Board index ‹ Bible

[Less More]

> Well, maybe you're thinking Sunday School as a child. Supposing, just supposing, Genesis 1 is not about the material manufacture of the universe, but instead about how God ordered it to function. Bear with me, and try to keep an open mind.

So if one for some reason were to adopt your idiosyncratic interpretation, it would move Genesis from myth to history?

Why not both?

[jimwalton]

> idiosyncratic interpretation

Oh, it's not that at all. You can't just blow off the concept because you consider it my individual view. This perspective is laid out by Dr. John Walton in “The Lost World of Genesis 1” (https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=john+walton&qid=1564575785&s=gateway&sr=8-2). It is a view that is becoming accepted across a spectrum of scholars and scientists alike around the world.

> it would move Genesis from myth to history?

Genesis doesn't have to MOVE from myth to history; it's always been history. Some people try to move it to myth, but it doesn't fit there, both on the nature of mythology and on the intent of Genesis.

> Why not both?

Because the Genesis narrative is not mythological but history-theological. It describes how the cosmos was designed to function, which is not the task of mythography. Then Genesis relates one historical narrative after another to show how God is revealing Himself in history to space-time historical persons.

[Lean On Me]

> The Bible is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc.

So if you were god and your goal was to divinely inspire a book because for some reason you can't write it yourself, would you fill it with all of these different literary forms that in turn make every passage endlessly interpret-able? Why couldn't God in no uncertain terms layout his teachings so that the meaning isn't obscured by hyperbole or poetic literary forms? Wouldn't he know that humans would misinterpret his teachings that way? The bible just seems like the worst mechanism possible to communicate the supreme truth of the universe. Not even Christians can agree on the interpretations of the bible, there are thousands of christian denominations.

If you open to a random page in the Bible you could find yourself at 1 Samuel 18:27 reading about a mans quest to bring 200 foreskins to a king so he could marry his daughter. You could flip to Genesis 5:32 and read about a 500 year old man with 3 sons who builds a wooden Ark massive enough to fit 2 of every animal on earth in order to survive a global flood that left behind no physical evidence whatsoever.

I could name absurd stories like this from the bible all day. Whether these are supposed to be literal or not, why would you ever put them in a book thats supposed to be a moral guide of infallible truth for all of humanity? God could appear to every human on earth at any time, explain his teachings, and prove his existence beyond a shadow of a doubt. Instead we get 2000+ year old, anonymously written, completely unverifiable stories about a king who sends his daughter's suitor to collect hundreds of Palestinian foreskins or men who travel in the mouths of whales and we're supposed to draw some sort of moral truth out of it.

Not even the 10 commandments are clear. "Honour thy father and thy mother", ok, what if you have abusive parents? What if they tell you to do something immoral or against god? "Thou shalt not kill." what if its in self defense? What if it's to save someone else? "Thou shalt not steal" what if it's the only way to feed your family? What if you're stealing intel from ISIS that will save the lives of thousands? Can you imagine if our laws were actually written to be this unspecific and we did not explicitly account for different kinds/severity of murder and theft?

These seems like rules and stories written by primitive desert dwellers who were trying to live and govern a newly socialized world they did not understand, not by an all knowing God.

[jimwalton]

> would you fill it with all of these different literary forms that in turn make every passage endlessly interpret-able?

Yes I would. First of all, these different literary forms make the text literarily beautiful (the medium is the message), but it's impossible to have ANY kind of communication that is not interpret-able. It's the unavoidable nature of communication between personal beings.

> The bible just seems like the worst mechanism possible to communicate the supreme truth of the universe.

I'd be curious what you'd suggest that has no down side. No matter what form of communication you employ, humans are humans.

> I could name absurd stories like this from the bible all day.

They're not absurd. See how you have taken clear communication and made it unclear? That's a great example of what we're talking about here.

1 Sam. 18.27: What's so unclear? It's pretty simple to understand. You just don't like or understand what you're reading, but that's not the communicator's fault. Some kind of bride-price was common in ancient marriages, and the price was set by the father. Saul made the bride price a a matter of military prowess, which was also common. It was also common in the ancient for military victory to be displayed by cutting off some body part, usually hands or heads. The Assyrian king Sargon II had his soldiers make piles of heads. The request for foreskins would have proven that the victims were Philistines, because many of the other neighbors of Israel would have practiced circumcision.

So possibly the only problem here is that you hadn't researched the text or the practice.

> Not even the 10 commandments are clear. "Honour thy father and thy mother", ok, what if you have abusive parents?

Again, a little bit of work on your part would go a long way. The 10 Commandments are obviously not legislative, and were never meant to be. They are so general as to be virtually unenforceable in any kind of judicial system. They are statements of covenant policy.

As such, therefore, a statement such as "Honor your father and mother" that the parents are acting in a godly way. The command doesn't apply when the parents are mentally and physically abusive. Honoring one's parents is a key to social stability, and recognizing legitimate norms of authority is necessarily for the success of society. The Bible teaches that all authority is delegated by God, and therefore is never absolute in and of itself. The idea behind the command is that godly parental authority on earth is a manifestation of God's goodness and authority in heaven. It's the same with government. But when government leaders turn evil, and when parents act in evil ways, God repudiates them. Giving honor is to say that someone is deserving of respect, attention, and obedience. A life that does not back up one's "honorable position" (parent, governor, policeman, teacher) is hypocrisy in the highest form, and honor is no longer appropriate.

We're supposed to honor our parents (who presumably are acting honorably) so that we learn to honor God (who is absolute good). If we learn how to rightly submit to just authority, it translates into our relationship with God. Parents are supposed to be the visible representatives of God for the exerting of authority that is righteous. But parents who act evilly lose the right to honor and are worthy of judgment.

> "Thou shalt not kill." what if its in self defense?

Self-defense is justified. The command speaks of intentional premeditated murder, not of war, self-defense, justifiable homicide, or a dozen other situations. Again, it's not legislative, but wisdom-guidance. Judges are expected to use their brains, secure and evaluate evidence, and make a wise judgment.

> These seems like rules and stories written by primitive desert dwellers who were trying to live and govern a newly socialized world they did not understand, not by an all knowing God.

Not at all. You're just interpreting them poorly, presumably from a lack of understanding, thought, and research. Let's talk more.

[Lean On Me]

On mobile so I'm going to try and address the 2 main points.

Let's say I'm god, and I want to communicate the golden rule to you. Is it more efficient and straightforward if I say "you should treat people how you want to be treated because nobody would be treated poorly if we all acted this way. it is mutually beneficial for everyone". Or does it make more sense to communicate this message through a lengthy story in old timey "he doth begot thoust maiden" speak about people who lived a primitive society and encountered magic, saw visions, etc, all while obfuscating the meaning behind poetic language? Keep in mind that I'm god so I could also just broadcast myself to all of humanity and speak in such a way that would make sense to all humans, or just snap my fingers and put the understanding into their heads. Do you see what I'm saying? These bible stories are such a roundabout way of communication. If you read a science textbook for instance, you can learn a lot because it is written informatively in clear terms. X happens, therefore x. This is how humans learn. If you read "mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell" and interpret it as anything else then you just lack reading comprehension. But again, it doesn't have to be written anywhere. God could communicate through any medium he could think of.

I'd be interested to see where you extrapolated the exceptions to the 10 commandments through the bible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is a part where moses says " actually you are allowed to kill if x conditions, and you are allowed to disrespect your parents if x conditions". It seems like you recognize that this is a set of rules far too vague to be actually be followed and you're inserting your own morality into it so that it actually makes sense.

[jimwalton]

> Or does it make more sense to communicate this message through a lengthy story in old timey "he doth begot thoust maiden" speak about people who lived a primitive society and encountered magic, saw visions, etc, all while obfuscating the meaning behind poetic language?

Oh my. We're into full-on distortion territory now. But let me address your question. God did it the efficient way (choice #1 rather than ridiculous #2).

Leviticus 19.1-2, 18: "The Lord said to Moses: 'Speak to the entire assembly of Israel... Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself."

Luke 6:31: Jesus said, "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Nice and clear, efficient and straightforward. None of the goblet-gook nonsense of your choice #2.

> These bible stories are such a roundabout way of communication.

I've heard MANY expert communicators say that story-telling is one of the most effective ways to communicate.

> I'd be interested to see where you extrapolated the exceptions to the 10 commandments through the bible.

Genesis 9.6: Capital punishment for those who murder. Therefore killing in premeditated homicide is wrong, but killing for judicial reasons is justice. There are many examples in the Bible where capital punishment for judicial reasons is allowed.

Joshua 10. The Israelites were attacked by a coalition of armies from south Canaan, and God said it was justified for them to defend themselves (Josh. 10.8).

Numbers 35 establishes cities of refuge for protection for people who had perhaps killed someone but not in a malicious, premeditated, murderous way. See also Exodus 21.13.

> you are allowed to disrespect your parents if x conditions"

No, of course Moses never said this. But remember that the command was given to adults, not to children. The issues on the table are social stability and norms of authority. Given in the context of the covenant community, we take them in that context of addressing the social and authoritarian bonds between people as God's people. In ancient Israel (as well as the surrounding countries), one drew identity from family and clan, and values were preserved in that context. It would never have occurred to someone in ancient Israel to ask, "Would you still honor your parents if they tried to persuade you to abandon your faith or to engage in criminal activities, or if they abused you sexually?" Such unacceptable behaviors would not serve to preserve order in the covenant community’s identity with YHWH. In other words, it doesn't need to be said.

In America today, we have the right of freedom of speech. Otto Warmbier learned quite tragically that's not the case in North Korea. Americans don't need to be told, "Well, what if you use your free speech for hate speech, slandering others in the press, and to threaten to assassinate the President?" Well, we all know those kinds of speech are not what is protected by the Bill of Rights' claim. It's part of our culture. So also there was a cultural context for the 10 Commandments as being legal wisdom in the context of the covenant community.