Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Early chapters of Genesis as philosophy
Brian
Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 1 of 16 (300213)
04-02-2006 5:05 AM


This is sort of a spin off from the science forum topic about plate techtonics where myself and rand were discussing if God's actions were detectable or not. Rand argues that since science still has a lot to learn before it can prove God did something then we have to accept the possibility that God actions are not detectable and that He could 'clean up' any possible physical evidence that we think certain of God's actions would have left in the physical record. So, in a nutshell, there was a Flood but God cleaned up the evidence so that no evidence of a Flood is now visible.
Anyway, on that thread Rand had stated that there was evidence of a Flood, that evidence was contained in the Bible, I would like to state that I agree with Rand that the Flood story in the Bible is evidence. However, I would say that where myself and Rand will probably disagree in what it is evidence of.
I believe that the Flood stories (there are two Flood stories merged into one), and the creation stories for that matter in Genesis ARE evidence, but they are evidence of an ancient people's attempts at explaining the universe and thus their world to a prescientific people. The ancient Hebrews wished to know where and when life began, the philosophers gave them creation stories to satisfy their curiosity, the people wanted to know why they had to labour in the soil to scratch a living and women wanted to know why childbirth is so painful, and why is there so much suffering in the world, the philosophers gave them the Fall of Man myth. How can we keep the world out of depravity? The philosophers gave them the Flood myths to show what God is capable of.
So, IMO, the Bible stories are evidence, and I have stated this a few times at EvC, but what they are evidence of is not actual events but of philosophers attempts to answer ultimate questions.
Topic then is this:
Do the early chapters of Genesis read much better as philosophy rather than historical fact?
For matters of keeping the topic focussed, I suggest limiting the 'early chapters' to Genesis 1 through to Genesis 11:10. This is a good point to stop as there is a clear break in the style of the book.
Faith and Belief for this as I expect it to go beyond the biblical texts.
Brian.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 04-02-2006 8:36 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 5 by ReverendDG, posted 04-02-2006 10:27 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 6 by Ratel, posted 04-02-2006 11:09 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 04-02-2006 11:43 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 14 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-07-2006 1:31 AM Brian has replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 16 (300227)
04-02-2006 8:19 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18299
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3 of 16 (300229)
04-02-2006 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
04-02-2006 5:05 AM


Philosophy---Evidence---and Opinions
Brian writes:
IMO, the Bible stories are evidence, and I have stated this a few times at EvC, but what they are evidence of is not actual events but of philosophers attempts to answer ultimate questions.
I agree that the events need not be literal. I think that my belief leans toward the idea that the ideas themselves were literal.(I'll explain in a moment! )
Brian writes:
Do the early chapters of Genesis read much better as philosophy rather than historical fact?
Yes. However, let us discuss the term philosophy for a moment. Lemme go wake up Mr. Dictionary...or perhaps Mr. Encyclopedia!
Brian writes:
For matters of keeping the topic focused, I suggest limiting the 'early chapters' to Genesis 1 through to Genesis 11:10. This is a good point to stop as there is a clear break in the style of the book.
OK. Before I bring up those electronic definitions, perhaps you would be so kind as to share your definition of what an early "philosopher" did. After all, the Greeks had not yet arrived on the scene, so perhaps our question could be this:
Where would an early human get the knowledge and the wisdom from which to write or verbally orate their stories,passions, and conclusions?
Part of the eventual direction of this debate is going to center on whether God (an a-priori assumption for the purpose of our framework) directly or indirectly influenced the early philosophers or whether these people were merely spouting human derived "myths" based on a lack of understanding of the world around them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 04-02-2006 5:05 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by purpledawn, posted 04-02-2006 10:10 AM Phat has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3479 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 4 of 16 (300233)
04-02-2006 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
04-02-2006 8:36 AM


Philosophy
Philosophy - theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe
quote:
After all, the Greeks had not yet arrived on the scene, so perhaps our question could be this:
Where would an early human get the knowledge and the wisdom from which to write or verbally orate their stories,passions, and conclusions?
You don't think there were people among the ancients who analyzed what was going on around them? Wise men and women?
Where does anyone get their knowledge and wisdom? Experience.
quote:
Part of the eventual direction of this debate is going to center on whether God (an a-priori assumption for the purpose of our framework) directly or indirectly influenced the early philosophers or whether these people were merely spouting human derived "myths" based on a lack of understanding of the world around them.
I can't write a story based on my lack of understanding, because obviously I lack the understanding. IOW, I can't use what I don't have. Now my writing may show my lack of understanding, but I write based on my understanding. Ancient people created stories based on their understanding of the world around them, just as people have through the ages.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 04-02-2006 8:36 AM Phat has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4132 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 5 of 16 (300236)
04-02-2006 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
04-02-2006 5:05 AM


I agree with you brian, it is a purely a story written to explain the world around them.
AS I told rand in that rather off topic thread, the bible is evidence, evidence of belief there was a flood, not that there really was one (at least i think i said it that way)
The first chapters do read better as an explanation for a people who had limited understanding of the mechanics of the universe. But they read as stories to explain but are not history anymore than greek myths or native american myths are
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 04-02-2006 10:28 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 04-02-2006 5:05 AM Brian has not replied

  
Ratel
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 16 (300242)
04-02-2006 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
04-02-2006 5:05 AM


Interesting question, the clearest use of a Creation story for philosophical purposes of which I am aware is the one related by Plato in Timaeus. It seems clear to me that Plato was intentionally relating a fable in order to outline his viewpoint on the structure of reality rather than an account of events that actually transpired. The later Neoplatonist Plotinus at least interpreted it this way, for he proposed that the Cosmos is necessarily eternal, which negates the need for a creation story altogether. Furthermore, the Greeks already had a creation myth in Hesiod's Theogony-so why would Plato invent a new one if not to lay out his view of the world?
It may be that the creation myths of the Bible were primarily for this purpose solely, simply a description of the structure of Yahweh/Elohim's universe as viewed by the authors. But I suspect that the lines between objective "real" history and philosophical model-making were not so sharp in 600 BC as they are today, in fact I'm pretty sure they weren't. So, IMHO, the most probable interpretation of the creation stories is that they are both Philosophy *and* (purported) "Fact" from the standpoint of the writer.
Another thing that occurs as I consider this subject is the apparent lack of concern on the part of the OT prophets on literal belief in the myths. They seem to be primarliy concerned with proper worship and the rejection of false gods, the behavior of their people rather than whether they believe in a particular version of the creation story. I can imagine that if some Israelite was under the impression that Yahweh created the world by carving up the primal chaos fish, the prophets wouldn't have been bothered as long as he wasn't worshipping Baal or consorting with foreign nations. Maybe that's why the creation and flood stories read like theologically altered myths from other ANE peoples- the factual accounts of what happened were subordinate to the theological and philosophical positions that were being outlined by those stories.
This message has been edited by Ratel, 04-02-2006 11:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 04-02-2006 5:05 AM Brian has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18299
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 16 (300244)
04-02-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
04-02-2006 5:05 AM


The Ideas and the inspiration behind them.
Lets discuss the writings.
NIV writes:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Phat writes:
This is still a valid question. How did the Universe get here?
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Phat writes:
This is where the philosophers need to be questioned. Where did they get this knowledge, since they were not around?
(Genesis1:3-1:26) God said...God said...God said...
Phat writes:
This sounds like a story being told around a campfire. I am not saying that the story is absolutely false, but the question is this: Why is the storyteller relating the fact that God said anything? Did the storyteller hear Gods voice in a dream or a vision? This is the point where we can speculate about whether the philosopic storytellers heard from God or whether they were making up their own explanations for a pre-scientific world.
27 So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them.
Phat writes:
This is a rather important statement to me. God imagined. I see this verse as saying that God created...in His own Imagination. To me, this is where some of the later philosophic debates and discussions derived. Either God was the source of creation and the originator of human wisdom and mental capacity or humans themselves wrote this story and made it all up. (Of course, I believe the former)
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
Phat writes:
Who is God talking to? One thing to keep in mind, as I see it, is that IF humans were talking directly to God, they would know Him as they later knew Jesus, "through whom all things were created." Surely these written accounts would be a bit more animated if any human actually were talking to God, right?
Genesis 2...
Phat writes:
.a few questions.
1) Why would an omnipotant Being need to rest?
2) Concerning this scripture: 18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Why was the woman an afterthought? Could this be symbolic of God in the flesh(as Jesus Christ) needing a Bride... (everyone of us?)
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Why would a Creator who created 100 billion galaxies out of a thought need to create this woman out of the poor guys rib? Is this some sort of symbolic reference to the woman and man being joined in a side by side completion?
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.
Phat writes:
And this does not necessarily mean that the serpent was also one of the created wild animals...it only mentions that the serpent was not just another common variety animal, in my opinion.
He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
Phat writes:
We have talked the Fall story to death in other threads, but I might just point out that the symbolism is the point of realization for humanity. Perhaps nothing more, but we could philosophize on the meaning of freethinking versus blind obediance. Plus....surely it is not as if though God were surprised at the choice that was made, Him being all knowing and all! Many folk argue that He cannot be both all knowing and all powerful. I don't see why not, however.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
Phat writes:
Notice that they did not see the Lord, yet apparantly heard Him.
9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
Phat writes:
Some philosophers see this as a statement rather than a question, as if God is saying to humanity to look inwardly and see if we are in the right place.
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked?
Phat writes:
Some philosophies say that the nakedness was symbolic of not being under the covering of the Holy Spirit.
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals!You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
Phat writes:
PD mentions that this snake is not the same as Satan or the Dragon in Revelation. Perhaps so, for it is mentioned that the snake has a finite life, apparantly...wheras Satan ends up tormented for eternity at a really BAD place.
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
Phat writes:
literal "skin" like we have now, or animal skins...?
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
Phat writes:
Who is "us"?
Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?
Phat writes:
More symbolic questions to humanity in general.
Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
Phat writes:
another philosophic question that pertains to much of human relations.
26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.
At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD.
Phat writes:
So does this mean that prior to this, nobody called on God?
Genesis 5
Phat writes:
Some long lives! What is the symbolism of that?
Genesis 6:5 -The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
Phat writes:
How could God not foreknow that this was gonna happen?
So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
Phat writes:
Which leads me to elieve that the Flood story is symbolic. The important moral is that Noah is righteous.Perhaps the symbolism is that all living things were baptised in a giant spiritual rain!
This message has been edited by Phat, 04-02-2006 09:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 04-02-2006 5:05 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 04-02-2006 2:00 PM Phat has not replied

  
veiledvirtue
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 16 (300262)
04-02-2006 12:41 PM


im catholic at birth and seem to disagree with their idea of the first few chapters of genesis being symbolistic. i also believe some of the catholic ideas have shaken the foundation of their network over the years.
i think even if you opened an exibit on the top of mt. ararat allowing people to walk through noahs ark.. the nonbelievers would still question it all. God wanted faith at the top of our to do list.
it would seem its all or nothing on the titerope... because we are talking about an all knowing presence. either the whole book is the word of God or not... i think picking and choosing what stays and goes in a philosophical sense tends to get you in trouble.. i dont think it was dr. seuss time when it came to putting scripture together.
This message has been edited by veiledvirtue, 04-02-2006 11:49 AM

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 9 of 16 (300295)
04-02-2006 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
04-02-2006 11:43 AM


Re: The Ideas and the inspiration behind them.
Phat writes:
Perhaps the symbolism is that all living things were baptised in a giant spiritual rain!
I like that.
We can learn something from the Bible even if the events depicted didn't really happen. God protects the righteous and cleanses the unrighteous.
(I've also been thinking lately about the parallels between the Flood story and the Sodom-and-Gommorah story.)

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 04-02-2006 11:43 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 04-02-2006 3:18 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 10 of 16 (300308)
04-02-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ringo
04-02-2006 2:00 PM


The Flood = figure of Baptism -- so says the Bible
Phat writes:
Perhaps the symbolism is that all living things were baptised in a giant spiritual rain!
======
I like that.
The Bible makes the connection specifically between the Flood and baptism, calls it a "figure" of the washing of the conscience. But of course it wouldn't apply to those who died in it, only to those who lived through it.
quote:
1Pe 3:20-21 ... when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 04-02-2006 2:00 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 04-02-2006 3:38 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 12 by Brian, posted 04-02-2006 3:40 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 13 by ReverendDG, posted 04-02-2006 5:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 11 of 16 (300311)
04-02-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
04-02-2006 3:18 PM


Re: The Flood = figure of Baptism -- so says the Bible
Faith writes:
The Bible makes the connection specifically between the Flood and baptism....
Sure. It's easy to make the connection to baptism for the surviviors.
But Phat said "all living things". What I thought he was suggesting, and what I am suggesting, is that the Flood story can be thought of as a cleansing of the whole earth, a cleansing of "all living things".
In that sense, there is no need for it to be an actual event. It has meaning as a story, just as any fictional story has meaning.
In fact, the connection to baptism is stronger if the "event" was not real. A baptism has only good effects - it doesn't drown the "unwashed" bystander.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 04-02-2006 3:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 12 of 16 (300312)
04-02-2006 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
04-02-2006 3:18 PM


Re: The Flood = figure of Baptism -- so says the Bible
eight souls were saved by water.
Weren't they saved by the ark?
The water killed everything, it did not save anything.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 04-02-2006 3:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4132 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 13 of 16 (300350)
04-02-2006 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
04-02-2006 3:18 PM


Re: The Flood = figure of Baptism -- so says the Bible
The Bible makes the connection specifically between the Flood and baptism, calls it a "figure" of the washing of the conscience. But of course it wouldn't apply to those who died in it, only to those who lived through it.
hmm i think the connection is something like a simile, being that it was a washing away but it wasn't of sin just killing off giants and starting over

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 04-02-2006 3:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 14 of 16 (301812)
04-07-2006 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
04-02-2006 5:05 AM


Perhaps the waters are symbolic of Gentiles
I have to admit that I'm not sure what to think regarding the flood in the Genesis book. I've heard so many different theories that one can can easilly get lost in the details. My own opinion is that the Genesis book captures some terrible cataclysm in humanity's distant past.
But...
If the story is actually allegorical of something else, then I have to wonder if the reference to waters rising is actually symbolic of Gentiles rising up against the authors of the Scriptures. In other words, perhaps some kind of terrible war is being described in symbolic language which resulted in terrible calamities.
NIV writes:
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
NIV writes:
Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth..."
I find it interesting that the only other place in the NIV where the phrase "filled with violence" appears is here...
Ezekiel 28:16 writes:
Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.
I'll note the odd reference to the Nephilim prior to the cataclysm.
Some have suggested that the Book of the Apocalypse's mentioning that “there is no longer any sea” may be an indication that there is no longer a separation between Jews and Gentiles, erasing the exclusive relationship that God had with Israel. With the sea gone (the court of the Gentiles), all barriers have been removed, and the entire humanity can freely come to God.
In other words, some suggest that "sea" is a symbol of the rebellious masses of the Gentile nations in Revelations 17:15 for example. If so, perhaps the Genesis passages are using a similar theme.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 04-02-2006 5:05 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Brian, posted 04-07-2006 7:19 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4980 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 15 of 16 (301863)
04-07-2006 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-07-2006 1:31 AM


Re: Perhaps the waters are symbolic of Gentiles
Hi X,
I think the symbollism may be simpler than your examples. Personally, I think that the Flood myths reflect the limited human imagination of the authors of Genesis. On a simple level, if the world has become 'dirty' then what do humans normally use to clean things? Well, water would more than likely be the ancient's answer, so the world is 'dirty' and God 'cleans' it by using water. Just a thought.
Also,
there is no longer any sea”
The use of the 'sea' as a symbol in the Old Testament often refers to chaos, in particular the chaos of creation.
It is also used as chaos in the mythical language used in the story of Jonah.
I'll post more later I need to go out.
Thanks for your thoughful reply.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-07-2006 1:31 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-07-2006 11:41 PM Brian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024