17 Jul 2015, 1:33 am
17 Jul 2015, 1:38 am
nurseangela wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
Janissy wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
Ok. So if one believes in the Big Bang then you would also believe that someone had to start it - God. Right?
That is the religious point of view and Pope Francis said as much in his speech. (Maybe you agree with him after all
) Quote:
Which means that an atheist couldn't believe in the Big Bang?
No. It's a religious view that certain things can only be accomplished by a conscious entity.
How does that tie in with the Bible, though? It says that God made the earth in 7 days. Nothing "bangy" went on. Isn't it going against the Bible?
Not necessarily at all. See this post of mine:
Quote:
Here's a sampling of common misunderstandings and an academic perspective on them:
It has been supposed that Christians must believe the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. However, there are traditions in the Talmud as old as the NT, and much discussion from the early church fathers on in which this idea isn't taken for granted at all. Augustine of Hippo is a prime example of a very pivotal name in Christian history who didn't interpret Genesis 1-3 literally, or date the rest of the OT this way either (see also Origen and Athanasius of Alexandria).
Let's examine a few facts before we dig in to this: the idea of 6,000-10,000 years and other even smaller estimates has it's first example in Jose ben Halafta's Seder Olam Rabbah, circa 160 A.D. However, this is clearly over two thousand years after Genesis was written or compiled, and in the Talmud we can see wildly divergent views on this matter. Early Christian discussion of the issue was no less divergent, with names like Clement, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome in favor of different literal interpretations and to name just a few individuals, Pseudo-Dionysus, Augustine, Origen, Papias, and Philo in favor of allegorical interpretations.
There are a few main questions at hand here: what is the genre of Genesis 1-3? How can we date Adam's genealogy? What does the language itself suggest about a literal six day creation, a global flood event, or Adam and Eve necessarily being the first hominids?
I think it's pretty clear that the flood was regional instead of global, Adam and Eve weren't the first hominids, there was no literal six day creation, and that it is impossible to date Adam's genealogy, for the following reasons: in the first few days before the sun and moon are even mentioned as being created, we see the word yod used. A yod is a literal day cycle, and the word itself invokes the actual image of first the sun, and then the moon, proceeding across the horizon.
At this point it's already impossible to think of the days literally because we have days being spoken of, and not in terms of a 24 hour period but a cycle of celestial bodies, before the necessary celestial bodies are even said to exist. Not only that but there is a perfect precedent for interpreting it as a theological allegory when we consider ancient Hebrews expressing themselves with acrostics. In the aleph-bet (aleph, beit, zayin, het, tet, yod, kaf/qof, lamed, etc.) used by ancient Hebrews, each member has a corresponding value as a symbolic number and can cumulatively build mathematical numbers with the others. This is called an acrostic alphabet, and most ancient Semitic languages used acrostic numerals. The symbolic significance of kaf/seven, is perfectness and completeness, qualities considered to be a reflection of and solely possessed by God.
On this basis, it is much more natural linguistically to assume that the account is an allegory meaning "God created everything with completeness and perfection". It was never intended to be a scientific account; instead it was intended to be an epic poem, that expressed artistically the manner in which God created and the theology of His relationship with Creation and Mankind. Assuming that it is somehow less "true" because of the genre is a mere insertion of modern Western thoughts into an ancient Near Eastern context, the kind of setting in which they would have been disinterested with a scientific account that didn't artistically and emotionally express theology.
As for dating Adam's genealogy, the difference between modern critical scholarship and A.D. Christian thinkers, is that they addressed it from a Hellenized perspective that didn't recognize the nature of Toledoth (the Hebrew practice of genealogy). A Hebrew person's Toledoth was a pedigree that linked him/her with any historical figures that they considered notable. Considering that, it was in no way a practice of preserving chronology. When we see in our English text "Adam begat, Seth begat, Jarrod begat, Hasharad begat" the word translated into "begat" is mizopan, which in Hebrew means "from the seed of". In no way does mizopan mean the very next generation (other qualifiers are necessary to be that specific), and all of these A.D. dating systems based on Hellenic thinking or similar A.D. Jewish ignorance of Toledoth, happened to use arbitrary methods of dating like "I'm going to assume that each generation equals forty years, and just add up the number of 'generations' in Adam's genealogy so I can multiply it by that". It must be emphasized that it is impossible to chronologically understand the type of genealogy that is purposely not chronological, but rather is used as a historical pedigree.
Are Adam and Eve the first humans? The bible flat out disagrees with that notion where Cain, who has killed his only brother Abel, gets banished and lives among other people. What they are instead, is the first hominids to enter into a relationship with God and be made in His image. God "breathes life into Adam's nostrils" and literally in doing so imparts His nefesh/spirit. This nefesh means that Adam is being given a special reasoning capacity, such that he has dominion over the environment and can contemplate and name creation, hence his naming the animals, feeling shame at his failure, being able to commune with God, etc. The tselem/image and dmuwth/likeness, respectively meaning in Hebrew "shade, or lesser version of" and "resemblance", is tied directly to the specific name being used for God: Elohim. Elohim signifies dominion and majesty, and the second part of Genesis 1:26 hammers in this association between the resemblance, and the very meaning of God's first biblical name (one of many that are all theological adjectives for Him), by telling us what Mankind will have dominion over.
And now we finish with some discussion of a global flood. I think I only need to raise two points to debunk this entirely: erets, which has been popularly translated as "the whole earth" in the story of Noah, actually means "mud/dirt" in it's most literal sense and has been translated according to context all throughout the bible as "mud", "field", "land", "province", "dominion", etc. It can signify anything from a single farm to an entire empire. So, as we can see now, there is no basic linguistic necessity for the flood being global. Is there proper context for such a translation? I should hardly think so, given that all of these newly endowed hominids turned into Mankind, were still in a pretty limited geographical region.
In fact, given a general sense of the rivers and landmasses named so far (although there are a few geographical names that still puzzle scholars here), it's obvious that Cain and Adam's respective tribes were still right around Mesopotamia. Given that, we've got two relatively small groups which have just started to domesticate animals and develop complex culture, living betwixt the Tigris and Euphrates, which are two rivers known to flood violently and on an unpredictable basis. Considering all of this, it would be awfully contrived to say that God flooded the whole earth when He could have accomplished the same goal by flooding a region smaller than a county.
When I think of all of this, I feel that at the very least these should be regarded as compelling accounts, as a beautiful literary accomplishment.
It has been supposed that Christians must believe the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. However, there are traditions in the Talmud as old as the NT, and much discussion from the early church fathers on in which this idea isn't taken for granted at all. Augustine of Hippo is a prime example of a very pivotal name in Christian history who didn't interpret Genesis 1-3 literally, or date the rest of the OT this way either (see also Origen and Athanasius of Alexandria).
Let's examine a few facts before we dig in to this: the idea of 6,000-10,000 years and other even smaller estimates has it's first example in Jose ben Halafta's Seder Olam Rabbah, circa 160 A.D. However, this is clearly over two thousand years after Genesis was written or compiled, and in the Talmud we can see wildly divergent views on this matter. Early Christian discussion of the issue was no less divergent, with names like Clement, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome in favor of different literal interpretations and to name just a few individuals, Pseudo-Dionysus, Augustine, Origen, Papias, and Philo in favor of allegorical interpretations.
There are a few main questions at hand here: what is the genre of Genesis 1-3? How can we date Adam's genealogy? What does the language itself suggest about a literal six day creation, a global flood event, or Adam and Eve necessarily being the first hominids?
I think it's pretty clear that the flood was regional instead of global, Adam and Eve weren't the first hominids, there was no literal six day creation, and that it is impossible to date Adam's genealogy, for the following reasons: in the first few days before the sun and moon are even mentioned as being created, we see the word yod used. A yod is a literal day cycle, and the word itself invokes the actual image of first the sun, and then the moon, proceeding across the horizon.
At this point it's already impossible to think of the days literally because we have days being spoken of, and not in terms of a 24 hour period but a cycle of celestial bodies, before the necessary celestial bodies are even said to exist. Not only that but there is a perfect precedent for interpreting it as a theological allegory when we consider ancient Hebrews expressing themselves with acrostics. In the aleph-bet (aleph, beit, zayin, het, tet, yod, kaf/qof, lamed, etc.) used by ancient Hebrews, each member has a corresponding value as a symbolic number and can cumulatively build mathematical numbers with the others. This is called an acrostic alphabet, and most ancient Semitic languages used acrostic numerals. The symbolic significance of kaf/seven, is perfectness and completeness, qualities considered to be a reflection of and solely possessed by God.
On this basis, it is much more natural linguistically to assume that the account is an allegory meaning "God created everything with completeness and perfection". It was never intended to be a scientific account; instead it was intended to be an epic poem, that expressed artistically the manner in which God created and the theology of His relationship with Creation and Mankind. Assuming that it is somehow less "true" because of the genre is a mere insertion of modern Western thoughts into an ancient Near Eastern context, the kind of setting in which they would have been disinterested with a scientific account that didn't artistically and emotionally express theology.
As for dating Adam's genealogy, the difference between modern critical scholarship and A.D. Christian thinkers, is that they addressed it from a Hellenized perspective that didn't recognize the nature of Toledoth (the Hebrew practice of genealogy). A Hebrew person's Toledoth was a pedigree that linked him/her with any historical figures that they considered notable. Considering that, it was in no way a practice of preserving chronology. When we see in our English text "Adam begat, Seth begat, Jarrod begat, Hasharad begat" the word translated into "begat" is mizopan, which in Hebrew means "from the seed of". In no way does mizopan mean the very next generation (other qualifiers are necessary to be that specific), and all of these A.D. dating systems based on Hellenic thinking or similar A.D. Jewish ignorance of Toledoth, happened to use arbitrary methods of dating like "I'm going to assume that each generation equals forty years, and just add up the number of 'generations' in Adam's genealogy so I can multiply it by that". It must be emphasized that it is impossible to chronologically understand the type of genealogy that is purposely not chronological, but rather is used as a historical pedigree.
Are Adam and Eve the first humans? The bible flat out disagrees with that notion where Cain, who has killed his only brother Abel, gets banished and lives among other people. What they are instead, is the first hominids to enter into a relationship with God and be made in His image. God "breathes life into Adam's nostrils" and literally in doing so imparts His nefesh/spirit. This nefesh means that Adam is being given a special reasoning capacity, such that he has dominion over the environment and can contemplate and name creation, hence his naming the animals, feeling shame at his failure, being able to commune with God, etc. The tselem/image and dmuwth/likeness, respectively meaning in Hebrew "shade, or lesser version of" and "resemblance", is tied directly to the specific name being used for God: Elohim. Elohim signifies dominion and majesty, and the second part of Genesis 1:26 hammers in this association between the resemblance, and the very meaning of God's first biblical name (one of many that are all theological adjectives for Him), by telling us what Mankind will have dominion over.
And now we finish with some discussion of a global flood. I think I only need to raise two points to debunk this entirely: erets, which has been popularly translated as "the whole earth" in the story of Noah, actually means "mud/dirt" in it's most literal sense and has been translated according to context all throughout the bible as "mud", "field", "land", "province", "dominion", etc. It can signify anything from a single farm to an entire empire. So, as we can see now, there is no basic linguistic necessity for the flood being global. Is there proper context for such a translation? I should hardly think so, given that all of these newly endowed hominids turned into Mankind, were still in a pretty limited geographical region.
In fact, given a general sense of the rivers and landmasses named so far (although there are a few geographical names that still puzzle scholars here), it's obvious that Cain and Adam's respective tribes were still right around Mesopotamia. Given that, we've got two relatively small groups which have just started to domesticate animals and develop complex culture, living betwixt the Tigris and Euphrates, which are two rivers known to flood violently and on an unpredictable basis. Considering all of this, it would be awfully contrived to say that God flooded the whole earth when He could have accomplished the same goal by flooding a region smaller than a county.
When I think of all of this, I feel that at the very least these should be regarded as compelling accounts, as a beautiful literary accomplishment.
So you're telling me that the Bible is all made up and that I, along with millions of other Christians should take it as a just a grand made up story? Sorry. I just can't do that. I don't even need the Bible to tell me that God exists - my faith tells me. I've had too many miracles happen that tell me. Tbh, I haven't even read the entire Bible, but I still believe in Him and His word.
More music to set the tone as we elucidate one another:
Allegories are not "made up". They are simply a different form of expression. We expect people from an entirely different cultural and linguistic setting to express themselves the same as us, but this doesn't make sense. Hebrew people would not have been as interested in a chronological or scientific/material account of Creation. What they were more interested in was God's nature as it was expressed in Creation, and exactly what Man is. This is why we see such a beautiful allegory in Genesis 1-3, of both astonishing artistic and theological value.
The scriptures primarily are primarily concerned with God and His nature, not scientific details of the Earth itself. He is the primary focus, so when such things are mentioned it is normally in reverence.
See Job 38:31-32, speaking of constellations:
Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season?
It made little difference to Job whether or not he knew what a star was, when considering how incredible it was that they simply were. He had no great scientific means, after all. It would be thousands of years before the telescope was invented and even longer before we understood that our sun is like these other stars. So what he is speaking of, is these things as it pertains to him and the wonder he feels when he gazes at these constellations.
I appreciate your sentiment and would like you to know that I am not putting you down for it. There are also numerous sections of the bible that aren't written in an allegorical genre. The key consideration here is genre. My personal feeling is that an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is actually much more meaningful; there is so much more substance and what we see in the original languages is very compelling.
Many Christians today would be shocked at the idea of Cain leaving his parents to live with others, but it is plainly there in the text. This and other details help to build a more marvelous picture than most of us have been giving the authors credit for.
From Kraichgauer:
Quote:
^^^
No, you don't have to believe that. You can believe the Bible as the literal truth, or you can take it as metaphor and allegory. It's the promise of the empty tomb on which Christianity rests, not theological squabbling.
No, you don't have to believe that. You can believe the Bible as the literal truth, or you can take it as metaphor and allegory. It's the promise of the empty tomb on which Christianity rests, not theological squabbling.
This isn't an "either or" proposition. It is merely a basic recognition that there are different genres in the bible. Apocalyptic literature (Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk), historical literature (e.g. 1st and 2nd Kings), poetry (Song of Solomon, Psalms, Jacob's poem to his sons at the end of Genesis, David's lament over Jonathan and Saul), theological allegory (as seen in the parables, Genesis 1-3, riddles, proverbs speaking of "Wisdom" as "She cries out in the streets", et cetera), and other examples of different genre abound. Clearly we can't regard these distinct pieces of literature as the same? Even fundamentalists agree that Jesus' parables aren't speaking of real historical events. So are they even consistent with themselves when they say "the bible is literal"?
Last edited by Lukecash12 on 17 Jul 2015, 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
17 Jul 2015, 1:40 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
17 Jul 2015, 1:50 am
17 Jul 2015, 1:55 am
17 Jul 2015, 2:09 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
17 Jul 2015, 2:16 am
17 Jul 2015, 2:27 am
17 Jul 2015, 3:09 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
17 Jul 2015, 10:17 am
17 Jul 2015, 12:22 pm
nurseangela wrote:
Janissy wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
Ok. So if one believes in the Big Bang then you would also believe that someone had to start it - God. Right?
That is the religious point of view and Pope Francis said as much in his speech. (Maybe you agree with him after all
) Quote:
Which means that an atheist couldn't believe in the Big Bang?
No. It's a religious view that certain things can only be accomplished by a conscious entity.
How does that tie in with the Bible, though? It says that God made the earth in 7 days. Nothing "bangy" went on. Isn't it going against the Bible?
In Genesis God first creates the Earth and then creates light.
"And God said, 'Let there be light'. And there was light."
I think 'Let there be light' dovetails quite well with the Big Bang. The timeline is off, in that the earth comes before light in Genesis. But Lukecash 12 did say that super precise timelines are a modern priority.
I also think the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden dovetails well with some aspects of human evolution. There are painful consequences to evolving a big brain and that story lays them out for you. Once Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge (evolved a big brain) they got kicked out of Eden. No more 'ignorance is bliss'. Big brains are an evolutionary advantage but they make bliss pretty hard to come by. It's hard to be in Eden when you can actually worry about where your next meal is coming from instead of just being animalistically hungry (although you are that too). It's hard to be in Eden when you know what happens next as the gash on your leg turns black instead of healing.
Then there's the painful consequence specific to Eve (women) for eating from the Tree of Knowledge (evolving a big brain). Painful childbirth. That was God's punishment and it did happen pretty much literally as a consequence of big brains. Babies have big heads to hold their big brains and women have narrow hips to make upright walking possible. Those two things had to come together for our move from primate to hominid but painful childbirth is an inevitable consequence. The other apes stayed away from the Tree of Knowledge so they aren't as smart and are super ungainly for the very short periods they walk upright but their females have easier childbirth.
Poor Adam also now has to work non-stop as a consequence.
Quote:
therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.
That actually sounds like a recounting not of evolution but of the development of agriculture, still an event millenia before the bible. Could stories have been passed down??? Hunter-gatherer is possible with a small population as long as you stay mobile. Anthropologists say it would be a less work-intense lifestyle than early agriculture. Less backbreaking work but also fewer calories so it can't support a large population. Once you settle down to agriculture (and work non stop) you get more calories from the grains and the population grows. But you can't go back. There might as well be an angel with a flaming sword stopping you.
17 Jul 2015, 1:44 pm
18 Jul 2015, 1:37 am
nurseangela wrote:
So you're telling me that the Bible is all made up and that I, along with millions of other Christians should take it as a just a grand made up story? Sorry. I just can't do that. I don't even need the Bible to tell me that God exists - my faith tells me. I've had too many miracles happen that tell me. Tbh, I haven't even read the entire Bible, but I still believe in Him and His word.
To be honest, it's pretty astounding to observe Christians whose comfort zones preclude even famous parts of the bible. Are we really that afraid of the bible itself, nurseangela?
18 Jul 2015, 1:42 am
Lukecash12 wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
So you're telling me that the Bible is all made up and that I, along with millions of other Christians should take it as a just a grand made up story? Sorry. I just can't do that. I don't even need the Bible to tell me that God exists - my faith tells me. I've had too many miracles happen that tell me. Tbh, I haven't even read the entire Bible, but I still believe in Him and His word.
To be honest, it's pretty astounding to observe Christians whose comfort zones preclude even famous parts of the bible. Are we really that afraid of the bible itself, nurseangela?
You mean afraid of it to where we should question it? If I believe it's actually God's words then I should just accept it without question.
18 Jul 2015, 4:15 am
nurseangela wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
So you're telling me that the Bible is all made up and that I, along with millions of other Christians should take it as a just a grand made up story? Sorry. I just can't do that. I don't even need the Bible to tell me that God exists - my faith tells me. I've had too many miracles happen that tell me. Tbh, I haven't even read the entire Bible, but I still believe in Him and His word.
To be honest, it's pretty astounding to observe Christians whose comfort zones preclude even famous parts of the bible. Are we really that afraid of the bible itself, nurseangela?
You mean afraid of it to where we should question it? If I believe it's actually God's words then I should just accept it without question.
Without what kind of question? Any question? Asking yourself what exactly something is, and asking yourself whether or not something is true, constitutes entirely different lines of questioning. Does the bible really tell us not to ask along the former line of questioning?
Well, the answer to that is self explanatory when we look at the words of Peter:
1st Peter 3:15
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
Are you afraid to accept that much of the bible was indeed intended to be an allegory? Does this somehow violate your notion that the bible is true? Jesus said that He is the true vine. Neither of us believe that Jesus was a plant in a vineyard, though. God created you with the capacity to reason. This is why the Word itself says that some parts are easy to digest, like milk, and other parts take more time to digest, like meat. There comes a time when we can take that milk, for example Jesus admonishing us to have faith like children do, and fit it into a larger picture: God creating us specifically for our capacity to reason, our capacity to reflect His own nature, and Peter and Paul presenting philosophical arguments to convince people of the Gospel.
It's not as if I'm waving forbidden fruit in front of you. Christians have been viewing Genesis and other sections of scripture as allegory basically since the first centuries. This didn't present them any dilemma when it came to believing in the Gospel, or believing that God is the Creator.
What we have done in all this time, is with every generation we try to insert our own modern ideas into ancient minds. We all think of the same object, whose name is Yahweh, yet we can't fool ourselves into thinking that other people in the past must have expressed themselves the same ways that we do. One example of doing that, is trying to read science into a creation account written by people who weren't even interested in that kind of explanation.
Am I venturing into threatening territory here? Well, it never did say in the Word that all of this would be easy to understand. Probably one of the most common errors in addressing the Bible is the assumption that it's either independently true, or even the scriptures themselves say, that it will be easy to understand. Theology isn't called the queen of the sciences for nothing, though.
nerdygirl
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,645
Location: In the land of abstractions and ideas.
18 Jul 2015, 4:56 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Pope Francis Says LGBT Blessings are for Individuals |
29 Jan 2024, 3:59 am |
| Francis Scott Key Bridge collapses after hit by ship |
30 Mar 2024, 12:50 pm |
| Faith (feat. techstepgenr8tion) |
09 Feb 2024, 11:15 am |
| Intelligent design has no place in science classrooms. |
17 Mar 2024, 8:20 pm |
