone as simple as 2 + 2 = 4, or as simple as proving that the world is a sphere. That's unfortunate, because I wish we could do that.

As it stands, each of the three options has a downside.
Many people won't choose A because they feel like it's extremely unrealistic (eg. a literal worldwide flood or flat earth).
Many others won't choose B because it means playing with the Bible to avoid seeing it saying what we would commonly think that their authors meant as a matter of literature (eg. An earth with actual foundations that make it so the earth can't be moved by other normal things like comets, or eg. the story of the flood narrated as fact).
And many, I think like yourself, don't want to choose C because it opens up the possibility that the Bible may not be factually trustworthy or reliable for one or more major events, running from (A) the Creation story making man from clay to (Z) John in Revelation 1-3 having an actual meeting with Jesus wherein Jesus directly dictated to him 7 real letters, etc.

[oxmixmudd]

I think the central issue is preserving truth content. It doesn't need to be in scientific terms the way we think of it. That would be absurd. It does, however, need to be reasonably accurate. I don't necessarily like "just man in the picture", either, but it is a useful claim as to how that truth content was preserved.

Fluid interpretation, to my understanding, has more to do with applying the events to modern struggles rather than changing the truth content of the narratives. That's a very important distinction. Consider your examples of Chronicles and Kings: the events are portrayed differently but the truth content is unchanged. The events remain the same even while the understanding of those events do not. Likewise, Paul and his contemporaries could shed additional light on the events in the OT without changing the events themselves. The depth of understanding is increased without violating the central events.

Contrast that to your take on Joshua's extended day where you claim the event itself didn't actually happen as told. This is the same thing you end up doing with Adam and Eve, Noah, the genealogies, and so on. You've effectively denied the events in favor of a content that you feel is more readily preserved. I understand the need, but I don't think this is justified. More to the point, the content you emphasize wouldn't have been accessible to anyone prior to ~100 years ago, if that. I don't see why we should accept your concept of the content over the more obvious and accessible content that everyone else throughout history has understood to exist.

Careful - I never said anything about Joshua's day not happening as told. That is an assumption that you've made - probably unconsciously (but then, I know I've said this several times before, but maybe not in this conversation).

To be clear. I regard Genesis 1-11 as pre-history, and as such take the position that aspects of it, perhaps many of which are rooted in real events, are more allegorical/metaphorical - more concerned about the lesson taught than the fine grained accuracy of the story itself. I regard Genesis 12 and on (From the story of Abraham) as more historical in nature.

The fact is, we live in a time where we have more information about the structure and time frame of the universe than any other time in history that we know about. And that knowledge forces us to re-assess what Genesis is saying to us in those opening chapters.

I accept that Paul and others writing at the time of Christ would have tended to view Genesis 1-11 as more historical than I, or many others, would today. They didn't have any reason not to. But the results of fluid interpretation don't change because these first 11 chapters might be more allegorical than previously believed. Neither do any of the teachings of Christ which reference them. And likewise, I don't believe any of the theology Paul derives from them changes either. And that is the critical point of what I've been trying to say. In that Paul is deriving his teaching from the truth in the stories that stands independent from their relationship to physical history.

Jim

ETA: BTW, there are factual differences in the stories Kings vs Chronicles, and they reflect the orientation of the story (pre vs post exile)

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/th...f-chronicles-1

[Kbertsche]

Contrast that to your take on Joshua's extended day where you claim the event itself didn't actually happen as told.

Would you also say that John Whitcomb (co-founder of modern YEC flood geology) claimed that "the event itself didn't actually happen as told"? Whitcomb believed that Joshua's long day was an optical illusion, NOT a literal stopping of the sun's motion across the sky.

[Carrikature]

Would you also say that John Whitcomb (co-founder of modern YEC flood geology) claimed that "the event itself didn't actually happen as told"? Whitcomb believed that Joshua's long day was an optical illusion, NOT a literal stopping of the sun's motion across the sky.

From what you've presented here, yes. You can't say "this is what really happened" and still claim to preserve the truth content.

Here's the NRSV:

Source: Joshua 10

7 So Joshua went up from Gilgal, he and all the fighting force with him, all the mighty warriors. 8 The Lord said to Joshua, “Do not fear them, for I have handed them over to you; not one of them shall stand before you.” 9 So Joshua came upon them suddenly, having marched up all night from Gilgal. 10 And the Lord threw them into a panic before Israel, who inflicted a great slaughter on them at Gibeon, chased them by the way of the ascent of Beth-horon, and struck them down as far as Azekah and Makkedah. 11 As they fled before Israel, while they were going down the slope of Beth-horon, the Lord threw down huge stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died; there were more who died because of the hailstones than the Israelites killed with the sword.

12 On the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the Lord; and he said in the sight of Israel,


“Sun, stand still at Gibeon,
and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon.”

13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. 14 There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded a human voice; for the Lord fought for Israel.

15 Then Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to the camp at Gilgal.

© Copyright Original Source

Should we say that God just made it seem as if the sun stopped instead of actually doing it? This is little different than the issues with appearance of age.

[Carrikature]

Careful - I never said anything about Joshua's day not happening as told. That is an assumption that you've made - probably unconsciously (but then, I know I've said this several times before, but maybe not in this conversation).

It seems kinda pointless to call this an assumption on my part when you acknowledge here that you've said it before, and when you've effectively said the same thing earlier in the thread:

The issue of 'believed this was literal history' is not as black and white as you make it. First of all, for thousands of years Hebrews and Christians alike took Joshual's long day as LITERALLY stopping the Sun, the sunrise itself as LITERALLY the sun moving across the sky, and the descriptions in Genesis, Psalms and Job of the sky as some sort of cast, hard structure what waters above as LITERALLY true as well. They aren't, and we have come to terms with that transition.

But we have not learned from it.

In fact, my Post #52 explicitly mentioned this issue.

To be clear. I regard Genesis 1-11 as pre-history, and as such take the position that aspects of it, perhaps many of which are rooted in real events, are more allegorical/metaphorical - more concerned about the lesson taught than the fine grained accuracy of the story itself. I regard Genesis 12 and on (From the story of Abraham) as more historical in nature.

You've made that clear. What you haven't done, despite my repeated asking, is show why we should accept your view of these chapters. Again, we have every reason to believe these were understood, for hundreds if not thousands of years, as literal. Only now, when the facts no longer support such a view, do people try to twist the understanding into something that lets them maintain belief.

The fact is, we live in a time where we have more information about the structure and time frame of the universe than any other time in history that we know about. And that knowledge forces us to re-assess what Genesis is saying to us in those opening chapters.

Except it doesn't for the rest of us. This is a twist for you to maintain your faith, not a twist that's mandated by our new information. Were this not your faith, you would join the rest of us in viewing these chapters as inaccurate representations of a people that didn't know any better. Part of the pushback by YEC's is because they recognize and reject this twist.

I accept that Paul and others writing at the time of Christ would have tended to view Genesis 1-11 as more historical than I, or many others, would today. They didn't have any reason not to. But the results of fluid interpretation don't change because these first 11 chapters might be more allegorical than previously believed. Neither do any of the teachings of Christ which reference them. And likewise, I don't believe any of the theology Paul derives from them changes either. And that is the critical point of what I've been trying to say. In that Paul is deriving his teaching from the truth in the stories that stands independent from their relationship to physical history.

And, again, fluid interpretation deals with application to our modern struggles, not with altering the truth content of the passages. The reality is that the teachings of Paul and Jesus require these things to be literal truth. Sin doesn't enter the world with Adam unless Adam is real. Death doesn't follow sin unless that story is real.

ETA: BTW, there are factual differences in the stories Kings vs Chronicles, and they reflect the orientation of the story (pre vs post exile)

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/th...f-chronicles-1

Which is what we would expect of people changing the narrative to suit the thoughts of the time. There's more here than just fluid interpretation: it's downright changing the facts to fit the desired story.

[oxmixmudd]

Please don't by offended by my reduction of your post - this allows me to concisely address the point I've been making ...

....

Which is what we would expect of people changing the narrative to suit the thoughts of the time. There's more here than just fluid interpretation: it's downright changing the facts to fit the desired story.

Ok - that established, consider this.

Kings and Chronicles are part of the established Canon of Scripture in Jesus day. And Jesus is ok with these clear and obvious changes to the story. So here is my point:

There is an obvious cultural difference between how the writers approached scripture than how we do. And that difference allowed them to make these changes and to regard them as legitimate, even Holy. The Jewish People regarded and regard these scriptures as absolutely Holy - they treat them with for more respect and reverence than modern day Christians. It is my point that the writer of Genesis would be no less offended by the relationship of Genesis 1-11 to other stories of pagan origin than the writers of Chronicles were of the changes they made to the stories in Kings. And they would regard it as no less Holy because that is what it is.

We are the ones that don't like it. We are the ones most aware of it, except perhaps for the original Israelites. But we are the ones with the tools to understand it as well. Genesis 1 is NOT a scientific record of how God made the world, it was never supposed to be that, and I'm pretty sure based on the obvious correlations with other cultural elements of the time the writers never sought to create such a narrative. We impose that requirement on it, in part because it came to be imposed over history, and in part because that is how we think.

But the key is we should not then impose a spiritual judgement upon that reality because that kind of assessment was not part of the culture that wrote it, nor likely the culture of Jesus and the Jewish people in Jesus' time. And as Christians (I understand you do not profess Christian faith) we should accept Christ's acceptance of the text as Holy and from God NOT as a statement that OUR cultural definition of what the scriptures ought to be is correct and we can thus impose it upon this ancient text, but rather as something far more powerful, and in many ways the reverse: that these texts are Holy and inspired by God REGARDLESS of whether or not they are scientifically correct OR if they are adaptations of pagan stories with little superficial correlation to what happened historically but that tell us correctly about who God is as Creator and who we are as the created and what our relationship is to Him.


Jim

[Carrikature]

Please don't by offended by my reduction of your post - this allows me to concisely address the point I've been making ...

It doesn't offend me.

Ok - that established, consider this.

Kings and Chronicles are part of the established Canon of Scripture in Jesus day. And Jesus is ok with these clear and obvious changes to the story. So here is my point:

There is an obvious cultural difference between how the writers approached scripture than how we do. And that difference allowed them to make these changes and to regard them as legitimate, even Holy. The Jewish People regarded and regard these scriptures as absolutely Holy - they treat them with for more respect and reverence than modern day Christians. It is my point that the writer of Genesis would be no less offended by the relationship of Genesis 1-11 to other stories of pagan origin than the writers of Chronicles were of the changes they made to the stories in Kings. And they would regard it as no less Holy because that is what it is.

We are the ones that don't like it. We are the ones most aware of it, except perhaps for the original Israelites. But we are the ones with the tools to understand it as well. Genesis 1 is NOT a scientific record of how God made the world, it was never supposed to be that, and I'm pretty sure based on the obvious correlations with other cultural elements of the time the writers never sought to create such a narrative. We impose that requirement on it, in part because it came to be imposed over history, and in part because that is how we think.

But the key is we should not then impose a spiritual judgement upon that reality because that kind of assessment was not part of the culture that wrote it, nor likely the culture of Jesus and the Jewish people in Jesus' time. And as Christians (I understand you do not profess Christian faith) we should accept Christ's acceptance of the text as Holy and from God NOT as a statement that OUR cultural definition of what the scriptures ought to be is correct and we can thus impose it upon this ancient text, but rather as something far more powerful, and in many ways the reverse: that these texts are Holy and inspired by God REGARDLESS of whether or not they are scientifically correct OR if they are adaptations of pagan stories with little superficial correlation to what happened historically but that tell us correctly about who God is as Creator and who we are as the created and what our relationship is to Him.

So I grant all this. But there are limits. And those limits exist where I've bolded your post.

The issue isn't one specifically about scientific accuracy. Certainly, no one should take Genesis 1 to be accurate in that sense. I think it's probably fair to say that a lot of the Bible is focused on this relationship and not on accuracy of specific events, so inerrancy claims themselves could possibly be misdirected.

BUT

Where we try to understand our relationship with God as our Creator, we need there to be some level of accuracy. The entrance of sin and death into the world, in particular, is a defining aspect of that relationship. And it's one which can change drastically depending on your understanding of Gen. 2-11. So for you to say we should adjust our understanding of those passages in a way that you admit contradicts how it's understood by people we expect to actually know (like Jesus or Paul), you need to establish why we should accept your adjustment.

Which you haven't done. That's what I keep asking you to provide.