God and genocide - where do we go?

[felix]

You seem to be taking the word myth as meaning something that is an untrue story. That is not what is meant by a myth. There is just so much more going on in Genesis than "the world was created in 6 days" It's a powerful story as to the reason we exist using the culture and understanding of the time to convey that message. It is not a scientific treatise but doesn't mean it doesn't convey truth.

If it conveys the truth, then it is not a myth but truth.

(Gen 1:3) Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light - in your dreams?

Scripture is not a myth as it is a Scripture of Truth as in Dan 10:21.

Is Daniel a mythical figure? and Dan 10:21 in invalid?

Also, just because you quote a myth doesn't mean the whole thing is a myth. Jesus used parables, events that never actually happened, to illustrate points. Does that mean Jesus never said those things or doesn't exist? Of course not. I could quote poetry to make a point, would you then conclude that I don't exist?

When Jesus said a parable, Scripture mentions it as a parable. How does Jesus saying a parable make Genesis account a myth?

 

[Grazer]

I never said it wasn't true. In fact I explicitly said otherwise. But there are many different levels of truth and Genesis, to me, is not conveying a scientific or historical truth. It's interesting that we use metaphors in everyday language all the time but no one challenges the truth of a statement just because it contains metaphor/allegory. But mention the possibility Genesis uses metaphors and immediately people question its truth. So is Daniel 10:21 true? Yes but it depends on what truth you think its conveying and what it meant by truth.

I never said Jesus quoting parables makes Genesis a myth (I have no idea how you've got that conclusion) You're arguing that if Genesis is a myth the whole Bible is. I was using the the fact Jesus used parables as an example that just because myth is used, doesn't mean he didn't say it or that he doesn't exist. Likewise for Genesis and all that quote it.

 

[Grazer]

Perhaps I could try an analogy. Lets say there's a car accident and one of them involved drove at high speed past me moments earlier. I give my statement to the police and I say "the car flew past me" Now another officer reads my statement a few months later and he reads my statement. What does he conclude?

Does he conclude that there is no car because cars don't fly?
Does he conclude that I am lying, again because cars don't fly?

No he concludes that car drove at high speed past me because he recognizes that the word "flew" was being used as a metaphor for something moving very fast. If, in my example, the case gets to court and my statement is read out do any of the jury of the judge conclude I'm lying or there was no car? Of course not and my statement would be admissible as evidence.

 

[felix]

Perhaps I could try an analogy. Lets say there's a car accident and one of them involved drove at high speed past me moments earlier. I give my statement to the police and I say "the car flew past me" Now another officer reads my statement a few months later and he reads my statement. What does he conclude?

Does he conclude that there is no car because cars don't fly?
Does he conclude that I am lying, again because cars don't fly?

No he concludes that car drove at high speed past me because he recognizes that the word "flew" was being used as a metaphor for something moving very fast. If, in my example, the case gets to court and my statement is read out do any of the jury of the judge conclude I'm lying or there was no car? Of course not and my statement would be admissible as evidence.

You fail to tell who's statement is a myth. A metaphor id different from a myth.

 

[Grazer]

You fail to tell who's statement is a myth. A metaphor id different from a myth.

Its not a perfect analogy but I think it illustrates the point I'm making regarding something being true and a myth.

"Myths are stories told by people about people: where they come from, how they handle major disasters, how they cope with what they must and how everything will end."

Myths contain analogies and metaphors (by and large) but doesn't affect the truth of them, that's the point I'm making.

 

[felix]

I never said it wasn't true. In fact I explicitly said otherwise. But there are many different levels of truth and Genesis, to me, is not conveying a scientific or historical truth. It's interesting that we use metaphors in everyday language all the time but no one challenges the truth of a statement just because it contains metaphor/allegory. But mention the possibility Genesis uses metaphors and immediately people question its truth. So is Daniel 10:21 true? Yes but it depends on what truth you think its conveying and what it meant by truth.

I never said Jesus quoting parables makes Genesis a myth (I have no idea how you've got that conclusion) You're arguing that if Genesis is a myth the whole Bible is. I was using the the fact Jesus used parables as an example that just because myth is used, doesn't mean he didn't say it or that he doesn't exist. Likewise for Genesis and all that quote it.

There are Greek mythology - Norse mythology - Roman mythology - Hindu mythology and you consider Bible to be nothing more than a Jewish myth? Wow!

Myth:
Synonyms: fable, legend, mythos
Antonyms: truth, verity

So, according to you, Genesis is a fable, legend, mythos and not an actual historical truth?

 

[felix]

Its not a perfect analogy but I think it illustrates the point I'm making regarding something being true and a myth.

"Myths are stories told by people about people: where they come from, how they handle major disasters, how they cope with what they must and how everything will end."

Myths contain analogies and metaphors (by and large) but doesn't affect the truth of them, that's the point I'm making.

A myth is not necessarily true. If it is the case, Greek mythology - Norse mythology - Roman mythology - Hindu mythology are all true according to you. You essentially devalue the truth in Scriptures by saying that Genesis is not necessarily true by calling it a myth.

 

[Grazer]

Much like the word faith, the definition (or at least what people think it means) of myth appears to have changed over time.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/mythology/f/111408WhatsMyth.htm

But the dictionary is usually a good place to start:

1) a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events:
ancient Celtic myths

[mass noun]:
the heroes of Greek myth

2) widely held but false belief or idea:
the belief that evening primrose oil helps to cure eczema is a myth, according to dermatologists

a fictitious or imaginary person or thing:
nobody had ever heard of Simon’s mysterious friend—Anna said he was a myth

an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing:
the book is a scholarly study of the Churchill myth

I would say that Genesis falls very much into definition 1 but the likes of N.T Wright and John Walton have explained it far far better than me and I've linked to 2 of their videos previously. Would they in 2nd/3rd century BC (and before) have taken a linear literalistic approach to Genesis? Many scholars and historians conclude no but that doesn't mean no one did. The fact St Augustine struggled even with the concept of the days shows there is more to this. Scripture is not de-valued if you're trying to read it for all that its worth not just "God created the world in 6 days"

 

[felix]

Much like the word faith, the definition (or at least what people think it means) of myth appears to have changed over time.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/mythology/f/111408WhatsMyth.htm

But the dictionary is usually a good place to start:

1) a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events:
ancient Celtic myths

[mass noun]:
the heroes of Greek myth

2) widely held but false belief or idea:
the belief that evening primrose oil helps to cure eczema is a myth, according to dermatologists

a fictitious or imaginary person or thing:
nobody had ever heard of Simon’s mysterious friend—Anna said he was a myth

an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing:
the book is a scholarly study of the Churchill myth

I would say that Genesis falls very much into definition 1 but the likes of N.T Wright and John Walton have explained it far far better than me and I've linked to 2 of their videos previously. Would they in 2nd/3rd century BC (and before) have taken a linear literalistic approach to Genesis? Many scholars and historians conclude no but that doesn't mean no one did. The fact St Augustine struggled even with the concept of the days shows there is more to this. Scripture is not de-valued if you're trying to read it for all that its worth not just "God created the world in 6 days"

So, God did not create anything according to you because Genesis is a myth.

 

[ivdavid]

I'm not looking at Genesis for historical scientific truths regarding our origins.

Well, if you're talking about evolution vs creationism, I'm not going anywhere there. I am not interested in Genesis for those 'scientific truths' regarding our origins. But I am interested in the origin of "sin in the flesh" and in Romans 5 which deals with that. I cannot logically uphold the Romans 5 analogy if I'm left comparing Jesus, the second Adam, with just one of a couple. If Wright actually means "The first pair" when he uses the phrase "primal pair", then that's fine. But if he refers to the "primal pair" to denote a random but early couple, then the doctrine of sin in the flesh and redemption in Christ alone falls.

But I didn't bring this up for its own sake. I want to get to the thinking behind such beliefs. Now there is a choice made here - a choice not to take this part of Scripture "at face value". Now, every choice has a basis - none are arbitrary - and I asked you what the basis is for this choice you made. The best I could make out is that you held its imagery to be almost poetry and therefore not literalistically applicable.

Obviously, by poetry, I think you're referring to the poetic license that poets use to describe something that is indeed true but that which cannot be captured by our common language and thus requires a metaphorical narrative that ought not to be taken literalistically. But to equate all of 'poetry' with 'metaphoric narratives' is wrong - poetry could also use literalistic language and yet be artistically put. Anyway, I just came across Psalms 107:14 and I thought this would be a good verse to check if I've understood what you mean by literal and literalistic reading.
Psa 107:14 He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder.
Now, a literal reading would say that this is indeed metaphorical language since the concept of death does not require it leaving a shadow and that people need not literalistically have bands(chains) to be freed from, by our Lord and Saviour. Right? Further, and most importantly, this literal reading is consistent with all of Scripture.

But what in Genesis 1,2,3, specifically Gen 3, is required to be necessarily a metaphorical narrative - while at the same time remaining consistent with all of Scripture. I am again differentiating between a supernatural yet literalistic setting which could seem surreal and be expressed poetically/artistically - and a 'mythological' setting which is all metaphorical narrative to convey a true message but where the events per se actually haven't occurred literalistically.

This is a way of saying that when the good creator God made the world, He made heaven and earth as the space in which He Himself was going to dwell and He shared the earth bit with human creatures.
To flatten that out into - this is simply telling us that the world is made in 6 days.....

I don't quite get this. What logically prevents a person from embracing both the above statements? Again, I will not enter a debate on whether God created over 6 literalistic days or 6 metaphorical days. But why does Wright have to strictly limit the former to a literal reading and the latter to a literalistic reading? Can one not derive both from a literalistic reading itself? Again, aren't literal/literalistic readings only to determine if a narrative is metaphoric or not? If it's not metaphoric, one could still glean much more than what is directly referred to, right? In fact, all of my last post deals with a literalistic reading of the OT Scriptures but where I see the "whole narrative for all its worth" - of everything pointing to Christ. So, if this is the entire basis for declaring Genesis 1,2,3 as a metaphoric narrative, doesn't it seem flimsy? I don't have any issues with the Waltons video - but why must it necessitate Genesis 1 to be a metaphorical narrative? Can't one logically embrace all that he's said AND believe that God did create over 6 literalistic days?

Are you declaring things as metaphoric based on the natural plausibility of the events? Where and how then do you allow exemptions for supernatural events?

 

[Grazer]

IvDavid

You've raised some interesting and brilliant points and I think I'm going to need to re-read what you've put several times to get your full meaning before being able to respond fully. Just to address your last point, Can't one logically embrace all that he's said AND believe that God did create over 6 literalistic days? I think it's possible yes and I maybe, inadvertently, coming in at this from the creation vs evolution debate perspective (its a debate I've been involved with for a while and often left me frustrated) since I took NT Wrights comment about "flattening it out to 6 days" as saying "this is all I'm going to take from the text" Whether NT Wright meant this I don't know but its what I took from it which is an apt statement in the context of the wider discussion we are having.

Oh and your statement of:

Obviously, by poetry, I think you're referring to the poetic license that poets use to describe something that is indeed true but that which cannot be captured by our common language and thus requires a metaphorical narrative that ought not to be taken literalistically. But to equate all of 'poetry' with 'metaphoric narratives' is wrong - poetry could also use literalistic language and yet be artistically put. Anyway, I just came across Psalms 107:14 and I thought this would be a good verse to check if I've understood what you mean by literal and literalistic reading.
Psa 107:14 He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder.
Now, a literal reading would say that this is indeed metaphorical language since the concept of death does not require it leaving a shadow and that people need not literalistically have bands(chains) to be freed from, by our Lord and Saviour.

That is what I mean by a literal reading as opposes to a literalistic one.

I'll hopefully address more once I've fully read your post.