homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Kerygmania: Genesis 1 as Myth (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: Genesis 1 as Myth
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Close to being an expiring equine, but worth a try here.

In an article entitled "Rethinking the Genesis Message" , one Howard Bass of Alaska talks about a new (to him, and to me) way of looking at the Seven Days:

quote:
Genesis 1 is the Israelite response to chaos and endless war.

In the Genesis 1 myth, the Israelite God confronts a world that is without form and is engulfed in darkness. In modern language, the earth was chaotic beyond useful function. So God sets out to do something about chaos and the useless nature of the world. Simply by speaking, the Israelite God made light, vegetation, animal life and finally human life. God’s world was to be a place of plenty and robust life. As God completed his actions, he paused periodically and said that what he was doing was good.

Remember that he is addressing an American, and Baptist at that, audience, hence the comment:

quote:
This alternative reading of Genesis 1 and understanding Genesis 1 as myth were for me a marvelous discovery. I could let science do its work, while I was given a new vision of what my life as a religious person was to be about. Jesus and Paul affirmed the message that evil/chaos is never to be fought but overcome with the doing of good.
James McGrath, in "Exploring Our Matrix"

adds this comment, a bit more aggressively:

quote:
I will simply add that the opponents of science and promoters of pseudoscience are at war with order and allies of chaos, and so take upon themselves precisely the opposite role to God in the Genesis 1 myth. If someone has ears to hear, let them hear.
Is this actually a new idea? Is it worth pursuing as an interpretation?

[ 19. November 2013, 02:26: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is pretty much how I see it. I don't know how your average Baptist or non-denon would take it.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Makes sense to me.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Methinks that I interpret this thread as a Kerygmaniacal thread. Hold your bibles, folks.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Glad I held my Bible tightly. I almost lost the Apocrypha.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I understand that normally in Jewish texts, the waters of the sea symbolize chaos. Their appearance in verse 2 strenghtens the case that this story is about order vs chaos.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or maybe a pregnancy/hatching image? The beginning of the beginning has the Holy Spirit brooding over the face of the waters.

And chaos trending towards order? As in chaos theory. Rather than unmanageable chaos.

[ 30. May 2013, 06:49: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ISTM that interpretations along these lines have been common currency for a long time.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm rather more worried that there are people who still think Genesis 1 isn't a myth. And Genesis 2-3. And Genesis 4-11. And most of the rest of Genesis, large chunks of the rest of the Pentateuch, and pretty much everything else up to somewhere between King David and the Exile.

And quite a lot after that, too.

Or perhaps some people are still under the misapprehension that "myth" means "something that isn't true"?

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Genesis one is a myth than borrows from and then disputes a Babylonian myth which was performed over a 7 day creation festival.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus
I'm rather more worried that there are people who still think Genesis 1 isn't a myth. And Genesis 2-3. And Genesis 4-11. And most of the rest of Genesis, large chunks of the rest of the Pentateuch, and pretty much everything else up to somewhere between King David and the Exile.

And quite a lot after that, too.

Or perhaps some people are still under the misapprehension that "myth" means "something that isn't true"?

Well, therefore it's reassuring to know that the alternative (unobservable and unprovable) speculation is also a myth. After all... it could be true, ergo a myth (according to your definition)!

So thanks for that.

By the way... Jesus Himself seemed to think Genesis 2 was actually objectively true - hence Mark 10:5-9. Or is it a case of "I am the way, the truth* and the life"....

* subject to correction and clarification by a bunch of self-styled exegetes 2000 years in the future, who think they know more about reality than God does, thanks to a method of investigating nature that only deals with what is directly observable (and therefore is wholly inadequate as a means of reconstructing the distant past) ?!

[ 30. May 2013, 15:55: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712

 - Posted      Profile for PaulBC         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have problems taking Gen 1 literally . I think it works as metaphor better. [Votive] [Angel] [Smile]

--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8

Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged
horsethorn
Apprentice
# 17695

 - Posted      Profile for horsethorn     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
I have problems taking Gen 1 literally . I think it works as metaphor better. [Votive] [Angel] [Smile]

Yes, I think the clue is in the way that it doesn't match with observable reality... [Biased]

ht

--------------------
"We are star stuff. We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out." (Delenn, Babylon 5)

Posts: 4 | From: At the edge of your peripheral vision | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose that all the stories about prodigals, sowers, shepherds, women searching for coins, travellers on the way to Jericho, stewards, unjust judges etc. were based on absolute truth? Surely someone using story so effectively could also use a story about creation without underwriting its accuracy.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
By the way... Jesus Himself seemed to think Genesis 2 was actually objectively true - hence Mark 10:5-9.

I've heard that said before, as well as the reference to in the days of Noah. Accompanied with the phrase "if it was good enough for Jesus..."

It seems like a big stretch to me to say that Jesus referring to something means that the story it came from is "actually objectively true" (in a historical sense). I can talk about King Arthur and Robin Hood, and make moral extractions from them, without it following that I think that the stories about them are historically accurate. And I don't see those stories as Scripture in any way. So Jesus taking moral lessons from stories in Scripture seems totally reasonable.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
subject to correction and clarification by a bunch of self-styled exegetes 2000 years in the future,

Seeing certain biblical passages as mythological allegory isn't a modern phenomena. Here's Origen on the Genesis Creation passage:
quote:
"What man of intelligence, I ask, will consider a reasonable statement that the first and the second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? And who could be found so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted trees in a paradise eastward in Eden.. And... when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the evening ... I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history..."
Augustine too saw symbolism (especially in the 'days'), though he veered towards a more literal interpretation. He was very aware that any interpretation must be held loosely:
quote:
It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.


--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
By the way... Jesus Himself seemed to think Genesis 2 was actually objectively true - hence Mark 10:5-9.

Yes, this is a problem for the 'Genesis creation story is myth' idea. But it's a problem we have to try and resolve, IMO, else we're siding with those who ordered Galileo 400 years ago to stop teaching that the Earth orbits the Sun.

As for how we might resolve the problem of Jesus apparently taking the 7-day creation story literally, well he was limited in the Incarnation, wasn't he? Jesus as a baby presumably couldn't talk or feed himself; he was limited in the ways that all human babies are. Likewise, I don't think it's heretical to suggest that Jesus' knowledge when he was an adult was also limited, and that he saw some things in a similar was as his contemporaries did. (EDIT - Which would have included taking 7-day creation literally, as 1st century Jews had little reason not to.)

[ 31. May 2013, 23:04: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
By the way... Jesus Himself seemed to think Genesis 2 was actually objectively true - hence Mark 10:5-9.

That would be one reasonable conclusion, but it seems to me that a narrower conclusion from that particular passage would be that Jesus seemed to think it was authoritative, not that he necessarily thought it was objectively true.

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think it's liturgy.

I also think that when something in the Bible is symbolic or metaphorical - I hate 'myth' because it's a misunderstood word - it is pointing us to something greater, more substantial, not less.

I think that Genesis 1 is 'true fact' in the same way that is it 'true fact' that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. No one in the world is going to disagree with me if I said it even if many will say 'yes, but...'

The truth that is observed and observable and therefore incontrovertible is that there is a sun, there is a horizon and that the sun 'rises, travels and sets.

I think of Genesis 1 like that. It's true as far as what it observes but there is a HUGE 'But'.

And, to be honest, I don't Moses was interested or bothered about the 'but'.

The liturgy of Genesis 1 says "God did it. - whatever you see, it's all came by design. Ta da!"

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Silent Acolyte

Shipmate
# 1158

 - Posted      Profile for The Silent Acolyte     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I also think that when something in the Bible is symbolic or metaphorical ... it is pointing us to something greater, more substantial, not less.

This is a point I frequently try to make. The early part of Genesis is not a text book of geology, biology, or any other kind of earth science. It is cosmogony.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think it's liturgy.

Indeed - that is why it has the refrain 'evening - morning - xth day'

A liturgical hymn that progresses over 7 days.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The idea of it being Liturgy is an interesting idea. I also think that - in common with many other cultures and religions - the creation myths are made easier to pass down as oral tradition if there is rhythm and repetition to them.

There are many creation myths from different cultures and religions - the idea of telling a story about how the world began is obviously a common human trait and doesn't seem to present a problem to most of them. I'm not sure why it has come to be taken so literally by certain groups in the west. Rudyard Kipling's efforts don't seem to cause so much distress!

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

By the way... Jesus Himself seemed to think Genesis 2 was actually objectively true - hence Mark 10:5-9. Or is it a case of "I am the way, the truth* and the life"....

* subject to correction and clarification by a bunch of self-styled exegetes 2000 years in the future, who think they know more about reality than God does, thanks to a method of investigating nature that only deals with what is directly observable (and therefore is wholly inadequate as a means of reconstructing the distant past) ?!

If God really did become incarnate as a human being then not knowing stuff is, really, part of the human condition. It's quite possible that Jesus thought that the story of Noah was a historical story. It's entirely possible that it wasn't. So what? I thought the precondition for the atonement was that Jesus was sinless, not that he was omniscient.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Genesis one is a myth than borrows from and then disputes a Babylonian myth which was performed over a 7 day creation festival.

Well it plausibly might be, but as we have no evidence for that outside the text, and as the text has no actual direct referfence to it, it remains speculation.

[ 08. June 2013, 11:47: Message edited by: ken ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Outsdide evidence is the Babylonian and other near Eastern festivals for the new year which have seven-day-hymns/poems

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Outlined here especially p. 56 about activities of 6 days and significance of the 7th sources in n22, p. 60 n21, p. 61 Gen 1 constructed in for of a temple dedication
quote:
We would conclude then that Genesis 1 is composed along the lines of a temple dedication ceremony in which over a seven-day period, the functions of the cosmic temple are initiated and the functionaries installed.
Also in these papers.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Outlined here especially p. 56 about activities of 6 days and significance of the 7th sources in n22, p. 60 n21, p. 61 Gen 1 constructed in for of a temple dedication

That's a very interesting article but it doesn;t actually contain or refer to any contemporary evidence of supposed non-Hebrew temple dedication festivals underlying the Genesis story.

Page 56 (nd note 22) talks about Charles Darwin and ontology, not Babylonian temples. The stuff on and around page 60 is a very good account of, and references to papers on, later Jewish (and Christian) temple theology.

But your claim was that we somehow know that Genesis is based on previously existing 6-day or 7-day cycles of festivals, from outside Israel. That's not what the paper is about. Its worth reading.

quote:

Also in these papers.

A link to a google book search which has found a description of later festivals, desctribed in the Bible, in which the structure of Creation is mirroed in the Temple and its ceremonies. Wonderful stuff, truly magnificent and inspiring. Its all through the Bible, especially in Ezekiel and Revelation, and lies at the base of a lot of later Jewish and Christian liturgy. But its all after Genesis and assumes or comments on the creation story in Genesis.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108

 - Posted      Profile for Bostonman   Email Bostonman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
A link to a google book search which has found a description of later festivals, desctribed in the Bible, in which the structure of Creation is mirroed in the Temple and its ceremonies. Wonderful stuff, truly magnificent and inspiring. Its all through the Bible, especially in Ezekiel and Revelation, and lies at the base of a lot of later Jewish and Christian liturgy. But its all after Genesis and assumes or comments on the creation story in Genesis.

Jon Levenson's Creation and the Persistence of Evil is an interesting source on this question, both the specific question of extra-Biblical sources for creation festivals and the broader question of the relationship between the Genesis 1 account and ancient Near Eastern mythology.

quote:
Levenson, p. 68 (see link):
In one case especially, the case of the Babylonian akitu festival, scholars have long been encouraged to believe they have found an extrabiblical antecedent to creation over a period of several days.

I don't know if this is the sort of thing you're looking for, Ken, but digging around in that chapter of Levenson's book could be rewarding.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But its all after Genesis and assumes or comments on the creation story in Genesis.

We looked at some of these texts with 7 day festivals when i did A level but I don't think my notes are around 43 years on!

When you say 'after Genesis', when do you think it was written.

i reckon it to be one of the latest sections, written during and in response to the exile.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Silent Acolyte

Shipmate
# 1158

 - Posted      Profile for The Silent Acolyte     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think it's liturgy.

Indeed - that is why it has the refrain 'evening - morning - xth day'

A liturgical hymn that progresses over 7 days.

Indeed, and everything seems to be Good once God has spoken it into being. Except, of course for that vault/firmament-sky/heaven arrangement on the second day. The Pantocrator didn't seem entirely satisfied with that.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is almost certainly 'liturgy' inasmuch as it was almost certainly written to be read aloud during public worship. To that extent, of course, most of scripture is liturgy. Whether it was originally a hymn is, of course, more problematic.

If it derives from a preceding oral tradition then the repetition may be to aid recollection, a bit like the way that repetition is used in the Illiad.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
While Luther believed in the literal seven day creation, he did point out that there was an eighth day--and many days thereafter.

Creation never stops.

This is were some of the literalists have problems, they want to insist it all happened in seven days. The Bible, though, only says God rested on the seventh day.

Every day is a new creation. Even though we want to explain everything through science, we need to remind ourselves of the miracle of what we have before us.

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937

 - Posted      Profile for Highfive   Author's homepage   Email Highfive   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
This is pretty much how I see it. I don't know how your average Baptist or non-denon would take it.

The AVERAGE Baptist is a creationist? I am so glad I left.
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Baptist evolutionist here.

For the record, Baptists are no different than the members of any other Christian denomination. (Disappointed that my denomination pops up as a snarl word whenever people want to announce their own intelligence based on their adherence to one side of a philosophical debate...)

It's a bit of a misnomer to say that "the average Baptist is a creationist" (if by creationist you mean a deliberate activist for creationist science and opponent of mainstream scientific consensus). The vast majority of Baptist churches just don't talk about Genesis 1-11 in any detail (apart from affirming its general historicity and moving on). There's always the 20% on the right that is vocally creationist on principle and the 10% on the left that is vocally evolutionist, but the muddle in the middle just assume that the pastor has everything figured out on their behalf and roll their eyes at the "extremists" who see the need to waste energy arguing...

In my experience, the average Baptist treats "belief in God", "belief in Jesus", and "belief in Adam and Eve" as legs of the same stool. As such, the question of belief in A&E is assumed to be the same kind of belief as an unseen God, and disbelief in A&E is tantamount to disbelief in what God is able to do (like raise Jesus from the dead).

Now, I think it is clear that the original writers of Gen 1 (early Persian period - 500-450BC) believed they were writing a symbolic text that was grounded more with Judah's experience in restoration from exile than the actual events of creation.

However, I think evolutionists have a responsibility to acknowledge that once the genealogy was added to the text (450-400BC), virtually all Jewish (and Christian) generations since then for 2000+ years (including the NT period) interpreted Genesis historically (i.e. what is meant by "literally"), so creationist belief isn't anything "new" or out of the ordinary.

(I would note my biggest problem as an evolutionist Christian: without belief in "special creation", resurrection hope itself comes into question. For the early church, resurrection hope was nothing more than the hope that God would recreate man from dust of the ground, as he had "already done" with Adam. But for an evolutionist, belief in the general resurrection of believers requires belief that God will do something that He has never actually done before, which is a different animal and should give us pause...)

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Baptist church where I was Baptised, also told us to believe and worship, God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and we felt all of them as we were baptised, from down to up as we came up from the water.

We, of course were tole always to believe what we experience in the Bible, including Genesis about the original two who behaved wrong for God.

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
The Baptist church where I was Baptised, also told us to believe and worship, God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and we felt all of them as we were baptised, from down to up as we came up from the water.

We, of course were told always to believe what we experience in the Bible, including Genesis about the original two who behaved wrong for God.

I get annoyed if I spell a word a bit wrong... so I've fixed it.

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Weeder
Shipmate
# 11321

 - Posted      Profile for The Weeder   Author's homepage   Email The Weeder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which creation story do those who take it as literal truth believe in? The one in Gen 1 v2-2v4a, or the one in Gen 2 4b- 25?

They each give a completely different order of creation, the first showing the earth in a watery state at the start of creation, the second shows the earth as a waterless waste, and so on. I could give you a verse by verse comparison, but leave you to check it out yourself..

Each presupposes that the planet is already in existance.

I was taught this at a Church of England High School when I was about 11, and at the Baptist Church I attended as a child.

I have studied RS at O and A level GCE, have a degree in R.S, a Diploma in Christian Religion and am a Licenced Lay Reader. I have never at any stage been asked to accept the Creation Mythos as factual.

[ 11. July 2013, 21:28: Message edited by: The Weeder ]

--------------------
Still missing the gator

Posts: 2542 | From: LaLa Land | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937

 - Posted      Profile for Highfive   Author's homepage   Email Highfive   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
BWSmith, you are the first vocally evolutionist Baptist I've ever encountered. Maybe I haven't been looking hard enough here in Brisbane but it really exhausts me when the invited speaker brings up how important it is to bring creationism into schools and the whole congregation seems delighted to hear it.
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
Which creation story do those who take it as literal truth believe in? The one in Gen 1 v2-2v4a, or the one in Gen 2 4b- 25?

Context is everything. The answer (of course) is that they believe in "the one and only creation story", because the Priestly editors harmonized the two separate creation stories into one (back in 450-400BC).

Once they were harmonized, then the Yahwist creation events were subordinated to "Creation proper" in Gen 1, ceased to count as "creation" and simply became local miracles (either on day 6 or after the creation week).

But I agree with you - once you separate the Yahwist story from the Priestly story, it's clear that when God plants the garden and creates the animals, it's intended that this occurs in a cosmic desert, and is the first time these have existed.

However, when people ask creationists "which creation they believe", they shouldn't expect that question to make any sense. It's like asking "which story of the birth of the USA do you believe, the one about the Pilgrims in the Plymouth colonies where God gives safe passage and prosperity to create a Christian nation, or the one about the Declaration in 1776 where they create their own secular nation for themselves"?

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
BWSmith, you are the first vocally evolutionist Baptist I've ever encountered. Maybe I haven't been looking hard enough here in Brisbane but it really exhausts me when the invited speaker brings up how important it is to bring creationism into schools and the whole congregation seems delighted to hear it.

First, technically there is no "Baptist church" in the sense of a Catholic or Anglican authoritative salvation communion, only "Baptists" where each individual has soul liberty, is his own priest, and is therefore technically "his own denomination". (Kind of the way that each citizen is technically "his own king" in a democracy...)

Second, such theological power and responsibility is unfortunately too much for most people to handle, so they are more than happy to delegate the thinking to their pastors and congregate among like-minded believers, (creating what appears to be traditional top-down controlled communions). In such an environment, it only takes exposure to one far-out congregation for an outside observer to conclude horrible things about "what The Baptist Church teaches".

Within that context, I would suspect that the majority of the people you have observed are neither biological scientists nor OT textual scholars. The creation/evolution debate is being presented to them as a political crisis (not a scientific or theological consensus) in terms similar to the "prayer in schools" debate. The "oppressive Dawkinesque atheist menace" is trying to force our children to implicitly disbelieve in the Creator God, just as he successfully forced people to stop praying in public schools.

I suspect there is no mention of how Theistic Evolution is standard fare in the Catholic and Anglican churches (unless they get off on a tangent on how sinful those churches are...) Ditto for the Documentary Hypothesis or any discussion on where the Creation account(s) came from or what they mean.

This is not to say that these Baptists are all "closet evolutionists" who need to be awakened, just that they have chosen to allow the dialogue to be reduced to "us vs. them politics" and their apparent "delight" at being on the side of God in the charge against atheism should not be interpreted as a conscious rejection of science.

Hope that helps.

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Within that context, I would suspect that the majority of the people you have observed are neither biological scientists nor OT textual scholars. The creation/evolution debate is being presented to them as a political crisis (not a scientific or theological consensus) in terms similar to the "prayer in schools" debate. The "oppressive Dawkinesque atheist menace" is trying to force our children to implicitly disbelieve in the Creator God, just as he successfully forced people to stop praying in public schools.

Well put, BWSmith. I've had at least two people (one IRL, one online) express doubts that I'm actually saved / a Christian when they've discovered that I accept evolution as broadly accurate. The IRL guy also blames the 'oppressive Dawkinesque atheist menace' for the departure from the church of many teenagers from.

Ironically, I suspect it's the exact opposite approach - the teaching of creationism as the only right view for Christians - that is contributing to many teenagers becoming switched off from Christ and the church! As they go through school, they discover that the rest of the world has no problem at all with evolution, so they reject the faith as anti-scientific; sadly unaware that there's another way... [Frown]

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
... because the Priestly editors harmonized the two separate creation stories into one (back in 450-400BC).

Well, possibly. But again we don't know that, its not in the text, its not even an interpretation or exegesis of the text, its just one of a huge range of broadly similar accounts of how the text might have come into being, and without any external evidence we can never decide which if any is nearest the truth.

OK, I think its pretty clear that the Torah we have was constructed from different documents or possibly oral sources. And its good fun, and very interesting, to try to imagine what those sources might have been and who might have written them But its simply impossible to be sure, or even reasonably sure, by the details of which was which or who was who. Fair enough to say "there are a number of sources and it looks to me as if these passages might be mainly influenced by the same one" But to claim any certainly is impossible. The idea that we can prove that there were exactly four (or three, or seven, or whatever) main sources; or thet we can precisely attribute passages or verses or even fractions of a verse to one source or another, is unsupportable.

And as for claiming to know who the people who wrote the various sources were, and who the people who edited them into what we have now were, or even what their motives were - that's as much an excercise in constructing myths from the text as any stringy old young-earth creationism. Nasty ritualist priests vs. hairy radical prophets is a great story to reinforce or reproduce the culture of 19th-century liberal German Protestants rebelling against what they see as the dead tradition of the clerical establishment (or those horrid nasty Catholics over there). And it might even be true for all we know. But we can't really know how likely it is to be true from our limited evidence.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
BWSmith, you are the first vocally evolutionist Baptist I've ever encountered.

'Nother one here, though I know there are some fairly hard line YECcies in my congregation. Baptists are a pretty mixed bunch.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
its just one of a huge range of broadly similar accounts of how the text might have come into being, and without any external evidence we can never decide which if any is nearest the truth.

Technically, it is conceivable that a Documentary Hypothesis could be "proved" through a remarkable chain of Dead-Sea-Scrollish archaeological events (with infinitesimally minute probability of happening).

Suppose the hypothesis instructed archaeologists to dig in specific geographies, and we managed to unearth one library with several scrolls of Yahwist-only Torahs in Egypt, another library of Priestly-only Torah scrolls in Mesopotamia, and a third library of first-edition spliced Torah scrolls in Palestine dating to the time of Ezra, all with scribal notes saying who the writer was and what moves they had to make to merge the two.

Further, these libraries would have to be written in a readable script, and have survived the ravages of time, the looting of Bedouins and antiquities dealers, and the threat of destruction from Islamic jihadists (as well as threats by the dictators ruling the countries) to make it into the hands of scholars.

Once published, there's the usual cycle of media sensationalism, followed by claims of forgery and controversy over control of the documents and proper translation. (Given that the above sequence of events will never occur, then yes, any Documentary Hypothesis is less provable than the Higgs boson.)

However, I do think that the language of the DH is still useful as a way of referring to potentially conflicting texts (like Gen 1 vs Gen 2-3) and suggesting historical contexts (return from exile) where the "contradiction" makes sense (as long as we don't push the theory as if it's historical fact)...

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Most Baptists I've come across in the UK aren't YECCies, although some are, even in churches where the majority aren't.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hostly reminder

This board is for discussion of the Bible, not denominational doctrines.

Moo, Kerygmania host

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
BWS: yes, exactly, what you said.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937

 - Posted      Profile for Highfive   Author's homepage   Email Highfive   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
First, technically there is no "Baptist church" in the sense of a Catholic or Anglican authoritative salvation communion, only "Baptists" where each individual has soul liberty, is his own priest, and is therefore technically "his own denomination". (Kind of the way that each citizen is technically "his own king" in a democracy...)

Thanks for this. I agree with you. I apologize for making a stab at any denominations.
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
First, technically there is no "Baptist church" in the sense of a Catholic or Anglican authoritative salvation communion, only "Baptists" where each individual has soul liberty, is his own priest, and is therefore technically "his own denomination". (Kind of the way that each citizen is technically "his own king" in a democracy...)

Thanks for this. I agree with you. I apologize for making a stab at any denominations.
Host hat on

Highfive, here I posted as a host reminding people that Keryg is for Bible discussion. Your post had nothing to do with the Bible.

Host hat off

Moo, Kerygmania Host

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Going back to the Biblical account in Genesis 1 it's how different this account is to those of the other religions. No silly monsters devouring the sun or anything like that. It's poetic but so matter of fact and straight-forward.
God said something and there was x, y and z.

I think I would want to question the idea that, despite what I said about it being liturgy, this creation account was written 400BC. If it was, where is the older creation tradition that must have been around before 400BC? Did the Israelites/Hebrews not have one and it was up to the priests after the time of the Babylonian exile to invent one?

If oral tradition was the norm for preserving religious faith, why is there no record of an ancient Hebrew creation story? Unless, of course, Genesis 1 is the ancient oral tradition that was not in fact invented at the time of the exile.

To my mind the fact that the creation account is so simple, so unadorned and has no 'fantastic' features, suggests a believability in much the same way as the resurrection accounts do - no supernatural ingredients in the style of the great stories of the time. Just straight forward language (give or take a shining robe or two).

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mudfrog: see Genesis 2 vv 4ff for an earlier creation account
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools