You say the Christian god inhabits both a supernatural realm named heaven and the universe. I mean I get that he’s omnipresent in most models, but he didn’t need the universe if he already had heaven. The universe is just his vacation home then, not a temple, right? Or maybe I misunderstand what a temple’s purpose is in this context? Also what is meant by “heaven is not a place exactly” ? All I can figure is that means it doesn’t occupy space, which I already assumed. And is “where god’s presence is” any different than “where god is” ?
What I got from your second section is that the Christian god couldn’t give people atonement and forgiveness unless they were at a temple. This is strange beyond measure to me, because this deity is claimed to be omnipotent (so he shouldn’t truly need anything) and omnipresent (so how is his presence limited to a room in a room in a temple?). And on top of that, people offered sacrifices in the bible all the way back to Cain and Abel without needing a temple, so why did the Christian god change the requirements?
The temple of the Christian god also had decor of a garden, according to your earlier comment, so in that regard it’s no different. Also, I don’t think it had the decor of the cosmos, because humans knew nothing about the cosmos at that time and “a room with furniture and an altar” is hardly reminiscent of the cosmos. Whose to say the “false gods” didn’t simply choose to live in a garden, and so that’s why their earthly home replica temples are garden themed?
Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution
22 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: Why were we created
by jimwalton » Sun Oct 04, 2020 2:13 pm
> but he didn’t need the universe if he already had heaven.
You're right: He didn't need the universe. God has no needs.
> The universe is just his vacation home then, not a temple, right?
Ha. Funny. A temple in the ancient world was where the deity would dwell among his people, interact with them, and act on their behalf. That is the function the universe plays for YHWH.
> Also what is meant by “heaven is not a place exactly” ?
It's not a location and doesn't occupy physical space.
> And is “where god’s presence is” any different than “where god is”
God's omnipresence is spoken of in a sense of that though God is everywhere, His presence can be more or less concentrated in particular locales. For instance, God dwells in the hearts of those who have given their lives to Him. That's obviously a very different kind of presence than His general omnipresence. Several times the Bible speaks of God's presence dwelling in certain places, like on top of the cover of the ark of the covenant. This is obviously a different degree of presence than His presence elsewhere.
> What I got from your second section is that the Christian god couldn’t give people atonement and forgiveness unless they were at a temple.
Then either I misspoke or your misunderstood. God can give people atonement and forgiveness anywhere. It was at the Temple where sacrifices were performed to that effect.
> And on top of that, people offered sacrifices in the bible all the way back to Cain and Abel without needing a temple, so why did the Christian god change the requirements?
God changed the requirements because they were at that particular time a concentrated people—their own nation—who would live in their own land. That called for a different kind of symbolism and cultic practice. God's revelation and His way of dealing with His people is always progressive. God is on the move; nothing for Him is static.
> I don’t think it had the decor of the cosmos, because humans knew nothing about the cosmos at that time
They certainly knew about the sun, moon, and stars, though they didn't understand their physical nature or spatial place as we do now.
> Whose to say the “false gods” didn’t simply choose to live in a garden, and so that’s why their earthly home replica temples are garden themed?
In the Middle East, it's hot and dry. Any place with water and trees is a welcomed sight and was regarded as a place of blessing. Therefore gardens had the reputation of being a place where god was blessing his or people. Many ancient cities had gardens next to the temple.
Kings (Ashurnasirpal; Sennacherib, Sargon, etc.) of the ancient Near East boasted of large parts of their cities devoted to parks, and of the distant lands from which the plants and animals were gathered. It was a symbol of divine favor.
In ancient Near East literature, it is not unusual to find creator gods (Enki; El) with a watery abode. El is said to reside at the source of the rivers. Eden is described similarly (Gn. 2.8ff.). The idea of four streams flowing from the temple or palace to water the four corners of the earth is represented graphically in a couple of ANE sites (Mari, Ashur).
At Eden, the garden adjoins God's residence in the same way that a garden of the palace adjoins the palace in any ANE city. It is the source of the waters and the residence of God. The Genesis text describes a situation that was well known in the ancient world: a sacred spot featuring a spring with an adjoining, well-watered park, stocked with specimens of trees and animals.
Walton writes, "The Garden of Eden is not viewed by the author simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland, but as an archetypal sanctuary—a place where God dwells and where man should worship him. Many of the features of the garden may also be found in later sanctuaries, particularly the tabernacle or Jerusalem temple. These parallels suggest that the garden itself is understood as a sort of sanctuary."
You're right: He didn't need the universe. God has no needs.
> The universe is just his vacation home then, not a temple, right?
Ha. Funny. A temple in the ancient world was where the deity would dwell among his people, interact with them, and act on their behalf. That is the function the universe plays for YHWH.
> Also what is meant by “heaven is not a place exactly” ?
It's not a location and doesn't occupy physical space.
> And is “where god’s presence is” any different than “where god is”
God's omnipresence is spoken of in a sense of that though God is everywhere, His presence can be more or less concentrated in particular locales. For instance, God dwells in the hearts of those who have given their lives to Him. That's obviously a very different kind of presence than His general omnipresence. Several times the Bible speaks of God's presence dwelling in certain places, like on top of the cover of the ark of the covenant. This is obviously a different degree of presence than His presence elsewhere.
> What I got from your second section is that the Christian god couldn’t give people atonement and forgiveness unless they were at a temple.
Then either I misspoke or your misunderstood. God can give people atonement and forgiveness anywhere. It was at the Temple where sacrifices were performed to that effect.
> And on top of that, people offered sacrifices in the bible all the way back to Cain and Abel without needing a temple, so why did the Christian god change the requirements?
God changed the requirements because they were at that particular time a concentrated people—their own nation—who would live in their own land. That called for a different kind of symbolism and cultic practice. God's revelation and His way of dealing with His people is always progressive. God is on the move; nothing for Him is static.
> I don’t think it had the decor of the cosmos, because humans knew nothing about the cosmos at that time
They certainly knew about the sun, moon, and stars, though they didn't understand their physical nature or spatial place as we do now.
> Whose to say the “false gods” didn’t simply choose to live in a garden, and so that’s why their earthly home replica temples are garden themed?
In the Middle East, it's hot and dry. Any place with water and trees is a welcomed sight and was regarded as a place of blessing. Therefore gardens had the reputation of being a place where god was blessing his or people. Many ancient cities had gardens next to the temple.
Kings (Ashurnasirpal; Sennacherib, Sargon, etc.) of the ancient Near East boasted of large parts of their cities devoted to parks, and of the distant lands from which the plants and animals were gathered. It was a symbol of divine favor.
In ancient Near East literature, it is not unusual to find creator gods (Enki; El) with a watery abode. El is said to reside at the source of the rivers. Eden is described similarly (Gn. 2.8ff.). The idea of four streams flowing from the temple or palace to water the four corners of the earth is represented graphically in a couple of ANE sites (Mari, Ashur).
At Eden, the garden adjoins God's residence in the same way that a garden of the palace adjoins the palace in any ANE city. It is the source of the waters and the residence of God. The Genesis text describes a situation that was well known in the ancient world: a sacred spot featuring a spring with an adjoining, well-watered park, stocked with specimens of trees and animals.
Walton writes, "The Garden of Eden is not viewed by the author simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland, but as an archetypal sanctuary—a place where God dwells and where man should worship him. Many of the features of the garden may also be found in later sanctuaries, particularly the tabernacle or Jerusalem temple. These parallels suggest that the garden itself is understood as a sort of sanctuary."
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why were we created
by Throw Away » Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:31 pm
Nah. Dinosaurs were always fun. They make great toys and t-shirts. Oh, and children's books.
Life is progressive. It moves on. Life forms come and go—it's part of the process and progress of creation. Things evolve. Species begin and end (poor passenger pigeons).
But us? We just may be the death of this planet before very much more time passes.
Are modern humans the end of this progression or are we just a phase in God's progressive plan? If we are then that seems lucky that I am the pinnacle of God's plan and if not then we are just a cog in God's plan? Does evolution end with us?
- Throw Away
Re: Why were we created
by jimwalton » Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:38 pm
> Are modern humans the end of this progression or are we just a phase in God's progressive plan?
There is no hint in the Bible that humans are a medial phase in the progression of God's plan. It seems that we are the focal point of it (in terms of God's image and God's plan of salvation for us).
> If we are then that seems lucky that I am the pinnacle of God's plan and if not then we are just a cog in God's plan?
The Bible never uses the word "lucky" or points toward that concept. Instead, it's God's sovereign design in accordance with His wisdom. We aren't a cog in His plan, we are instead the object of His love and grace.
> Does evolution end with us?
It's my guess that it does, as you read. We are so destructive of the Earth and of each other that I can't envision evolution having time to progress to anything else.
What are your thoughts on these matters?
There is no hint in the Bible that humans are a medial phase in the progression of God's plan. It seems that we are the focal point of it (in terms of God's image and God's plan of salvation for us).
> If we are then that seems lucky that I am the pinnacle of God's plan and if not then we are just a cog in God's plan?
The Bible never uses the word "lucky" or points toward that concept. Instead, it's God's sovereign design in accordance with His wisdom. We aren't a cog in His plan, we are instead the object of His love and grace.
> Does evolution end with us?
It's my guess that it does, as you read. We are so destructive of the Earth and of each other that I can't envision evolution having time to progress to anything else.
What are your thoughts on these matters?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why were we created
by Mom Says So » Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:46 pm
otcha, ok. So that’s what a temple is for, and that’s why the universe is YHWH’s temple.
If I may offer an analogy, is your god’s omnipresence like a quantum energy field covering all of space (like an electron field) and his “special presence” like excitations of that field? When the electron field is excited in one spot, an electron appears seemingly from nowhere even though the field was there the entire time. That’s sorta like what i here you saying about YHWH. Is that close at all?
Fair, and I may well have misunderstood. But I still don’t understand the purpose of an earthly temple for a god whose temple is the entire universe. Why exactly would he even want one? Sorry if I’m being thick and just missing some obvious piece of information
You say your god is always progressive, but as I see it, a move from allowing people to sacrifice what they have where they are is far better and more inclusive than requiring them to sacrifice specific animals they may not have in a place that may be days away from them. How is that progress, in what way is it better?
No of course they knew celestial objects existed, I don’t dispute that. Even knowing what they did though, the description of the tabernacle and later temple I’ve always heard sounded nothing like it was designed to imitate even what they knew of the cosmos.
So, do you believe the genesis account of creation actually happened? I mean after everything you said, genesis sounds entirely mundane to me, just another myth in a line of myths that sprang up (pun intended) from those people at that time in that context. What sets YHWH apart?
(Meta-discussion: sorry that this conversation has so many points, I know that can make it difficult to engage with. I’m aware that it’s a problem and I’m gonna sit down and review some of my discussions probably tonight, hopefully I can figure out what I’m doing wrong and try to fix it)
If I may offer an analogy, is your god’s omnipresence like a quantum energy field covering all of space (like an electron field) and his “special presence” like excitations of that field? When the electron field is excited in one spot, an electron appears seemingly from nowhere even though the field was there the entire time. That’s sorta like what i here you saying about YHWH. Is that close at all?
Fair, and I may well have misunderstood. But I still don’t understand the purpose of an earthly temple for a god whose temple is the entire universe. Why exactly would he even want one? Sorry if I’m being thick and just missing some obvious piece of information
You say your god is always progressive, but as I see it, a move from allowing people to sacrifice what they have where they are is far better and more inclusive than requiring them to sacrifice specific animals they may not have in a place that may be days away from them. How is that progress, in what way is it better?
No of course they knew celestial objects existed, I don’t dispute that. Even knowing what they did though, the description of the tabernacle and later temple I’ve always heard sounded nothing like it was designed to imitate even what they knew of the cosmos.
So, do you believe the genesis account of creation actually happened? I mean after everything you said, genesis sounds entirely mundane to me, just another myth in a line of myths that sprang up (pun intended) from those people at that time in that context. What sets YHWH apart?
(Meta-discussion: sorry that this conversation has so many points, I know that can make it difficult to engage with. I’m aware that it’s a problem and I’m gonna sit down and review some of my discussions probably tonight, hopefully I can figure out what I’m doing wrong and try to fix it)
- Mom Says So
Re: Why were we created
by jimwalton » Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:17 pm
> is your god’s omnipresence like a quantum energy field ... Is that close at all?
Probably not a bad analogy, though all analogies fail eventually when pressed too hard. But on the surface, the analogy makes sense.
There are also quantum analogies to the Trinity. The first is called superposition, where subatomic particles are able to exist in two states simultaneously. Get that—that very same things existing in two separate states at the same time. The second is that of nonlocality and entanglement. The principle here is that objects in far reaches of the universe seem to "know" about each other's states, and yet these separate particles can behave as a single entity.
For another potential scientific "validation" of such possibilities, in 2017 a group of quantum scientists (University of Science and Technology of China in Shanghai) successfully teleported a photon from Earth to a satellite in orbit. It's called quantum entanglement. As far as our discussion here, quantum entanglement means that the two quantum objects share a wave function and share the same identity, even when separated. What happens to one happens to the other—wherever it exists. They are more than identical twins, the article said, "the two are one and the same." Apparently, according to the article, when they interact with matter on Earth they lose certain aspects of entanglement, but in the vacuum of space, they can extend infinitely (eternally). It's just interesting.
> But I still don’t understand the purpose of an earthly temple for a god whose temple is the entire universe.
First of all, humans engage better in a tactile/visual environment than in a purely abstract one. Secondly (and I think more importantly), there are significant symbols that can only be expressed by physical means (sacrifice and scapegoat) that made the presence of a physical temple worth the theological risk of compromise (a compromise that certainly happened, since humans are so...doggone... human. But the Temple also succeeded in expressing those theological truths that are so valuable.
> How is that progress, in what way is it better?
The symbolism matters. If I want to torture and hang an effigy of President Trump in my basement, I could do that, but it would be more effective in a public square somewhere, and even more poignant on Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.
The centrality of the Temple spoke against some popular and common polytheistic concepts in the ancient world, and Israel's unique sacrificial system to some important theology truths. There was a point to all of it.
> Even knowing what they did though, the description of the tabernacle and later temple I’ve always heard sounded nothing like it was designed to imitate even what they knew of the cosmos.
The Temple had decor of a Garden (pomegranates, almond trees, etc). In the ancient Near East, gardens were associated with deity blessings (which I can understand in the middle of such harsh desert climates). Gardens were built next to temples, and that's where people could go to meet with their gods. Solomon's temple reflected those images to speak of a place of God's presence, blessing, and mediation for His people.
> So, do you believe the genesis account of creation actually happened?
Dr. John Walton has published some perspectives on Genesis 1-2 that are making a huge impact around the Christian world (https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_1?crid=30EM809D36EII&dchild=1&keywords=john+walton+the+lost+world+of+genesis+one&qid=1601842550&sprefix=john+walton+the+los%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1). I like his approach. What his analyses of the text have shown are that Gn. 1-2 are accounts of *functional* creation, not that of material creation. In the Bible there is no question that God is the creator of the material universe (and there are texts that teach that), but that's not what Genesis 1-2 are about. They are about how God brought order and functionality to the material universe that was there. And it is just as much a **literal** approach to the text as the traditional. Let me try to explain VERY briefly.
Gn. 1.1 is a heading, not an action. Then, if it's a text about material creation it will start with nothingness, but if it's a text about bringing order, it will start with disorder, which is what Gn. 1.2 says.
The first "day" is clearly (literally) about a period of light called day, and a period of light called night. It is about the sequence of day and night, evening and morning, literally. Therefore, what Day 1 is about is God ordering the universe and our lives with the function of TIME, not God creating what the physicists call "light," about which the ancients knew nothing.
Look through the whole chapter. It is about how the firmament functions to bring us weather (the firmament above and below), how the earth functions to bring forth plants for our sustenance, how the sun, moon, and stars function to order the days and seasons. We find out in day 6 the function of humans: to be fruitful and multiply, to rule the earth and subdue it. Walton contends that we have to look at the text through ancient eyes, not modern ones, and the concern of the ancients was function and order. (It was a given that the deities created the material universe.) The differences between cultures (and creation accounts) was how the universe functioned, how it was ordered, and what people were for. (There were large disagreements among the ancients about function and order; it widely separates the Bible from the surrounding mythologies.)
And on the 7th day God rested. In the ancient world when a god came to "rest" in the temple, he came to live there and engage with the people as their god. So it is not a day of disengagement, but of action and relationship.
In other words, it's a temple text, not an account of material creation. There was no temple that could be built by human hands that would be suitable for him, so God order the entire universe to function as his Temple. The earth was ordered to function as the "Holy Place," and the Garden of Eden as his "Holy of Holies". Adam and Eve were given the function of being his priest and priestess, to care for sacred space (very similar to Leviticus) and to be in relationship with God (that's what Genesis 2 is about).
> What sets YHWH apart
I would assert that the Genesis story is markedly different in nature and purpose than any of the ancient mythologies, separating it from them. Mythographies are not interested in portraying events (history), but want to show how the cosmos works and how it got that way. A myth is an attempt to explain reality from theological vantage point, and are not meant to connect those stories, as stories, with events in the real world.
It also helps to understand that ancient historiography was not meant to relate what "really happened" the way we moderns approach historiography. T.M. Bolin has shown that we are often interested in historical reconstruction, whereas the ancient Israelites were interested in truth-telling literature. Glassner says, "The Mesopotamians had no profession of historian as we understand it today, nor its methods or perspective. As they saw it, the problem was not critical assessment of sources, nor was the question, fundamentally, knowing how and in what causal sequence events considered unique had occurred. The primary task was to choose, according to a definite focus of interest, among the carefully collected data from past events, certain facts that, from that point of view, had acquired universal relevance and significance." So the Genesis story is "event-oriented, truth-telling literature," but doesn't work the same way as modern historiography does.
In other words, Walton says, "mythography has a different referent than historiography, yet is considered no less real. It may, however, be considered to pertain to a different plane of reality. ... each has a different focus in its expression of reality." I would argue that the stories of Genesis are ancient historiography as distinct from ancient mythography, with a different purpose, referent, approach, format, ideology, and literary form. That's what sets YHWH apart.
Regarding Genesis 2-3, Romans 5.12-21 and 1 Cor. 15.45-49 let us know that Adam is considered to be historical, but the Bible's primary interest in him is archetypal—representing the whole human race. (Please notice I didn't say allegorical or metaphorical.) As we go back to Genesis, we can see the archetypal elements of the narrative that clue us in to its raison d’être. The elements of the literature emphasize God’s power, desire for relationship, care, warnings, provision, and purposes. We learn of Adam’s intelligence, moral awareness (and therefore culpability), his role and function in relation to God, earth, and other humans, his mortal nature, and the spiritual choice laid before him with its consequences. The primary archetypal elements are mortality, morality, and the choice of self vs. God—elements that are essential human struggles from time immemorial to the present.
The story is not necessarily one of material origins, but one of relational origins: Human is capable of a relationship with God. Will humans choose God and the path of fellowship and life, or will they choose self and the path of separation and destruction? These paths still lie before each one of us as we determine the course of our own lives by the choices that we make.
Probably not a bad analogy, though all analogies fail eventually when pressed too hard. But on the surface, the analogy makes sense.
There are also quantum analogies to the Trinity. The first is called superposition, where subatomic particles are able to exist in two states simultaneously. Get that—that very same things existing in two separate states at the same time. The second is that of nonlocality and entanglement. The principle here is that objects in far reaches of the universe seem to "know" about each other's states, and yet these separate particles can behave as a single entity.
For another potential scientific "validation" of such possibilities, in 2017 a group of quantum scientists (University of Science and Technology of China in Shanghai) successfully teleported a photon from Earth to a satellite in orbit. It's called quantum entanglement. As far as our discussion here, quantum entanglement means that the two quantum objects share a wave function and share the same identity, even when separated. What happens to one happens to the other—wherever it exists. They are more than identical twins, the article said, "the two are one and the same." Apparently, according to the article, when they interact with matter on Earth they lose certain aspects of entanglement, but in the vacuum of space, they can extend infinitely (eternally). It's just interesting.
> But I still don’t understand the purpose of an earthly temple for a god whose temple is the entire universe.
First of all, humans engage better in a tactile/visual environment than in a purely abstract one. Secondly (and I think more importantly), there are significant symbols that can only be expressed by physical means (sacrifice and scapegoat) that made the presence of a physical temple worth the theological risk of compromise (a compromise that certainly happened, since humans are so...doggone... human. But the Temple also succeeded in expressing those theological truths that are so valuable.
> How is that progress, in what way is it better?
The symbolism matters. If I want to torture and hang an effigy of President Trump in my basement, I could do that, but it would be more effective in a public square somewhere, and even more poignant on Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.
The centrality of the Temple spoke against some popular and common polytheistic concepts in the ancient world, and Israel's unique sacrificial system to some important theology truths. There was a point to all of it.
> Even knowing what they did though, the description of the tabernacle and later temple I’ve always heard sounded nothing like it was designed to imitate even what they knew of the cosmos.
The Temple had decor of a Garden (pomegranates, almond trees, etc). In the ancient Near East, gardens were associated with deity blessings (which I can understand in the middle of such harsh desert climates). Gardens were built next to temples, and that's where people could go to meet with their gods. Solomon's temple reflected those images to speak of a place of God's presence, blessing, and mediation for His people.
> So, do you believe the genesis account of creation actually happened?
Dr. John Walton has published some perspectives on Genesis 1-2 that are making a huge impact around the Christian world (https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_1?crid=30EM809D36EII&dchild=1&keywords=john+walton+the+lost+world+of+genesis+one&qid=1601842550&sprefix=john+walton+the+los%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1). I like his approach. What his analyses of the text have shown are that Gn. 1-2 are accounts of *functional* creation, not that of material creation. In the Bible there is no question that God is the creator of the material universe (and there are texts that teach that), but that's not what Genesis 1-2 are about. They are about how God brought order and functionality to the material universe that was there. And it is just as much a **literal** approach to the text as the traditional. Let me try to explain VERY briefly.
Gn. 1.1 is a heading, not an action. Then, if it's a text about material creation it will start with nothingness, but if it's a text about bringing order, it will start with disorder, which is what Gn. 1.2 says.
The first "day" is clearly (literally) about a period of light called day, and a period of light called night. It is about the sequence of day and night, evening and morning, literally. Therefore, what Day 1 is about is God ordering the universe and our lives with the function of TIME, not God creating what the physicists call "light," about which the ancients knew nothing.
Look through the whole chapter. It is about how the firmament functions to bring us weather (the firmament above and below), how the earth functions to bring forth plants for our sustenance, how the sun, moon, and stars function to order the days and seasons. We find out in day 6 the function of humans: to be fruitful and multiply, to rule the earth and subdue it. Walton contends that we have to look at the text through ancient eyes, not modern ones, and the concern of the ancients was function and order. (It was a given that the deities created the material universe.) The differences between cultures (and creation accounts) was how the universe functioned, how it was ordered, and what people were for. (There were large disagreements among the ancients about function and order; it widely separates the Bible from the surrounding mythologies.)
And on the 7th day God rested. In the ancient world when a god came to "rest" in the temple, he came to live there and engage with the people as their god. So it is not a day of disengagement, but of action and relationship.
In other words, it's a temple text, not an account of material creation. There was no temple that could be built by human hands that would be suitable for him, so God order the entire universe to function as his Temple. The earth was ordered to function as the "Holy Place," and the Garden of Eden as his "Holy of Holies". Adam and Eve were given the function of being his priest and priestess, to care for sacred space (very similar to Leviticus) and to be in relationship with God (that's what Genesis 2 is about).
> What sets YHWH apart
I would assert that the Genesis story is markedly different in nature and purpose than any of the ancient mythologies, separating it from them. Mythographies are not interested in portraying events (history), but want to show how the cosmos works and how it got that way. A myth is an attempt to explain reality from theological vantage point, and are not meant to connect those stories, as stories, with events in the real world.
It also helps to understand that ancient historiography was not meant to relate what "really happened" the way we moderns approach historiography. T.M. Bolin has shown that we are often interested in historical reconstruction, whereas the ancient Israelites were interested in truth-telling literature. Glassner says, "The Mesopotamians had no profession of historian as we understand it today, nor its methods or perspective. As they saw it, the problem was not critical assessment of sources, nor was the question, fundamentally, knowing how and in what causal sequence events considered unique had occurred. The primary task was to choose, according to a definite focus of interest, among the carefully collected data from past events, certain facts that, from that point of view, had acquired universal relevance and significance." So the Genesis story is "event-oriented, truth-telling literature," but doesn't work the same way as modern historiography does.
In other words, Walton says, "mythography has a different referent than historiography, yet is considered no less real. It may, however, be considered to pertain to a different plane of reality. ... each has a different focus in its expression of reality." I would argue that the stories of Genesis are ancient historiography as distinct from ancient mythography, with a different purpose, referent, approach, format, ideology, and literary form. That's what sets YHWH apart.
Regarding Genesis 2-3, Romans 5.12-21 and 1 Cor. 15.45-49 let us know that Adam is considered to be historical, but the Bible's primary interest in him is archetypal—representing the whole human race. (Please notice I didn't say allegorical or metaphorical.) As we go back to Genesis, we can see the archetypal elements of the narrative that clue us in to its raison d’être. The elements of the literature emphasize God’s power, desire for relationship, care, warnings, provision, and purposes. We learn of Adam’s intelligence, moral awareness (and therefore culpability), his role and function in relation to God, earth, and other humans, his mortal nature, and the spiritual choice laid before him with its consequences. The primary archetypal elements are mortality, morality, and the choice of self vs. God—elements that are essential human struggles from time immemorial to the present.
The story is not necessarily one of material origins, but one of relational origins: Human is capable of a relationship with God. Will humans choose God and the path of fellowship and life, or will they choose self and the path of separation and destruction? These paths still lie before each one of us as we determine the course of our own lives by the choices that we make.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why were we created
by Throw Away » Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:11 pm
> What are your thoughts on these matters?
My thoughts are that God is a construct made up to try to explain reality and the idea has progressed over time. Evolution is a non-guided process and that our human for is what we are experiencing now but will be different in the future, if we make it that far.
My thoughts are that God is a construct made up to try to explain reality and the idea has progressed over time. Evolution is a non-guided process and that our human for is what we are experiencing now but will be different in the future, if we make it that far.
- Throw Away
Re: Why were we created
by jimwalton » Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:18 pm
> My thoughts are that God is a construct made up to try to explain reality and the idea has progressed over time.
And is there any evidence of this? Just possibly the ancients (consistently across all cultures, all eras) believed for an evidentiary reason, not because they were unlearned and superstitious. Just possibly they had legitimate reasons for believing in God. My evidence for that is the Bible. What is your evidence for you perspective?
> Evolution is a non-guided process and that our human for is what we are experiencing now but will be different in the future, if we make it that far.
Evolution is so fascinating to ponder. Isn't it astounding that a non-guided process yielded so much purpose, progress, and delicately-balanced cosmological constants? And I'm curious that if evolution is a non-guided process, how can we trust that our thinking is reliable? Darwin himself said, "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
And is there any evidence of this? Just possibly the ancients (consistently across all cultures, all eras) believed for an evidentiary reason, not because they were unlearned and superstitious. Just possibly they had legitimate reasons for believing in God. My evidence for that is the Bible. What is your evidence for you perspective?
> Evolution is a non-guided process and that our human for is what we are experiencing now but will be different in the future, if we make it that far.
Evolution is so fascinating to ponder. Isn't it astounding that a non-guided process yielded so much purpose, progress, and delicately-balanced cosmological constants? And I'm curious that if evolution is a non-guided process, how can we trust that our thinking is reliable? Darwin himself said, "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why were we created
by Mom Says So » Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:11 am
Yeah, no analogy is perfect but analogies are the best way for me to grasp stuff like this. I use them, but I take care not to mistake the map for the place usually.
Yeah, I find the quantum world fascinating as well
Huh, I guess the symbolism is a good reason to have a temple. Thanks for clearing that up for me. There is then a further discussion to be had on why an omnipotent god would need to use that, but that’s outside the scope of this discussion I think.
Ok, somewhere along the way I thought I remembered you claiming the Christian god’s temple was different than other contemporary temples because it was cosmos themed, but I guess I misremembered. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That’s definitely a better way to look at genesis and it makes more sense, but it still runs into problems with not matching observable science. I still don’t think it could be literally true, though here again this may be a bit much for this discussion
I’ll be honest, a lot of your last section went over my head. I want truth, so if the genesis account isn’t intended to convey truth then I don’t see what use it is other than as history or literature. I’m not sure what else I can say about that. I did have one question though: you say Adam had “moral awareness” and that made him culpable for his “immoral” actions, right? So what is moral awareness, and how did you reach that conclusion? Because as I read it Adam and Eve has were amoral before they ate the “fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” . How am I mistaken?
Yeah, I find the quantum world fascinating as well
Huh, I guess the symbolism is a good reason to have a temple. Thanks for clearing that up for me. There is then a further discussion to be had on why an omnipotent god would need to use that, but that’s outside the scope of this discussion I think.
Ok, somewhere along the way I thought I remembered you claiming the Christian god’s temple was different than other contemporary temples because it was cosmos themed, but I guess I misremembered. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That’s definitely a better way to look at genesis and it makes more sense, but it still runs into problems with not matching observable science. I still don’t think it could be literally true, though here again this may be a bit much for this discussion
I’ll be honest, a lot of your last section went over my head. I want truth, so if the genesis account isn’t intended to convey truth then I don’t see what use it is other than as history or literature. I’m not sure what else I can say about that. I did have one question though: you say Adam had “moral awareness” and that made him culpable for his “immoral” actions, right? So what is moral awareness, and how did you reach that conclusion? Because as I read it Adam and Eve has were amoral before they ate the “fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” . How am I mistaken?
- Mom Says So
Re: Why were we created
by jimwalton » Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:11 am
> There is then a further discussion to be had on why an omnipotent god would need to use that, but that’s outside the scope of this discussion I think.
God wouldn't need that, but it was helpful to us. As we've been talking here, sometimes analogies, tangibles, and physical symbols help us to understand things. So maybe God authorized a temple for our benefit.
> That’s definitely a better way to look at genesis and it makes more sense, but it still runs into problems with not matching observable science.
That's seem an odd conclusion to me. If the Genesis account is telling us WHY God created the universe (to reveal Himself), then how does that not match with observable science? I don't get what you're thinking. The Bible tells us why, science tells us how, and they both dovetail with each other. For instance, science can theorize how the universe came to be (the Big Bang), but it can't begin to tell us why that happened (teleology). The Bible tells us why, but doesn't try to tell us how. I don't understand how that's a "not matching."
> I’ll be honest, a lot of your last section went over my head. I want truth, so if the genesis account isn’t intended to convey truth then I don’t see what use it is other than as history or literature.
Let me try again. Genesis 1 is about God taking what was already there (Gn. 1.2) and making something out of it—ordering it for his purposes. Think of this analogy: You move into a house that already there, and you make something out of it. You move in all your stuff and organize it and make it your home. So that's what God did. He took the universe as it was and He organized it to make it His home. Does that help?
> so if the genesis account isn’t intended to convey truth
So the Genesis account is intended to convey truth. God made the cosmos functional, just as we move into a house and make it functional for our purposes.
> you say Adam had “moral awareness” and that made him culpable for his “immoral” actions, right?
Yeah.
> So what is moral awareness, and how did you reach that conclusion?
Because God has revealed Himself to humanity, they have a sense of right and wrong. They have it in general, though the example Genesis 2 gives us is that God says it's WRONG to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (meaning that it's wrong for humans to regard themselves as the source of wisdom and the ones who know best how to order things), and that it's RIGHT to let God be the center of wisdom and the source of order.
> Because as I read it Adam and Eve has were amoral before they ate the “fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” . How am I mistaken?
I'm not sure you can separate life from morality. Even in simple matters through every day, we are making moral decisions—in how we treat each other, in how we treat our environment, and in how we survive. Some children, as you know, love to smash ants, kill grasshoppers, crush spiders—you know, typical kid stuff. Such stuff has moral implications. If Adam saw an ant on the ground, did he kill it for the fun of it? Did he pick lots of fruit to eat and then waste most of it? I don't see, in practical terms, how Adam and Eve could have been amoral. What is happening in Genesis 2 is that God is revealing Himself to Adam and Eve, "training" them in moral and religious understanding, and expecting the right moral decision based on their training. They already had a moral sense; God is training it and testing it.
God wouldn't need that, but it was helpful to us. As we've been talking here, sometimes analogies, tangibles, and physical symbols help us to understand things. So maybe God authorized a temple for our benefit.
> That’s definitely a better way to look at genesis and it makes more sense, but it still runs into problems with not matching observable science.
That's seem an odd conclusion to me. If the Genesis account is telling us WHY God created the universe (to reveal Himself), then how does that not match with observable science? I don't get what you're thinking. The Bible tells us why, science tells us how, and they both dovetail with each other. For instance, science can theorize how the universe came to be (the Big Bang), but it can't begin to tell us why that happened (teleology). The Bible tells us why, but doesn't try to tell us how. I don't understand how that's a "not matching."
> I’ll be honest, a lot of your last section went over my head. I want truth, so if the genesis account isn’t intended to convey truth then I don’t see what use it is other than as history or literature.
Let me try again. Genesis 1 is about God taking what was already there (Gn. 1.2) and making something out of it—ordering it for his purposes. Think of this analogy: You move into a house that already there, and you make something out of it. You move in all your stuff and organize it and make it your home. So that's what God did. He took the universe as it was and He organized it to make it His home. Does that help?
> so if the genesis account isn’t intended to convey truth
So the Genesis account is intended to convey truth. God made the cosmos functional, just as we move into a house and make it functional for our purposes.
> you say Adam had “moral awareness” and that made him culpable for his “immoral” actions, right?
Yeah.
> So what is moral awareness, and how did you reach that conclusion?
Because God has revealed Himself to humanity, they have a sense of right and wrong. They have it in general, though the example Genesis 2 gives us is that God says it's WRONG to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (meaning that it's wrong for humans to regard themselves as the source of wisdom and the ones who know best how to order things), and that it's RIGHT to let God be the center of wisdom and the source of order.
> Because as I read it Adam and Eve has were amoral before they ate the “fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” . How am I mistaken?
I'm not sure you can separate life from morality. Even in simple matters through every day, we are making moral decisions—in how we treat each other, in how we treat our environment, and in how we survive. Some children, as you know, love to smash ants, kill grasshoppers, crush spiders—you know, typical kid stuff. Such stuff has moral implications. If Adam saw an ant on the ground, did he kill it for the fun of it? Did he pick lots of fruit to eat and then waste most of it? I don't see, in practical terms, how Adam and Eve could have been amoral. What is happening in Genesis 2 is that God is revealing Himself to Adam and Eve, "training" them in moral and religious understanding, and expecting the right moral decision based on their training. They already had a moral sense; God is training it and testing it.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
22 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to Creation and Evolution
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests