"COULD an almighty God have inspired writers/storytellers to pass on a Creation story using modern scientific jargon in a way that is scientifically correct, by modern standards? Sure, an almighty God can do anything."
The above is a quote from Dan at another blog. There are a couple of things that give me pause.
First, the assumption is that there are only two choices about how God could have communicated the creation story. A) Using "modern" scientific language in a specific way, or B) using "myth" which is essentially not 100% factually correct.
The assumption seems to be that the since audience was not sophisticated enough to understand "modern' scientific jargon, then we are left with the loose semi factual myth geared toward a bronze age audience.
Is there any actual evidence for this assumption?
None that I can see.
But, if an almighty God could have done anything, does it really seem like a stretch to think that it is possible that He communicated the Truth of the creation in a factually accurate manner, without being bound by the need for "modern" scientific jargon?
Or to put in on a more basic level, is it always necessary to remove fact if it is necessary to present a complex concept to an less sophisticated audience.
For example, is it possible to answer "Where does the baby in mommy's tummy come from.", in a way that is factual, yet appropriate to the audience?
Paul is pretty clear that now we "see through a glass darkly", but at some point we will have greater clarity.
It seems like all of scripture is about trying to communicate the Truth about God (a Truth that we can't fully comprehend), in a way that is appropriate for the level of understanding that we have in this phase of existence?
Obviously, this completely leaves aside the fact that at this point no amount of scientific jargon can accurately explain the origin of life.
I suspect that if pressed Stephen Hawking could probably explain complex scientific theory in a way that a 12 year old could gain an accurate understanding of the subject, without resorting to myth or fiction.
If Hawking could do it, why would one assume God couldn't? Or didn't?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
61 comments:
the assumption is that there are only two choices about how God could have communicated the creation story.
It's not an assumption that I'm making. However, too many "creationists" do limit it to two choices:
1. "What the bible says" (ie, 6 day creation, 6,000 years ago) and
2. "what the devil says" (ie, science)
But no, I'm not limiting it to two choices. You're welcome.
if an almighty God could have done anything, does it really seem like a stretch to think that it is possible that He communicated the Truth of the creation in a factually accurate manner, without being bound by the need for "modern" scientific jargon?
Such a God could have, and this is my point. He COULD have, but did God communicate it that way? Or was this a human story, inspired by God, in the form of a myth, as it appears to be on the face of it?
Could it be that, Craig?
Or do you limit it to only some form of literal/literalish history?
Could the story of Adam and Eve be an inspired myth, and not necessarily "have" to be representing literal people and events?
If you limit it, on what basis do you do so?
The rest of your questions are all based on a faulty understanding of my point, which I've already addressed.
You're welcome.
You say it's not an assumption you're making, but in the very comment I excerpted you posit a binary choice between exactly the two options I suggest.
Perhaps you are suggesting that the two options you propose are, as a point of fact, the only two possible options which could ever be. If this is the case, then your assertion lacks evidential support. If, not than my summary of your comments is substantially correct.
"1. "What the bible says" (ie, 6 day creation, 6,000 years ago) and
2. "what the devil says" (ie, science)"
Can you actually provide me with one reasonably credible source, that has actually said what you claim? Can you provide evidence that any reasonably credible source has labeled "science" "what the devil says"?
"But no, I'm not limiting it to two choices."
But yes, if you look at your actual comment, you actually literally provided two options. So, while you might have other choices, we are unfortunately limited by what you actually said in the comment I am referring to. Which, again, listed two options.
"Such a God could have, and this is my point. He COULD have, but did God communicate it that way?"
I addresses this in my post. Perhaps a quick re-read would be helpful.
"Or was this a human story, inspired by God, in the form of a myth, as it appears to be on the face of it?"
If the extent of your case is that to YOU it appears to be a myth which contains errors of fact, then I see no reason to even consider that as anything but one persons opinion.
FYI, although Wright uses the term "myth", I suspect (based on a number of his writings) that he doesn't buy into the "it's inaccurate" part to the extent you do. But, even if he did, it's still a miniscule minority position that (as of yet) has little or no scholarly support.
"Could it be that, Craig?"
Sure, it's possible. If you want to accept that God, chose to communicate Truth through error.
"Or do you limit it to only some form of literal/literalish history?"
Unlike you, who would limit much of the OT to "myth", I really don't think I have the standing to limit anything. To me (and a vast host of others) the OT history reads like an accurate rendering of actual events. (This is where one could make the argument that the supernatural events depicted disqualify it from being history. I'm going with the assumption that as all powerful God who created everything, has the ability to intervene in His creation however He chooses)
"Could the story of Adam and Eve be an inspired myth, and not necessarily "have" to be representing literal people and events?"
Once again, you think asking essentially the same question multiple times before giving me the chance to respond is somehow helpful.
"If you limit it, on what basis do you do so?"
Once again, you think asking essentially the same question multiple times before giving me the chance to respond is somehow helpful.
Had you exhibited the patience to allow me to answer the earlier question where you requested the same information, you would not have needed to ask this one.
Yet, for some reason you decided it made some sort of sense.
"The rest of your questions are all based on a faulty understanding of my point, which I've already addressed.
Except, you have failed to account for your very own words in the comment that precipitated this.
The one where you listed a grand total of TWO options for what the text could be.
"...pass on a Creation story using modern scientific jargon in a way that is scientifically correct, by modern standards?"
and
"...were probably more mythic than literal..."
To be fair, and I usually am. Your comment about "Sure, an almighty God can do anything." might be construed to mean that there are other options (at least in theory). But in your comment, you chose to frame it as a choice between;
A) "...modern scientific jargon in a way that is scientifically correct, by modern standards?"
and
B) "...were probably more mythic than literal..."
So, it's possible that I might have failed to ferret out some of your other possibilities that you chose to omit. Unfortunately; I chose to limit this to the two choices you actually, literally, articulated and I chose to use your own words to do so.
Oh, this goes for any further comments you post here no matter which thread.
If you continue to ask the same or a reworded version of a question multiple times in the same comment, I will delete your comment.
Further, note that the reason I deleted your comment was your inability or unwillingness to stop this incredibly annoying practice.
If you bitch and moan about your comments getting deleted, I'll delete those to.
I've pointed this out several times, and I'm only going to ask this one time.
Craig...
in the very comment I excerpted you posit a binary choice between exactly the two options I suggest.
Where did I suggest that these were the only two options?
Point of fact, I didn't. I don't believe in only two options. As I've made clear.
Feel free to keep kicking a dead horse if you wish. I've clarified your mistake.
Craig...
If the extent of your case is that to YOU it appears to be a myth which contains errors of fact, then I see no reason to even consider that as anything but one persons opinion.
? Of course, there are numerous people who take the Creation stories found in Genesis to be myth. Are you saying you are unaware of others who think it is told in a mythic style?
CLARIFICATION: Myths do not "contain errors." They are stories. The only error is when you try to make a myth a literal history, but then, the error is in the person making the claim, not the story itself.
Your mistake, it appears, is in not understanding what a myth is and in not understanding that I DO understand what a myth is.
Craig...
I addresses this in my post. Perhaps a quick re-read would be helpful.
Re-read it. Don't see it. Do me a favor, just answer the question (again, if you've answered it. Feel free to copy and paste.)
Craig...
Sure, it's possible. If you want to accept that God, chose to communicate Truth through error.
What do you think the definition of Myth is, Craig? Hint: It does not include "error." At all.
You're correct, of course, that it is silly for me to repeat questions. It's just that, given your continued opting to not answer it, I keep thinking, "maybe if I ask it another way, he'll understand my point..."
But I will certainly strive to refrain from repeating questions and give you the benefit of the doubt that you will answer the question being asked.
In return, please answer the question being asked. Win/win.
"Where did I suggest that these were the only two options?"
In the comment I am referencing. I've provided the quotes of your actual words.
"Of course, there are numerous people who take the Creation stories found in Genesis to be myth."
Since my repeated request for support for your position has met with one out of context N.T. Wright page (which doesn't really support your entire construct) and one Breuggeman quote, again with no context, please forgive me if I don't take your claim seriously. Had, you provided evidence of this wealth of support earlier it might have made life easier.
"Are you saying you are unaware of others who think it is told in a mythic style?"
I'm saying that I've done multiple google searches and not been able to find anyone who takes the same position as you. I've certainly not found anyone who will say definitively that all of the OT histories are "myth".
"Myths do not "contain errors."
I apologize. You've been quite clear that "myth" contains elements that are not literally factual. I used the term contains errors in that sense. In the future I will try to be more precise.
"Hint: It does not include "error." At all."
So, if the author of the "myth" includes events that did not happen, your saying that they purposely made things up? Or that God inspired them to make things up?
"But, if an almighty God could have done anything, does it really seem like a stretch to think that it is possible that He communicated the Truth of the creation in a factually accurate manner, without being bound by the need for "modern" scientific jargon?
Or to put in on a more basic level, is it always necessary to remove fact if it is necessary to present a complex concept to an less sophisticated audience.
For example, is it possible to answer "Where does the baby in mommy's tummy come from.", in a way that is factual, yet appropriate to the audience?
Paul is pretty clear that now we "see through a glass darkly", but at some point we will have greater clarity.
It seems like all of scripture is about trying to communicate the Truth about God (a Truth that we can't fully comprehend), in a way that is appropriate for the level of understanding that we have in this phase of existence?"
Hey, if you want to claim you "missed" a third of my post feel free.
But there it is again.
"You're correct, of course, that it is silly for me to repeat questions. It's just that, given your continued opting to not answer it, I keep thinking, "maybe if I ask it another way, he'll understand my point..."
If this was the case I would not be talking about deleting your comments.
My problem is when you ask the same question multiple times IN THE SAME COMMENT, as if I somehow had chosen not to respond to questions I hadn't had a chance to read yet.
I'm serious. Do it again and the comment is gone.
"Where did I suggest that these were the only two options?"
In the comment I am referencing. I've provided the quotes of your actual words
And my actual words do NOT state, as a point of fact, that those were the "only two options." You misunderstood. Offering two options by way of example is not the same as saying "these are the only two options."
Do you understand your mistake now?
Craig...
"Myths do not "contain errors."
I apologize. You've been quite clear that "myth" contains elements that are not literally factual. I used the term contains errors in that sense. In the future I will try to be more precise.
? Do you not understand the meaning of Myth? Here's a sample myth:
There was a nymph named Echo who talked too much. One day, she angered the god, Juno, who took her voice from her and from then on, Echo could only repeat the words heard from someone else...
Is that story in error? No! It's a story. Now, if we insist, "...and THAT explains scientifically, where echoes come from..." then THAT would be in error, because it would be treating a myth-story like a history.
Myths are not defined as "stories containing factual errors." You do not seem to understand what a myth is. Do you understand, now?
Craig...
if the author of the "myth" includes events that did not happen, your saying that they purposely made things up? Or that God inspired them to make things up?
Well, as a point of fact, we have no way of determining authoritatively that God did or didn't inspire the Genesis authors, or that God did or didn't inspire them to write in a particular genre and/or what God's or the authors' motives were, do we?
But, given that we can't prove any of that, it does not seem unreasonable to me at all that God might inspire people to tell myths. Jesus told parables and those are "made up..."
Myth, parable, imagery, fiction... none of these things are bad things, as I'm sure you can agree. If God inspired people to tell mythic stories, then super, no problem. Myths are cool.
"Purposely made things up..." is not a bad thing. You seem to be hinting that "making things up" is equivalent to lying, but as noted, Jesus "made things up" when he told parables.
So, do you think God couldn't have inspired made up stories? If so, on what basis and are you suggesting that is an authoritative opinion that can't be mistaken, or just your unprovable personal opinion?
is it possible to answer "Where does the baby in mommy's tummy come from.", in a way that is factual, yet appropriate to the audience?
Yes, it is possible.
It is also possible to say to a toddler, "the stork brought us the new baby..." Agreed? Both are possible options, as are other options.
Does the parent who tells the stork story need to be called a "liar" or one who tells stories with "errors," or is that an acceptable moral option? If it's not acceptable, on whose authority do you make that judgment, or is it your own personal opinion, for what it's worth?
I'm serious. Do it again and the comment is gone.
Lighten up, Frances.
"Do you understand your mistake now?"
So, you agree that in the comment in question, you provide two options. Not 1 or 3 or 7, but 2. Which is in fact what I said, that in your comment you presented the decision as between the two options you listed. Unfortunately I can only respond to what you actually write.
"Is that story in error?"
If it is an attempt to explain things in an accurate manner, then yes it contains error.
So let's look at that actual definition of myth.
1. A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. Stories or matter of this kind:
realm of myth.
3. Any invented story, idea, or concept:
His account of the event is pure myth.
4. An imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. An unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
Synonyms
1. See legend. 3. fiction, fantasy, talltale.
myth.
Let's pull out a few key words or phrases that define myth.
legendary
with or without a determinable basis of fact
invented story
imaginary or fictitious
unproved or false
legend.
fiction,
fantasy,
talltale.
So, if one is to look at the dictionary definition and synonyms, it would be reasonable to conclude that one significant element of myth is that it is false.
"Myth, parable, imagery, fiction... none of these things are bad things, as I'm sure you can agree. If God inspired people to tell mythic stories, then super, no problem. Myths are cool."
I a vacuum, I would agree. I would certainly differentiate parable from myth, as parables (at least Jesus parables) were virtually always identified as parables. I would also suggest that if some one was to present myth as myth, that is one thing. But when someone (Jesus) refers to "myth" as if it is real, then it would seem problematic.
Blah, Blah, Blah, you can't prove...don't know for sure...I get it. You don't believe it, and your personal experience lets you rationalize. Unfortunately, you have no proof of your hunch.
"So, do you think God couldn't have inspired made up stories?"
No. Which is not the same thing as demonstrating that what He did inspire are made up.
I'm forced to wonder if you actually read before you spew. I asked this; "...in a way that is factual, yet appropriate to the audience?"
Your response is that one way to meet the condition I set out (factual, yet appropriate) is to use "the stork brought it". Hey, if someone wants to go that route, its fine. Just don't pretend it's factual.
Perhaps it wouldn't be too much trouble to answer the question I actually asked.
I'll lighten up when you stop wasting my time with redundant questions.
when someone (Jesus) refers to "myth" as if it is real, then it would seem problematic.
I get that in your opinion, when Jesus references OT stories, TO YOU, Jesus appears to be talking about real history told in a literally factual manner. And that is fine if that is how it appears to you.
Others disagree. The mere mentioning of a story does not mean an endorsement of its factual literality. Again, I and my tribe do it all the time.
So, as a point of fact, while you may guess that Jesus intended to endorse OT stories as being literal, it is your opinion, not a provable fact. Fair enough?
I hold a different opinion.
And that is okay. I don't mind if you disagree with my opinion and hopefully, you will extend the same grace my way.
"So, do you think God couldn't have inspired made up stories?"
No. Which is not the same thing as demonstrating that what He did inspire are made up.
I'm sorry, you think that God COULD NOT have inspired made up stories? Well, if so, you are welcome to your opinion. I'm not sure why you would limit God that way, but okay, whatever you want.
"Others disagree. The mere mentioning of a story does not mean an endorsement of its factual literality. Again, I and my tribe do it all the time."
And yet neither of these two bits of trivia detract from the accuracy of my position, nor do they prove that your position is likely. This is the problem with extrapolating from personal experience.
"I'm sorry, you think that God COULD NOT have inspired made up stories?"
I'm sorry that you either can't understand the English language or chose to wrongly interpret what I actually said.
Craig...
do they prove that your position is likely. This is the problem with extrapolating from personal experience.
Indeed, just because, in your personal experience, you might only mention mythic stories with the caveat that they are myths does NOT make it likely that Jesus didn't.
What "proves" that your position is more likely than mine? Or are both unprovable, as has been my position?
"Indeed, just because, in your personal experience, you might only mention mythic stories with the caveat that they are myths does NOT make it likely that Jesus didn't."
Now you are versed in what Jesus likely did not do. Once again, the fact that your personal experience coincides with a lack of (unreasonably) specific disclaimers in scripture (not that that would make any difference since I's all opinion anyway) still doesn't support your hunch.
"What "proves" that your position is more likely than mine?"
At some point in one of these threads in response to one of your questions, I addressed this issue of "proof" in the absence of your response to that I can't really address the concept of proof with you.
As I've been doing some research on the topic if authority, I was struck by a question.
What did you hope to accomplish (or demonstrate or prove) by linking to the NT Wright piece?
What was it specifically about that piece made you choose it is supporting evidence for your opinion?
Wright is another fella asking similar questions to the ones I'm asking.
They are reasonable questions and he does not appear fearful of dealing with them.
That's all.
"What "proves" that your position is more likely than mine?"
At some point in one of these threads in response to one of your questions, I addressed this issue of "proof" in the absence of your response to that I can't really address the concept of proof with you.
You want me to prove that your position is more likely than mine, for you?
Why would I do that?
HOW would I do that, since I don't think such a claim is provable?
Get serious, friend Craig.
You want me to prove that your position is more likely than mine, for you?"
No. You can tell this as I have never asked you to do so.
I have asked you some questions about the nature of proof and what you consider as proof. Since you haven't answered those I am a bit hamstrung.
Of course, you always answer questions, right?
"Get serious, friend Craig."
I am serious, raised the issue of proof at one point and you didn't respond to that. You didn't answer the questions or even acknowledge it. So, I seriously would like you to address this issue and answer the questions.
That is reasonable, is it not?
Sigh.
The point remains:
"What "proves" that your position is more likely than mine?"
...is a valid question. You can ignore it or not, that's on you.
"What "proves" that your position is more likely than mine?"
What has been proven, is that you are unwilling to respond to my comments and questions about what constitutes proof. So until you do, I see no reason to indulge your little games.
You also seem to ignore the fact that I have provided numerous instances of support for the Historic Orthodox position, while you have provided none for yours.
So, how about you prove your hunch?
Of course, why would you, you hunch is good enough for you and that's really enough to satisfy you.
Put another way: My understanding of the topic makes rational sense to me and those around me. Yours and the more conservative opinions does not seem rational and, indeed, sometimes seems quite irrational (although, admittedly, sometimes it's hard to get a clear answer from you collectively on what your position is, so, it's possible I may be misunderstanding your positions, sometimes).
So, yes, I will stand by what makes most sense to me and avoid that which does not make rational sense to me.
Should I do otherwise, in your opinion?
For instance, your apparent claim (which at last check, was still unsupported/addressed/clarified) that all (most? Nearly all?? You tell me) humans are actively immoral and are NOT interested in striving to do the right thing, as a general rule.
On this post, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing about, as we appear to share our basic principles (underlying assumptions) on the topic... or not, it's hard to say.
COULD God use myth to tell story?
We appear to agree God could.
WOULD God?
Well, that's the question at hand. You don't think God would (although God could) and I think clearly, the literary genre in question is mythic in nature, not factually historic.
We disagree.
But we appear to agree on the principle that it's okay for people to disagree about literary genre.
So... on this post, I'm not sure what your beef is.
"My understanding of the topic makes rational sense to me and those around me. Yours and the more conservative opinions does not seem rational..."
So as long as you hunch seems "rational" to you, you are satisfied. Seeming rational is enough. Seems to be a very subjective and individual standard.
"Should I do otherwise, in your opinion?"
Far be it from me to tell you what you should do. But it's strange that you have such a low threshold of "proof" for your opinions while expecting (to the degree that I am still waiting for an answer on your standard of "proof" and if you apply the same standard to every topic equally), a much higher standard from others. Strange that you don't seem much concerned with objective "correct or incorrect" but with the much more subjective "seems".
"For instance, your apparent claim (which at last check, was still unsupported/addressed/clarified) that all (most? Nearly all?? You tell me) humans are actively immoral and are NOT interested in striving to do the right thing, as a general rule."
First, where did I ever make any claim of this nature? (Quote and link)? Second, I addressed this red herring in great detail when it was offered. Third, you are the one who made a specific claim of fact "we are moral", without so much as a tiny bit of objective evidence to back up your claim. So, perhaps you should; First, support your claim Second stop attributing to me claims that I have not made Third, stop expecting me to defend claims that I have not made Fourth, pay attention when I address things and don't pretend as though I haven't when I have.
"I think clearly, the literary genre in question is mythic in nature, not factually historic. We disagree."
Yet, you have not provided any actual support (or evidence or proof) that what you "think" has any basis in reality.
You can assert that you "think" that I hold a position, yet unless you prove that I actually hold the position you "think" I hold, then what you "think" is at odds with the reality of what my position actually is.
So, by all means feel free to "think" what you will, just don't confuse "think" or "seems' with is.
"But we appear to agree on the principle that it's okay for people to disagree about literary genre."
Again, disagree if you want, but be prepared to provide support (evidence, proof) that your disagreement has some basis outside of "seems" to me or I "think" thus and so.
"So... on this post, I'm not sure what your beef is."
My "beef" is your insistence (or seeming insistence) that for the Genesis story to be accurate that it must be told "using modern scientific jargon in a way that is scientifically correct, by modern standards".
My, beef is, that you laid out 2 possibilities i your comment, without allowing for any others.
I know, I know, you claim that you don't limit this to only two possibilities blah, blah, blah. But in point of literal fact, in the comment that you wrote you explicitly offered only two possibilities for the Genesis story.
1)"modern scientific jargon in a way that is scientifically correct, by modern standards"
2) myth
My "beef is that I posited a third way.
Now, you could have graciously said, something like "Sure, I agree that God could have done X or Y or Z, but I think it is likely that He did Q and here's why." followed by an explanation containing evidence supporting your claim.
Instead, you chose a different path.
Feel free to choose whatever path you want.
It's funny, I write a limited post about a very limited and demonstrable premise (the premise being that in the comment that you wrote, that you specifically allowed for 2 options as to the literary genre of Genesis), we can see it demonstrated in that I provided quotes of your own words. Those quotes say what they say. You seem to be upset not with what you wrote, nor with my pointing out what you wrote, you seem upset that I couldn't read your mind. You seem upset that I limited my comment to what was observable and demonstrable.
So, I really don't have a "beef", I was just pointing out a possibility you chose not to include.
Far be it from me to tell you what you should do. But it's strange that you have such a low threshold of "proof" for your opinions while expecting (to the degree that I am still waiting for an answer on your standard of "proof" and if you apply the same standard to every topic equally), a much higher standard from others.
To clarify: I have a high standard when others are telling OTHERS what they should do. If you or another conservative is saying, "I personally am opposed to gay acts, so I would never engage in gay sex..." I don't care that you hold that opinion and don't demand any proof at all. Feel free to hold your opinions, no problem.
When it becomes a problem is:
1. When it causes harm to others (ie, truly believing that God would approve of dropping bombs on civilians, or otherwise overtly causing harm to others)
2. Where it denies rights to others... where it seeks to impose one set of religious behaviors on others, regardless of whether they agree with you on it.
THAT is reasonable to me, a reasonable place to draw a line to demand higher proof (or ANY proof).
you have not provided any actual support (or evidence or proof) that what you "think" has any basis in reality.
I have repeatedly provided evidence as to why I think Genesis is best understood as being in the mythic genre. Do you understand that, and that this claim is false?
1. It is written using tropes that other myths use (and that is how the serpent lost his legs, and that is why the rainbow is in the sky, and that is why people speak in different languages...)
"Many definitions of myth repeat similar general aspects of the genre and may be summarized thus: Myths are symbolic tales of the distant past (often primordial times) that concern cosmogony and cosmology (the origin and nature of the universe), may be connected to belief systems or rituals, and may serve to direct social action and values...
A key difference is that information about the universe presented in myths is not testable, whereas science is designed to be tested repeatedly. Science also depends on cumulative, frequently updated knowledge, whereas myth is based on passed down stories and beliefs. Myths may change over time, particularly after contact with other cultures, but they do not change and adapt to new periods and technological developments in the same way science does. "
https://faculty.gcsu.edu/custom-website/mary-magoulick/defmyth.htm
The stories in Genesis, especially the earlier ones, are mythic by definition.
That you disagree with my evidence is not the same as me not providing evidence.
2. When other texts use that language that is, by definition, mythic, don't you consider them mythic? You should, it's a rational conclusion.
3. The age of modern history is accepted by scholars as beginning between 500 BC and 500 AD. I've provided those links before, too. There is no record of which I'm aware of literal history in the modern style coming from prior to that period. Not one.
4. So, given that the stories read like myths, by definition, and that I have no reason other than some traditional beliefs, I have no reason to insist that they aren't myths, no reason to believe that they represent real history.
You seem to be upset not with what you wrote, nor with my pointing out what you wrote, you seem upset that I couldn't read your mind.
Not upset. It's been clarified. You misunderstood, no problem. Let it go.
Why are you unwilling to let a simple misunderstanding on your part go?
"I have repeatedly provided evidence as to why I think Genesis is best understood as being in the mythic genre."
When you say evidence< I think you mean when you say "It seems to me...". When I ask for evidence, I mean something more than "It seems to me...". You do understand the concept of providing evidence for your positions, don't you?
You provided a link, which I will investigate, yet the quote you provide does not even remotely indicate that Genesis is "myth". If this is evidence, I'm not impressed.
"...why I think..."
And here we have the problem. You seem to be stating that Genesis "in fact" myth, yet what you are really saying that that you "think" Genesis is "myth". So, if the bar is so low that all you are trying to do is say what you "think" Genesis is, then this is a waste of time. The problem is that you move from I "think" Genesis is myth, to the reality is that Genesis is "myth". So, if all you are doing is saying that it's just your private "What I think" then just admit that, and stop trying to extrapolate what you "think" outside of you. If you are suggesting that Genesis "is myth", then you would need something that makes that point directly, not that you infer.
"Not upset. It's been clarified. You misunderstood, no problem."
yes, you are correct, I "misunderstood" something that was not contained in the comment you made. As far as what you actually wrote, which is what I was commenting on, I see no misunderstanding. I quoted your own words.
"THAT is reasonable to me, a reasonable place to draw a line to demand higher proof (or ANY proof)"
So, you just craft your opinion so that it slides under your threshold of needing to provide proof, convenient.
You seem to be stating that Genesis "in fact" myth, yet what you are really saying that that you "think" Genesis is "myth".
Last time I'll say this, Craig. Not that I'm upset or anything, I just don't think you're understanding and not sure repeating myself is helping.
The text in Genesis says what it says. THAT is a fact, of course.
What genre(s) that text is written in is going to be an unprovable opinion. Now, I think it is abundantly clear that it is written using mythic tropes, that it was written in a time prior to modern history-telling, that it reads like a myth and that science does not support a literal reading of the text. But it is MY OPINION that it is written in a more mythic manner, based on the evidence I've provided (other similar texts that YOU WOULD CALL A MYTH, for instance).
Now, in my opinion, there is certainly more evidence and reason to support my opinion than there is for your opinion (for which I see no evidence except tradition) but as a point of fact, the question "What genres are at play here?" is only answered by opinions, not definitive facts. YOU have nothing to support that your opinion is a demonstrable fact, nor do I. They are our opinions. I have not stated otherwise.
That I am confident in my opinion is not the same as saying my opinion is a fact.
You do understand the concept of providing evidence for your positions, don't you?
Yes, Craig, I do.
Dan: My understanding of Genesis is that it is written, at least in part, in a mythic genre.
Q: Why do you think that?
Support 1: It READS like myth.
Myths explain "how things came to be." like this... "And that is why the sun sets in the East..." "And that is why the tiger has stripes..." this explaining things in a simple non-scientific, non-reality sort of style is the sort of writing one finds in mythic stories.
Accordingly, Genesis contains some of those same tropes... "And that is why the snake has no legs..." and that is why we have different languages," etc.
You may not agree with this support, but it is, as a point of fact, a rational support for the position I hold.
Support 2: Genesis comes from the time prior to modern history telling as identified by historians. There is no other known literature from this time period that tells history in the modern factual style and there is no evidence (none) that Genesis is written in that style. Therefore, I have no reason to believe that Genesis is told differently than all the other known literature from that time period.
You may not agree with this support, but it is, as a point of fact, a rational support for the position I hold.
And so on.
Hopefully now you understand the concept of offering support for one's argument and see that I have, as a point of fact, offered support for my opinion.
"It READS like myth."
While this is support, it is not evidence. At best it is subjective.
"Genesis comes from the time prior to modern history telling as identified by historians."
If this is actually true, why have you never provided the names of these historians? Why, when I presented you with evidence from historians that there is accurately recorded history from the very time period at issue, did you not respond?
"...as a point of fact, a rational support for the position I hold."
To be more accurate it is "rational" TO YOU "support" for the opinion you have.
I get that you have convinced yourself, but again, how about evidence?
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from people. 42 But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. 43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
(John 5:39–47)
"A faithful, believing Jew, Jesus says, would have been led by Moses' writings to faith in Him. In fact, He said that Moses himself would accuse anyone who did not follow that progression. How could Moses accuse his readers for not finding a meaning in the text that was not, in fact, in the text? How could he accuse them for not understanding what he himself would never have understood?"
H/T Pyromaniacs
While this is support, it is not evidence. At best it is subjective.
I've provided support.
I've made it clear that the genre of these texts is not a provable fact, thus, I've been quite clear that our opinions ARE our subjective opinions. I just happen to find my opinions to be weightier and more rational than yours.
What objective evidence do you have for your position? Any?
If not, then what's your problem?
I'm just trying to be clear. Because when you make comments that suggest that you believe that the OT histories are in fact myth, it is difficult to separate what you consider to be opinion.
In this case, it seems as though, you are suggesting that while you have "support" for you opinion, you have no evidence that would lend weight to that support.
As long as we're clear that you have no evidence to support your hunch just "It's seems rational to me.", then by all means, believe what you want.
I would suggest that you lighten up a bit when others express a more Historic Orthodox understanding. Perhaps if you wouldn't suggest that your opinion is rational, while others is not etc. It might be an example of that grace you always expect from others.
Perhaps you can understand that my rational support outweighs the no support that you offer for your position beyond, "these other guys used to believe it, too..."
Does that mean, then, that you can agree you have no objective data to support your position?
"Perhaps you can understand that my rational support outweighs the no support that you offer for your position beyond, "these other guys used to believe it, too...""
Because it's perfectly rational to decide for yourself, hey I believe this is rational, so therefore the 2000+ years of Christians who have historically affirmed something else must be irrational.
So if I was forced to choose between "I alone think X is rational" and "The greatest minds in the history of the Christian Church have studied, thought, prayed, and "reasoned together" and they think that Y is the most logical", I think I'll start with Y. Now if someone had some evidence to suggest that X was possible, I'd consider it, but in the absence of anything more compelling than "It seems rational to me.", I think I'll pass.
"...that you can agree you have no objective data to support your position?"
We can agree that there is nothing that you would consider as objective data for my position. We can also agree that while I can offer the Historical consensus of Church History in support of my position, you can offer neither objective data nor support beyond you own "Seems reasonable to me".
I can also agree that I have offered you various links and quotes in support of the Orthodox position, and you have not chosen to demonstrate the irrationality of what has been offered. So, I really don;t even think you can dismiss the support I've offered as you haven't even interacted with it.
It's interesting. You're response is "Hey, I heard some guy(s) talk about all this 20 years ago and I know and can rebut every possible argument". Mine is, "Hey, maybe I should go do some more study on this to see if what I think I know is really the best option.".
"I have reached the conclusion that we can’t possibly take them as literal history showing factually how God operates."
So, if we "can't possibly" take them as "literal factual history", what does that make the people who do so?
It seems as though you are making a claim of fact in the above quote, please provide evidence to support your claim.
Craig...
hey I believe this is rational, so therefore the 2000+ years of Christians who have historically affirmed something else must be irrational.
Fallacious appeals to numbers and appeals to tradition do not impress me, Craig. You got anything else besides these fallacies?
And it is not "Dan alone..." there are many people who would agree with me, including some great minds. So, strike out on that fallacy, as well.
"Fallacious appeals to numbers and appeals to tradition do not impress me, Craig."
Dan, I've addressed the "appeals to numbers" limitations and am aware of them. However, you can't simply dismiss the collective wisdom of thousands of years of study as irrational without any evidence at all. So, until you can prove the Orthodox position to be wrong, then the fact that it exists is support for my position. Not proof, but support.
"...there are many people who would agree with me, including some great minds. So, strike out on that fallacy, as well."
Yet, you've never actually provided any evidence of that assertion. You have one Wright piece, that doesn't provide you nearly as much support as you think and one other out of context unsourced quote. Not exactly overwhelming.
you can't simply dismiss the collective wisdom of thousands of years of study as irrational without any evidence at all.
I don't dismiss them. I look at their views (views I formerly believed, mind you) and then look to reason and what the Bible actually says (as opposed to their interpretations on the ideas in question) and find no data to support their views. Or yours.
Respectfully disagreeing is not the same as summarily dismissing.
I've raised the questions, they remain unanswered by your side while I see reasonable explanations coming from my side.
I go with what seems reasonable, even if it means disagreeing with a large number of people in the past who held another opinion.
It simply comes down to that: I am not swayed by appeals to tradition or numbers, not when reason and what I consider rational interpretations of the Bible make better sense, morally, biblically and rationally.
What else can I do?
"What else can I do?"
Do what you always do, look to yourself.
I will look to reason as best I understand it, Craig, thanks. I hope you shall do the same.
We need more thinkers and fewer blind followers.
"We need more thinkers and fewer blind followers."
Presuming yourself to the the thinker and everyone who disagrees with you a blind follower.
I AM dedicated to thinking rationally, as best this poor sinner can do so. I presume that applies to you and merely expressed the hope that we all will continue in that path.
It was said because you seemed to be mocking my use of reason. I support people - all people - using their God-given reasoning. Hopefully, you do, too. If so, perhaps you should quit mocking those who support the use of reason.
"I AM dedicated to thinking rationally, as best this poor sinner can do so."
I am well aware that you ARE dedicated to thinking Rationally as you define it.
How do you define "rational," Craig?
The issue is not how I define rational, but how you define Rational. I am not the one who insists on filtering things through my version of Reason and presuming that my determination means anything.
I don't insist on filtering through "my version" of reason any more than you use "your version" of reason to sort through your opinions.
I strive to use reason to make up my mind about morality, biblical intepretations, God's Ways, etc.
What do you use if not reason?
"I don't insist on filtering through "my version" of reason..."
So, whose version of Reason do you use?
While I certainly use my ability to reason, I balance it against what scripture says, the thoughts of others who are more knowledgeable than I, as well as the collective wisdom of centuries of Christian thought and study.
So, you use your reasoning and I use my reasoning and we both respect and look to the Bible, using our reasoning.
What is it, then, that you are criticizing? Are you just trying to sow discord and strife?
"What is it, then, that you are criticizing?"
I'm not criticizing anything. I just find your Reasoning suspect.
"Are you just trying to sow discord and strife?"
Yes, of course I am. I have nothing better to do than to annoy you.
Why is it that when I disagree with you I am "trying to sow discord and strife", yet when you spew all sorts of vileness (I an can copy/paste your exact words if you've forgotten), accuse people of lying and being irrational you are somehow not "trying to sow discord and strife"?
Craig...
Why is it that when I disagree with you I am "trying to sow discord and strife",
The point, Craig, is that you do not appear to disagree with me... it appears that you are just disagreeing to be disagreeable because, in practice, we are agreeing on the topic in question.
You do not appear to object to our using reason, so what are you objecting to? That you disagree with my reasoning? That's fine, I disagree with your reasoning sometimes, too. No harm, no foul. I don't insinuate something negative about you, that you are using "your version" of reasoning, I just note that you use your reason and reach a different conclusion than I have and that just happens.
I don't have to try to besmirch you for using your reason, why do you try to besmirch me?
As to my using strong language with you... that has been in cases where you appeared to be just stating plain lies/falsehoods or making senseless attacks and demonizations...
THAT sort of behavior I have sometimes called out strongly as BS, because, as you no doubt agree, telling falsehoods is just wrong. But I have never attacked you for holding different opinions than I do or for using your reasoning and reaching a different conclusion than I do.
See the difference?
When your reason leads you to places that diverge from orthodoxy, and you suggest that you are comfortable placing your Reason over the combined reason and wisdom of 2000 plus years of Christian thought and scholarship, then I question your Reason.
Further, the fact that you can't/won't provide support (beyond "It seems reasonable to me") for your positions raises questions.
As long as all you want is to have your own personal private "Dan's Reason" then that's fine. When you start saying that your position is "reality" and that any who don;t agree with you are not "reasonable", then you have problems.
So, while I couldn't care less if you use Reason or not, once you start to assert your position as more reasonable that other positions, you need to provide evidence to support your position.
As long as you choose to stick with "It sounds Reasonable to me.", I'll question your Reason.
Post a Comment