True Myth

[MagusYanam]

The great theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once posited that there was something wrong with the way both liberals and conservatives viewed Genesis. To him it seemed that neither was taking Genesis 1 and 2 seriously. With the conservatives, the problem was self-evident. Genesis was meant to be a religious text conveying deep spiritual truths, not scientific and not historical, and conservatives still wanted to reduce it to one or both of the latter two. This precludes (as we have seen) any serious discussion of the deep metaphysical implications of the Genesis views of human nature or good and evil.

With the liberals, the problem was not as apparent, but just as serious. When approached from the standpoint of 'it's just a myth', some would tend to dismiss it on those grounds and replace it with a myth of their own - a myth of progress, for example. They would accept the external (empirical) scientific realities while again brushing over the metaphysical discussions of the actual creation myth itself.

I don't agree with Niebuhr on a lot of things, but this is one area Niebuhr seems to have gotten right, IMHO. Niebuhr's approach was this: we should not take Genesis as literal scientific or historical fact, but we should also not dismiss it as a superstition, since obviously it was held to some other purpose. We should instead take it seriously, on its own terms, and regard it as 'true myth' - a story which is meant to convey a point on the nature of humanity and the nature of sin.

So, is Niebuhr right? Is the paradoxical 'true myth' a good way to approach the reading of Genesis, and have both sides been going about it the wrong way?

[MagusYanam]

My point was that without a reference to a literal God, it wouldn't make sense to ascribe a mythic action in mythic terms to the same literal God.

Pardon my glibness, but why not? If someone believes in God but not in a literal young-earth creation (like I do - there is plenty of proof against a young-earth creation but none against the existence of God), it should make perfect sense to interpret Genesis in such a way as reflects that.

However, with a concept like God, whose unchanging nature is extolled throughout the Bible, such fictive interpretations don't work. He doesn't mean to you what you think he means to you (I use the figurative "you"). He is He. And that's all that He be. I think a lot of people have a problem with this.

Sorry, but is this not also laying a Hellenistic hermeneutical framework over non-Hellene texts? The Biblical God changes His mind all the time: we see a definite and oft-cited personality transition between the Old Testament and the New, and even within the Old Testament there are references to God being moved by the entreaties of His people. All things change, even God; only in love is God unchanging.

Does it make sense to "update" the meaning of the Bible for a modern audience if it means mythifying it to the point where it becomes fiction? The "higher truths" that Niebuhr is going after are only present because at one time the story was taken as literal truth. This expression of the literal truth of Genesis has filtered through our culture over the many years into such concepts as original sin, the subservience (& necessary suffering) of women, the evil snake, etc.

We've 'updated' interpretations of scripture throughout our history as a religion, Judaism has done likewise. You mention the concept of 'original sin', but 'original sin' is not the literal interpretation - that was an 'update' of the Genesis story for a Greco-Roman audience, as I pointed out in my example with St. Augustine. Nowhere in the Old Testament are the words 'original sin' used.

But, getting back to Niebuhr's argument. He would have argued that the allegorical interpretation was the proper one, partly since the story was expressed in a more poetic form, and all of the actual history in the Mosaic writings is in either genealogy or prose. Trying to piece together the authors' original intent, as it were, using the form and the content of the text itself (since the authors are no longer around for reference) is a valid form of literary interpretation.

And you must remember that the Bible is not just a literal retelling of history - there are a number of forms (a fact which should be taken for granted given the number of separate books and authors the Bible has). There are poems, genealogies, popular literature of the times, wisdom literature, histories, letters and Gospels. Even Genesis itself seems a hodge-podge of poetry, oral tradition and genealogy and has at least two authors (or groups of authors): the Jahwists and the post-Babylonian Priests. Given what we know about Genesis, we can assume that there was at least some allegorical meaning to be ascribed to the text. Where we don't know enough, literary deconstruction must rule (for now).

[ST88]

My point was that without a reference to a literal God, it wouldn't make sense to ascribe a mythic action in mythic terms to the same literal God.

Pardon my glibness, but why not? If someone believes in God but not in a literal young-earth creation (like I do - there is plenty of proof against a young-earth creation but none against the existence of God), it should make perfect sense to interpret Genesis in such a way as reflects that.

Allow me a little leeway here. If we can go back to the Bible and say that certain passages or books are myths (with truth in them), then we lose the literal meaning of what those passages represent. But grander still, the idea of a literal God is somehow superimposed upon the now-mythic character of the story that gave us the literal God. This problem is similar to the grandfather paradox.

I am reminded of the time Ronald Reagan described to then-Israeli premier Shamir how he was a part of the battalion that liberated Auschwitz. The real man falsely placed into a real situation. Stories like this indicated that there were real doubts about whether this Reagan person was a real person. But the mythical Reagan survives to this day and is placed into this situation as if he were "trying to make a point" to Shamir instead of telling the story as if he were really there. But the story was part of the reason that the Reagan myth was created. Arrgh! It would be amusing if that person hadn't taken up 8 years of my life conspiring to destroy America though neglect and arrogance. But I digress.

However, with a concept like God, whose unchanging nature is extolled throughout the Bible, such fictive interpretations don't work. He doesn't mean to you what you think he means to you (I use the figurative "you"). He is He. And that's all that He be. I think a lot of people have a problem with this.

Sorry, but is this not also laying a Hellenistic hermeneutical framework over non-Hellene texts?

Only if you accept the Bible as a literary document where such arguments can flourish. If you accept the Bible as a moral document then it doesn't matter what you or I say about it.

The Biblical God changes His mind all the time: we see a definite and oft-cited personality transition between the Old Testament and the New, and even within the Old Testament there are references to God being moved by the entreaties of His people. All things change, even God; only in love is God unchanging.

I wasn't trying to challenge the absolute nature of the unchanging nature of God. All I'm saying is that His nature doesn't change depending on the interpretation you use. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. Do you mean that He changes throughout history to suit himself to every age?

Does it make sense to "update" the meaning of the Bible for a modern audience if it means mythifying it to the point where it becomes fiction? The "higher truths" that Niebuhr is going after are only present because at one time the story was taken as literal truth. This expression of the literal truth of Genesis has filtered through our culture over the many years into such concepts as original sin, the subservience (& necessary suffering) of women, the evil snake, etc.

We've 'updated' interpretations of scripture throughout our history as a religion, Judaism has done likewise.

That wasn't my question. I asked does it make sense? Not if interpretation has happened or even if it was acceptable, but if it was warranted. What was wrong with the literal version?

You mention the concept of 'original sin', but 'original sin' is not the literal interpretation - that was an 'update' of the Genesis story for a Greco-Roman audience, as I pointed out in my example with St. Augustine. Nowhere in the Old Testament are the words 'original sin' used.

You're partially right. But though the phrase "original sin" does not appear, it is clear from the story that humanity must suffer because of this sin of Adam. You can call it the "first sin" or the "tree of knowledge sin" or whatever. This is just textual analysis. Augustine ran with it and then Calvin ran with it some more off the edge of a cliff. If the story is meant to be literal, then there is a context for the ancestor of all men to be a cautionary tale. But if it's a folk tale, then the context is strictly cultural, like all other creation myths.

But, getting back to Niebuhr's argument. He would have argued that the allegorical interpretation was the proper one, partly since the story was expressed in a more poetic form, and all of the actual history in the Mosaic writings is in either genealogy or prose. Trying to piece together the authors' original intent, as it were, using the form and the content of the text itself (since the authors are no longer around for reference) is a valid form of literary interpretation.

This is more of an argument for multiple authors than multiple intents.

And you must remember that the Bible is not just a literal retelling of history - there are a number of forms (a fact which should be taken for granted given the number of separate books and authors the Bible has). There are poems, genealogies, popular literature of the times, wisdom literature, histories, letters and Gospels.

But Genesis is the first book. It's arguably the first one written (I understand there is a case for Job), and it's intended to be an introduction to this God concept. If the concept is to be treated as literal then it would be a natural progression from there to the rest of the books. But what does it mean to Judeo-Christianity to have this initial story be essentially untrue. However much "truth" it has in it, you can say the same things about myths of other cultures. If there can be a sliding scale of myth vs. historical reality, everything that is not exactly historical reality is fiction.

[MagusYanam]

Only if you accept the Bible as a literary document where such arguments can flourish. If you accept the Bible as a moral document then it doesn't matter what you or I say about it.

Why can't it be both? Wasn't it Horace who said all literature has two purposes: to entertain and to instruct? The Bible is no exception, as it is most definitely literature - both instruction and entertainment (in certain places). Thus, it should not be exempt from literary criticism, any more than the Canterbury Tales or Hamlet.

I wasn't trying to challenge the absolute nature of the unchanging nature of God. All I'm saying is that His nature doesn't change depending on the interpretation you use. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. Do you mean that He changes throughout history to suit himself to every age?

Of course! He must change throughout history to suit Himself to every age. Think about it: how much of who we are is how we are perceived by others? Would we behave the same way in a vacuum as we do in a public setting? Of course not. Likewise, much of who God is is how He is understood by us mere mortals.

You're partially right. But though the phrase "original sin" does not appear, it is clear from the story that humanity must suffer because of this sin of Adam. You can call it the "first sin" or the "tree of knowledge sin" or whatever. This is just textual analysis. Augustine ran with it and then Calvin ran with it some more off the edge of a cliff. If the story is meant to be literal, then there is a context for the ancestor of all men to be a cautionary tale. But if it's a folk tale, then the context is strictly cultural, like all other creation myths.

Dear, dear... 'original sin' is not the same as the descendants suffering through the 'sin of Adam', which was the first sin, granted. His children were cursed with the need for hard toil and pain of childbirth, but it was never said in Genesis that the children were born sinful. That would be the bare-bones literal interpretation. 'Original sin' was a metaphysical construct codified by St. Augustine that basically asserted that the children not only had to suffer, but were born innately sinful. This idea is not strictly literal, but a result of the cultural understanding the early church had of the Mosaic writings.

This is more of an argument for multiple authors than multiple intents.

And...? I don't see how that is germane. My argument here was simply that you don't read poetry the way you read history.

But Genesis is the first book. It's arguably the first one written (I understand there is a case for Job), and it's intended to be an introduction to this God concept. If the concept is to be treated as literal then it would be a natural progression from there to the rest of the books. But what does it mean to Judeo-Christianity to have this initial story be essentially untrue. However much "truth" it has in it, you can say the same things about myths of other cultures. If there can be a sliding scale of myth vs. historical reality, everything that is not exactly historical reality is fiction.

I don't know what kind of reasoning it is that an introductory religious document must be historically and scientifically true. Religious truth is not the same as historic or scientific truth - (this is the Kantian argument again, so skip over this part if you're not a Kant fan) you're comparing apples to oranges, as whether or not there is a literal young-earth creation has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there is a God. Also, you seem to be arguing based on a fallacious dichotomy. It's not either history or fiction - no honest literary scholar would argue that way. There are also allegory and satire (to name a couple of examples) - both of which pertain directly to the realities of this world through a fictitious set of premises, but which are neither history nor fiction.

I don't hold that Genesis is untrue - that would not be taking it seriously. I just don't take it literally - it is not a history or a scientific treatise, it is a religious document of allegorical truth. You don't have to take everything so literally! That's the entire point!

BTW, I completely agree with you on the Reagan thing. Consummate actor, he was, but he wasn't just playing the role of the Grim Reaper of the American economy... heh... but the problem there is not that Reagan was trying to present an allegorical form of truth but that he was trying to invent a history for himself. Do you see the difference?

[ST88]

Only if you accept the Bible as a literary document where such arguments can flourish. If you accept the Bible as a moral document then it doesn't matter what you or I say about it.

Why can't it be both? Wasn't it Horace who said all literature has two purposes: to entertain and to instruct? The Bible is no exception, as it is most definitely literature - both instruction and entertainment (in certain places). Thus, it should not be exempt from literary criticism, any more than the Canterbury Tales or Hamlet.

And yet, as far as I can see, it was not meant to be Literature (with a capital L). There is a difference between a morality tale and a history. No one who has read (or seen) Everyman comes away with the feeling that the character of Everyman is a real person. No, you can't have it both ways. That there is poetry and epistlatories[?] and narratives is irrelevant.

In our current climate of "true crime" novels and reality TV, we readily accept the confluence of these things in a modern context. But thinking about truth vs. fiction in this way gets us into trouble. I think the idea you (and Horace) were referring to is similar to what Ralph Waldo Emerson said: "Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures." In other words, to study fiction and the way it works on us by deconstructing it is to go after the truth of its inception. Deconstructionist interpretations can work somewhat on fiction because the absolute authority is the unconscious mind of the writer. Marxist leanings, homosexual leanings, and/or feminist leanings can be gleaned from the mind of the writer independent of the writer's stated intent for writing the story. The exercise relegates the story to being an anthropological document about the point in history in which it was written. I detest its use for turning art into psychology, but it's not altogether useless -- a different topic.

If you accept Genesis as a moral document, there is clear intent. Delving into the unconscious mind of the writer and/or God by using literary methods would undermine this intent. It would possibly be discovered that a) the writer was Semitic, b) the writer knew of the oral folk tales describing a jealous, capricious, monotheistic god, and c) the writer possibly believed these folk tales to be true.

If you deconstruct Genesis with the folk tale overlay, you will undoubtedly find references to actual events -- like Sheol as a burning garbage pit. But the truth of these events will not be the same as the truths that are claimed in the tale. That is, unless the story was meant to be literal. And if it were, then the issue is with the interpretation of the story via the text, not the other way around. For example, the controversy surrounding the Hebrew word for day is a legitimate inquiry into the meaning of the story. There is also the "inadequate translator" theory of the Genesis author trying to scribble down the story as it was dictated to him, and as he understood it at that moment in human history. I imagine that a modern-day secretary would have penned a very different book.

As Literature (again with the capital L), the Bible is a fascinating account of the presumed history of a people, like The Dictionary of the Khazars.

I wasn't trying to challenge the absolute nature of the unchanging nature of God. All I'm saying is that His nature doesn't change depending on the interpretation you use. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. Do you mean that He changes throughout history to suit himself to every age?

Of course! He must change throughout history to suit Himself to every age. Think about it: how much of who we are is how we are perceived by others? Would we behave the same way in a vacuum as we do in a public setting? Of course not. Likewise, much of who God is is how He is understood by us mere mortals.

This is a different concept of God than I am familiar with. How God is understood affects who he is implies that there is not a universal God, but that God appears to each of us as we want (or require) him to, like the Martians in The Martian Chronicles. That last statement of yours sounds suspiciously similar to what those of us non-believers say about the psychology of the believers.

You're partially right. But though the phrase "original sin" does not appear, it is clear from the story that humanity must suffer because of this sin of Adam. You can call it the "first sin" or the "tree of knowledge sin" or whatever. This is just textual analysis. Augustine ran with it and then Calvin ran with it some more off the edge of a cliff. If the story is meant to be literal, then there is a context for the ancestor of all men to be a cautionary tale. But if it's a folk tale, then the context is strictly cultural, like all other creation myths.

Dear, dear... 'original sin' is not the same as the descendants suffering through the 'sin of Adam', which was the first sin, granted. His children were cursed with the need for hard toil and pain of childbirth, but it was never said in Genesis that the children were born sinful. That would be the bare-bones literal interpretation. 'Original sin' was a metaphysical construct codified by St. Augustine that basically asserted that the children not only had to suffer, but were born innately sinful. This idea is not strictly literal, but a result of the cultural understanding the early church had of the Mosaic writings.

I refer to the Old Testament use of the term Original Sin (since we are talking about the OT), which does not include depravity, though in the context of a wider discussion it probably does. So, leaving that aside, how do we get to the same literal truth of the story without the literal story?

This is more of an argument for multiple authors than multiple intents.

And...? I don't see how that is germane. My argument here was simply that you don't read poetry the way you read history.

The point being that if there was one person who expressed the same feelings and ideas in poetry that another does in prose, you don't give the poet a pass because of the form he wrote in. If he means for it to convey the same truths, then he has to be judged on that, not on versification or musicianship.

whether or not there is a literal young-earth creation has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there is a God.

Hein? It is the excuse for invoking a God in the first place. Either God created the universe or the universe just IS. Would you argue that there could be a God if this God did not create the universe? Of course not. Well then, How did God create the universe? Here's a story right here! Why is it wrong?

Also, you seem to be arguing based on a fallacious dichotomy. It's not either history or fiction - no honest literary scholar would argue that way. There are also allegory and satire (to name a couple of examples) - both of which pertain directly to the realities of this world through a fictitious set of premises, but which are neither history nor fiction.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain wrong. It's either history or it's fiction. Satire is fiction. Allegory is fiction. They both are written from a point of view. From this point of view you can see a Truth according to this point of view. That fiction reveals Truths is very telling, because a primary aspect of literature is that there is a point of view that clouds the view. This is also true for history, as I'm sure you're aware. We can enjoy Richard III as a "history play", and we can recognize some human truths at play in the characters. But we can't delude ourselves into believing that the story actually happened that way.

I don't hold that Genesis is untrue - that would not be taking it seriously. I just don't take it literally - it is not a history or a scientific treatise, it is a religious document of allegorical truth. You don't have to take everything so literally! That's the entire point!

Where do we get our idea of God if not from Genesis?

but the problem there is not that Reagan was trying to present an allegorical form of truth but that he was trying to invent a history for himself. Do you see the difference?

Sure, I see the difference. But that wasn't what I was getting at. He invented a history for himself, but now his apologists -- recognizing that much of his invented history was, in fact, invented -- are applying the allegory treatment to his literal intentions. This not only "explains" his actions at trying to build himself up to be this impossibly relevant 20th century figure, it justifies them in terms of the mythic Reagan figure that he wanted to be.

[MagusYanam]

Okay, where to begin...

If you accept Genesis as a moral document, there is clear intent. Delving into the unconscious mind of the writer and/or God by using literary methods would undermine this intent. It would possibly be discovered that a) the writer was Semitic, b) the writer knew of the oral folk tales describing a jealous, capricious, monotheistic god, and c) the writer possibly believed these folk tales to be true.

Firstly, I myself am in two minds or more about Genesis. I see Genesis as a piece of religious literature. The truths it is meant to convey are not historical or scientific, but religious and moral. You don't seem to be making clear what is so difficult about this position for you. So far (and correct me if I have misinterpreted you) you seem to have argued that a.) Genesis was meant to be taken literally and b.) if Genesis were not taken literally God would not be necessary.

a.) Genesis 1-2 read as though they were meant to represent the condition of mankind as a whole, rather than the lives of two specific, historical people. The Hebrew word adham (Adam) means simply 'man', or 'earth-born' - a common, not a proper name, just as hawwah (Eve) means '(she who) gives life / is alive'. It is only after we get beyond the creation narrative into the patriarchal narrative and genealogies do we run up against something that looks like history.

b.) Again I am going to draw the line between religious and historical / scientific truth (in the words of Arlo Guthrie: 'I'm not proud... or tired'). A monotheistic God is the norm for those in this tradition, so that is how we identify with religious truth. So is God necessary for an understanding of religious truth in this traditional context, even without the literal history? I would say yes; you may disagree. This may be because you draw a fallacious trichotomy between historical truth, psychological interpretation and fiction. If you could clarify this bit for me, that would be much appreciated.

This is a different concept of God than I am familiar with. How God is understood affects who he is implies that there is not a universal God, but that God appears to each of us as we want (or require) him to, like the Martians in The Martian Chronicles. That last statement of yours sounds suspiciously similar to what those of us non-believers say about the psychology of the believers.

That's funny, because I learned this concept of God in the Mennonite church Bible Study group on the Hebrew scriptures. When the question was brought up, 'Why is the God of the OT so different from the God of the NT?' the answer was, roughly, that God had changed to relate better to His people. Jesus was demonstrably not the God that commissioned the deaths of the Amalekites, but He was still God.

Perhaps the idea of God as the Unchanging, Untouchable Ego needs to be revised, the idea having been so firmly drilled into us by our Hellenistic spiritual heritage - the Bible demonstrates that God does change, that God is touched by the affairs of his creatures.

how do we get to the same literal truth of the story without the literal story?

Before we go any further: what do you mean by literal truth? Are we using the same definition? I take literal to mean historical / scientific as opposed to religious / moral (which is why I'm opposed to literal interpretation). I want to know right now if we're having a problem over what we think the other thinks the term means. I've had discussions like this before and they did not turn out well.

The point being that if there was one person who expressed the same feelings and ideas in poetry that another does in prose, you don't give the poet a pass because of the form he wrote in. If he means for it to convey the same truths, then he has to be judged on that, not on versification or musicianship.

True. But. The. Poets. Do. Not. Mean. To. Convey. The. Same. Truths. As. The. Historians. Refer to the above.

It is the excuse for invoking a God in the first place. Either God created the universe or the universe just IS. Would you argue that there could be a God if this God did not create the universe? Of course not. Well then, How did God create the universe? Here's a story right here! Why is it wrong?

My take: God created the universe. He obviously didn't do it within the past 7000 years, however - the universe is (to our best estimation) 12 or 13 billion years old, and had its origins in the Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang? We don't know, and we're not really in a position to know - but we can guess. The universe is governed by scientific laws; therefore, we may apply scientific laws to ascertain the cause of anything within the universe - this is the realm of the physical. But the universe itself and things transcendant thereof, this is the realm of the ephemeral. The one dealt with by theologians and philosophers.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain wrong. It's either history or it's fiction. Satire is fiction. Allegory is fiction. They both are written from a point of view.

My friend, if you're going to be this way about it, everything pertaining to the affairs of man is fiction. All history is writ from a point of view, if you want to go that route. Pretty much the only things that aren't 'fiction' are science and mathematics.

Where do we get our idea of God if not from Genesis?

You might not like the answer, but the idea of one God among the Hebrews probably originated as worship of a benevolent Babylonian tutelary deity (hence, the similarities between Genesis and the Enûma Elish). Read this first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

Sure, I see the difference. But that wasn't what I was getting at. He invented a history for himself, but now his apologists -- recognizing that much of his invented history was, in fact, invented -- are applying the allegory treatment to his literal intentions.

I'm sure by now the point has been clearly made, but for the hell of it I'll say it one more time. The telling of history, objective or subjective, is clearly different from the expression of religious sentiment, which is what Genesis 1 and 2 are.

[ST88]

Firstly, I myself am in two minds or more about Genesis. I see Genesis as a piece of religious literature. The truths it is meant to convey are not historical or scientific, but religious and moral. You don't seem to be making clear what is so difficult about this position for you. So far (and correct me if I have misinterpreted you) you seem to have argued that a.) Genesis was meant to be taken literally and b.) if Genesis were not taken literally God would not be necessary.

Not that God would not be necessary, just that this particular version of God would not be available as an option.

a.) Genesis 1-2 read as though they were meant to represent the condition of mankind as a whole, rather than the lives of two specific, historical people. The Hebrew word adham (Adam) means simply 'man', or 'earth-born' - a common, not a proper name, just as hawwah (Eve) means '(she who) gives life / is alive'. It is only after we get beyond the creation narrative into the patriarchal narrative and genealogies do we run up against something that looks like history.

b.) Again I am going to draw the line between religious and historical / scientific truth (in the words of Arlo Guthrie: 'I'm not proud... or tired'). A monotheistic God is the norm for those in this tradition, so that is how we identify with religious truth. So is God necessary for an understanding of religious truth in this traditional context, even without the literal history? I would say yes; you may disagree. This may be because you draw a fallacious trichotomy between historical truth, psychological interpretation and fiction. If you could clarify this bit for me, that would be much appreciated.

Now we're getting to the meat of the matter. If Genesis "1-2" are allegorical, then we would expect that its status as history was at least suspect. Is it a fact, for example, that God made fish and birds on the fourth day? Is it a fact that He made cattle and mice on the fifth day? Did He even do it in this order?

The Allegorical interpretation goes back over 2000 years, so there's a nice tradition for it. But when it was first proposed (my research says Philo around 20 B.C.), there was no scientific evidence to suggest that either approach was "more right". But it seems that with modern scientific methods, one approach was called into question. Does the scientific evidence warrant a shift in belief systems? Maybe it does, I don't know. I'm just an old country non-believer.

Looking at the folk tale aspect, once this part of the story had been called into question via secular methods, That God was no longer This God. That God represents This God in That Allegory, with the caveat that This God would have behaved in the same way as That God in That Allegory had it actually happened, which it hadn't. What actually happened is not known, but This God made it happen. Does that make sense?

Since the liberal version of Genesis was proposed -- as an Allegory -- this idea of This God has taken off so that This God can encompass the meaning of all things to all people. In my opinion, this is more dangerous than secularism is claimed to be. If God can be what you need him to be, how are the Branch Dividians wrong? How are the Mormons wrong?

How do we get from That God to This God without the understanding that the idea of That God is This God. I found a new word for my vocabulary a few months ago: hermeneutics. Congratulate me for discovering this word in the second third of my life and being able to use it. If Allegory is the correct way of interpreting the story, isn't it true that the hermeneutics behind this assumption were created prior to this assumption?

Further, how is it possible to accept Truths revealed by a story when the source for that Truth is not factual. We're not talking about fictional literature & I don't believe this is a minor point. We're talking about the Bible here, the source of all truth. The implications of falsehood within the Bible are enormous, especially about the falsehood of a cosmology.

This is a different concept of God than I am familiar with. How God is understood affects who he is implies that there is not a universal God, but that God appears to each of us as we want (or require) him to, like the Martians in The Martian Chronicles. That last statement of yours sounds suspiciously similar to what those of us non-believers say about the psychology of the believers.

That's funny, because I learned this concept of God in the Mennonite church Bible Study group on the Hebrew scriptures. When the question was brought up, 'Why is the God of the OT so different from the God of the NT?' the answer was, roughly, that God had changed to relate better to His people. Jesus was demonstrably not the God that commissioned the deaths of the Amalekites, but He was still God.

Perhaps the idea of God as the Unchanging, Untouchable Ego needs to be revised, the idea having been so firmly drilled into us by our Hellenistic spiritual heritage - the Bible demonstrates that God does change, that God is touched by the affairs of his creatures.

No argument here about revising the idea of God. A changeable God solves many problems. It also directly contradicts the concept of God as "outside of time," creating & viewing the scope of history with one blink.

]how do we get to the same literal truth of the story without the literal story?

Before we go any further: what do you mean by literal truth? Are we using the same definition? I take literal to mean historical / scientific as opposed to religious / moral (which is why I'm opposed to literal interpretation). I want to know right now if we're having a problem over what we think the other thinks the term means. I've had discussions like this before and they did not turn out well.

I was referring to the cosmology behind the story. So I guess it's the same historical/scientific truth that you refer to. How do we get to the same scientific truths presented in Genesis 1-2 without the literal story? This is everything from God-as-first-cause to God being responsible for creating man in his own image (& breathing him a soul). Both, as I understand it, are still a part of liberal Christianity even though the story is not taken literally.

The point being that if there was one person who expressed the same feelings and ideas in poetry that another does in prose, you don't give the poet a pass because of the form he wrote in. If he means for it to convey the same truths, then he has to be judged on that, not on versification or musicianship.

True. But. The. Poets. Do. Not. Mean. To. Convey. The. Same. Truths. As. The. Historians. Refer to the above.

This would be true if we weren't talking about the Bible. Like it or not, it is meant to be a whole document. There is one driving force behind its creation, whether it's historical, poetic, dramatic or what have you. The truths are the same. The FOCUS is different in each book, the purpose in terms of the overall purpose (a sub-purpose, if you like) is different in each book, but the overall purpose does not change.

It is the excuse for invoking a God in the first place. Either God created the universe or the universe just IS. Would you argue that there could be a God if this God did not create the universe? Of course not. Well then, How did God create the universe? Here's a story right here! Why is it wrong?

My take: God created the universe. He obviously didn't do it within the past 7000 years, however - the universe is (to our best estimation) 12 or 13 billion years old, and had its origins in the Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang? We don't know, and we're not really in a position to know - but we can guess. The universe is governed by scientific laws; therefore, we may apply scientific laws to ascertain the cause of anything within the universe - this is the realm of the physical. But the universe itself and things transcendant thereof, this is the realm of the ephemeral. The one dealt with by theologians and philosophers.

That's very open-minded of you. How does God survive this alteration of Biblical cosmology?

I'm sorry, but this is just plain wrong. It's either history or it's fiction. Satire is fiction. Allegory is fiction. They both are written from a point of view.

My friend, if you're going to be this way about it, everything pertaining to the affairs of man is fiction. All history is writ from a point of view, if you want to go that route. Pretty much the only things that aren't 'fiction' are science and mathematics.

Oh Ho! Don't throw me into that briar patch! The suppression of facts has a long and glorious history. Much of what we think we know about history is undoubtedly wrong. The mind wants to weave narratives where none exist and glean simple explanations for complex phenomenae. Those who write the "histories" are no doubt quite aware of this and ascribe historical action to simplistic causes.

With the Bible, we're supposed to get actual facts because, well, it's the Bible. Who can you trust if not the Word of God? Are we supposed to don our skeptometers for that also?

Where do we get our idea of God if not from Genesis?

You might not like the answer, but the idea of one God among the Hebrews probably originated as worship of a benevolent Babylonian tutelary deity (hence, the similarities between Genesis and the Enûma Elish). Read this first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

Interesting reading. How does any of the Old Testament survive these findings?

Aside:
I've been rereading my comments on this topic, and I feel I've been coming across as an old crank. I don't want to seem like I'm attacking your own personal belief system. This is a solution to the Genesis problem that I don't quite understand. How is it possible to make the determination that one story is an allegory and another story is a literal history? And if there are allegories in the Bible, how can we know that a literal God even exists?

[MagusYanam]

I've been rereading my comments on this topic, and I feel I've been coming across as an old crank. I don't want to seem like I'm attacking your own personal belief system. This is a solution to the Genesis problem that I don't quite understand. How is it possible to make the determination that one story is an allegory and another story is a literal history? And if there are allegories in the Bible, how can we know that a literal God even exists?

It's alright, really. I came to this forum partly to be able to sort out my own beliefs, not so much as to bring others to my point-of-view. It helps, having other people with other views questioning my own. If I've come off as being overly defensive or not extended enough charity to your arguments, I apologise. But please keep asking the tough questions.

Since the liberal version of Genesis was proposed -- as an Allegory -- this idea of This God has taken off so that This God can encompass the meaning of all things to all people. In my opinion, this is more dangerous than secularism is claimed to be. If God can be what you need him to be, how are the Branch Dividians wrong? How are the Mormons wrong?

Mormonism is strange. Not just for the entire polygamy thing, but for the way they view Jesus as not-God but not-human - they created what I call a 'hero-Jesus', some subordinate 'deity' like Herakles that was half-God, half-man. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the theology of the Branch Davidians to judge their concept of This God, but given their history as an offshoot of the premillenial Seventh-Day Adventist group, I would venture to guess that they had a similar premillenial worldview.

From where I stand, the yardstick for right and wrong ways of thinking about God is love. If the God you worship is a compassionate God, one who is loving, gracious and merciful toward all humanity, I don't have any quarrel with the core theology. Premillenialism is an alien eschatology which is usually rooted in a belief in a God of wrath and vengeance - this is something with which I do have a problem. If God accepts only those who have a particular way of thinking about Him and about the world, that God (in my book) is not worthy of worship.

If Allegory is the correct way of interpreting the story, isn't it true that the hermeneutics behind this assumption were created prior to this assumption?

Yes and no. The hermeneutics behind the modernist Genesis-as-allegory assumption are part-and-parcel with the Ritschlian tradition of historical criticism, which mainly stemmed from a careful analysis of the original texts themselves. In other words, a close study of the texts under a literary and historical-critical lens brought scholars to the conclusion that the creation story was meant to be allegorical.

I mentioned the use of the Hebrew Adham and Hawwah in the creation narrative - common nouns used symbolically as proper names. Where else do we see this? The good ol' Canterbury Tales - to name just one example: the Merchant's Tale, with Januarie and his fresshe May (symbolic of the old and the young). The Merchant's Tale is purely allegorical - a cautionary tale for men not to take wives many years their junior. Of course, this is only one example of what the Ritschlians found when they read with a critic's eye over the Bible.

Further, how is it possible to accept Truths revealed by a story when the source for that Truth is not factual. We're not talking about fictional literature & I don't believe this is a minor point. We're talking about the Bible here, the source of all truth. The implications of falsehood within the Bible are enormous, especially about the falsehood of a cosmology.

I was referring to the cosmology behind the story. So I guess it's the same historical/scientific truth that you refer to. How do we get to the same scientific truths presented in Genesis 1-2 without the literal story? This is everything from God-as-first-cause to God being responsible for creating man in his own image (& breathing him a soul). Both, as I understand it, are still a part of liberal Christianity even though the story is not taken literally.

How many more times do I have to say this? I'll cut-and-paste entire previous posts if I have to in order to get my point across: religious truth is not the same as historic or scientific truth. We have different ways of thinking about religion and about history and science; we have different ways of internalising religious principles and historical and scientific principles; we use different terminology for religion than we do for history and science. So no, the Bible is not the source of all truth. I have never held that it was; to do so would be to devalue it for which it is truly valuable. The Bible doesn't need to be factually correct in every detail for there to be spiritual correctness. Thus, to ascribe presented 'scientific truth' to Genesis 1-2 is highly improper - I know of no self-respecting liberal Christian who will argue for the scientific nature of God's making man in His own image or breathing life into man's body. No, you'll likely get an interpretation that is much more metaphysical and less concrete in nature. I don't know how I can make it any plainer.

This would be true if we weren't talking about the Bible. Like it or not, it is meant to be a whole document. There is one driving force behind its creation, whether it's historical, poetic, dramatic or what have you. The truths are the same.

Okay, this is simply, empirically and unequivocally wrong. The Bible was never meant to be a whole document. The Torah is composed of five books, which the Hebrews consider to this day to be something completely separate from the prophecies, which are themselves completely separate from the Wisdom literature, which are themselves completely separate from the Kings and Chronicles historical writings... need I go on? I haven't even gotten started on the New Testament yet, you'll notice.

Historical critics argue for multiple driving forces behind the transmission of the Bible, not the least of which was the need for a compilation of religious texts for the people emerging from the Babylonian Exile. Which is exactly what the Old Testament is (though the Hebrew version is a little different) - a compilation. An anthology. Even within books you get conflicting points of view. Samuel contains both pro-monarchy and anti-monarchy narrative sources. Saul was the best thing to have happen to Israel and his kingship was sanctioned and blessed, even encouraged by God, while at the same time, it was a mistake to make Saul king, God never wanted there to be a king of Israel and only yielded because the people wanted a king. You cannot say that there was only one driving force behind the writing of the Bible or that it was meant to be a continuous, whole text or that all the truths are the same because it is simply not the case. Please do the research, or at the very least take a 101 course in OT.

How does God survive this alteration of Biblical cosmology?

What alteration? It may be my problem; I don't view Genesis 1-2 as cosmological so much as existential.

How does any of the Old Testament survive these findings?

It's survived well enough, I daresay. Undoubtedly the Hebrews had a good long time to transform their faith from one in a tutelary deity to a faith in a monotheistic God. It was one of the great Biblical epics - we see in the Mosaic writings, Ezra and a few other places the depth of the Hebrews' social struggles with polytheistic influence on their religion.

[USIncognito]

Um, but isn't that the same as calling Genesis literary fiction?

Wouldn't "a story which is meant to convey a point on the nature of humanity and the nature of sin" describe most novels? Particularly moralists like Dickens?

Or Swift, Homer, Chaucer, et. al. Of course all these examples of literature discussing mans condition and morality are evidence that an essay, book or holy text can not be literally true, but still contain truths.

BTW, I don't know who these "liberals" are in the original post. Liberal theists do not generally regard Genesis as "just a myth". That's the stance of we atheists, liberal, conservative, or other.

The problem is really with only one group: the conservatives (i.e. creationists). It's a problem because they want to insist something is true when it has been clearly shown to be false, and everyone else accepts it.

DanZ

Over on Christianforums.com, I know plenty of Christians who are theologically conservative regarding everything from church doctrine (for Catholics) to a literal Adam, Eve and Eden, yet they accept evolution. The Eden literalist evolutionists just have reconcilled the first part of Genesis 1 as myth (but still containing truth) with the latter parts as being literal.

As far as the YEC insistance on literalism goes, the insistance that every word of the Bible is literal has created more atheists than any acceptance of a mythical, poetic interpretation of Genesis ever has.

[ST88]

From where I stand, the yardstick for right and wrong ways of thinking about God is love. If the God you worship is a compassionate God, one who is loving, gracious and merciful toward all humanity, I don't have any quarrel with the core theology. Premillenialism is an alien eschatology which is usually rooted in a belief in a God of wrath and vengeance - this is something with which I do have a problem. If God accepts only those who have a particular way of thinking about Him and about the world, that God (in my book) is not worthy of worship.

Does this mean you can accept any version of God as long as it meets your test?

If Allegory is the correct way of interpreting the story, isn't it true that the hermeneutics behind this assumption were created prior to this assumption?

Yes and no. The hermeneutics behind the modernist Genesis-as-allegory assumption are part-and-parcel with the Ritschlian tradition of historical criticism, which mainly stemmed from a careful analysis of the original texts themselves. In other words, a close study of the texts under a literary and historical-critical lens brought scholars to the conclusion that the creation story was meant to be allegorical.

And yet the nature of the allegory is such that it extends into other parts of the text. You say that Genesis "1-2" is meant to be allegory. Does this mean that actual history starts with 3? Many Jews believe that Genesis 1-2 is an actual representation of how things happened, just on a, shall we say, less-grand scale. Is this similar to what you believe?

I mentioned the use of the Hebrew Adham and Hawwah in the creation narrative - common nouns used symbolically as proper names. Where else do we see this? The good ol' Canterbury Tales - to name just one example: the Merchant's Tale, with Januarie and his fresshe May (symbolic of the old and the young). The Merchant's Tale is purely allegorical - a cautionary tale for men not to take wives many years their junior. Of course, this is only one example of what the Ritschlians found when they read with a critic's eye over the Bible.

The "Adam" & "Eve" naming argument would seem to be very strong on the side of allegory, but then, what else would the first human pair be called?

How many more times do I have to say this? I'll cut-and-paste entire previous posts if I have to in order to get my point across: religious truth is not the same as historic or scientific truth. We have different ways of thinking about religion and about history and science; we have different ways of internalising religious principles and historical and scientific principles; we use different terminology for religion than we do for history and science. So no, the Bible is not the source of all truth. I have never held that it was; to do so would be to devalue it for which it is truly valuable. The Bible doesn't need to be factually correct in every detail for there to be spiritual correctness.

No. No. No. No. You're misunderstanding my questions. I understand that religious truth and historical truth (& Scientific truths) are all different things. Let me state that for the record. But you have a problem that you haven't yet addressed. You can't have religious truth without historical truth. You can't acquire a religion without being taught it. If there were a God and He said nothing to anyone about Himself, we'd all be pagans. The "spiritual correctness" is based on the factual correctness. You learn about God through the Bible -- nowhere else. If the Bible is not factually correct then your representation of God is not factually correct.

My contention, which I will also repeat, is that there is this idea of what God is that was originally based on the absolute inerrancy of the Bible. So this idea is out there. And it's circulating among the people. Then all of a sudden, someone says, Hey, these parts in the Bible here, well by crackey, they're allegorical. They didn't really happen that way! And the peasants rejoice. Now, because these stories are now treated as allegories and not as abject history, the meaning of the text has changed. The idea of God has changed -- or should have changed. But this idea of God does not change. It has circulated so long and has been codified in so many oral histories and behavioral modifications that it does not seem to matter that these stories are no longer true.

Thus, to ascribe presented 'scientific truth' to Genesis 1-2 is highly improper - I know of no self-respecting liberal Christian who will argue for the scientific nature of God's making man in His own image or breathing life into man's body. No, you'll likely get an interpretation that is much more metaphysical and less concrete in nature. I don't know how I can make it any plainer.

You've made it quite plain. Thank you.

This would be true if we weren't talking about the Bible. Like it or not, it is meant to be a whole document. There is one driving force behind its creation, whether it's historical, poetic, dramatic or what have you. The truths are the same.

Okay, this is simply, empirically and unequivocally wrong. The Bible was never meant to be a whole document. The Torah is composed of five books, which the Hebrews consider to this day to be something completely separate from the prophecies, which are themselves completely separate from the Wisdom literature, which are themselves completely separate from the Kings and Chronicles historical writings... need I go on? I haven't even gotten started on the New Testament yet, you'll notice.

Sure, it's got different parts, just like any other tome. And the New Testament is another matter entirely. But you can't stand there and argue that the OT Bible is an unrelated series of adventures and teachings and poetry and prophesying that were cobbled together from unrelated sources like Frankenstein's monster -- unless you wanted to suggest that it does not hold any religious truth, that it was simply the result of a closed-door council of Book selectors who, as you say below, needed a jingoistic message for a people trying to rebuild.

The surrounding (admittedly Protestant) culture I grew up with has always included the idea that the totality of the Bible was the inspired Word of God, that there is a "golden thread" that runs through all the stories, that there is even a tortuous narrative that can be followed throughout the Bible. And that even though we, as mere mortals, may not be able to prove to ourselves that this is so, the important part is that all the other personnages in the Bible did believe it to be so. Especially Jesus.

I assure you, it feels weird to be advocating for a literal Bible interpretation that is reflective of a coherent Word of God. However, I don't see how God can be an acceptable concept without one.

But one thing you said does make sense in this context, which is that God changes with the times. If this is true, then who am I to say that the Bible (&/or its criticism) does not change also? This does bring up a sticky issue, why additional religious texts have not been dictated by God to reflect his changes. Or maybe they have. Do we know of them?

Please do the research, or at the very least take a 101 course in OT.

What is this, argumentum ad ivory tower?

[MagusYanam]

Please do the research, or at the very least take a 101 course in OT.

What is this, argumentum ad ivory tower?

The surrounding (admittedly Protestant) culture I grew up with has always included the idea that the totality of the Bible was the inspired Word of God, that there is a "golden thread" that runs through all the stories, that there is even a tortuous narrative that can be followed throughout the Bible. And that even though we, as mere mortals, may not be able to prove to ourselves that this is so, the important part is that all the other personnages in the Bible did believe it to be so. Especially Jesus.

Ah... that did come off sounding rather pompous, didn't it? Sorry about that. I've been a part of too many threads where too many ignoramuses spoke as though the Bible were completely coherent and writ by just one author (God), so my patience wears a little thin on this subject. But, to my point: historical criticism is king, and the king has decreed that there were at least four sets of historical authors and anthologists (I'm sure you're familiar with JEDP?), writing and editing from four separate points-of-view.

Also, there is even today heated debate within the Jewish community over what prophets (even ones as important to Christianty as Isaiah) should be included in the Hebrew Scriptures, so don't even try telling me that the canon of the Old Testament is fixed in stone, or that it is consistent. If it isn't today, it certainly wasn't during the time of Jesus. The argument just falls flat.

Does this mean you can accept any version of God as long as it meets your test?

Hardly mine. Love is the one and only aspect of God that warrants His worship: this idea has been advanced long before by William Ellery Channing, Horace Bushnell, Harry Emerson Fosdick, et cetera. More importantly, what they say makes sense (reason is authoritative; see below). God is a morally perfect being, and His personality should reflect this - the highest moral being, of course, love. Recommended reading: If Grace Is True by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland.

But you have a problem that you haven't yet addressed. You can't have religious truth without historical truth. You can't acquire a religion without being taught it.

The "spiritual correctness" is based on the factual correctness. You learn about God through the Bible -- nowhere else. If the Bible is not factually correct then your representation of God is not factually correct.

I have some contentions on the last point based on my own understanding of Christianity (from an Episcopalian viewpoint, that is). No, you don't learn about God only through the Bible. Scripture is but one authority. We also have the traditions of the Church and our own individual capacity for reason to guide our knowledge of God.

Kant would disagree with you, and I daresay I would take Kant's part. Human beings seem to have a natural inclination toward the spiritual and moral (what Kant calls practical reason), and for the most part (cults and violent sects notwithstanding), this assertion would seem justified by the fact that most religions seem to have followed similar paths. You look at any of the great religious traditions of today and they will incorporate a moral order based on love and compassion. It's there in Hinduism, it's there in Buddhism, it's there in Shintou, it's there in Confucianism and it's there in the Hopi and Iroquois religions as well as in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Each of these traditions has a different history, but a very similar message, what I discern to be religious truth. I think something von Harnack (one of the great Historical Critics of the 19th century) said once would sum it up pretty nicely. He said you could take away the entirety of the Christian tradition including the Pentateuch, all the prophets, all the wisdom literature and he would still have a sound religious centre. When asked what that could be, he answered simply, 'the Gospel'.

I assure you, it feels weird to be advocating for a literal Bible interpretation that is reflective of a coherent Word of God. However, I don't see how God can be an acceptable concept without one.

Two very important words: 'tradition' and 'reason'. Yes, you have Scripture, but it is meaningless without some form of hermeneutical key, which is what the traditions of the Church and one's own faculties supply us. Literal interpretation is but the most basic and least religiously useful hermeneutic: even St. Augustine said as much. Reason, when the scientific and historical facts of today are taken into account, will have to rely on something better - though something for which scripture and the traditions of the Church still apply.

I guess I'm done for now. Again, though, that last post I wrote was unpardonably rude, and I do apologise for it.