Caves are dark and can be a dangerous place for any person to travel if they are not equipped with a light source, be it a lantern, flashlight, head torch, etc. The entrances of caves, however, are not as dark as the interior because, of course, the sun is shining into that portion of the cave. What can happen is that a person comes upon the entrance of a cave and is filled with curiosity. They then want to go into the cave to see what it’s like. One problem: they didn’t bring a flashlight. No worries, though, as this person will only go as far into the cave as the light provided by the sun allows. Once it becomes dark enough to where the person will be unable to see her or his next step, then it will be time for her or him to turn around and leave the cave.
What ends up happening is that the person continues deeper and deeper into the cave without a light source. They continue pressing on because their curiosity is driving them: they have to see what the cave is like. What inevitably happens is that the person keeps pushing forward until they cannot see any longer. Because of their lack of vision they get lost or hurt or worse.
This happens often. Often enough that people raise their children with an enormous stress on the principle that they should not ever, EVER enter caves. They are dark and dangerous places where many people have gotten lost, hurt, or worse. They continue the indoctrination by teaching the same principle at colleges and graduate schools: stay away from caves. They are dark and dangerous places. You may be tempted to go near to a cave and see that the entrance is lit and probably “safe,” but you must be wiser than that: the caves are dark and dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. If someone is heading towards a cave or is in a cave then do everything you can to keep them out of the cave. Tackle them, knock them out, and drag them out by their ears if you have to because, at the end of the day, you are helping them and doing a wise and noble thing even if you have to hurt them in the process.
This continues for generations.
As time goes on, a person comes along who does not hail from a land where children are taught not to stay away from caves. Where he comes from children are taught that if one is to enter a cave then the only safe way is to do so with a light source. So this person walks into a cave with the flashlight and starts his exploration. Soon enough another person, originating from a land where children are taught to stay away from caves at all costs, passes by the dangerous cave and sees this person entering.
“Oy! What are you doing in there? Don’t you know that caves are dark and dangerous places to be avoided at all costs? You’d get out of there if you knew what was good for you.”
“It’s not dark when you have a flashlight. It’s actually quite bright in here. It’s not dangerous either, so long as you have a light source.”
“Are you mad? Caves are dark and dangerous. Didn’t you hear about Barley Chriggs? He went into a cave and got himself killed. Do you want to be killed just like him?”
“Barley Chriggs didn’t have a light source though, did he?”
“That’s not the point. The point is that he entered that dark cave and he died. And so will you!”
“Not likely. Like I said, it’s not dark in here when you have a light and Barley didn’t have a light, so I’ll be fine.”
“No you won’t. You are going to die because caves are dark and so many people, not just Barely, have been just as deceived as you currently are. You need to get out of that cave.”
“Deceived, am I? Why don’t you come down into the cave and show me why its so dangerous and dark? When you have a light source it is not dark and not dangerous like you claim.”
“I’m not going down there with you flaming madman! That’s where Barley Chriggs went and I’m nothing like that raving lunatic! But I can see you are utterly deceived if you think it’s not dark and dangerous down there. Therefore, I want nothing to do with you.”
“Nothing to do with me, aye? What are you going on about? You’re standing on the outside of the cave telling me that the cave is dark and dangerous while I’m standing in the cave and can clearly see that it is bright because of my light source and clearly not dangerous. Are you having a laugh?”
“The only laugh I’m having is that you are so completely deceived that you actually think it is bright down there. You are a raving looney.”
“Well, I’m standing here looking at the brightness of the cave because of my light source. Why would I lie about that? It makes no sense.”
“You make no sense because you are deceived. Sooner or later you are going to drag more people into the cave with you. Is that honestly what you want? To have a bunch of people lost or dead because of your tomfoolery?”
“If people want to come into the cave then I see no problem with that, so long as they bring a light source. It’s actually quite safe if you have a light. Come and see.”
“Idiot.”
“What? It is safe and bright. If you disagree then please come show me how it is dark and dangerous.”
“Mental midget.”
“What? How does that prove anything?”
“Phony.”
“What?”
And on and on and on and on it goes.
If this discussion is to go anywhere positively, then (at least) two things must happen:
First, the person in the cave should be sensitive to the person outside of the cave who has been taught (and perhaps has even experienced) that people who have entered the cave without a light source sometimes do end up hurt or dead. It can and does happen: people enter into a cave without a light source and bad things happen. The person inside the cave needs to be sensitive to that.
But second, the person outside the cave must also be sensitive to the person inside the cave. Perhaps the cave is not as dangerous with a light source present. Perhaps this is not something the person outside of the cave has realized before. It should go without saying that the person inside the cave has no reason to lie about the conditions inside of the cave. If it turns out that the cave, even with the light source, is not a safe place to be, then so be it, the cave should then be abandoned. But the person outside of the cave must be at least willing to show that such is the case.
25 August 2008 at 2.59 pm
Interesting Art, very interesting.
25 August 2008 at 5.09 pm
Addendum to the story:
So our intrepid hero, scorning the generations of warnings that had been made for his safety, entered the cave with the best flashlight money could be.
Deeper and deeper he went, marvelling at the mystery and the majesty of the hitherto unplumbed depths. The further he went the more there was to see and to think about. After exploring for quite some time, our hero decided to leave the cave and share his findings with the world.
Only…he could not remember the way out. Every passage looked the same as the next. He searched and searched, not noticing anything familiar until, at last, the batteries in his flashlight went out. He was alone in the dark.
He never came out.
Moral of the story:
Maybe warnings by the well-meaning, while not as winsome as they should be, are wiser than they appear. A wise man considers the danger and hides himself, but a fool passes on and is harmed.
25 August 2008 at 5.11 pm
Kevin: Thank you for demonstrating why I wrote this story.
25 August 2008 at 5.57 pm
Barley Chriggs?! Hilarious! Are you havin a laugh? Is he havin a laugh?
Excellent job, Art. Sadly, your illustration and Kevin’s reply provides us with another illustration: the people who grew up in the land where they were warned not ever to go into caves no matter what are seemingly incapable of anything but slavish captivity to tradition. Along with that comes their inability and unwillingness to discuss things with brothers and sisters who know God has more for all of us in the cave. He calls us to go in together, as communities, so we can be with each other, help each other, and guide each other in the caves. As such, it would never happen that someone died because his/her battery finished. That person would have many others with him or her, helping and serving.
25 August 2008 at 5.57 pm
Barley Chriggs?! Hilarious! Are you havin a laugh? Is he havin a laugh?
Excellent job, Art. Sadly, your illustration and Kevin’s reply provides us with another illustration: the people who grew up in the land where they were warned not ever to go into caves no matter what are seemingly incapable of anything but slavish captivity to tradition. Along with that comes their inability and unwillingness to discuss things with brothers and sisters who know God has more for all of us in the cave. He calls us to go in together, as communities, so we can be with each other, help each other, and guide each other in the caves. As such, it would never happen that someone died because his/her battery finished. That person would have many others with him or her, helping and serving.
25 August 2008 at 6.00 pm
Art, if you wrote the story to demonstrate stubborn persistence in folly, then you are welcome.
If your wrote the story as a continued polemic against what was said on the other threads, then I was simply continuing the conversation. The cave is dangerous, as you admit. The only light with which one can safely explore the cave is the light of God’s Word. Assuming that is the flashlight to which you referred, our hero is going into the cave with one of the cheap knock-offs that looks like the read deal, but isn’t.
Since I did not engage in the name-calling that ended the last thread, I hope to be permitted to continue the discussion.
25 August 2008 at 6.14 pm
Art, I love your allegories and this was no exception.
As I increasingly become aware that spelunking will not be my vocation, I also become aware that us non-professionals need wise and sensitive guides who’ve done the hard work of exploring sometimes dangerous caves.
Thank you for your work.
25 August 2008 at 6.21 pm
Nice work, Art!
25 August 2008 at 6.33 pm
One of the best modern parables I’ve ever read. Great work, Art.
Kevin, you’re assuming that Art’s flashlight is a “cheap knock-off.” You have no right to assume that. What if it is indeed true Light, from the right Source, and what if Art’s spelunker is working in community as FTH suggested? Wonders will never be known unless there are risk takers, but the wonders may never reach others if the explorer is a foolish loner.
Art is definitely the former, and he is most definitely not the latter.
To pick up on another part of the parable (a part that will only make sense to those who suffered through the horrible vitriol hurled by a pastor-so-called in a previous thread), I think Art’s parable does not reject the value of well-meant warnings. Rather it rejects those who have stubbornly predetermined that there is no value in exploring, and worse, whose only resort when pressed on why we should not explore is to name-calling and non-sequiturs.
25 August 2008 at 7.17 pm
Kevin:
Kevin, I’m quite sad that you missed the point of the story. It is not one that parades stubborn persistence, but one that is calling for mutual respect and sensitivity on each side of the conversation.
I’ll be the first to admit that in my zeal to talk about the tease out the implications of certain discoveries, I have been insensitive to those who have real hesitancies about these discoveries because they have personally experienced friends, perhaps even loved ones, walk away from the faith after following these discoveries. That was wrong of me to do if I am going to call myself a Christian who exercises true humility after the example of Christ (Phil 2.3-11).
I am not claiming to be a person who is more sinned against than sinning in this respect.
With that said, the other side of the coin is having the same respect, the same sensitivity being shown to us…which, to put it lightly, has been lacking. There seems to be a real lack of willingness to listen to each other when it comes to these issues and truly trying to understand where people are coming from.
Kevin, I know you to be a reasonable person. Think about the story. Now think of us (FTH, FS, TM, etc.) as people who are in the cave (i.e., critical biblical scholarship) looking around while completely holding onto our faith in Scripture as the revealed word of God (i.e., our flashlights). We, as well, are reasonable people. We are not trying to sneak something in the backdoor or trying to seduce people to enter a dark and dangerous cave by telling them it is light and safe. Again, to do that would be to act in a way that is contrary to our calling.
If you are completely and utterly convinced that the cave is dangerous, the proper way to go about convincing us that such is the case is not by standing outside of the cave lecturing us on how dangerous it is inside. Come into the cave, enter into the discussion. We welcome well mannered, respectful, humble, well thought out Christian discourse. Again, we are reasonable people. If, at the end of the day, the cave is too dangerous, even with a flashlight, we will not hesitate to leave.
But we have yet to have someone enter the cave humbly, intelligently, and Christianly to show us why we should not be in there.
d, FTH, Victor, TM, FS: Thank you for your encouragement.
25 August 2008 at 10.02 pm
Obviously, we are usting metaphors differently, but hey.
Leaving aside that the cave is somewhere I am unwilling to enter, leaving aside the fact that the person that introduced you to the cave fell to his professional death in it, leaving aside that on your blog you have a guide book to the cave, written by someone whom I am sure probably went to deeper (and warmer) parts of the cave than you would prefer to, I am happy to humbly, intelligently, and Christianly discuss it with you.
We need, however, to keep the focus of the discussion focused, accessible, (and I agree with you), civil.
My comments to you about getting in trouble with the Cave-Avoidance-Union were offered in a profound for your professional future and spiritual well being.
I hope that I have not so conducted myself as to have precluded future discussion with you, FTH, et al. I know that last thread got ugly.
25 August 2008 at 10.06 pm
Of course, that would preclude the sort of snarky comments such as FTH wrote above.
It appears his scorn for tradtionaly orthodoxy is at least as great as what he has criticized us for.
25 August 2008 at 10.08 pm
FTH, you wrote, “Kevin, you’re assuming that Art’s flashlight is a “cheap knock-off.” You have no right to assume that.”
And you aren’t making similar assumptions? Why is it in every conversation I have with you, it is OK for you to advocate a position for which you cry “Foul!” for me advocating?
25 August 2008 at 10.11 pm
Great stuff Art. It was – shall I say – illuminating.
But I want to add that the “people who stay away from caves” are not any safer for it.
In fact, I think they’re like cliff-dwellers or something – hoping to live as far from the earth and as close to “heaven” as possible. As though the two are irreconcilable. As though the gospel moves only one way – upward.
The fact is, many cliff dwellers fall too (as you and I well know from earlier days and on to the present), and “conservatism” is by no means immune from the charges of recklessness, arrogance, unbelief, and conformity to this world.
One scholar asks a question appropriate to my point, Does conservative evangelicalism presently offer “A High View of Scripture?” Our answer of course should be “No, not high enough.”
That’s all I wanted to add. Thanks again Art!
25 August 2008 at 11.13 pm
Kevin,
Just to clarify, I did not write what you quoted. That was the Foolish Sage, not the Foolish Tar Heel.
25 August 2008 at 11.26 pm
Yes, I wrote it. FTH stole the Foolish moniker from me some time ago, and I’ve been paying the price ever since
I apologize if my remark came across to you, Kevin, as “snarky.” I did not intend it to be so, although I did intend for it to be direct. You did say, in your second post, that “our hero is going into the cave with one of the cheap knock-offs that looks like the read deal, but isn’t.”
I was merely pointing out that that was an unwarranted assumption. Art has declared his steadfast faith in the Bible as the word of God. So it isn’t a given that he’s stumbling around in the dark with a “cheap knock off” and neither is it inevitable that he will “never come out.” It is entirely possible that his light is indeed the true Light, and that rather than misleading him, it is leading him to more glorious truth.
25 August 2008 at 11.33 pm
Kevin:
I completely understand why you said what you said. No worries.
In all seriousness, leaving all snarkiness aside, this is part of the problem that I hoped the story would address.
Can you see why we might be skeptical of you and your opinions if you are unwilling to even enter the cave “for the sake of the argument” (to steal a phrase from Van Til)?
I did address the dangers of entering the cave without a flashlight. So we can, hopefully, move the discussion forward instead of continually bringing up the past.
25 August 2008 at 11.36 pm
no1_uv_kants-uh-quints: (Great name, by the way, although I am not sure it truly applies to you!)
I agree with your comment. Well said, especially the allusion to Allert’s new work. I enjoyed it and reviewed it here.
26 August 2008 at 12.04 am
Yes, I see my textual critical error, FTH. Apologies. Nevertheless, there’s a whole lot of assuming going on both sides. But if we can’t have some basic assumptions, discussion will be difficult.
Here’s my big challenge–and I do not say this to offend, so take a deep breath before flaming everyone–those with whom I have disagreed on the last several threads have protested their beliefs in inspiration, etc. The problem is, there seems to be a lot of what seems to me neo-orthordox nuance going on. That is, you are using my language, but not the way I mean it or, more importantly, the way the broader church has used if for a long time. Such obfuscation makes meaningful discussion very hard to accomplish.
For instance, many of you have argued for interpreting the Bible contextually. Now, what good Refomed person with a sound hermeneutic and high view of Scripture would argue with that? The only problem, is that you do not use the word correctly…and you know it. It’s all so Barthian, it makes my skin crawl.
FTH, Art, et al what does it mean to you that the Scriptues are inspired? Do you believe in inerrancy? Do you believe the OT is reliable? See, I don’t think you do, hence the “cheap knock-off” comment. You may be using a flashlight to explore the cave, but it’s not a reliable one. You don’t even think it is!
And here really is the rub for me: your protestations of intellectual neutrality aside, you have adopted an a prioi assumption that Genesis is not historically reliable. Please spare me the objections and nuance. You don’t believe God created everything out of nothing in six days by his powerful word, and all very good. You’ve said so. Some of you have intimated you don’t believe Adam was a real person. You’ve said so. I could go on and on.
The only justification you have offered for your assumptions are “modern scholarship.” Sorry, but that is the logic of disbelief.
And even if you disagree with that assertion, nobody seems concerned that an histoically-unreliable book of Genesis undercuts biblical teachings on God (as in “In the beginning God…” It’s just a myth, you know.), marriage, human sexuality, divorce, church leadership, original sin, redemption, and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. And that just brings us through Genesis 3!
Sorry, whether you admire Bultmann (Genesis is myth) or Barth (Genesis is “true myth”), there are too many key doctrines that are affected to recklessly charge into the cave.
Does it not trouble anyone that the Reformers broke with the RCC over its supplanting of the authority of the Scriptures? Does it not trouble anyone that Bultmann never caught on outside of unbelieving “scholarship?” Does it not trouble anyone that Barth’s views of the Bible were never widely accepted by the Church? Does it not trouble any of you that your mentor was fired from WTS (it’s what happened, politcally correct lingo asside) over this very issue? Does it not trouble you that–assuming you are correct–that the Church has been wrong in its understanding of the Bible for 21 centuries? Hello? Holy Spirit? Providence? Anyone?
You may protest that my views are just examples of an entrenched tradiontalism or fundamentalist anti-intellectualism, or what ever other ad hominem you want to lob. Of course the other possibility is that you are wrong. As wrong as Bultmann, as wrong as Barth, as wrong as Enns.
Anyhow, the end of another fruitless rant. I need to tend to my own blog for a while so I can dog on Michelle Obama’s forgettable speech.
26 August 2008 at 12.47 am
Kevin: This is continually deteriorating into another finger pointing, fruitless discussion.
Dermatology aside, this is not a helpful comment. For instance, within it you are claiming that we are willfully attempting to pull the wool over your eyes by using common terms. Not a very good route.
Perhaps the better route to take would be to realize that we mean different things when we use the word “contextual” and to then define the terms in the way we are using them. I think that would be a helpful exercise. So, to start us off, Kevin: what do you mean when you say that you support reading the Bible contextually?
There are a few problems that are made manifest here that continue our inability to have a fruitful conversation.
First, you have to read someone else on their own terms. You have not done this in regards to the story that I wrote. The “light” is faith, not the Bible, in my story.
Second, you are free to think whatever you like, but that does not make those thoughts true. Interestingly enough, you seem to be reading our words through a thick fog of the hermeneutics of suspicion. That is not helpful.
Third, inspired means “breathed out by God” (2 Tim 3.16-17) and inerrancy means that Scripture does not err in the areas to which it speaks and for the purpose which God has for it. The OT is absolutely reliable for the purposes which God had for it. So, enough of the suspicion.
Oh boy. This is where is really starts to spiral downwards.
No, Kevin, in fact we do not have an a priori assumption that Genesis is not historically reliable. You seem to be unwilling (or unable) to be open to the possibility that Scripture is what is leading us to these conclusions. I am completely open to the idea that your love for Scripture has lead you to the view points that you have. I’m not going to call your character into question by assuming otherwise and making claims that I know what your a priori assumptions are. I would appreciate the same courtesy.
Six days? Does the PCA demand such a thing?
What I “intimated” about Adam was that I have questions that I am working through at this moment. I’m not going to make a firm statement on something that I have not properly thought through and studied to the full extent of my ability. That would be dishonest of me and I am not willing to go down that road.
So now we are unbelievers. Well, this has officially hit bottom.
Again, Kevin, you seem either unwilling or unable to comprehend that a person who believes in the inspiration of Scripture can come to certain conclusions. I would challenge you to open your mind a bit to the possibility that sincere, God honoring people can disagree with you and still be brothers in Christ. I know you probably believe as much, but it seems that you have drawn a line in the sand that is more descriptive of your own beliefs than it is of Biblical Christianity.
This paragraph, especially, displays your inability or unwillingness to actually listen to what we are saying. No, it does not undercut those things. It teaches those things from both your viewpoint and ours. Perhaps you cannot understand how it can teach those things from our viewpoint. That is a conversation worth having.
No, it doesn’t trouble us. We agree with the Reformers stance in that instance.
No, it doesn’t bother us. Who ever said anything about Bultmann? To my knowledge, this is the first mention of his name in any of these conversations.
I’ve come to realize that Barth is the TR “Trump Card” in conversations like this. If you can make any connection with Barth, throw the card and the rest is history. I’m not sure this is effective and, like the Bultmann comment, you are the only one bringing up Barth in this conversation.
Yes, that does trouble me. But not for the reasons you are probably thinking of.
This is where your rhetoric becomes truly juvenile and unfortunate.
Is knowledge static? Can we never learn anything else from Scripture or about Scripture? Why bother writing books or studying if everything that can be said or learned has already been done? Point is: you don’t even believe this, so please don’t try to use this argument.
No ad hominems here. Your tone has already met the quota of rude and obnoxious rhetoric, which I find interesting considering your earlier statement:
Guess that went out the window pretty quick.
But back to your comment, you have proven absolutely nothing except for the fact that the story I wrote seems to be pretty accurate when it comes to the current conversation.
You have not engaged any argument, but simply revert to equivocating our views to liberals of the past or simply telling us that we “could” be wrong. That adds absolutely nothing to the conversation, does not convince us of anything, and continues to show your unwillingness to actually engage the issues all the while claiming that you are not advocating an “anti-intellectual” stance. Your comments tell a completely different story.
I could not have put it better myself.
26 August 2008 at 1.28 am
Art: “, to start us off, Kevin: what do you mean when you say that you support reading the Bible contextually?”
Fine.
The Barthian comparison atose from you using well established words within the discipline of hermeneutics and applying them in novel ways. That hinders discussion. Not trying to insult, so settle down, brother.
As I have said on the “mimetic history,” when I speak of the context of Scripture, what I mean is its normal, hermenutical meaning: the surrounding verses, the book, other biblical books in its genre, and the whole Bible. You say context, but you mean the historical milleiux (sp?) in which the author wrote. That is not even the same thing as “historical context,” which deals with the immediately sorrounding historical situation into which or about which the author wrote.
So, when I speak of the context of Genesis, narrowly I mean: Genesis, the Torah, the OT, the Bible. Broadly, I mean 15th century BC, pre-monarchical Israel
You evidently mean pagan Sumer.
So which do you think is more relevant to the meaning of Genesis?
26 August 2008 at 1.31 am
Ok Bultmann/Barth. I am not suggesting guilt by association, BUT
Bultmann saw the Bible as myth that needed demythologizing.
Bart said NEIN and called it true myth–it need not have happened; the teaching of the story is what is important.
I’m not trumping. Again, I am observing how much these new ideas sound like old errors.
26 August 2008 at 1.39 am
Does it not trouble you that–assuming you are correct–that the Church has been wrong in its understanding of the Bible for 21 centuries? Hello? Holy Spirit? Providence? Anyone?
“Is knowledge static?”
All knowledge. Clearly not.
“Can we never learn anything else from Scripture or about Scripture? Why bother writing books or studying if everything that can be said or learned has already been done? Point is: you don’t even believe this, so please don’t try to use this argument.”
First, in a finite amount of knowledge, mastery is possible. Second, you discount the need of every generation to apply the truth’s of God’s perspicuous Word itself. Third, since the time of Nicea can it truly be said that anything new has been promoted? Or has it just been old error in new clothes? I think one could argue convincingly along those lines.
26 August 2008 at 1.41 am
Kevin: Excellent. This can start a helpful conversation.
Two things:
1) The last definition of historical context you gave (“the immediately sorrounding historical situation into which or about which the author wrote”) I would understand as the historical situation which is definitely part of the larger historical context, but is not completely equated with the historical context.
2) I don’t agree that the historical situation and the historical context are the same. Both are important, but different. I’m not quite sure why, even according to your definition of historical context, ANE texts and archaeological evidence would not be used. Surely these texts and artifacts speak to the authors immediate situation. Also, when Hallo put together a series of ANE texts that were cognate to the OT, he did not entitled it “The Historical Milieu of Scripture.” Rather, it is entitled “The Context of Scripture.” This at least shows that your definition of “historical context” needs to be proved and not assumed.
Wouldn’t Sumer be part of the “15th century BC, pre-monarchical Israel”?
26 August 2008 at 1.41 am
Art “No ad hominems here. Your tone has already met the quota of rude and obnoxious rhetoric, which I find interesting considering your earlier statement:
‘I am happy to humbly, intelligently, and Christianly discuss it with you.’
Guess that went out the window pretty quick.”
No it didn’t. You misread my tone as my private mail to you said..
I am just trying to find a starting point for us to converse.
26 August 2008 at 1.51 am
Art: Wouldn’t Sumer be part of the “15th century BC, pre-monarchical Israel”?
No Sumer was Sumer. Israel was Israel. There was a big honking desert and river separating them. And with no printing pressess, fax machines, email, etc. it is largely conjectural how much affect Sumerian writings would have had on the OT.
And even if (an unproven assumption) they should affect how we read the OT, WCF 1.3 says “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” In other words, non canonical documents may have value but they are very limited in their value.
26 August 2008 at 1.57 am
Kevin:
Would it also be conjecture that Israel was completely unaffected by their neighbors? Especially when there are many, many parallels between the OT and ANE literature?
ANE texts from Sumer, Ugarit, etc. are not in the Apocrypha. The WCF does not say “non-canonical.” It specifically says “The books commonly called the Apocrypha.” The reason was, of course, that the Divines had the Catholic Church in their crosshairs, not ANE documents which they didn’t even know existed.
26 August 2008 at 2.23 am
Kevin –
To what level do you think the biblical writers were influenced by their culture in their writings?
I assume you don’t hold that the process of inscripturation was autonomous; such as the writers entered a trance and wrote without knowledge of what they were writing.
Assuming I am right in this, then to what level are the influenced by their culture/personal psychology, etc…
I am going somewhere with this.
One more thing…
You Said
Does it not trouble anyone that the Reformers broke with the RCC over its supplanting of the authority of the Scriptures?
In the same paragraph you also said
Does it not trouble you that–assuming you are correct–that the Church has been wrong in its understanding of the Bible for 21 centuries? Hello? Holy Spirit? Providence? Anyone?
Doesnt this strike you as a bit contradictory? You claim the reformation and on the other hand want continuity with church tradition. The reformation was a declaration that the church had gotten it wrong for several centuries. The theology that developed in the reformation contradicted the belief of millions and the theology of the church proper which had been held for centuries. Reformed theology, in particular, held vastly different theological beliefs which had never been held in history before (such as their view of sacraments)
Cannot humans err corporately and the HS correct them as he did in the reformation? Maybe this is not a step into a dark cave but the beginnings of a beacon at a new wittenberg.
Pax Christi…NIck
26 August 2008 at 7.18 am
Thanks, Kevin, for being willing to continue the dialogue. Thanks much, really. Let’s all acknowledge that this medium of Internet conversation is a difficult one, fraught with dangers and pitfalls. Few of us do it well, and none perfectly. We all need to realize that this is a topic about which we are all quite passionate. Sometimes that passion irrupts into assertions about the other side (intended or not) that are not helpful. But so far, after each charge at the mound, we’ve been able to dust ourselves off and resume the game. I’m grateful for that.
One addition to the points my friends are making:
You said:
This assumes that the Church’s view of Scripture has been static and singular over the centuries. Recent books by Sparks and Allert, among others, have shown that that’s about as reliable an assumption as that of the dispensationalists who think the Church has always taught a premillennial, pre-trib rapture.
The early Fathers held some very diverse views on Scripture (and some that seem downright whacko by our presents standards!). Sparks shows that even Calvin, in his sermons, commentaries, and other writings, espoused views of Scripture that were innovative and that do not fit the present-day hard line inerrantist position.
The fact of the matter is that Chicago Statement-style inerrancy is a relatively recent development in church history, growing out of the modernist and Enlightenment commitments of 19th century conservatives like Warfield and Hodge. Now I believe that the orthodox Church has always held to inerrancy (and I do today!)…just not in the rigid and constictive terms of the Chicago Statement.
26 August 2008 at 12.13 pm
This is a seriously long thread.
Some would rather play it “safe” then be “wrong”, never taking the chance that it might be the “right” thing to do. As some would say, ignorance is bliss.
26 August 2008 at 1.25 pm
I am not entirely sure what Heather’s remark has to do with the price of teach in China, but hey. Some reponses to questions to follow soon.
26 August 2008 at 1.52 pm
Art said, “Would it also be conjecture that Israel was completely unaffected by their neighbors? Especially when there are many, many parallels between the OT and ANE literature?”
I never said Israel was completely unaffected by her neighbors. I said the link between the Scriptures and pagan ANE documents is unproven. Parallels can be explained in ways other than dependence (common history being one of them). The burden of proof is really on those who maintain that the Scriptures are dependent on or developed from ANE pagan literature. Such a belief guts the notion of divine revelation, IMO.
Art said. “ANE texts from Sumer, Ugarit, etc. are not in the Apocrypha. The WCF does not say “non-canonical.”
I realize this, of course. I was applying the Confessions to the discussion. The divines made an enormous distinction between the Scriptures and the limited usefulness of the writings of men. Surely that would apply to the use of pagan ANE literature as a hermeneutical norm.
Nick asked: “To what level do you think the biblical writers were influenced by their culture in their writings?”
No idea.
He continued, “I assume you don’t hold that the process of inscripturation was autonomous; such as the writers entered a trance and wrote without knowledge of what they were writing.”
You assume correctly.
Nate concluded: “to what level are the influenced by their culture/personal psychology, etc…I am going somewhere with this.”
I have no doubt that you are going somewhere with it. Since the Bible tells us virtually nothing of the mechanics of inspiration beyond the fact that “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Pe. 1:21) it would be pointless for me to speculate. If words mean anything though, I think we can infer from Peter that he saw the OT Scriptures as having actual authors (and not say post-exilic redactors).
Er, no, Nick wasn’t done yet: “Reformed theology, in particular, held vastly different theological beliefs which had never been held in history before.”
Incorrect. The vast majority of the things the Reformers stood for could be traced back to Augustine (which, ironically was the position of the RCC on paper), which in turn was derived from Paul. There has never been universal agreement on the nature of the Sacraments so that is a bit of a red herring. Nice try, though.
Sage: I will grant the Church’s expression of its views on the Scriptures have not been static. The dominant view of the Church has consistently been what we would call a high view of Scriptures: that they are inspired, historically reliable, and the very words of God.
Can we leave inerrancy out of the discussion for now? The question really at hand is, “Is Genesis history or myth?”
26 August 2008 at 1.53 pm
Bah. “Teach” sb “tea.” Why can I not edit my own posts?
26 August 2008 at 2.39 pm
‘sokay, Kevin. I’m sure the price of teahers is high in China as well!
Looking forward to reading your long response tonight. Thanks for staying in the discussion!
26 August 2008 at 4.10 pm
Kevin:
Well, yes and no.
Certainly Proverbs 22:17–24:22 shows a striking resemblance to the earlier Wisdom of Amenemope to the point where it seems clear that Proverbs was “dependent” or “developed” from the it. I’m open to hearing arguments to the contrary, but I’ll be honest in saying that I have yet to hear a persuasive one. I bring that up to say that the burden of proof in that instance (and others) is certainly on the one who is claiming independence and originality for the Biblical text.
As for Gen 5, yes, you are correct. The burden of proof is on the side that says it is either mimetic fiction relating to the SKL or functioning as a rhetorical/literary list which brings out the important of these patriarchs.
I don’t find any argument from the Divines to be applicable to this discussion. They did not even known these texts existed; therefore they are not in a position to be relied upon in this instance. If they had known about the existence of these texts, then I would be all for listening to them in this regard. But what they thought of the Apocrypha has absolutely nothing to do with the ANE literature we are now speaking of.
26 August 2008 at 4.29 pm
Art, “I’m open to hearing arguments to the contrary, but I’ll be honest in saying that I have yet to hear a persuasive one.”
I find immediate, divine revelation to be a very persuasive argument. Personally. :p
26 August 2008 at 4.37 pm
Kevin:
What do you mean by “immediate”? Is that like “dictation”? If not, how do they differ.
I believe it is divine revelation as well. But that is not an argument. It is a statement of belief.
I’m looking for an argument that deals with the data, not one that simply repeats a theological assumption.
26 August 2008 at 5.12 pm
Kevin,
Your comment about “immediate, divine revelation” being a persuasive argument against some of the historical issues we have brought up is quite telling to me. This seems to reflect certain understandings on your part about what it means that something is God’s Word. In this case, it means it is somehow unique and/or not bound up with and/or dependent upon its historical contexts in any fundamental way; i.e., I assume you realize it is already so bound up linguistically as it is written in languages from the ancient world. For example, you indicated your belief that if parts of our OT “are dependent on or developed from ANE pagan literature. Such a belief guts the notion of divine revelation.” Am I understanding you correctly here in how this reflects certain understandings on your part about how the Bible being God’s revelation inherently means these other things for you?
If I may try yet again, this is the crux of the discussion for many of us. Why does something being God’s Word mean it cannot be so bound up with its contingent historical horizons—which, by the way, we think God ultimately controls? Can you flesh that out for us, preferably from Scripture?
You see, our concern is that we seem to find the Scriptures behaving in ways that cut across some of our traditional notions of what something has to be if it is God’s revelation. Are you open, at least in theory, the Bible itself challenging your notions of what it means that it is God’s Word? Are you open, at least in theory, to finding out that, for example, parts of our bible participated in some of the common ANE mythic-cosmic views of reality? If you are in theory open to this but “know” that the Bible will not behave in these ways, can you explain that without working from hermeneutical-theological “rules” that preclude at the outset the Bible acting in these messy ways?
In this way, you see, we are driven to follow the Bible wherever it leads us, just as I imagine you are. We seem to have different ideas, however, about where it is possible that God might lead us by His Word. Can you at least understand that in what we are doing we are not trying to smuggle Barthian neo-Orthodoxy in the back door, we are not trying to deny Inspiration, etc.? We are trying to be as faithful to the Bible as possible and find out what it means that it is God’s Word. Is this something you can acknowledge with us, even if you disagree about where we end up?
If I may, I will quote a set of questions I asked you on the previous thread. If you do not mind, I would really appreciate your engaging them and/or answering them: “How are inspiration and the category of Revelation inherently opposed to such [‘messy’] ways of understanding the bible? From where do you get your notions of what it means that the Bible is inspired? If from the Bible, then what do you do when the Bible behaves in ways that cut across your notions of what inspiration and Revelation must mean? If you claim the Bible does not do these things and your arguments/readings depend upon claiming the bible by definition cannot do such things and that anyone thinking it can has faulty presuppositions—have you heard of a circular argument : ) …? Oh, and if you go Van Tilian here and claim circular reasoning is valid, does it not make you somewhat uncomfortable that you have functionally and theoretically insulated your doctrine of Scripture from the Bible itself—-with it explicitly depending upon reasoning completely extrinsic to the Bible itself? Did I ask enough questions here…?”
Though this comment is too long—and thank you for sticking with it—I just want to add, lest there be any misunderstanding, that I am not trying to bash Van Til with that reference above. I just understand the outworking Van Til in these issues differently than others who use him in the way I mention above. But, I do not want the discussion to turn to appropriate use of Van Til…
Thanks for your time.
26 August 2008 at 6.25 pm
Kevin, I appreciate your response, although it seemed a bit dismissive. I’ll try to restate the points I made in a clearer fashion. Your words are in italiacs.
(p.s. Art, what HTML tags are you using to get highlighted words?)
I have no doubt that you are going somewhere with it. Since the Bible tells us virtually nothing of the mechanics of inspiration beyond the fact that “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Pe. 1:21) it would be pointless for me to speculate. If words mean anything though, I think we can infer from Peter that he saw the OT Scriptures as having actual authors (and not say post-exilic redactors).
“If it is pointless for you to speculate, and the bible doesn’t have much information on the mechanics, then why is it outside the realm of possibility that the human authors wrote from a certain cultural perspective and that God inspired them not by overriding their cultural milieu, but by working within their culture, cosmology and general mythos? It seems on one hand you say that you can’t speculate, but on the other you view Enns and others as being outside of orthodoxy for disagreeing with your speculation on what inspiration needs to look like. Which one is it?”
Er, no, Nick wasn’t done yet: “Reformed theology, in particular, held vastly different theological beliefs which had never been held in history before.”
Incorrect. The vast majority of the things the Reformers stood for could be traced back to Augustine (which, ironically was the position of the RCC on paper), which in turn was derived from Paul. There has never been universal agreement on the nature of the Sacraments so that is a bit of a red herring. Nice try, though.
I think you have missed the point. One on hand you argued that the views espoused on this blog should be discounted because for 21 centuries the Holy Spirit has seen fit to teach otherwise, and therefore to talk about new views of say Genesis is to deny the provision of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand you are a protestant, which means that you believe the church basically got it wrong for a millennium until a German monk corrected the problem. Which one is it; continuity and church tradition or the bible alone? In other words you can’t have it both ways.
Secondly, I must disagree with your summarization of Augustine. It is not the case the Protestants are basically Augustinian. Rather many of Augustine’s views would be absolutely condemned in protestant circles; among which would be his view of the transubstantiation of the elements, his view that baptism removes original sin, his view that priests should be celibate, his view of a platonic creation event happening instantaneously, etc, etc, etc… What happened in the reformation is that to gain legitimacy Luther and Calvin needed a church father; and they found one, who had similar (but also radically different) ideas. So they latched on to what was similar and politely ignored all the myriad of differences. Augustine is a papist, not a reformer; in fact he utterly rejected schism from the Roman church. So I will repeat my objection above. If new views of scriptural meaning functional deny the provision of the Holy Spirit, then why on earth do you believe that the concepts of sola fide were lost for a millennium? Did the HS go on a vacation?
Pax Christi…NIck
26 August 2008 at 6.55 pm
A dark cave? Art, have you been reading Plato’s Republic recently?
26 August 2008 at 8.10 pm
JD –
Apparently he has, but like a good jew he has been reading it backwards (from right to left) so that our character goes into the cave instead of out of it.
Nick
26 August 2008 at 8.12 pm
Some would also say he has mistaken the Forms for the shadows…
26 August 2008 at 8.18 pm
Actually, any attempt to connect this story with Plato’s story is purely conjectural. The only thing it proves is that both myself and Plato have had experiences with caves.
Even though his story came first and is well known in my historical context, I write completely independent from my historical context, just like all writers do
26 August 2008 at 8.32 pm
Art –
So this isnt proof that you are a hellenized alexandrian seminary student?
Nick
26 August 2008 at 10.17 pm
Good evening……very interesting and insightful post….especially last “two paragraphs” written up top….hummmmm. Learning to be sensitive to our brother wanting to approach something he may be inquisitive of…or rather pursuing a safe haven’ for himself—so he thinks?..hummmmm. Caves….are dangerous…it seems as if where spirits linger…no lights upon us…the mystical presence follows through-without God’s protection surrounding us….therefore….I too, highly recommend brothers and sisters to “lovingly” encourage our fellow brother or sister in wanting too see the warmth of the light in the dark….may God be with you; and just don’t go there…..no……never. Rather , look for the warmth of a kiss from Gods pouring forth His sunlight….feel free although, to hide behind the shadows of the trees-and be safe and out of sight for your spiritual needs. <3
27 August 2008 at 12.43 pm
“Addendum to the story:
So our intrepid hero, scorning the generations of warnings that had been made for his safety, entered the cave with the best flashlight money could be.
Deeper and deeper he went, marvelling at the mystery and the majesty of the hitherto unplumbed depths. The further he went the more there was to see and to think about. After exploring for quite some time, our hero decided to leave the cave and share his findings with the world.
Only…he could not remember the way out. Every passage looked the same as the next. He searched and searched, not noticing anything familiar until, at last, the batteries in his flashlight went out. He was alone in the dark.
He never came out.
Moral of the story:
Maybe warnings by the well-meaning, while not as winsome as they should be, are wiser than they appear. A wise man considers the danger and hides himself, but a fool passes on and is harmed.”
Kevin, based on what you are writing it seems that you’d rather be “safe” and not take a chance of exploring what really is in that cave. Am I wrong? In your addendum to the story you’d rather live happily in what you know since it is so “dangerous” to explore.
Anyway, moot point. I’m not really interested in this particular debate. (Although I do support Art’s post on the matter.) I’m just not hung up on this topic and I don’t see books like Inspiration and Incarnation as scary or dangerous. They should, however, serve to be a platform for a healthy discussion and dialogue not necessarily a “Warning! Do not proceed. It’s too dangerous. Your light might be faulty!”
I was guessing that this other thread you were following was in response to Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation. No?
28 August 2008 at 2.38 pm
Heather said, “Kevin, based on what you are writing it seems that you’d rather be “safe” and not take a chance of exploring what really is in that cave. Am I wrong?”
No, you are quite correct, although I cannot justify my position without inviting attacks from readers of this thread. :p
Heather continued, “Anyway, moot point. I’m not really interested in this particular debate…I don’t see books like Inspiration and Incarnation as scary or dangerous.”
Then why ask the question?
You may not see I&I as dangerous, but I can assure you that there are many, myself included who do.
“They should, however, serve to be a platform for a healthy discussion and dialogue…”
Perhaps. The Federal Vision cast itself as a discussion too. The problem was that the Reformed community did not want to join them in the conversation. That is not to say that those denominations that denounced the Federal Vision did not think about what was said.
Art: “I don’t find any argument from the Divines to be applicable to this discussion. They did not even known these texts existed; therefore they are not in a position to be relied upon in this instance.”
You are of course free to disagree. Human writings are human writings, however, regardless of whether or not the Divines were aware of them.
Nick:”why is it outside the realm of possibility that the human authors wrote from a certain cultural perspective and that God inspired them not by overriding their cultural milieu, but by working within their culture, cosmology and general mythos?”
First, you are begging the question. Second you are creating a false dilemma. I never said the authors wrote independent of their cultural perspective. That would be impossible, unless pure dictation were involved. The problem comes when you ask why God could not have working within thier cosmology/mythos. The answer is that God is revealing to us the truth, not sanctifying mythology.
You are, of course, also free to be wrong about the unfolding of church history as it relates to doctrine.
FTH: “our concern is that we seem to find the Scriptures behaving in ways that cut across some of our traditional notions of what something has to be if it is God’s revelation.”
That sounds like a well-rehearsed (if not parrotted) line and you have said it verbatim on other threads. Care to be specific on how the Scriptures actually do this?
“Are you open, at least in theory, the Bible itself challenging your notions of what it means that it is God’s Word? Are you open, at least in theory, to finding out that, for example, parts of our bible participated in some of the common ANE mythic-cosmic views of reality?”
Probably not. It means what you mean by “participated.” I might as well ask you if your at least open to the idea that Genesis is history and that God is a God who who speaks inerrantly and infallibly?
“Are you open, at least in theory, the Bible itself challenging your notions of what it means that it is God’s Word? Are you open, at least in theory, to finding out that, for example, parts of our bible participated in some of the common ANE mythic-cosmic views of reality?”
Not really, since you use Barthian-esque terms and nuance. I’m going to need a whole lot of convincing that you are orthodox when you keep using words like “myth.” Again, (AND THIS IS NOT A SLAM OR A DARE) use the term with your credentials committee and watch their reaction. I’m sure you can anticipate it.
“How are inspiration and the category of Revelation inherently opposed to such [‘messy’] ways of understanding the bible?”
Since you give no specifics, I cannot answer that.
“From where do you get your notions of what it means that the Bible is inspired?”
I’ll answer if you will.
“If from the Bible, then what do you do when the Bible behaves in ways that cut across your notions of what inspiration and Revelation must mean?”
There’s the rehearsed line again. Honestly, it reads like something from the dust jacket of an Enns book. Care to be specific?
“If you claim the Bible does not do these things and your arguments/readings depend upon claiming the bible by definition cannot do such things and that anyone thinking it can has faulty presuppositions—have you heard of a circular argument : ) …?”
And you, of course, are begging the question.
“Oh, and if you go Van Tilian here and claim circular reasoning is valid, does it not make you somewhat uncomfortable that you have functionally and theoretically insulated your doctrine of Scripture from the Bible itself”
Assuming the Bible needs insulation from itself.
“Did I ask enough questions here…?”
Yep. Let’s talk specifics.
Shall we start with Genesis 1:1. Does God exist? Or is he the product of a Hebraized pagan mythology. I am deadly serious with that question.
28 August 2008 at 3.21 pm
Kevin –
You quoted me here…
Nick:”why is it outside the realm of possibility that the human authors wrote from a certain cultural perspective and that God inspired them not by overriding their cultural milieu, but by working within their culture, cosmology and general mythos?”
Then You Said – First, you are begging the question. Second you are creating a false dilemma.
I didn’t make an argument, I asked you a question; hence I cannot be begging the question. Furthermore even if this was an argument it is not a question begging one. To beg the question I must insert part or all of my conclusion in one or more of my premises. I haven’t done this.
I believe that my dichotomy (which is not false) has been misunderstood as well, so I will try again. It occurs to me that there are several possibilities when dealing with the manner of inspiration of the text, but these two are the ones we are comparing. You hold to the first scenario and I to the second.
1.) All people hold to historical and logical inaccuracies. God, in order to inspire, overrides the historical misgivings of his writers. So if I believed the moon is made of green cheese, and he wants to inspire me to write about the moon, he must overcome this inaccuracy or prevent me from recording it in the text. Therefore the statement “the moon is made of green cheese” cannot appear in the text he is inspiring.
2.) All people hold to historical and logical inaccuracies. God’s purpose in inspiration can exist alongside the historical misgivings of his writers. So I can write that the moon is made of green cheese, and since God’s purpose in inspiration doesn’t have anything to do with the consistency of my physical knowledge of the moon and objective reality. Hence I can write “the moon is made of green cheese” and God can use it for a theological purpose.
You Said – I never said the authors wrote independent of their cultural perspective. That would be impossible, unless pure dictation were involved.
You didn’t read carefully enough. I assumed at the outset this wasn’t what you meant as I clearly said. However. I would assert that your view does conform to (1) above. Am I wrong? Does God not need to either correct or purposely omit the bad information of the writers he inspires?
You Said – The problem comes when you ask why God could not have working within thier cosmology/mythos. The answer is that God is revealing to us the truth, not sanctifying mythology.
Speaking of a true false dichotomy…
You Said – You are, of course, also free to be wrong about the unfolding of church history as it relates to doctrine.
And you are free to subject the phenomenon of scripture beneath the authority of a confessional standard. Of course so long as you are denying that scripture can correct the “unfolding of church history as it relates to doctrine” you might want to don a collar and a cassock because the argument you are using is identical to Eck’s argument against Luther’s “brash new heresy.”
(p.s. — I counted five times on your last post where you said/refused to allow the phenomenon of scripture to correct tradition. Does that bother you at all?)
28 August 2008 at 4.38 pm
Nick, I do not believe I ever said that Scripture should not correct tradition. I said “show me,” somethng anyone has yet to do, aside from broad assertions.
Genesis 1:1? The existence of God? Anyone?
28 August 2008 at 5.45 pm
Kevin, this is bordering on the same sort of sanctimony that characterizes many of the responses from the side which you currently represent. I had thought that you might behave a bit differently, being a minister.
Do you seriously want an answer to whether I believe in God or not?
Or are you trying to prove a point by being hubristic? If so is your point that nuance is impossible, because that’s the only thing which could possibly come out of your question.
Nick
28 August 2008 at 5.48 pm
Kevin,
As a side note, what do you think of the argument about tehom in Genesis 1:3 having a semantic relationship to tiamat from babylonian mythology?
Nick
28 August 2008 at 8.16 pm
Kevin,
Let’s try this again. Would you please interact with the questions and concerns I voiced in my last comment. Please give me some evidence that you desire to have an actual conversation, rather than engage in dismissive rhetoric.
I have trouble seeing how I could break down some of the dynamics of what seems to be going on here as well as my/our concerns more clearly. If you are upset that I have repeated myself in that comment, keep in mind that you have never engaged such concerns, given evidence that you really understand where we are coming from, or demonstrated your actual willingness to have a functioning conversation with us.
If you want to keep shifting the burden of proof, ignoring my questions, and dismissing my concerns because they sound “rehearsed,” then I am done interacting with you. Seriously, I just do not have time for this.
So, I sincerely ask you, please, go back, look over my comment, and engage the questions I asked. Let me know if I understand you in the first paragraph or two. Explain if it looks like the issues are set out there clearly. Answer some of my questions. I know Art, Nick, and others would ask that you extend the same courtesy to them more consistently. We obviously should do the same for you.
This is not a burden of proof situation. I want to give you the chance to explain why you think the way you do. You already know—or at least should know if you have read us with a view to understanding us on our terms—how we think. We have tried to explain to you why. If I may, sadly you persist in not acknowledging why we think the way we do and how we are consciously thinking these ways because we want to follow God in the Bible wherever he might lead us. Instead it comes across, and maybe you do not mean to come across this way, as though you have decided you know us better than we know ourselves and that you think we are doing what we are doing because (1) we want to attack the Bible’s authority and inspiration, (2) because we doubt God exists [?!], (3) because we lack pastoral concern, (4) because we are captive to Liberal scholarship, (5) because we have a deep-seated skepticism about the Bible, etc.
So, again, please engage in a charitable discussion with us. Please at least show that you have understood what we are saying and why, even if you disagree with us.
29 August 2008 at 12.15 am
It’s not being sanctimonious, Nick. I’m driving at a point. FTH, I have interacted with your questions, but you do not seem to want to interact on the same field that I do. I don’t want to continue to trade rhetorical quips either. You talk about the Bible cutting across traditional notions of inspiration.
Fine. Show me.
Obviously I do not think you do not believe in God, but I am trying to make a point about the text from the text, not continuing to appeal to pagan literature as if it is supposed to create some spiritual epiphany.
If you don’t want to do that, it’s fine, but I agree the conversation is over.
Oh, and Nick, my thoughts on the semantic relationship of tehom and Babylonian mythology is: they both are semtic languages. They have cognates. Not a terribly profound observation.
29 August 2008 at 9.55 am
Kevin,
You said… I am trying to make a point about the text from the text, not continuing to appeal to pagan literature as if it is supposed to create some spiritual epiphany.
Let me see if I can anticipate your ‘point.’ The text says God exists, and we believe that, yet the text says “one day” and we dont believe that. Is that about the sum of it? In other words your point is that nuance is impossible, or at least that nuances other than the ones you employ are impossible. (If I have missed something in what your purpose was for repeatedly posting the “does gen 1:1 say that God exists” let me know.)
As to tehom, you dismiss it a bit quickly but concede important ground. You say; “it’s just a cognate” as if this explicates the issue. Yet a cognate tell us something about where words and ideas derive from.
For instance, the English word “orgy” and its Greek counterpart “orgiazw” which denoted performing a secret rite in a Greek mystery religion. Now you might not think at first that this original meaning has much to do with the common usage in English, but it does. The word orgiazw originally referred to a secret (and often sexual) rite. For centuries people who met in groups and practiced non mainstream religions, such as witchcraft, Judaism (which at one time was not mainstream) and masonry have been accused of having sexual orgies. These groups have been accused of having orgies not because they actually were, but because of their secrecy, ritual and social taboo have been connected to a collective feeling about what an orgy is. It’s not that someone consciously thought; “ oh look a coven of pagan witches I’ll bet that they practice the ancient Greek sexual rites of the Manicheans.” Rather there is a subconscious usage, a general feeling about when and where orgies might happen which give it the connection. So when a writer today uses the word orgy, she is (consciously or not) connecting to a semantic backdrop which will conjure up images of secrecy, religion, sexuality, etc…
Tehom is similar. In Babylonian mythology, Tiamat is the goddess of saltwater. A great war is fought, and Tiamat is slain by Marduk, who rips her body in half and uses one half to make the waters of heaven, and the other half to make the waters of the great deep. Allow me to make an argument here.
First that Tehom in Hebrew is a singular feminine noun. If you pluralize it you would have Tehomot which sounds a lot like Tiamat, and shares in meaning in that both mean something like the great depths, or the primordial waters. Secondly, the word for waters is already plural, mayim. You don’t talk about ‘may’ as being the water and mayim as being the waters. The word only exists in the plural form. The same is true of the heavens, shamayim (this word is also linguistically related to mayim. The waters beneath are the ‘mayim’ and the waters above the sha’mayim – this is part of the ANE worldview; two bodies of water.)
So why is a word which is similar to these water words, Tehom or the great depths, in a singular form? Well, if your surrounding cosmology told you that tiamat was slain and only half of here was in the great deep, it would make sense to singularize the original Tehomot. Furthermore, what do we read, but that darkness is over the “panee tehom” or face of the great deep, and the spirit of God is trembling (perhaps as one would in the victory of battle) overtop the waters, over the dead and lifeless goddess tiamat.
So I ask you about the linguistic relationship because there is a lot there. Genesis 1:2, contains what are a lot of unimportant details if we throw out the ANE connection.
Genesis 1:2 – The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Taking your flat interpretation, what do we have in this verse? Ok, so the earth is dark, and the spirit of God was over the waters, but what does that have to do with anything?
However, if we take seriously the cultural relationship the ancient Israelites had to the Babylonians, we find the wealth of meaning the verse is intended to show. The God of Israel trembles overtop the false gods of the nations.
So you ask if I believe in God from Genesis 1:1. Yes I do, but is all I get out of Genesis 1:1-2 is a shallow theism, then I missed the monotheism and exclusivity of verse 2. The relationship is not just a semantic cognate Kevin, the depth of the text is amazing, if you care to look. If you are willing to enter the cave you might just find some amazing depth you never thought possible.
Pax Christi…Nick
My point is that while it may not be the case that people
29 August 2008 at 9.55 am
That last sentence was a fragment from some editing, sorry it was supposed to be removed.
Nick
29 August 2008 at 12.56 pm
Nick, you did not anticipate my point, but you are cetainly in the neighborhood.
OK, we have agreed that God exists. Continuing on with Genesis 1:1, did God speak, and in his speaking create light?
I still maintain you place to much emphasis on a cognate. The fact that two disaprate languages share a word with a common etymology, does not mean that they use the word in the same way. There is your unfounded assertion. Again.
It appears I am not allowed to disagree with you guys, without being labelled dismissive. But let us continue with Gen 1.1.
Did God speak? Did he create light by speaking?
29 August 2008 at 3.07 pm
Kevin –
Nick, you did not anticipate my point, but you are cetainly in the neighborhood.
Good to know I was close.
OK, we have agreed that God exists. Continuing on with Genesis 1:1, did God speak, and in his speaking create light?
This is Genesis 1:3-5, not 1:1 but ok. I think it is logically impossible for God to have used physical speech to create; certainly he could not have used anything like our speech to create because he would need a physical mouth, larynx, etc…
Maybe the theological point has nothing to do with audible sound. Perhaps the point of Genesis 1:3-5 is that unlike pagan gods who come out of chaos and by various machinations create things and themselves are created and die; our God speaks and it is! It doesn’t matter if it was literal speech or not, but that God wills a thing into being and is not conditioned by creation. I think you are missing the forest for the trees Kevin.
I still maintain you place to much emphasis on a cognate. The fact that two disaprate languages share a word with a common etymology, does not mean that they use the word in the same way. There is your unfounded assertion. Again.
I never said they used it in the same way. Rather I argued that there is a connection, conscious or unconscious, with many cognate word pairs. You admitted a relationship between the words but have yet to really ponder what this relationship might have been. You have called my assertions “unfounded” yet I presented several points which led me to my assertion. I think this is a bit of special pleading. I founded my assertions on relations between ANE cosmology and the Genesis 1 story. I founded it on semantic usage and how similar words were used. These may not be persuasive to you, but you need to explain why they are not persuasive.
It appears I am not allowed to disagree with you guys, without being labelled dismissive. But let us continue with Gen 1.1.
This is part of the problem Kevin. You don’t like that you have been accused of being dismissive, but that’s precisely what you just did. I presented numerous evidences for my position and you simply called it “unfounded” and didn’t provide one shred of reason why it was unfounded. I even set it up so you could disagree with it logically, and you didn’t.
Did God speak? Did he create light by speaking?
Did he create sound waves before he created light? Does this mean that on the first day he must have created sound, then light, because without audible speech Genesis 1:3-5 would be in error? If so, why doesn’t it say anything in the Genesis narrative about God creating sound.
Pax Christi…Nick
29 August 2008 at 2.17 pm
Kevin:
Did God speak? Did he create light by speaking?
Does God have an arm? Did he save Israel with his arm? (See Deut 26:8 and many other examples too numerous to count). Speech, like a mighty arm, is not less deeply meaningful and true for being an anthropomorphism.
The fact that two disaprate languages share a word with a common etymology, does not mean that they use the word in the same way.
This is true. The connection would have to be argued for on the basis of good evidence. Many see such evidence in the fact that thm (Genesis) and thmt (Enuma Elish) both occur in ANE creation accounts for a seemingly uncreated cosmic sea (on which day was the ocean created?). This indicates to many that there may be some connection.
Far from sanctifying mythology, I would argue that Gen 1 subverts it. Within its well-known genre in the ANE, there is a strong expectation of some kind of battle (Chaoskampf). You expect the thm either to attack God or for some monster to emerge from it to attack God. The subversive message is that there is no such battle.
29 August 2008 at 4.00 pm
Nick,
Touche on the reference. I was getting tunnel vision. But thank you for making my point.
Gen 1.1 assumes the existence of God and says he created. So in some sense you accept that as history. In the beginning God. Two verses later, its myth, a sanitized version of pagan myth. You offer no proof, just asserstions. You offer no arguments, just literary parallels that you ASSUME require literary dependence.
The problem with these threads, and yes I’m being dismissive, is that you and others on it have supplanted faith with reason. Reason is the cheap knock off flashlight that all of you think is so nifty. Reason is the pathway to hell, my friend. The Bible says as much. It is not that faith is unreasonable, but biblical faith is not subordinate to reason.
You write, “I think it is logically impossible for God to have used physical speech to create; certainly he could not have used anything like our speech to create because he would need a physical mouth, larynx, etc… ”
Logically impossible? I rest my case. You hold that the Scriptures must bow to your undertanding. This is why I have been so “dismissive” as you guys suggest.
If I am dismissive, it is because you speak like Bultmann, but cry “foul” when you are labeleld liberals. You talk like Barth and whine about a lack of charity when some say that you sound neo-orthodox. You talk like a textbook of Enlightenment skepticism, but frown on people pointing it out.
I don’t believe further discussion on this will be helpful for either of us.
So, I will bow out and remain your ingorant, dismissive, traditionalist friend…Kevin
29 August 2008 at 4.01 pm
Oh, and in my self-deprecating adjectives, let me add “poor typing.”
29 August 2008 at 4.06 pm
Reason is the pathway to hell?
Reason that purports human autonomy, yes. Reason that submits to Christ, no.
God made us reasonable creatures after his own image. It’s the misuse of reason that is dangerous, not reason itself.
29 August 2008 at 4.46 pm
That was my use of the word, romey, reason that sets itself up against faith and makes itself the arbiter of what God has revealed.
Not gray matter in use.
29 August 2008 at 5.12 pm
BTW,
I posted another interpretation of the cave saga over at Conn-versation.
29 August 2008 at 5.31 pm
Kevin,
Since I have already written some posts detailing examples of the Bible behaving in ways cutting across more-traditional notions of what it means that the Bible is God’s Word, I will link them here:
http://connversation.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/nine-marks-of-inerrancy-a-repost-of-one-that-was-lost-original-author-stephen-young/
This post contains three fairly lengthy paragraphs towards the beginning about various issues seen in Daniel. http://connversation.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/tim-challies-on-inerrancy-my-attempt-at-conn-versation/ It also has some comments about issues of canon and transmission—all in the context of some of my broader thought on these issues. As an aside, this was my first post ever on the Conn blog.
29 August 2008 at 5.32 pm
…continuing for Kevin (and everyone else)…
Though this post does not go into specific details with the Bible, it sketches some broader areas of interest: http://connversation.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/considering-ancient-contexts-ancient-near-eastern-views-of-creation/ . Perhaps you could read Jon Levenson’s excellent Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence for some excellent treatments of biblical texts that would, certainly, cut across certain traditional notions. BTW, Levenson is one of the (excellent and highly respected!) scholars who sees at least a play on or allusion to Tiamat in Genesis 1.
Though I did not type this post either with a view to answering your concerns, in it I sketch some ways Paul works in Galatians that would most likely cut across typical evangelical notions of how NT authors “must have” used the OT: http://connversation.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/what-has-galatians-to-do-with-jubilees/
Perhaps you will enjoy this one as well: http://connversation.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/ancient-mediterranean-discourse-on-women/ . Though I never got around to typing the follow-up post, mainly because the discussion for which I hoped did not happen at the time, this post, well, you will figure it out…
These are just some posts off the top of my head that I could locate quickly. I recommend concentrating your engagement on the posts I link in the previous comment—-they are probably the most relevant to your request for “examples.”
More than all this, much of Art’s blog is devoted to the examples for which you ask. I also recommend reading Enns’ book, which I hope you have read seeing as how you have pronounced judgment on it multiple times here. Perhaps you could also pick up just about any commentary of monograph on the bible written by someone who is not a more traditional American-Evangelical?
Your continued lack of engagement with my questions continues to frustrate me, Kevin…
29 August 2008 at 10.35 pm
Nick,
Gen 1.1 assumes the existence of God and says he created. So in some sense you accept that as history.
Of course I do, I also accept that Gen. 1:2 IS HISTORICAL!!! It is as much of an historical fact that God is not like the pagan gods of the ANE as it is that he created with a divine speech act. The difference is not IF IT IS HISTORICAL, but HOW IT IS HISTORICAL!!!!Again, your abject failure to nuance a position is amazing.
In the beginning God. Two verses later, its myth, a sanitized version of pagan myth.
This is yet another false dichotomy. Myth can give historical information. Thats what a parable is, thats what apocalyptic literature is. In the beginning God created, is an historical fact, two verses later is also an historical fact, just not the one you have in mind.
Your argument reminds me of a discussion I had with a muslim. He claimed that Jesus can’t be god because he says “Why do you call me good, only God is good.” He read this verse as being a statement, when in fact its a rhetorical question. Kevin, your inability to even attempt to see something outside of a very myopic view is simply amazing.
You offer no proof, just asserstions. You offer no arguments, just literary parallels that you ASSUME require literary dependence.
Actually, I have offered several linguistic and historical proofs. You are the one who simply assert that I and others are a bunch of flaming liberals. You have offered no proof that we should read Genesis as some sort of scientific text book, nor that your view of Genesis is correct. The only thing you have offered is “church tradition” and that was a flawed argument as well (which I pointed out but you, as usual, refused to engage!) Nor have you refuted any of our arguments, and you admit as much.
The problem with these threads, and yes I’m being dismissive, is that you and others on it have supplanted faith with reason.
No sir. You have supplanted exegetical laziness with being a Berean. You refuse to even engage the discussion because ( I assume) you feel unable or inadequate to do so. So instead of being humble and trying to understand another persons position you just cast aspersions such as the one above.
Reason is the cheap knock off flashlight that all of you think is so nifty. Reason is the pathway to hell, my friend. The Bible says as much.
Kevin, this is more of the same rhetoric. You fail to engage the discussion because you cannot. You can only pretend to piety. You are not being pious Kevin, you are being pharisaical.
It is not that faith is unreasonable, but biblical faith is not subordinate to reason.
I agree, unfortunantly it is you who are guilty of putting reason above faith. You have demanded that your naive realist philosophy is the principium through which scripture must be viewed. The words of scripture are meaningless to you because you fail to engage them as they are. Rather you use naive realism to correct the text. Scripture is only accurate and true if and only if it confirms your philosophical preconditions. The problem is that you assume, naively, that your preconditions are accurate simply because you hold them.
You write, “I think it is logically impossible for God to have used physical speech to create; certainly he could not have used anything like our speech to create because he would need a physical mouth, larynx, etc… ”Logically impossible? I rest my case. You hold that the Scriptures must bow to your undertanding.
Nope, this is what you are doing. Again you dont address my point. I said that it was logically impossible for God to speak in the same way that we do, since he doesnt have speech organs. How can a non physical God use physical speech to create? If God speaks it must be different than our speech unless you are a mormon. Kevin, do you believe that God the father has teeth and gums and a tongue? Again, you avoid my point for one of your own making.
I take it back you are not dismissive, you actually fail to understand your opponent. You have no choice but to respond in such a nasty manner. I actually have begun to feel sorry for you. I will be praying for you Kevin, that you can learn charity for your opponents.
You also avoided my question about if God created sound first, so he could then speak. Can you please answer.
If I am dismissive, it is because you speak like Bultmann, but cry “foul” when you are labeleld liberals.
Just out of wonder, have you ever read Bultmann. Please answer .
I don’t believe further discussion on this will be helpful for either of us.
It’s yet to be a discussion Kevin, as you refuse to engage a point. This thread has been several of us making points and you saber rattling. A few threads ago I made a sustained scientific argument refuting your YEC position; you ignored it. I made a sustained argument for tehom having a connection to the ANE cosmology and you failed to engage that. Engage something Kevin. Show me the error of my ways if I am lost. Don’t just dismiss me or you have done precisely what the Pharisees did to their opponents. Or maybe just admit that you havent studied it enough to know, or go study it and come back. For goodness sakes Kevin, do something constructive. Don’t, however, be intellectually and spiritually dishonest. It is sin dressed up as piety and God hates it.
Nick
30 August 2008 at 3.57 am
Nick,
“Of course I do, I also accept that Gen. 1:2 IS HISTORICAL!!! It is as much of an historical fact that God is not like the pagan gods of the ANE as it is that he created with a divine speech act. The difference is not IF IT IS HISTORICAL, but HOW IT IS HISTORICAL!!!!Again, your abject failure to nuance a position is amazing.”
And I find your inability to use words in non-neo-orthodx fashiion equally amazing. History, you aver, need not be historical. How twisted is that?
“This is yet another false dichotomy. Myth can give historical information. Thats what a parable is, thats what apocalyptic literature is. In the beginning God created, is an historical fact, two verses later is also an historical fact, just not the one you have in mind.”
No. this is more tortured double speak on your part. It is also another unfounded assertion. I ask you to prove exegetically that 1:1 differs from 1:3 and your response is Sumerian legend. Sorry, that doesn’t work from an exegetical point of you. That’s eisegesis of the worst sort, since, again, you make ANE pagan literature the end all be all of biblical interpretation.
“No sir. You have supplanted exegetical laziness with being a Berean. You refuse to even engage the discussion because ( I assume) you feel unable or inadequate to do so. So instead of being humble and trying to understand another persons position you just cast aspersions such as the one above.”
Hmmm…do you even know why the Bereans were commened? For searching the Scriptures to see if Paul was preaching the truth. I think you have that comparison on its ear, friend.
Nick, you are absolutely frothing at the mouth now. Three times in one paragraph you call me naive. Whatever. Sticks and stones. You have still never once given me a single shred of evidence that Genesis is myth from the text. Then you accuse me of not engaging the Scriptures as they are. Um, that is the only thing I have asked to do. None of you will get specific.
Blah, blah, blah. More self-righteous appeals to charity. You call me loveless and stupid. I
understand anthropomorphic language just fine. No God does not have a layrnx, etc. Yet he spoke. There was no source for the light, yet it shown. Etc. Pretty easy stuff, when you approach the text from the starting point of belief. When you approach it from human rationalism, it’s not so easy.
Yes’ I’ve read Bultmann. Have you? Apparently so has GLW Johnson who observed you were a bunch of flaming liberals. His words not mine.
” A few threads ago I made a sustained scientific argument refuting your YEC position; you ignored it.”
Neverf said I was a YEC, thus I did not realize that was aimed at me.
Your sustained argument about tehom was not sustained and it was not an argument. You just said, “Hey, Enuma Elish uses a semitic cognate, therefore Genesis 1 is a myth derived from Sumerian literature.” Non-sequitir. Bad correlation. I might as well say that my alarm clock going off at 6 AM makes the sunrise. You do not prove anything beyond making a linguisitc parallel. The answer to your “sustainaed argument is, so? The tehom is better explained by the creation accounti itself than by looking to ANE lit, which, of course, you cannot prove that the Hebrews wrote. But, but, the Bible IS ANE literature, you bluster. Again, so? The Library of Congress to which I have infinitely more access that people had access to ANE lit in those days, doesn’t mean that I have read everything in the LOC. Nor does it mean that everything contained therein dictates what I read.
Ah, more name calling. And I guess this is your model for Christian charity. No wonder I haven’t lived up to it, since I haven’t sunk to it with you.
I’m familiar with the liberal/neo-orthodox arguments you make. I am familiar with your low view of Scripture. I’ve studied them. They have been well refuted by brillian scholars of the evangelical community…but they keep coming back every few years. It’s like a theological version of the “Night of the Living Dead.”
Ok, so I am now mean, ignorant, impious, pharisaical, and unconstructive. Did I get them all? If not let me know. Oh yea saber-rattling. And dishonest. Hmmm. Serious charges. I wonder which of us would be left standing in an ecclesiastical court? (Hint: the one that believes the Bible.)
30 August 2008 at 7.22 am
The tehom is better explained by the creation accounti itself than by looking to ANE lit, which, of course, you cannot prove that the Hebrews wrote.
I know this is nit-picky, but what the ancient Israelites wrote was by definition ANE literature. You can certainly argue that it differs fundamentally from other ANE literatures, but it doesn’t make any more sense to deny that the OT is ANE literature than it would to deny that literary productions of the 19th and 20th centuries in Europe and America are not modern Euro/American literature. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.
As for the tehom being better explained by the creation narrative itself, I would heartily encourage a close look at that text to see what it does say. Tell me, when does Gen 1 say that God created the tehom? Please answer.
30 August 2008 at 8.57 am
Kevin,
How would one go about giving you evidence that Genesis is myth, from the text? What would constitute proof acceptable to you? How would one go about discussing this genre issue with you, a discussion that would normally be conducted by looking at the literature of the surrounding cultural world(s), without you charging that we are ignoring Genesis “in favor of” (or some charge like that) other ANE literature?
About Nick’s point that the issue is “not if it’s historical, but how it’s historical,” such a point is necessary, especially when dealing with texts from a different cultural world. How do we know our tacit understandings of what is “history” (which, by the way, should be very diverse) completely overlap with conceptions of history from the ANE. Even if you want to ignore the cultural context, how do you know your conceptions of history overlap completely with God’s idea(s) of how to write history? Your quick dismissals of these points seems to show your comfort projecting your notions of “history” back on ancient texts—-so comfortable and assumed that your apparent explanations for why we ask these questions is that we are neo-Orthodox. Would you also think that Hebrew Bible poetry is just “the same” as modern-Western conceptions of Poetry? Are we neo-Orthodox if we question “how” the Psalms are poetry, if we question “if” Hebrew Bible poetry involved meter? (NathanM can discuss this with you in more detail)?
About history in the ANE, a quick perusal of just about any serious scholar’s work will show you that most consider “myth” versus “history” often to be a false dichotomy. In the ANE what you usually have, especially with creation accounts is “mythic-history,” the qualifier “mythic” does not mean false. It means the text is after something different than, perhaps, what we would like it to be discussing. I do not mean this in a dismissive way here, but are you familiar with such scholarly understandings and discussions of various ANE types of creation literature, “history,” “myth,” and their functions, etc.? Are you familiar with how actual scholars of the ANE approach these areas? I did a post on some things closely related to these issues in some sectors of the ANE, perhaps it could be helpful to you, unless you already know all this: http://connversation.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/considering-ancient-contexts-ancient-near-eastern-views-of-creation/ . So, when it comes to establishing genre, again something inherently bound up with looking at literature and its functions in the surrounding cultural air, it would seem your bald and unqualified oppositions between “myth” and “history” when it comes to Genesis 1 (for example) are bizarre, at least from the point of view of how one would normally go about sketching something’s genre and functions.
30 August 2008 at 9.08 am
Kevin (continued),
If I may throw out a few more things, I am unaware of our concerns being answered by brilliant evangelical scholars. I used to hold, as best I can tell, the same views in the same ways as you about how the Bible must be, and I too held them militantly. I read every writing by evangelicals on which I could get my hands that attacked “liberal” and “low” views of Scripture and agreed with them all at a general level. I preferred the ones that I thought had more nuanced-Reformed approaches to the Bible. Even with the round of criticism leveled at Enns’ work, I remain unaware of such evangelical answers to our concerns. Perhaps you could specify some of them?
Also, again, I await your engagement with some of the “examples” I linked, especially the following two:
http://connversation.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/nine-marks-of-inerrancy-a-repost-of-one-that-was-lost-original-author-stephen-young/
http://connversation.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/tim-challies-on-inerrancy-my-attempt-at-conn-versation/ Again, see the several paragraphs on issues in Daniel near the beginning, and some of the text and canon issues brought up towards the end.
30 August 2008 at 10.11 am
Kevin –
My apologies for being so aggressive on my previous post. The point of the aggressiveness was to goad you into actually engaging some substance, which you did somewhat. Perhaps now we can resume a civil and actual discussion.
You Said – “And I find your inability to use words in non-neo-orthodx fashiion equally amazing. History, you aver, need not be historical. How twisted is that?”
(_1_) That’s not what I said. What I said was that it is historically true that God is living, while tiamat is a dead false god. Is that or is that not an historical truth?
Unless you separate out theological truth as being non-historical, both the first and second verses of Gen 1 as I have rendered them are historically true. The first one declares that God historically created the heavens and the earth. The second one declares that God is historically different from the ANE pantheon. The only issue is to what the verse is trying to convey, not if it is history; but what historical event or trusim it is recording.
I ask you to prove exegetically that 1:1 differs from 1:3 and your response is Sumerian legend. Sorry, that doesn’t work from an exegetical point of you.
Babylonian legend actually. So what you are calling for is a non-contextual exegesis where the only valid points are to be made from other places in scripture?
You want to limit exegesis to the Bible alone as if it exists in a vacuum. You seem to hold to a contextually objective reader, I think both goals are impossible. The real issue here has little to do with the Bible, it has to do with philosophical presuppositions and if one can be objective contextually.
You have still never once given me a single shred of evidence that Genesis is myth from the text.
(_2_) I have one major problem with the way you want to do exegesis (and several smaller ones). How do we know how to translate words without surrounding usages? The KJV of the bible, for instance, records unicorns as existing in ancient Israel (Numbers 23:22). If we allow only intra-biblical information, then we ought to leave this translation in, right? If you are comfortable changing it then we have a problem. It was only through looking at non canonical sources that we discovered that the word “raem” is a wild ox, not a unicorn. So we apparently can use non canonical sources and languages such as Akkadian and Ugaritic to translate the words of the text, but we cannot use these same sources to provide a context for the text. Pagan language is permissable, but pagan culture is not. Why is that? Is there a intra-biblical reason why we can use the ANE for translation help, but not for context?
No God does not have a layrnx, etc. Yet he spoke.
(_3_) My dear Kevin, are you denying the literal accuracy of the text? It says he spoke, therefore for it to be historically true he must have a larynx! If you say he spoke, but not like how we speak, you have two definitions of history!
“Hey, Enuma Elish uses a semitic cognate, therefore Genesis 1 is a myth derived from Sumerian literature.” Non-sequitir. Bad correlation. I might as well say that my alarm clock going off at 6 AM makes the sunrise.
Kevin, you are right in that you identified I was making a correlation, not a causative statement. You are however wrong in saying that correlations can be non-sequitors. Again, as with your claim of begging the question, only an argument can be a logical fallacy. I expanded the implications of their correlation, you have admitted their correlation but avoided the implications of it.
Your alarm clock and the sunrise ARE CORRELATED, but one does not cause the other. In the same way the ANE mythopoeic language of the Enuma Elish and that of Genesis are correlated with each other (this doesn’t imply causation, but interdependence.) You, however, seem to be denying correlation altogether. As if your alarm clock going off and the arrival of the sun are apples and oranges. I would say they are nearly constantly correlated. In a similar way the cosmology and mythos of the ancient Israelites and the ancient Babylonians had many correlations.
I wonder which of us would be left standing in an ecclesiastical court? (Hint: the one that believes the Bible.)
Kevin, it’s possible I would be drummed out of some denominations for some of my views. You know Luther was accused of turning the Bible against itself by denying the apostolic foundation of the church. Losing in an ecclesiastical court doesn’t necessitate that the court is acting correctly. Galileo also lost in a court for his “heresy.” I suppose we all suffer from a shallow historical memory.
Kevin, thank you for finally engaging some substance of my post. Again, I apologize for my harsh tone from before, hope there are no hard feelings, but now that you have expressed how you actually feel about me maybe we can get to some substance. I numbered three points on my post that I would love some engagement on. Of course anything extra you choose to engage is also fine, but these three things seem to me to be some of the actual meat of our disagreement.
It would be helpful if in your next post you responded to the numbered points above. This could begin actual dialogue, but we both must be willing to point and counterpoint, not avoid hard points and attack supposed weaknesses in our opponents argument. I am game it you are.
Pax Christi…Nick
1 September 2008 at 12.05 pm
Kevin,
I know you are busy, as the rest of us are. Should we be expecting you to respond (preferably charitably and engagingly) to our comments: to Nick’s, NathanM’s, and mine?
1 September 2008 at 1.46 pm
I don’t think I have anything further to contribute to the thread, FTH. Thanks for checking, though.
2 September 2008 at 12.26 pm
FTH,
I realize we are beating a very dead horse, here. I wanted to let you know, however, that I did read the links you sent me regard the Bible acting in ways we do not expect.
By your own admission, many of these alleged contradictions are explainable. I did find it a curious thing, however, that while most of your more recent posts have dealt with the OT, on Conn-versation your assaults on the reliability of the text extend to the gospels as well.
I find it equally interesting how much you guys seem to so resent being labelled. I know you want to have discussions, but if you say things right out of 19th century, rationalistic liberalism or 20th century neo-orthodoxy, I do not see why you should be surprised when people observe that fact. Just commenting, not attacking.
I am curious: do you believe that prophecy in the OT is in fact prophetic, or was it all written after the historical fact? (He asked knowingly…)
2 September 2008 at 1.31 pm
Kevin,
Nice rhetorical moves. Not that rhetoric is bad, we all engage in it simply by communicating, but you had some particularly pointed moves there.
So you read some of my examples but do not care to answer my question as to why the drive “to explain” such instances—especially when “explaining” them causes one to miss something significant the author is doing; some of the theology of the writing, if you will.
Also, I do not find you very conversational when you use the rhetoric of me “attacking” the “reliability” of the gospels. You have begged the question (yet again) as to whether something is “attacking” or, instead, plumbing the depths for a richer understanding. How is it attacking the reliability of the Gospels to note Jesus dies on a different day in John than in the Synoptic Gospels, and then trying to understand why our Gospels look like that, how this might be a window in on some rich theological significance a Gospel is bringing out about Jesus’ death? If I can share my point of view, which certainly differs from your understanding here, I consider the impulse to “explain” any such possible discrepancy at any cost (even after it reasonable historical attempts have been made and found wanting) more of an “attack” on the “reliability” of the Gospels. That approach is the one that really does not think they are reliable enough—rather, they must be conformed to some of our predetermined notions of “reliability.” Usual historical scholarship studies things, realizing sometimes harmonization is a helpful approach, and sometimes it is historically reckless and a hindrance (hence Ray Dillard’s excellent essay in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic, “Harmonization: A Help or a Hindrance?”). Again, if you have decided ahead of time that everything must be harmonized or Scripture is not God’s Word, I want to discuss why do we have that impulse—especially when it seems that hinders us from reading the Bible as well, deeply, enrichingly, and edifyingly as we could.
This is the problem with what seems to be your approach, the one of ‘new WTS’ (some call it original WTS), and much of Reformed-Evangelical scholarship. Said theological identities were very much constructed in opposition to 19th and early-mid 20th century “Liberalism,” whether “Barthian” or not. Since you and others seem to have a very static notion of identity and since much of that theology requires said Liberal “other” to make sense, you have trouble engaging any of us in an actual conversation. Rather, like much of the HTFC at Westminster, all you can do is try to find ways to force us into some old “Liberal” frame (Barthian, Liberal, etc.) and recycle the same “critiques” used against them. Pardon us when we do not think you have engaged what we have said when you claim we “say things right out of 19th century, rationalistic liberalism or 20th century neo-orthodoxy.” Do you not see the issue here? Standard operating procedure on your part, the HTFC’s apparently, and much Evangelical scholarship, is not to engage in conversation and dialogue, but to explain how what we “are really doing” has already been dealt with a long time ago and thus dialogue is not necessary. Sometimes this may be true. But, when it is hard-wired in such that dialogue and interaction is basically theoretically ruled out ahead of time, this looks more to the rest of us like a cultish power-legitimating tactic. Discussion cannot happen. All people try to do is pull the rug out from other all the time. Oh, and this usual masks extremely shoddy and out-dated historical ‘scholarship’ on various issues, in this case issues of and approaches to historical study of the bible.
So, those are some of my thoughts on what is going on. Would you care to show me that I am wrong and that you want to have a real discussion? I really do hope and pray that the PCA will follow Christ to the table of charitable discussion and interaction, where brothers and sisters who have the Spirit and are connected to each other (Reformedly, even) in Christ can serve each other even through and in the midst of their disagreements. I long for us to move beyond where we functionally rule conversation out of bounds ahead of time. “We” are certainly guilty of that as well. Perhaps this comment will be a way for me yet again to tell you honestly what it looks like is going on from my point of view. You have shared your point of view many times. Can we now move onto actual discussion?
Oh, lastly, no I do not think all prophecy was “after the fact.” At the same time, I do certainly think some of it is. Does it matter that I think this way not because I have anti-Supernaturalistic presuppositions but because that is how I understand them functioning historically (there were many popular and common genres in the Ancient Mediterranean and ANE employing various forms of prophecy after the fact). If you read the second link I gave you, you saw that I think this way about Daniel since I think it is a 3rd and 2nd century BCE book—along with most historical scholars of the book, including some evangelicals. I think approaching it this way opens up some incredibly enriching and “true” theology from the book as well. So, again, can you see that I think this way not because of “Liberal” presuppositions but because, from my point of view, I am studying Daniel as seriously as possible?
2 September 2008 at 2.45 pm
FTH,
Not trying to be too rhetorical. I am always thinking about the consequences.
FWIW, I think you have nailed exactly why I have trouble engaging you, as you put it. I think we are engaging one another, however. It’s just neither of us will budge.
I recant my remark about attacking the reliability of the gospels. In rereading your remarks, I see you were looking at the Synoptics. I was leaping to conclusions about where you were headed. I apologize. BTW, DA Carson has a brilliant response to the Synoptics/John question about the timing of the arrest.
As far as prophecy is concerned (well on touching the whole discussion), when you say you are studying as seriously as possible I beieve you. I just don’t think you are studying as broadly as possible. Again, I do not mean this as an insult but an observation, you and Art seem to approach the Scriptures from the perspective of doubt and skepticism that to me borders on disbelief. There is another side of the coin with plenty of scholarship behind it too.