|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/10/2008 5:18:26 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Is it now? I haven't seen that set of characteristics that distinguishes a historical narrative from a non-historical narrative yet. I doubt you'll believe that "set of characteristics" even when you see them:
Genesis 1 thru 11—Mythical or Historical?
Not a single argument I haven't seen before. And not a single attempt to show by the characteristics of the text that the narrative is a history. The whole "Genesis 1-11 is history" rests on nothing more than the constant repetition of the assertion that it is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/10/2008 6:13:37 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 903
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:glaudysquote:
Not a single argument I haven't seen before.
Then you are without excuse for your willful ignorance.
quote:
And not a single attempt to show by the characteristics of the text that the narrative is a history.
Did you actually read the article? If so then you are intentionally ignoring select portions of it.
E.g. “From the outset, the Bible is written in the context and appearance of sane and sober history. There is not the slightest intimation that these Scriptures contain myth. The historical and literal nature of the Record is easily determined in contrast to the parables, allegories, and symbolisms which are usually defined within the context. We know, for an illustration, that Luke 8:4-15 is a parable for it is so stated at the beginning. We know that Galatians 4:21-31 is an allegory for the same reason. Where the Bible teaches by allegory or parable or symbolism it is distinctly so labeled or otherwise easily understood in the context. To read the Bible’s parables, allegories, etc., and then to read Genesis is to know that Genesis bears no faint resemblance to any of these, but that it appears to be what it asks us to believe it is—historical fact”
And
“That Genesis one is historical may be seen from these considerations: (1) It sustains an intimate relationship with the remainder of the book. The remainder of the book (i.e., The Generations) presupposes the Creation Account, and the Creation Account prepares for what follows. The two portions of Genesis are integral parts of the book and complement one another. (2) The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking. There are poetic accounts of the creation and these form a striking contrast to Genesis one”
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/10/2008 10:39:48 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Did you actually read the article? If so then you are intentionally ignoring select portions of it.
Well, let's check it out.
quote:
“From the outset, the Bible is written in the context and appearance of sane and sober history.
The assertion is made. Let's see if it is supported in the rest of the paragraph.
quote:
There is not the slightest intimation that these Scriptures contain myth.
Another assertion and in this case a false assertion. The writer may not be aware it is false, so I don't accuse him of deliberately lying, but the characteristics of myth are found in these scriptures. That is why it is so easy to compare them to other contemporary myths.
quote:
The historical and literal nature of the Record is easily determined in contrast to the parables, allegories, and symbolisms which are usually defined within the context.
False dichotomy. He is assuming that if it is not a parable or allegory, it must be history. He is forgetting there are other ways not to be history.
quote:
We know, for an illustration, that Luke 8:4-15 is a parable for it is so stated at the beginning.
It is not so stated at the beginning of the parable. Only in a preceeding editorial comment that is not part of the parable. Yet if we were to present the parable without the editorial comment, it would still be obvious that it is a parable. Certainly the people to whom Jesus was speaking, and who did not have the benefit of hearing the editorial comment telling them "this is a parable" still knew it was a parable.
We know it is a parable with or without the editorial comment because it has the characteristics of a parable. What are the textual characteristics that distinguish history so that you know a narrative is history even if you don't have a friendly editor to tell you?
quote:
We know that Galatians 4:21-31 is an allegory for the same reason.
Yes, here Paul states plainly that "this is an allegory". Most allegories are intentionally obvious.
quote:
Where the Bible teaches by allegory or parable or symbolism it is distinctly so labeled or otherwise easily understood in the context.
I agree. Even when no distinct label is present, the nature of the text and context does indicate what genre of writing one is dealing with. By that criterion Genesis 1-3 is definitely not history.
quote:
To read the Bible’s parables, allegories, etc., and then to read Genesis is to know that Genesis bears no faint resemblance to any of these, but that it appears to be what it asks us to believe it is—historical fact”
Unfortunately, we can only guess what he is hiding in the "etc." The Genesis creation accounts are not parables or allegories, but he wants to go from this to say they are therefore history. Sorry, that won't do. The second creation story is clearly a myth. The first is a unique composition, apparently intended for use in liturgy, and clearly not history.
quote:
“That Genesis one is historical may be seen from these considerations: (1) It sustains an intimate relationship with the remainder of the book. The remainder of the book (i.e., The Generations) presupposes the Creation Account, and the Creation Account prepares for what follows. The two portions of Genesis are integral parts of the book and complement one another.
Do you note how none of these refer to the actual text under consideration? Is that because he cannot come up with actual textual criteria that distinguish historical narrative from non-historical narrative? Furthermore, none of these criteria require the early part of the text to be historical. The rest of the book can be intimately related to the first section, presuppose the creation accounts and complement the earlier section without the earlier section being history.
quote:
(2) The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking. There are poetic accounts of the creation and these form a striking contrast to Genesis one”
Yes and no. If he is speaking only of Genesis 1, there are poetic elements e.g choral refrains. But it is not the typical parallel style of many of the Psalms. Genesis 2:4 ff is not poetry at all, so of course, it does not have the characteristics of poetry.
Interestingly, however, the flood story is marked by one of the typical traits of Hebrew poetry: chiasmus.
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/flood.htm
So it is not correct to state that the characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking.
To conclude: The authors' contention seems to be that Genesis must be historical narrative, not on the basis of its own characteristics, but on the basis of eliminating any other alternative. However, he only mentions specifically three alternatives. Two he does successfully eliminate: parable and allegory. He does not successfully eliminate poetry.
(For some reason he does not assert that history can be recounted in poetry. I wonder why, since that is certainly true.)
He does not address other non-historical literary genres. So he has not successfully eliminated all possibilities other than history. Further he is either unaware of or deliberately suppressing information about the many mythical elements --and some poetic elements--in these early chapters of Genesis.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/11/2008 1:27:45 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
And not a single attempt to show by the characteristics of the text that the narrative is a history. Alright, gluadys, I'll try one more time even though there are plenty of characteristics listed in the article.
Here is an exerpt from THE "DAYS" OF CREATION IN GENESIS 1: LITERAL "DAYS" OR FIGURATIVE "PERIODS / EPOCHS" OF TIME?
quote:
Based on the relationship with the remainder of Genesis (and the Bible as a whole), the creation account (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3), can be properly designated in its literary form. The creation account of Genesis 1 is a historical prose-record, written in rhythmic style, recording factually and accurately "what" took place in the creation of "the heavens and the earth," depicting the time "when" it took place, describing the processes of "how" it was done and identifying the divine Being "who" brought it forth. The result of creation week was a perfect, "very good" world with an environment suited to the utmost for created humanity to live in. This historical prose-record of creation reports correctly in specific sequences the creation events within chronological, sequential, and literal "days." These "days" inaugurate the subsequent historical process of time ordered in weekly cycles in which man and nature function under God's ultimate control. In this sense Genesis 1 is the inaugural history of initial beginnings which shapes from creation week onward the following flow of the history of the world and humanity.
Section V of this scholarly article has ten well-developed arguments for the correct literal interpretation of creation "days". I'm sure you could find "characteristics of the text" to support YEC if you really wanted to! That you choose to ignore, deny, and reject such in-your-face evidence seems more than hypocritical in someone who claims I ignore, deny, and reject evidence for zillions of years of evolution!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/11/2008 4:57:25 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
And not a single attempt to show by the characteristics of the text that the narrative is a history. Alright, gluadys, I'll try one more time even though there are plenty of characteristics listed in the article.
Here is an exerpt from THE "DAYS" OF CREATION IN GENESIS 1: LITERAL "DAYS" OR FIGURATIVE "PERIODS / EPOCHS" OF TIME?
I've seen this article before and it is one of the best from this school of thought. However, the more important section vis-a-vis my position is Section IV, not Section V. The arguments in Section V are not applicable to someone who does not try to tie the days of Genesis to any historical chronology, even in a figurative sense. I fully agree that within the narrative framework the days of Genesis are ordinary literal* days. The question is whether the days in within the narrative can be lifted out of the narrative and found on a hypothetical calendar. Or are they literary days, existing solely within the narrative.
*Note that we often have definitional problems with the word "literal". As used here, "literal"means "the ordinary, most prevalent usage of a word apart from figurative and symbolic senses". However, this use of "literal" does not automatically include the idea that the days were actual days in history. It simply means that the writer intended this meaning, even if he also intended his story to be fiction.
So, I will base my comments more on Section IV as I have no disagreement with the terms of Section V
quote:
His [Gunkel's] premise is that "many things reported in Genesis...go directly against our better knowledge."51 The idea of "our better knowledge" is an admission on Gunkel's part that a naturalistic evolutionary world view provides the authoritative norm of what is history or legend.
Hasel here confuses the "better knowledge" of science with a philosophical worldview that is not deducible from the science, but which he assumes Gunkel accepts. I expect that a theologian normally does not accept a naturalistic world view in which God is non-existent. So I would expect that Gunkel is simply saying that we have a better knowledge of creation than our ancestors did, and we need to deal with the problem that certain passages of Genesis, if taken as a scientific, factual description of history, contradict that better knowledge of creation, which, according to our faith tradition also comes from God.
This, of course, is the same situation the Church faced earlier as the "better knowledge" of the non-geocentric cosmos came to light.
It is not a philosophical worldview we are dealing with here. It is the factual information which God's own creation is providing.
quote:
2) The "literary genre" approach reveals it to be another way, ... to remove the creation account of Genesis from functioning as an authoritative, literal text which has implications for the relationship of science and the Bible.
This is bloody nonsense. A text does not have to be literal to be authoritative and tying two completely different concepts together in this way as if they were an inseparable package is misleading and wrongfully impugns the motives of the proponents of the literary genre view. If anything, the point is to preserve the authority of the text by showing that it is not contradictory to creation, sense or reason.
quote:
The non-poetic nature of Genesis 1 shows that its intention is to take it in its plain sense as a straightforward and accurate record of creative events.
Again, this is nonsense. It only shows how people who background is theology rather that literature confound the categories of literature and literary form. A "non-poetic" nature is no guarantee of an author's intention that a text be taken in its plain sense. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is non-poetic, but also intended to be an allegory. The same applies in reverse. While poetic form often makes more frequent use of figurative and symbolic language, it is not a guarantee of the author's intent to be non-factual.
It is equally erroneous to equate "non-poetic" with "accurate" or "factual". Harry Potter is also non-poetic. Does that make him historical?
quote:
Based on the relationship with the remainder of Genesis (and the Bible as a whole), the creation account (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3), can be properly designated in its literary form. The creation account of Genesis 1 is a historical prose-record, written in rhythmic style, recording factually and accurately "what" took place in the creation of "the heavens and the earth," depicting the time "when" it took place, describing the processes of "how" it was done and identifying the divine Being "who" brought it forth. The result of creation week was a perfect, "very good" world with an environment suited to the utmost for created humanity to live in.
As noted a little before this paragraph, Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a unique composition which does not fit into any standard category of Hebrew or even Ancient Near East literature. So it makes no sense to speak of its relationship (as a literary form) with the remainder of Genesis or the Bible as a whole. There is no comparison to be made, except such negative ones as have already been made. It is not a typical bit of Hebrew poetry. It is not a parable or an allegory. And it is not typical either of such near-historical records as Kings and Chronicles. A basically prose narrative written in rhythmic style is as good a description as any. But this does not justify tacking on the terms "historical" or "factual".
Within the narrative, I fully agree it describes what took place "God created", when it took place "in the beginning" , the process "and God said...and it was so", and who the protagonist is "God". But the status of the narrative as actual history has not been justified.
quote:
That you choose to ignore, deny, and reject such in-your-face evidence seems more than hypocritical in someone who claims I ignore, deny, and reject evidence for zillions of years of evolution!
Well, I am not ignoring the evidence in Section 5. I agree with it. I have no quarrel with it. But you are ignoring the evidence which is spread out before you in creation by God's own hand.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/11/2008 5:27:28 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I fully agree that within the narrative framework the days of Genesis are ordinary literal* days. The question is whether the days in within the narrative can be lifted out of the narrative and found on a hypothetical calendar. Or are they literary days, existing solely within the narrative. You know, gluadys, this kind of obtuse double-speak is exactly why we have no meaningful conversation to pursue any further. Have a nice day - whatever that literally means to you.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/11/2008 5:56:01 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 271
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I fully agree that within the narrative framework the days of Genesis are ordinary literal* days. The question is whether the days in within the narrative can be lifted out of the narrative and found on a hypothetical calendar. Or are they literary days, existing solely within the narrative. You know, gluadys, this kind of obtuse double-speak is exactly why we have no meaningful conversation to pursue any further. Have a nice day - whatever that literally means to you.
As a casual observer, I was rather enjoying this thread--it's very interesting to read the two views. So I find this response rather disappointing.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to question whether the days referenced in Genesis relate to specific dates, or whether they are used as a figure of speech. I don't think that is double-speak. The argument is not about whether this question is double-speak, but about what the answer to the question is.
Gluadys has laid out why she believes that the days described in Genesis are not specific dates. Perhaps you could outline why you believe they are, by responding to her reasoning.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/11/2008 6:05:29 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I fully agree that within the narrative framework the days of Genesis are ordinary literal* days. The question is whether the days in within the narrative can be lifted out of the narrative and found on a hypothetical calendar. Or are they literary days, existing solely within the narrative. You know, gluadys, this kind of obtuse double-speak is exactly why we have no meaningful conversation to pursue any further. Have a nice day - whatever that literally means to you.
It's not that difficult really. In his Divine Comedy, enters Hell on the dawn of Good Friday and leaves it at midnight on Holy Saturday, arriving on the shore of Purgatory on Easter morning. He spends two nights on the mountain of Purgatory and then takes a day to soar through Heaven.
All of these time periods are literal--not allegories themselves, nor symbolic of a different time period.
But, of course, the poem as a whole is an allegory. So the literal days in the poem are not actual, historical days. They are literal and literary, but not related to any days in real-time history.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/11/2008 6:11:31 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
It's not that difficult really. In his Divine Comedy, enters Hell on the dawn of Good Friday and leaves it at midnight on Holy Saturday, arriving on the shore of Purgatory on Easter morning. He spends two nights on the mountain of Purgatory and then takes a day to soar through Heaven.
All of these time periods are literal--not allegories themselves, nor symbolic of a different time period.
But, of course, the poem as a whole is an allegory. So the literal days in the poem are not actual, historical days. They are literal and literary, but not related to any days in real-time history.
As a complete aside, when we read the Inferno in high school, our teacher gave us the assignment of writing an essay wherein we were to put one person in hell and describe the punishment they recieved much as Dante had done.
I put my teacher there.
Of course, I wasn't a believer then, so I had more fun with it then I would now.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/12/2008 12:34:39 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
As a complete aside, when we read the Inferno in high school, our teacher gave us the assignment of writing an essay wherein we were to put one person in hell and describe the punishment they recieved much as Dante had done.
I put my teacher there.
Of course, I wasn't a believer then, so I had more fun with it then I would now.
Sounds like a fun assignment.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/13/2008 7:57:47 PM
|
|
|
Zuniceratops
Posts: 23
Joined: 3/16/2008
Status: offline
|
So, the point has been made that one can't fully understand Leviticus 11 unless one has extra-biblical knowledge of Old Testament culture and Greek and Hebrew. So it is then assumed that since we can't understand Leviticus 11 without such extra-biblical knowledge, why shouldn't we also be unable to understand Genesis 1 and 2 without extra-biblical knowledge of science?
For one thing there is a real difference between the knowledge needed to understand the above two passages. The Hebrews of Moses' day would have had no trouble understanding Leviticus 11, as it was written in the context of their culture and their scientific classifications. To them, bats and even flying insects were birds, since the definition of their word for bird is "winged creature", and insects creep on all fours - that is, they walk using all limbs, with their bodies close to the ground, not on two limbs and upright like we humans.
However, it's hard to see how the Israelites would have read Genesis 1 & 2 as meaning that God created the earth over millions and billions of years. They would have read it as saying that God created the earth in six literal days, and rested on the seventh literal day. The verses Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 would have further cemented the idea of six literal days in their mind. So if you evolutionists’ argument is true, for thousands of years the Hebrews would have gone thinking God had created the earth in six literal days, when really He had created it in millions of years. Only in modern times, when we’ve finally developed radioactive dating can we know the true meaning of Genesis 1-2. So, when we read the Bible from the Hebrews’ perspective, we can understand Exodus but we are mislead by Genesis.
This doesn’t make sense. Genesis and Leviticus was written in the Israelites time and read first by them, so both should be understood best in light of their culture, but according to the evolutionists here Genesis can only be understood in light of modern science. Why would God, if He is good and trustworthy, write Genesis so it would mislead people for thousands of years, if He could tell them clearly how he made the world by writing Genesis 1-3 differently? Why write to the Israelites a book that could only be understood today?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/13/2008 9:54:50 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops
However, it's hard to see how the Israelites would have read Genesis 1 & 2 as meaning that God created the earth over millions and billions of years.
They would not, of course. That meaning is not in Genesis 1 & 2. This, however, did not stop them from reading Genesis figuratively and even mythologically rather than "scientifically".
quote:
They would have read it as saying that God created the earth in six literal days, and rested on the seventh literal day. The verses Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 would have further cemented the idea of six literal days in their mind. So if you evolutionists’ argument is true, for thousands of years the Hebrews would have gone thinking God had created the earth in six literal days, when really He had created it in millions of years.
Right. Just as for thousands of years Hebrews (and Christians) thought that God made a cosmos in which the earth was fixed in place and the sun literally moved through the sky, when really he had made a solar system in which the earth moves around one star in a vast galaxy which is only one of millions of galaxies.
quote:
Only in modern times, when we’ve finally developed radioactive dating can we know the true meaning of Genesis 1-2.
No, that's not it. What we have learned in modern times is to understand the creation itself far more accurately than the ancients did or could have with their more limited technology.
But to know the true meaning of Genesis 1-2 we need to stop applying a modern understanding to it and re-learn the ancient understanding. Ancient Hebrews did not interpret their texts scientifically, and it is precisely when we try to interpret Genesis (or Exodus or Leviticus) in a modern way as literal, factual science that we get it wrong.
People of ancient times thought and wrote mythically and metaphorically. It is by applying their way of thinking to their texts that we get to the genuine meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/13/2008 10:33:39 PM
|
|
|
Zuniceratops
Posts: 23
Joined: 3/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
They would have read it as saying that God created the earth in six literal days, and rested on the seventh literal day. The verses Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 would have further cemented the idea of six literal days in their mind. So if you evolutionists’ argument is true, for thousands of years the Hebrews would have gone thinking God had created the earth in six literal days, when really He had created it in millions of years. Right. Just as for thousands of years Hebrews (and Christians) thought that God made a cosmos in which the earth was fixed in place and the sun literally moved through the sky, when really he had made a solar system in which the earth moves around one star in a vast galaxy which is only one of millions of galaxies.
But unlike the Genesis belief, which is detailed in a straightforward manner in the first chapters of the Bible, Hebrews would have had no reason to think that their Scriptures told them that God created a fixed-earth geocentric cosmos. So they would know this was something God left them to figure out through their own observations; geocentrism and a fixed earth is not a Biblical cosmology. I think we covered this in Post 36, Post 45, Post 49, and Post 68.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/13/2008 11:33:56 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops
But unlike the Genesis belief, which is detailed in a straightforward manner in the first chapters of the Bible, Hebrews would have had no reason to think that their Scriptures told them that God created a fixed-earth geocentric cosmos. So they would know this was something God left them to figure out through their own observations; geocentrism and a fixed earth is not a Biblical cosmology. I think we covered this in Post 36, Post 45, Post 49, and Post 68.
They would have every reason to think so, since not a single cosmological reference in scripture suggests anything different. It is true some ancient Greeks speculated that the earth orbits the sun, but the Hebrews were not Greek. Some early Christians, relying on scripture and suspicious of the paganism of Greek thought, insisted that scripture taught the earth is not spherical either.
And in point of fact, we have no evidence that anyone who studied scripture came to any other conclusion (than a fixed earth) until they were convinced otherwise by modern science. Whether or not they could have, they didn't. So we cannot conclude that they knew God left them to figure it out for themselves.
In contrast to the universality of the fixed earth thinking, there has been a long tradition of treating Genesis figuratively even before the scientific picture suggested this. So if one is to make the case that the Hebrews knew that some information was left for them to figure out for themselves from their own observations, the evidence suggests that when they did so, they opted for a non-literal understanding of Genesis 1 & 2 rather than a non-literal understanding of biblical cosmology.
The textual difficulties in taking Genesis 1 literally are much more in evidence than in the passages referring to the non-movement of the earth and the movement of the sun. We also have well-established in rabbinical tradition that Adam is a figure of the whole human race (Adam Kadmon) and in the New Testament that he is a figure of Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/13/2008 11:59:35 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops
quote:
quote:
quote:
They would have read it as saying that God created the earth in six literal days, and rested on the seventh literal day. The verses Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 would have further cemented the idea of six literal days in their mind. So if you evolutionists’ argument is true, for thousands of years the Hebrews would have gone thinking God had created the earth in six literal days, when really He had created it in millions of years. Right. Just as for thousands of years Hebrews (and Christians) thought that God made a cosmos in which the earth was fixed in place and the sun literally moved through the sky, when really he had made a solar system in which the earth moves around one star in a vast galaxy which is only one of millions of galaxies.
But unlike the Genesis belief, which is detailed in a straightforward manner in the first chapters of the Bible, Hebrews would have had no reason to think that their Scriptures told them that God created a fixed-earth geocentric cosmos. So they would know this was something God left them to figure out through their own observations; geocentrism and a fixed earth is not a Biblical cosmology. I think we covered this in Post 36, Post 45, Post 49, and Post 68.
A literal six day creation is not part of Hebrew cosmology either. Dating all the way back to Philo of Alexandria, Hebrews did not necessarily believe a literal six day creation. The days were a form of symbolism, representing the idea that God created an ordered cosmos.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/14/2008 12:10:30 AM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
A literal six day creation is not part of Hebrew cosmology either. Dating all the way back to Philo of Alexandria, Hebrews did not necessarily believe a literal six day creation. The days were a form of symbolism, representing the idea that God created an ordered cosmos.
Hmm, One would think this would be a theological view held in common by each of the 3 "children of Abraham".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/14/2008 8:56:05 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: swan42
quote:
A literal six day creation is not part of Hebrew cosmology either. Dating all the way back to Philo of Alexandria, Hebrews did not necessarily believe a literal six day creation. The days were a form of symbolism, representing the idea that God created an ordered cosmos.
Hmm, One would think this would be a theological view held in common by each of the 3 "children of Abraham".
It was certainly held in common by both rabbinic and Christian theologians from the 1st into the 5th centuries and beyond. I don't know about the Muslim tradition, but I would expect the same.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/14/2008 3:06:46 PM
|
|
|
Zuniceratops
Posts: 23
Joined: 3/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
They would have every reason to think so, since not a single cosmological reference in scripture suggests anything different. It is true some ancient Greeks speculated that the earth orbits the sun, but the Hebrews were not Greek. Some early Christians, relying on scripture and suspicious of the paganism of Greek thought, insisted that scripture taught the earth is not spherical either.
They would have had no reason to think so, because the Bible does not teach geocentrism, or a fixed earth, or a flat earth, or even heliocentrism. DanJames and I stated why this is so in the mentioned posts. There may have been some early Christians who didn't believe in a spherical earth; they must not have been paying attention to Isaiah 40:22.
quote:
The textual difficulties in taking Genesis 1 literally are much more in evidence than in the passages referring to the non-movement of the earth and the movement of the sun. We also have well-established in rabbinical tradition that Adam is a figure of the whole human race (Adam Kadmon) and in the New Testament that he is a figure of Christ.
In the Bible, Adam is representative of all mankind, because he was the first man and therefore the father of all mankind. That's why when he sinned, the punishment for sin, death, fell on all mankind. But just because Adam is representative of the human race, that doesn't make him figurative. Jesus, a literal figure, is also representative of the human race; that's why he could be punished for the sins of the whole human race, and why his righteous life is judged instead of ours when God is deciding whether to let us enter heaven. "just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12, NKJV)
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:19, NKJV)
quote:
It was certainly held in common by both rabbinic and Christian theologians from the 1st into the 5th centuries and beyond. I don't know about the Muslim tradition, but I would expect the same.
Perhaps some of the early Christians didn't believe in a literal six-day creation, but a good many of them did, and held to Young-Earth beliefs at that. Basil was one of them. Some others are listed here. You'll find some of the early Christians using arguments that sound remarkly similar to those used by YEC's today.
But I would like to hear more about these early Christians who didn't believe in a literal six days, and about these Hebrews who also didn't believe.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/14/2008 3:37:40 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops
They would have had no reason to think so, because the Bible does not teach geocentrism,
They would have every reason to think so, because, although the Bible does not teach a fixed earth/moving sun (the references are mostly tangential to the main point), it does consistently assume this is the case. That is why you have the undeniable historical fact that this is what interpreters of scripture understood the Bible to say.
Suggesting that it was an open question before Copernicus is retrojecting modern information and understanding anachronistically into the past.
quote:
There may have been some early Christians who didn't believe in a spherical earth; they must not have been paying attention to Isaiah 40:22.
Again, you are retrojecting modern knowledge onto the past. They were paying attention to Isaiah 40:22, but without the benefit of modern information, that verse does not suggest a spherical earth. Indeed quite the opposite, for one does not ordinarily spread a tent out over a sphere, but over a relatively flat space.
quote:
quote:
The textual difficulties in taking Genesis 1 literally are much more in evidence than in the passages referring to the non-movement of the earth and the movement of the sun. We also have well-established in rabbinical tradition that Adam is a figure of the whole human race (Adam Kadmon) and in the New Testament that he is a figure of Christ.
In the Bible, Adam is representative of all mankind, because he was the first man and therefore the father of all mankind. That's why when he sinned, the punishment for sin, death, fell on all mankind. But just because Adam is representative of the human race, that doesn't make him figurative. Jesus, a literal figure, is also representative of the human race; that's why he could be punished for the sins of the whole human race, and why his righteous life is judged instead of ours when God is deciding whether to let us enter heaven. "just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12, NKJV)
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:19, NKJV)
It was the text of Genesis, not the text of Romans, that led Hebrew and Christian teachers to treat Genesis figuratively.
quote:
quote:
It was certainly held in common by both rabbinic and Christian theologians from the 1st into the 5th centuries and beyond. I don't know about the Muslim tradition, but I would expect the same.
Perhaps some of the early Christians didn't believe in a literal six-day creation, but a good many of them did,
Certainly, there has always been a variety of opinions. Some good, some bad, some indifferent. That is why we need to study scripture and history and creation to find the interpretation that brings them all together coherently.
quote:
But I would like to hear more about these early Christians who didn't believe in a literal six days, and about these Hebrews who also didn't believe.
Philo was an Alexandrian Jew of the first century who was a contemporary of Jesus, but at the time, much better known in educated circles. He promoted a figurative understanding of much of scripture including Genesis.
Origen and Augustine of Hippo are two church fathers who advocated a figurative understanding of Genesis.
You can check them out easily with your internet browser.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/14/2008 4:04:33 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 903
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
It was the text of Genesis, not the text of Romans, that led Hebrew and Christian teachers to treat Genesis figuratively.
Actually it was neither. It was the influence of Greek philosophy.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/14/2008 8:04:54 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Origen and Augustine of Hippo are two church fathers who advocated a figurative understanding of Genesis. But you always forget to point out that they both believed the universe was less than 6000 years old!
The Early Church & the Age of the Earth
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/14/2008 9:26:25 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1961
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Origen and Augustine of Hippo are two church fathers who advocated a figurative understanding of Genesis. But you always forget to point out that they both believed the universe was less than 6000 years old!
The Early Church & the Age of the Earth
Nobody points it out, because it doesn't matter. A figurative reading of Genesis is exactly what YEC opposes; despite these early church fathers coming to the same conclusion about the age of the universe, using their positions to lend credence to yours is rather dishonest. By doing so, you imply that, given the same set of facts, they would have come to the same conclusion you have. Given that your beliefs are based solely on an interpretation of Genesis that they apparently didn't share, I don't think it's a stretch to say that, if they were around today, they would NOT agree with you.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/14/2008 9:26:51 PM
|
|
|
Zuniceratops
Posts: 23
Joined: 3/16/2008
Status: offline
|
And from what I've read of Oregen on this same website, it seems we shouldn't take Origen's ideas as a model of how to interpret Genesis!
Some of Origen's strange ideas
|
|
|
|
|
RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation - 6/14/2008 9:33:45 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
