Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Storytelling and Truth

Listen by paynehollow
Listen a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

In a previous post with a rolling set of interesting commentary following it, the question of storytelling arose. I hold storytelling in high value and think that the stories told in the Bible are tremendous sources of truth and ought to be taken as truths to contend with. However, that is not to say that I consider all the stories therein to be likely strictly fact-based.

As far as I know, most early storytelling falls into the "storytelling for the purpose of passing on truths, or for entertainment, or for moral lessons" category - as opposed to storytelling with an emphasis on telling strictly factual, linear history of a more modern sort. That sort of fairly strictly factual history-telling didn't really start happening until somewhere around 500 BC - 500 AD.

As far as I can tell. I'm not an expert, I just know what I've read and what makes sense. Can I do some research and discover "proof" that, of ALL the stories ever told in our earliest history, none were told in a factual, linear sort of way? No, of course not. One can't prove a negative. And so, I can't say it didn't happen and I'm not saying that.

Rather, what I'm saying is simply that, I see no evidence of it. I have seen no early writings with an emphasis on linear factual storytelling in a more modern historic sense. If you google "ancient historians," you come up with names such as Herodotus (known as the "father of history"), Josephus, Tacitus, Thucydides and Sima Qian, among others. All of these folk lived in that 500 BC - 500 AD window. And even amongst these who are credited with beginning "history" as a category of writing, the emphasis on facts was not always apparently strict.

source, source, source

So, what does that say of our biblical history stories? Most of the Old Testament, after all, falls prior to this 500 BC start of more modernistic history-recording. Is that to say that these stories are "false" and therefore unreliable?

I say, No. I say that early peoples told valuable stories and kept their history, they just didn't do it in the way we do it today. To suggest that early history-storytellers who might include some fiction right alongside some fact are "liars" or that lessons learned from these stories are compromised simply because they told history-stories in the style of their day is not to denigrate those lessons or those stories. It's just that we need to keep in mind the context and read these history-stories accordingly.

And yet, in the aforementioned post, we found some commenters who DID seem to suggest that ancient history-storytellers who include fiction and fact side by side ARE liars. That the lessons learned in such stories ARE compromised or wholly invalid.

Comments made include...

"How does one find comfort is something that didn't happen?"

and,

"Just because they were primitive doesn't mean they were stupid."

(I had pointed out that these were a "primitive" people, by Merriam Webster definition, meaning simply an earlier, pre-literate people with differing cultural/storytelling norms than we have - nothing in that was to suggest they were stupid, nonetheless, that was what one commenter appears to have gathered.)

I offered an example of my OWN storytelling (with some departures from the facts) from my own family and that was met by,

"I'm glad you have so little regard for factual accuracy. Great so you tell funny stories, is it somehow less valuable/funny to use the facts of the situation. Personally this is a weak analogy, the Israelites were not just telling some funny stories around the campfire, they were relating their national history."

and,

better to not make inferences about the character of a real person from a fictional tale in the first place.

Given all this, I wonder if it's the case that some of these commenters just hold storytelling itself in contempt? Human history has a long and wonderful history of storytelling that is not wholly dependent upon facts. From one source speaking of native American storytelling traditions, we read...

In the time before The Change (European contact), the oral narrative was a "sacred" process and the soul of Indigenous People. Without a written language traditional culture and customs were handed down using the spoken word as the base. They provided social, cultural and historical contexts, and acted as a social cohesive for the entire tribe...

In other words, the oral narrative was a highly developed, sophisticated medium supported by ages old teachings and explanations that were based on fact, observation, oral claims and contracts (in front of witnesses), and a complex set of social and cultural customs for dealing with the sacred and the supernatural.

Native people did not distinguish between the physical and supernatural because everything was viewed as a vast continuum; whether it be animate or supernatural, the world existed in 'real time' and in a conscious state of existence. Every living thing was a member of one large family: the four elements (earth, air, fire and water), plant, animal and human worlds were connected to each other in often complex and sophisticated ways. In other words, every object that existed in the physical world or sprang from the rich imaginations of the storytellers was in effect in possession of ‘real’ life and co-existed in perfect harmony with all other living beings - all were considered human...

Missionary damnations of Indigenous culture was as a result of refusal to acknowledge or understand the descriptive narrative base of Indigenous languages. Patriarchal Christian biases, coupled with attempts to translate the stories into a utilitarian language such as English caused a double jeopardy of linguistic confusion and misinterpretation. This distortion continues to exist, as colourful transformation figures such as Raven, Glooscap, Napi and Coyote were reduced to mere caricatures of buffoonery...

It was simply beyond the pale for the average missionary to contemplate them as akin to the level of Jesus Christ - that is a figure sent by Great Mystery to bring order to the world. Clutching rosaries and muttering homilies, Christian missionaries scuttled about, "Raven, Jesus, Coyote in the same sentence?" "I don't think so!" and so, the culture heroes were relegated to the only other place in Christian sensibilities, hell and Satan.

Indigenous narratives defy simple classification. 'Myth' seems to be a popular category, but it is incorrect. Myth, by definition means the stories are not real because they refer to fictitious themes that include imaginary persons or things that were spoken of as though they existed.

For the Ancestors, all beings whether they were physically real or from the visions of the Old Ones did exist, and in real time, albeit sometimes in an altered or supernatural state. The oral narrative also passed down important claims and entitlements - territory, crests, clans, names.

If labels are to be applied, 'Lore' is probably closer because it invokes a teaching, or the act of being taught by someone who has knowledge of a particular group or subject matter of a traditional nature...


source

I've read things of this nature before and believe it to be a common theme in ancient history-storytelling. The people told stories well, passed down histories accurately by their terms, and if ancient people had "fictional" talking Ravens in a story next to an actual person in the real world or a fictional dragon and an actual king, it was NOT because they were lying - these were real to them and their "factual" non-existence was irrelevant to the story.

Storytelling - regardless of rigid factuality - was of GREAT importance throughout history and still is today. The truths learned in these stories are not to be rejected and the authors reduced to "liars" simply because the storytelling style is different. It has been and still is a rich, beautiful, wonderful and powerful to convey great truths, deep personal connections and histories, even if every line is not factual.

156 comments:

Alan said...

"I wonder if it's the case that some of these commenters just hold storytelling itself in contempt?"

No Dan. Isn't it obvious? They just hold you in contempt (and anyone else who dares disagree with them.)

Dan Trabue said...

Ha! Fair enough. I can actually live with that much better.

I am a fallible person who, no doubt, is annoying and off-putting to some at times. If they're simply annoyed at me (and some others who disagree with them), but still value storytelling for its great worth, I could live with that much better than I could with them rejecting storytelling as a valid means of passing on truths. That would just be sad.

Doug said...

It has been and still is a rich, beautiful, wonderful and powerful to convey great truths, deep personal connections and histories, even if every line is not factual.

The only thing I will offer to this thread is what I said in the previous one. Specifically, that fanciful tales are helpful for understanding abstracts -- values, ideas, etc. -- but are nearly useless in understanding the actual character of the person, when you are using what they did as an example.

A fictional story about a great man of the past talking to a raven may be useful in understanding the general value of telling the truth, or self-denial, or other such concepts. But it does not help us much in understanding the man himself, any more than it tells us about the raven.

When trying to understand God, this is even more critical.

And if you really still have the slightest doubt in your head if Marshall, Craig and I value storytelling as a means to passing on values and idea, then it appears no amount of discussion will ever turn that light on.

Instead you continue to conflate where I see a distinction, and you continue to accuse where there is agreement. 250+ messages and endless repetition clearly can't even begin to get you to see the other side of a discussion.

You say you want a discussion, but if after all this you still misrepresent my point of view, it really doesn't look like you do. And that, my good man, is gleaned from a literal reading of your words, if I may end on a wink. ;)

Dan Trabue said...

Doug...

A fictional story about a great man of the past talking to a raven may be useful in understanding the general value of telling the truth, or self-denial, or other such concepts. But it does not help us much in understanding the man himself

There is certainly some validity to your point you're making here. Sometimes, a story that contains fictionalized parts (about a person's behavior, as your example) may not be helpful IF all we're striving to do is understand that person.

But then, my question to you is:

is the sum total purpose of the Bible to get us to understand the nature of God?

Is the purpose of the creation story to get us to understand God's nature or just to understand the point that God created the world?

Is the purpose of the story of Jonah and the whale to get us to understand God's nature, or is it to understand that we can't fun from God, that we ought to love everyone, that God loves everyone?

I'd say in that last example, the Jonah story has many purposes for its readers, as noted - teachings us we can't run from God, that God loves everyone, that no one is beyond redemption.

Are some of those truths truisms about God's character or nature? Yes, I'd say so. Are those truths impacted or lessened if the story is at least partially fictional? I don't see how.

John Farrier said...

I'll veer away from the Bible-specific issues in Dan's post to make a couple of points on the ethics of storytelling.

1. Is a story being used to explain or to evidence a point? If there's some universal truth that is told by, for example, the grasshopper and the ant, then by all means tell the story. But it should not be expressed as evidence that a perspective in contention that is, in fact, not true.

2. Is the audience being led to believe that the story was a factual, historical event? If the speaker tells the story that the audience knows to be narratively illustrative but not an actual happening, then the speaker is not being deceptive. If the speaker leads the audience to believe that a non-historical event is historical, then he's just lying.

Craig said...

"is the sum total purpose of the Bible to get us to understand the nature of God?"

I don't know that I would go so far as to say "sum total", but I would suggest that a primary purpose of the Bible is so that we can understand the nature of God.

"I wonder if it's the case that some of these commenters just hold storytelling itself in contempt?"

I wonder why you would misrepresent the views of those with whom you disagree in such a manner.

Dan Trabue said...

Misrepresent, how?

Craig...

I would suggest that a primary purpose of the Bible is so that we can understand the nature of God.

And do you think that Jonah's story, for instance, if it illustrates how we can't run from God, how God loves everyone, how no one is beyond the reach of the love and mercy of God... do you think that IF the story were less than factually accurate, it would change those teachings of the nature of God?

Dan Trabue said...

John, as to your first point, I agree, good point.

As to your second point: if the people of the time understood the creation fairly literally in terms of a six day creation as the story was told, and the storytellers continued telling it in that way, but now we know that a six day creation story is not a likely reality, is there any harm, any foul?

That is: The people told a non-literal story thinking it was fairly literally accurate, but that the point of the story was that God is the creator. As it turns out, it's not very literally accurate, but the Truth (God is the creator) is still true, is it not, even if the "facts" are not factual?

Alan said...

"but are nearly useless in understanding the actual character of the person, when you are using what they did as an example. "

God doesn't "shelter us under his wing?" He isn't like the father in the Prodigal Son, rushing to welcome his son home?

Someone should have told St. John before he spent all that time writing down his Revelation that the book would be utterly useless for understanding the actual character of God.

John Farrier said...

Dan, the ethical issue is the intention of the speaker. If the speaker knows that X is not true in a literal sense but presents X as literal truth, then s/he is being dishonest. If the speaker thinks that X is true and presents it as such, then s/he is not trying to deceive.

Although this may seem like a small point, it does occasionally come up. A few months ago, I got into an argument with another person in my profession who advocated fabricating anecdotes as a pedagogical technique.

Craig said...

"IF the story were less than factually accurate, it would change those teachings of the nature of God?"

Possibly. I'll give you a few thoughts on how this could play out.

First, the story as related makes certain claims about how God acted.

a. God told Jonah to go to Nineveh.
b. God sent a great storm.
c. God provided a fish to swallow Jonah.
d. God commanded the fish to vomit Jonah onto dry land.
e. God showed compassion when the people of Nineveh repented.
f. God gave and took away a plant for Jonah's shade.


If a. is not factually accurate, then it changes our view of the nature of God by calling into question his concern for the Ninevites.

If b. is not factually accurate, it calls into question God's sovereign nature.

If c. is not factually accurate it raises questions about God's provision. God could have sent a boat for Jonah. However, He chose to respond in a way that could only have happened through His control of events.

If d. is not factually accurate I causes the same problem as a.

If e. is not factually accurate then questions must be raised about God's trustworthiness and mercy.

If f. is not factually accurate then it raises questions about God's sovereignty.

Alan said...

Or, none of them are factually accurate, but were inspired by God in order to provide an understanding about God's sovereign nature, provision, trustworthiness, and compassion.

Dan Trabue said...

John...

the ethical issue is the intention of the speaker.

Indeed, anyone being intentionally fraudulent for nefarious purposes could be an ethical issue.

But someone who uses a non-literal story with the intent of passing on truth (in which the facts are secondary and besides the point), then that person - aware OR unaware of the non-factual points - has committed no foul and has not corrupted the point he/she was trying to make. Seems to me.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, just to take one of your points...

b. God sent a great storm...

If b. is not factually accurate, it calls into question God's sovereign nature.


I can understand that FOR YOU, if God did not actually conjure up a storm to cause an actual boat with an actual Jonah to nearly wreck, inspiring the crew to throw Jonah overboard... how for YOU, if that didn't happen, it might call into question FOR YOU God's sovereign nature. But can you see that it might not do the same for everyone?

Can you see that for some of us, IF the story were entirely fictional (I'm not saying it is, just IF it were), that some of us could STILL believe in God's sovereign nature? That, indeed, this is one of the points of the story and that the facts are irrelevant to us?

Or do you think that God not actually conjuring up a storm is and can ONLY BE understood to mean that God is not sovereign?

Craig said...

contd.

If you remove the areas in the story directly attributed to God, then what are you left with?

How can you extrapolate that you can't run from God, if you eliminate actions that are directly attributed to God in pursuing Jonah?

How can you extrapolate from this story that God loves everyone? If the actions attributed to Him didn't happen, what would lead you to the conclusion that God had anything to do with it. How does God's action toward one city/nation expand to "God loves everyone"?

If you remove the actions of God from the story how could you conclude that "no one is beyond the reach of God". Given what your perceive as the non factual epic nature of the story you can't then argue that "everyone" in Nineveh actually repented. Why didn't God's reach include the Sailors?

Alan said...

"How can you extrapolate that you can't run from God, if you eliminate actions that are directly attributed to God in pursuing Jonah?"

Because those are the qualities that God revealed about Himself in the text that we see as inspired by God, as the authoritative witness, etc. It really isn't that difficult.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

How can you extrapolate that you can't run from God, if you eliminate actions that are directly attributed to God in pursuing Jonah?

God today does not send a "great fish" after runaway preachers. If someone runs from God and God doesn't "get them" now, I believe God will some day, some way, in God's time. That I don't SEE God "getting them" does not mean that it doesn't happen.

If someone does not go and preach repentance to those needing it, I believe God will deal with these folk in God's time. It doesn't matter if I don't see it happen. The world doesn't revolve around me.

Craig...

How can you extrapolate from this story that God loves everyone?

? Because that's the point of the story, isn't it? Or at least ONE of the points of the story? God loved EVEN the awful, hated Ninevites. That's THE POINT of the story. I extrapolate that meaning from the story because that's the point of the story.

The literal veracity of the way things played out in the real world does not change or remove the point of the story.

Are you understanding our point on this front? That a story can be entirely fictional and STILL convey a truth? If you are understanding, and even agreeing with that, then I don't see what the point of your questions are, here.

You DO agree that Truth can be conveyed in a fictional story, yes?

Craig said...

(contd.)

Now let's look at the message God sent Jonah to preach.

God sent Jonah to tell the people of Nineveh to repent of their wickedness, or there would be a great calamity.

They repented-no calamity.

You have been consistent in saying that God will not harm people. So what can we glean from a God who says "repent or bad things will happen" if it is not in His nature to cause bad things to happen.

Just a few thoughts. Which I'm sure you will disagree with, and are probably just a waste of time. But you just never know what might happen.

Alan said...

How odd that people's trust in the authority of the Bible is based on their trust in the words, and not their trust in the God that inspired those words in the first place.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

You have been consistent in saying that God will not harm people.

Perhaps I should clarify. I'm sorry if I have not been clear.

I've been fairly consistent in trying to KEEP saying that God is God and can do as God will.

What I've said is that BECAUSE THE BIBLE teaches us clearly that God will not lead us into sin, that God will not command us to kill babies, for instance. But God can do as God will, except that God won't do something that is not in God's character.

Do I perfectly understand the character of an omnipotent, omniscient God of the universe? No, I think that would be a silly thing to claim.

Having said that, do I, DAN TRABUE, think it is in God's character to go around harming people? No, that does not strike me as biblically consistent. But that's just my hunch. God is God and will do as God will do.

Craig said...

"But can you see that it might not do the same for everyone?"

Yes, I can see how some could choose to see it in the way you describe.

"Because those are the qualities that God revealed about Himself in the text that we see as inspired by God, as the authoritative witness, etc. It really isn't that difficult."

So God inspired someone to make up a story in which He didn't actually do anything, in order to reveal qualities about Himself that He didn't actually demonstrate. Yes, it is perfectly clear that you believe this.



First, when did you change the subject to what God might or might not do "today"?

Second, if ""God is God. God can do anything.", what qualifies you to make the statement "God today does not send a "great fish" after runaway preachers."?

"If someone runs from God and God doesn't "get them" now, I believe God will some day, some way, in God's time. That I don't SEE God "getting them" does not mean that it doesn't happen."

Alan, will be so happy to know that you have embraced one of the essential tenets of Calvinism, and have given up of your hunch that we can "lose" our salvation.

"? Because that's the point of the story, isn't it? Or at least ONE of the points of the story? God loved EVEN the awful, hated Ninevites. That's THE POINT of the story. I extrapolate that meaning from the story because that's the point of the story."

Yet in a real factually accurate world God doesn't send prophets to everyone. He doesn't save everyone. So how can the point of the story be something that doesn't play out in the world of facts?

"Are you understanding our point on this front? That a story can be entirely fictional and STILL convey a truth?"

I agree that a fictional story can convey ideas that are true. This has never been in contention and if you believe this to be the problem then you have grossly misunderstood and misrepresented my position.

My concern is not whether it is possible for a fictional story to convey ideas that are true. My concern is what grounds you have for your hunches that some OT stories are "epic" (or not factually true or fiction) and some are not.

If these stories were presented as fiction, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

what can we glean from a God who says "repent or bad things will happen" if it is not in His nature to cause bad things to happen.

We can glean that sin has consequences. Sometimes horrifyingly awful consequences.

We can glean the great importance of humble repentance.

It is my belief, given what the Bible says, that God does not CAUSE bad things to happen, but God DOES allow us to have free will and DOES allow us to make wrong decisions that lead to bad things happening.

God cannot be tempted by evil, and God does not tempt anyone...

James 1

God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all

1 John 1

seek the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added to you. Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom [ie, God's realm - the Good, the Perfect].

Luke 12

Craig said...

"God is God and will do as God will do."

So, you do agree that God could either take life or command that life be taken for His purposes.

Marty said...

Alan: "How odd that people's trust in the authority of the Bible is based on their trust in the words, and not their trust in the God that inspired those words in the first place."

Yep. But I doubt they will understand that is what they are doing. Just like your cat.

Dan Trabue said...

If these stories were presented as fiction, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And they're NOT presented as fiction and I don't think they ARE fiction. BUT, they ARE presented as stories of their time. AND it is important, for good biblical exegesis, to read stories with as correct an understanding of the style being used as possible.

Given that modern history telling of the sort you all seem to believe in just did not seem to exist in any written documents from that time period, AND given that I have no reason to believe your hunch that they were written in a more modernistic style that didn't even exist in their day, why would I consider them as being written in some other style than what they seem to be?

Craig said...

"It is my belief, given what the Bible says, that God does not CAUSE bad things to happen,..."

So is it your hunch that every time the Bible says "God caused" or "God did", that the resulting actions were merely the natural consequences of sin?

Do you believe that God causes anything?

Do you believe that God only caused the good things that are attributed to him?

Alan said...

"So God inspired someone to make up a story in which He didn't actually do anything, in order to reveal qualities about Himself that He didn't actually demonstrate. Yes, it is perfectly clear that you believe this."

I never said God didn't do anything, but you're too devoted to intentionally looking for disagreement to get that, apparently. Nor did I ever say He didn't or doesn't demonstrate those qualities about Himself.

In fact, I believe it is abundantly clear that God demonstrates those aforementioned qualities about Himself all the time and also clearly demonstrated those qualities to the writer of Jonah, whether or not he was actually swallowed by a giant fish.

If there's a more incorrect way to interpret what I've said, I can't think of it. Well done!

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I find it amazing that someone like you, Craig, could claim any understanding about interpreting the Word of God when you can't even understand the simplest blog comment. Your inability to read clear English hardly strengthens your case.

Alan said...

"Yep. But I doubt they will understand that is what they are doing. Just like your cat."

Except my cat is capable of learning, and to some extent is able to understand even simple English.

Alan said...

"If these stories were presented as fiction, we wouldn't be having this discussion."

Yet, there's nothing to suggest that the earth isn't 6000 years old in the Bible either....

Oh wait, *that* story is just fine to see as not necessarily exactly historically accurate. I keep forgetting which stories you conveniently decide are and which you conveniently decide are not meant to be taken as literal history, all the while criticizing others for simply drawing the line in a different place.

Like the genealogies of Jesus? Obviously 100% historically accurate even though they're different, because the author never states "This is fiction." It couldn't be true that someone is trying to make a claim about the Jewish ancestry of Jesus, even though they may have made some errors and omissions here and there.

Marty said...

Alan, I've begun reading the "Powers" books by Walter Wink that you suggested somewhere in another thread. Just finished "Naming the Powers". Whew! The first part of that book was waaaaaayyyy over my head and very technical. I'll have to admit the rest of it wasn't much better. I sure hope the other 2 volumes are easier for me to digest.

Alan said...

Yeah, they're a bit dense but well worth the effort, I think.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

One thing from that previous posts and its comments that struck me today as I was perusing it is this - God didn't write the Bible. Now, Muslims believe that Muhammed, in essence, transcribed the speech of the angel Gabriel, which is about as close as direct communication from the Deity as we get in any of the Abrahamic faiths.

Again, all too often I read, "When God wrote this . . . " and I think, "God didn't write the Bible." People wrote the Bible. People inspired by God, to be sure. Yet, you know, folks. Like me and Dan and Doug and Alan and Art. Fallible people. Opinionated people. Different people. The truth of what they wrote did not come from them, even less from the words they set down, but from God.

I noticed that Doug continues his dispensationalist approach to the Trinity by insisting the Holy Spirit didn't exist before the sending of the Spirit in Acts, which is, well, you know, heretical. This is a not unimportant point, especially considering there is abundant talk of God's Spirit, or Wisdom, the co-creative force within the Godhead, even in the Hebrew Scriptures, which kind of contradicts Doug's assertion that the Holy Spirit didn't exist before Jesus came along and sent it to the Apostolic Church.

If we are to get anywhere in a discussion of truth, and storytelling, as it relates to how we read the Bible, on this point we need to be clear: whether "factual" in some contemporary sense or not, the stories within the Bible are true not because of the words, or the authors. They are true because of the God to whom they give testimony. So far, everyone seems to accept that premise, but there continue to be, "But . . ."'s inserted in to the discussion that make it clear that some do NOT actually believe that.

Alan said...

"didn't exist before the sending of the Spirit in Acts, which is, well, you know, heretical. "

Indeed. I'm still waiting for an explanation about why, if he believes such heresy, anyone would be looking to him for guidance on reading the Bible (since he clearly doesn't understand Trinitarian doctrine, for example.)

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I should also point out that Doug actually defended a literal reading of the story from Joshua of the sun "standing still". His apologia? There is no discussion of the "how", just that it happened.

So, now, in all honesty, I really cannot take him seriously at all. He apparently believes either (a) the Earth is the center not just of the solar system but the Universe; or (b) it once was, but around the 16th century that changed somehow; or, perhaps, (c) has no clue whatsoever the implications of what he has written. In any case, as far as I'm concerned - even setting aside his dispensationalist heresy concerning the Trinity, for which he can be forgiven a little because most church folks have little clue about the nuances of Trinitarian theology - I really can't engage him anymore on any serious level.

Like the creationists who argue that the evidence from astronomy for the age of the Universe (all that light taking millions and even billions of years to reach earth was actually put in place by God at the moment of creation so that it would appear that distant; which is an argument I could use to prove the Universe was actually created three seconds ago, with all our memories placed in our brains by God so that it would appear we had lived lives), there really is no reasoning with someone who is willing to say, "Yes, I believe the sun stood still, even though the sun doesn't move in relation to the earth, which I also claim to accept." Genius is said by some to be the ability to hold contradictory positions simultaneously, which at least should be some consolation to Doug.

Doug said...

Only jumping in to clear my name. Spoke my piece in the last thread.

Geoff:

I noticed that Doug continues his dispensationalist approach to the Trinity by insisting the Holy Spirit didn't exist before the sending of the Spirit in Acts, which is, well, you know, heretical. This is a not unimportant point, especially considering there is abundant talk of God's Spirit, or Wisdom, the co-creative force within the Godhead, even in the Hebrew Scriptures, which kind of contradicts Doug's assertion that the Holy Spirit didn't exist before Jesus came along and sent it to the Apostolic Church.

I said, multiple times, that the children of Israel did not have the Holy Spirit to guide them individually. You have twisted this into claiming that I think the Spirit did not exist. This claim of your is outright false.

I even said specifically of the OT folks, "So God gave them prophets, through whom the Spirit would speak." Now, that's one sentence in a huge pile of words, granted. But you and Alan really need to hold off on the conclusion-jumping if I haven't actually said the thing you accuse me of.

Assuming the worst of someone with whom you have a disagreement isn't very beneficial to your argument, and will lead to incorrect conclusions. And a 250+ comment thread.

Dan Trabue said...

Geoffrey...

Genius is said by some to be the ability to hold contradictory positions simultaneously, which at least should be some consolation to Doug.

Geoffrey, Alan, please, make your points without the ad homs. Your points themselves are right on, it seems to me, and I appreciate the added insight, but there's no need to get personal with the comments.

I know the "other side" has often tended to engage in snark and I don't mind a little of it, but just tread lightly, please. I would prefer we discuss ideas here, not people.

Alan said...

"I said, multiple times, that the children of Israel did not have the Holy Spirit to guide them individually. "

This too is false doctrine, since it was the Holy Spirit that spoke through Scripture.

Also, Paul makes it clear that those in the OT were saved by faith through grace. This effectual calling works through the Spirit.

As the Westminster Confession states, "This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament."

Explaining your heresy more clearly doesn't make it less heretical, Doug.

Doug said...

Oh, one other thing, Geoff.

I should also point out that Doug actually defended a literal reading of the story from Joshua of the sun "standing still". His apologia? There is no discussion of the "how", just that it happened.

I believe that Jesus walked on the water. I believe the story to be accurate as recorded. If I had been there, Jesus would have been walking toward the boat on the water. How this happened -- God manipulating nature for His ends, Jesus floating, however -- is not recorded and is immaterial. But I believe it is an accurate recording of the events. I believe it did happen.

OK then, are you now going to ridicule me for holding to the theory that water is always solid? Of course not, since God is sovereign and could have caused this to happen just as it is recorded. But for the story of Joshua keeping the sun in the same place in the sky, as a writer's perspective on the ground would describe it, you have once again decided to ridicule me for suggesting something that I've not actually said, nor do I believe. You have decided that "literalism" means what you want it to mean, so that you can accuse me of believing silliness and then mock me for it.

That, sir, is the very definition of a straw man. And you can't engage me anymore on any serious level? Indeed.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

is it your hunch that every time the Bible says "God caused" or "God did", that the resulting actions were merely the natural consequences of sin?

No. I do believe, though, in reading the Bible in context and striving to understand the style of writing being used and, if it were likely a more mythic style of writing, interpreting the passage with that in mind.

Craig...

Do you believe that God causes anything?

Sure.

Do you believe that God only caused the good things that are attributed to him?

I believe that God ONLY does good, that God does not cause evil or tempt us to do evil.

As a rule, I think that WE are God's hands and feet. That we are the body of God in this world. I don't think, generally speaking, that God comes down and picks up shovels and hammers and builds houses or waves his hand and causes weather to bend to God's will. I think that God works through God's Spirit and through the Church, the Body of Christ.

Thus, when you visit Haiti and assist the poor there, God IS working. When my wife helps to keep a family safe and housed, God IS working. When my church opens our doors to the needy and lonely, God IS working.

In all things, God works for the good of [through] those who love God and are called according to God's purposes... ~Romans 8

Craig said...

Dan,

So, are you suggesting that God is limited in the work he can do? Or can God operate without human "hands and feet"?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Dan, fair enough.

Doug, as Alan made pretty clear, your explanation only clarifies your heretical position in re the place of the Spirit in the life of the people of the Hebrew Scriptures.

How is my saying your explanation regarding your position on the story of Joshua commanding the sun to stand still is nonsensical a straw man? Please, enlighten me.

See, a straw man argument is when I say you say something you did not say. All I did was summarize exactly what you said, as well as the implications of your stated position. That is not a straw argument. It is a summary of the things you actually said. If you didn't say you believed that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, then, OK. If you further didn't say that you aren't interested in the details of what happened, then, OK, my summary is a straw argument. Except, you did say both those things, with the implications I outlined. Unless, you think your position has absolutely nothing to do with the way the world is, in which case I have no idea how it is possible for you to hold the position you do. In any case, no, I did not present a straw argument.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

are you suggesting that God is limited in the work he can do? Or can God operate without human "hands and feet"?

I guess I have not been clear. Let me state my position again and elaborate so as to be hopefully even more clear.

God is God and can do whatever God wants, except that which is contrary to God's nature. God is not limited by ANYTHING but God's nature (meaning, for instance, that God won't tempt us to sin, since that's against God's nature, or God won't lie...)

God can certainly not limited from doing good work on the Earth if God wants. I'm just saying that God does not generally do so. God has set it up for US to be God's hands and feet here and now.

Do you think otherwise? That God is actively overtly doing stuff physically, here and now?

Craig said...

Dan,

Yes, I believe that God has acted in the past and continues to act independently of us. I agree that we can be used by God as His "hands and feet", but he certainly is able to do His will independently of us.

Dan Trabue said...

So, we agree, God can do stuff now if God wishes.

Bro. Dave said...

"God is God and can do whatever God wants, except that which is contrary to God's nature. God is not limited by ANYTHING but God's nature (meaning, for instance, that God won't tempt us to sin, since that's against God's nature, or God won't lie...)"

So what does it mean when we pray to God (as Jesus taught us to pray), "Lead us not into temptation..."?

Bro. Dave said...

I know, I drop in and out, lurking at the edges of the conversations here. Sorry, I don't have time to swim in the deep end.

With regard to the stories in the Bible, can someone tell me where exactly the Bible makes the claim that all of them are literally true? The Creation story/ies? Jonah? Did I miss a verse that says, "Everything you read here is literally true!"?

Several times in my ministry, I have encountered people who reject Christianity because they simply cannot accept some of these stories as being literally true.

Dan Trabue said...

As I'm sure you know, Bro. Dave, there are no such verses. We're left to ourselves to sort it out, by God's grace. For my part, I don't think it's that difficult, but then, we still manage to have a good deal of disagreement, so maybe it is.

Bro Dave...

So what does it mean when we pray to God (as Jesus taught us to pray), "Lead us not into temptation..."?

For my part, I just take it as a prayer for strength and grace to stay out of trouble. What do you think?

And you're always welcome here, even if it's every now and then.

Marty said...

Bro. Dave: "Several times in my ministry, I have encountered people who reject Christianity because they simply cannot accept some of these stories as being literally true."

And what is your response?

Dan Trabue said...

While I'm thinking about it: You may have noticed that my photos connected to each post have gotten larger and lost their border. I have not made any changes (intentionally, anyway) to my blog. My church blog hasn't changed.

Anyone have ideas about what I need to do to fix this?

Doug said...

Geoff:

Doug, as Alan made pretty clear, your explanation only clarifies your heretical position in re the place of the Spirit in the life of the people of the Hebrew Scriptures.

So when Jesus said after He left, He would send the Holy Spirit, He was really telling them He would send them something that they already had? However you want to couch it, clearly something changed at Pentecost regarding the relationship between the Spirit and believers. Call it what you will, but the children of Israel did not have that relationship.

How is my saying your explanation regarding your position on the story of Joshua commanding the sun to stand still is nonsensical a straw man? Please, enlighten me.

See, a straw man argument is when I say you say something you did not say. All I did was summarize exactly what you said, as well as the implications of your stated position. That is not a straw argument.


You created a conclusion of what I believe about science that would be easiest for you to ridicule (the straw man), and then proceeded to tear it down. Again, the very definition.

Your implications are your own. You seem to think that a "literalist" necessarily means that if the Bible says "the sun stopped in the sky" then the sun itself, supposedly circling the earth, stopped in that course. Your definition of "literalism" created that implication, not mine. If I need to come up with a new word to get you out of that rut, I can. But what I actually said was that from the writer's perspective, and yours or mine if we had been there, the sun would have appeared to stop in the sky.

The Bible does not address the 'how', so why, in order to believe the story, is it necessary to scientifically address the 'how'? Again I ask (and await an answer) is it necessary to understand the science behind Jesus walking on the water, calming the sea, causing huge amount of fish to go to the net, healing people or raising Lazarus to believe that they happened?

Marty said...

Dan, you might try re-sizing your pictures (make them smaller) before you import them into blogger.

Alan said...

"Call it what you will, but the children of Israel did not have that relationship."

Then how'd they write the Bible? Or do you not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired?

"the sun would have appeared to stop in the sky. "

So the writer lied. And, as you have stated, we can't know anything about the situation unless it is factually accurate.

So which is it? Does everything have to be factually accurate or not? You pile inconsistency on top of inconsistency, heresy on heresy, and yet you're the one interrogating people about how they read the Bible?

Clearly a little study on Trinitarian doctrine is in order first.

" is it necessary to understand the science behind Jesus walking on the water, calming the sea, causing huge amount of fish to go to the net, healing people or raising Lazarus to believe that they happened?"

LOL. Excellent. This is the point the rest of us have been making for 300 comments now. Is it necessary for Jonah to have been actually swallowed by a fish to know what the story is actually about? Is it necessary to know how a person could walk on water to know what the story is about?

Thank you. The circle is now complete.

I think the conversation is over, given that at least two of the interlocutors (first MA and now Doug) have conceded the point they were arguing in the first place.

Doug said...

Alan:

"Call it what you will, but the children of Israel did not have that relationship."

Then how'd they write the Bible? Or do you not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired?


I do believe the Spirit worked in the OT, just not the way it did after Jesus left. Do you really think that Pentecost merely continued the status quo?

"the sun would have appeared to stop in the sky. "

So the writer lied. And, as you have stated, we can't know anything about the situation unless it is factually accurate.


You keep using that word "lied". I don't think it means what you think it means.

I believe what the writer wrote is factually accurate, from his perspective and with his knowledge. Going back to the actual point of disagreement with the point of the original post, I do not believe this is epic storytelling, in that the writer did not see the sun stop moving through the sky, and yet recorded that he did. He did not embellish; instead, he told the truth as best he could.

Do you really, after all the words spilled in these comments, have no idea what I've been saying? Or perhaps, in your rush to ridicule, you just have no time for accuracy?

" is it necessary to understand the science behind Jesus walking on the water, calming the sea, causing huge amount of fish to go to the net, healing people or raising Lazarus to believe that they happened?"

LOL. Excellent. This is the point the rest of us have been making for 300 comments now. Is it necessary for Jonah to have been actually swallowed by a fish to know what the story is actually about? Is it necessary to know how a person could walk on water to know what the story is about?


No, this is patently not anything like the point you guys, or at least Dan and Geoff, have been making. Oh for cryin' out loud, Alan, where have you been?

The point that Dan and Geoff have made is that it is not necessary to accept the facts of the story in order to believe the truths. Craig, MA and I have been saying that the facts are integral to getting a proper understanding of the truths.

Geoff has only recently switched targets to make it sound like a literalist must accept an ancient writer's understanding about science in order to believe the facts, only because he uses his own definition of what a literalist is.

Even your two examples are of entirely different types. The question about Jonah is about if it happened. The question about walking on water specifically assumes that it did happen, and is instead about the how. With Jonah, you don't care if it happened. With Jesus, you start from the assumption that it did. (At least I hope you start from that assumption.)

So in one comment, you manage to not only misrepresent the views of those who disagree with you, but you also misrepresent those who agree with you, and then ask two questions that are completely unrelated to each other. Sprinkled with a liberal does of typical Alan ridicule.

Which passes for an argument here, apparently.

Alan said...

"Do you really think that Pentecost merely continued the status quo?"

You don't?! Have you read Numbers 11:25-26? The book of Judges? 1 Samuel 16.13? Isaiah 63:7-14?

Then there's the prophets. The NT makes quite clear that prophesy is a "gift of the Spirit."

And again, you conveniently leave out discussing 1) if you think that the Bible is divinely inspired, and 2) if so, by whom do you think it was inspired?

Not to mention of course that if God was acting in someone's life, so was the Holy Spirit. We are (well, at least I am) trinitarian after all.

"He did not embellish; instead, he told the truth as best he could."

You're grasping at straws. Either it was the truth and the sun -- which from the POV of the Earth is a fixed point in space which doesn't move anyway -- stopped moving, which makes no sense, OR the Earth stopped rotating on its axis, which is not what the writer states.

Either Jesus actually fed 5000 people with a couple fish and some loaves, and if he didn't and the story is just "epic story telling" and means nothing, according to you, and we cannot tell anything about Jesus because the story is not factually accurate.

I will quote *your own words*, "the facts are integral to getting a proper understanding of the truths." So either the sun stopping is a fact, which is integral to understanding the underlying truth about the power of God, or it is not the truth and we can know nothing.

Either the Earth was actually made 6000 years ago (fact) or not. You say that "fact" is integral to understanding the truth that God created the Heavens and the Earth. I think the number is irrelevant. That God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen , being understood from what has been made.

You want to have one standard evidence of factual story telling for some types of stories and a completely different standard for another, based (it seems) on whim and caprice. Now, you may feel that Dan is doing the same thing, but it is rather ironic if not hypocritical for you to criticize him for doing the exact same thing you do, simply because he draws that line in a different place.

Jonah, Jesus walking on water, etc., etc., etc. It doesn't matter if they actually happened, nor does it matter that we know how, any more than it matters that we do not know how God created the universe. The point is what these stories tell us about God. You feel they only tell us anything if they are factually accurate.

I disagree because my faith is not in the Bible. My faith is in God. I happen to believe there's a good amount of stuff in the Bible that actually happened, but if God wanted to tell us about himself by inspiring an entire series of books that were nothing but fables in order to instruct us, I'd be fine with that too. After all, He's God. I assume He knows what's best, and I assume he doesn't expect us to spend our time debating the relative surface tension of water vs. gravity and the average mass of a 1st century Galilean Jew.

Alan said...

"Sprinkled with a liberal does of typical Alan ridicule."

Well, you're a false teacher and heretic. What do you expect? ;)

What I find amusing is that your compatriots, who pretend to be orthodox, don't call you out for your heterodoxy. Either they don't recognize it, which calls into question their own orthodoxy and/or how well-informed they are about theology. Or, they don't care because this is not and never has been about being a discussion, but about being an opportunity to attack Dan, as usual.

And if you really cared, I'd think rather than defending your indefensible theology, you might go study some and take our concerns as an admonition that you are either intentionally or unintentionally proclaiming dispensationalism and Arianism.

But of course, the notion that we might be right never crossed your mind. Did it?

Didn't think so.

Because *that's* what passes for argumentation here. The absolutely unquestioned assumption that you and your buddies are always right.

Alan said...

By the way, Doug, just who do you think was inspiring the tellers of the first books of the Bible when it they were being passed around orally before being written down?

Each in their own languages, in their own communities, passing this story along.

I bet if you got them together, it would sound an awful lot like Pentecost.

Alan said...

Oh, and Doug... Two seconds of google searching got me this:

http://bible.org/seriespage/putting-pentecost-perspective-part-1-holy-spirit-old-testament-acts-21-13

*ahem*

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Doug, the "conclusions" may be my own, but they are the implications of what you are saying, as your discussion on these various matters with Alan has made perfectly clear. Is the author of Joshua reporting "fact" or reporting something to the best of that author's ability with the knowledge of the day? If it is the former, then you accept a geocentric Universe. If it is the latter, you are accepting a reading of this particular passage of Scripture that makes the passage not literally true - the sun did not "stand still". If this is the case for this passage, why is that? Why is it you are willing to give the author of Joshua a break on this particular story, and not some other authors a break? Did God speak to Balaam through his donkey? Did Lot's wife really become a pillar of salt for looking over her shoulder?

What about the Book of Daniel? Scholars understand it to be, not about the people in exile in Babylon, but a coded message to the Jews struggling against the Alexandrian king Antiochus IV in the second century BCE. There was no message on Nebuchadnezzar's wall, no fiery furnace, no lion's den. The events in this book were a series of coded messages to the Jewish revolutionaries who, in the end, kicked the Greeks out of Palestine, in a series of events that included adding a holiday to the Jewish calendar, Hannukah. Are you willing to accept this as a reality? If so why, or if not why not? It seems to me that Daniel, not "prophetic" in the technical sense but, rather, apocalyptic, is the biggest challenge (along, of course, with the Revelation to St. John the Divine).

Doug said...

Let's tick them off one last time. After this, I really need to keep to my rule not to directly respond to Alan.

Then there's the prophets. The NT makes quite clear that prophesy is a "gift of the Spirit."

And I have said at least 3 times during this whole discussion, I do believe the Spirit spoke through the OT prophets. You continue to misrepresent what I say, never mind what you think I believe.

I have not conveniently left anything out of the discussion, because the discussion is about epic storytelling vs factual accounts in the Old Testament. This is a tangent. I do believe the OT was inspired by the Spirit. I do believe the Spirit had a role in the OT. I also believe the Spirit takes a much larger role in the lives of individual believers after Pentecost. Beyond that, the details simply push us further and further away from the topic at hand.

"He did not embellish; instead, he told the truth as best he could."

You're grasping at straws. Either it was the truth and the sun -- which from the POV of the Earth is a fixed point in space which doesn't move anyway -- stopped moving, which makes no sense, OR the Earth stopped rotating on its axis, which is not what the writer states.


The issue is about epic storytelling vs factual accounts. A factual account of the weather during a battle is factual even if the writer is ignorant of astronomy. You ridicule my point of view, claiming that the only way I can call anything "true" or "factual" is if I can explain how it happened. But a written account can be true whether or not I or the original writer know how whatever happened happened. Your claim is false, regardless of whether we're talking about the Bible or not, but that's you're basis for ridicule.

I disagree because my faith is not in the Bible. My faith is in God.

You say this like my faith is in the Bible. I have said, multiple times in this thread, that this is not the case, and why it is not the case. For the 3rd time, you misrepresent my words, never mind my beliefs.

"Sprinkled with a liberal does of typical Alan ridicule."

Well, you're a false teacher and heretic. What do you expect? ;)


Dan had a post on this a little while back. Wonder what he thinks of this.

Oh, and Doug... Two seconds of google searching got me this:

Do we really want to make this dueling Googling. You find someone who agrees with you, I find someone who agrees with me. I don't think so.

So we have:

* Multiple misrepresentations of what I have plainly said.
* Ridicule based on your insistence that I adhere to your definition of what is "factual", that being, an account is only true if the writer knows how what he is writing about was able to happen.

And thus you have responded to my post, wherein I tick off all the times you misrepresent me, with still more misrepresentations. And for that I'm ridiculed.

Really? You want me to take you seriously after all this?

And thus I have no reason whatsoever to assume that any explanation from me to you, on any of these new points (let alone the old ones), is likely to be understood, or, if understood, honestly dealt with.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Doug: "And thus I have no reason whatsoever to assume that any explanation from me to you, on any of these new points (let alone the old ones), is likely to be understood, or, if understood, honestly dealt with."

I think Alan and I both have been clear that we understand both what you have written, as well as the implications of what you have written. The problem, it seems, is you do not recognize the many ways you contradict what you have written in one place with something you wrote somewhere else.

This brings us round, again, to the point of this particular post - the relationship between storytelling and truth. You want, it sounds, the stories to be literal reports of events otherwise the meaning for the reader does not exist. Since stories convey their meaning on multiple levels in multiple ways, regardless of the truth content of the stories themselves, as Dan's post makes pretty clear; and since the stories in Scripture are signs pointing beyond themselves and our attention is to be directed not at the various stories but at the One to whom they point, the matter of factual accuracy is, by and large moot. You have yet, to my mind, dealt with this matter, in your insistence that this or that story in the Bible is literally true, and necessarily so.

Alan said...

"Do we really want to make this dueling Googling. "

In other words, you can't respond to it (nor do I believe you even read it, nor am I convinced you even know what dispensationalism or Arianism are) so you duck out. It's a series of Bible verses with as little commentary as I could find. I can only assume you don't much care to read the Bible.

That's fine, unlike your cronies, I don't think I deserve any sort of explanation of your peculiar heresies from you. But at the same time, don't kid yourself into believing you are not, as testified by your own words, both a believer in dispensationalist and/or Arian heresies: "I also believe the Spirit takes a much larger role in the lives of individual believers after Pentecost."

"You ridicule my point of view, claiming that the only way I can call anything "true" or "factual" is if I can explain how it happened."

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Now who is misrepresenting? LOL That isn't what I've said. But don't worry about it, because I honestly have no interest in whining about someone "misrepresenting" me for some sort of lame sympathy points.

I ridicule your point of view because sometimes you claim something doesn't have to be factually true (the sun standing still) to still get the point of the story, when other times you claim "the facts are integral to getting a proper understanding of the truths."

The how or why or when doesn't matter. That tangent is your little weapon of mass distraction you now retreat behind because you are stumbling over your own inconsistencies.

The point is, you have stated that ""the facts are integral to getting a proper understanding of the truths" except when, apparently, you don't actually believe that. That I point out the inconsistency isn't misrepresentation.

I ridicule your inconsistency because that's all one can do when looking at it. It isn't like anyone could possibly take it seriously. And I don't find your indignant whining that you don't like the ridicule compelling, as if you'd actually consider my points if I wrapped them up in cotton candy and unicorn fur. It isn't like you'd actually take anything I wrote seriously enough to consider it regardless. Take for example, the evidence that you do not understand basic trinitarian doctrine, which you won't even bother skimming.

"Really? You want me to take you seriously after all this?"

Of course not. I do not, did not, and have not ever assumed you or your cronies would ever take seriously anything the rest of us wrote, ever. What's surprising is that you thought I ever would have assumed that.

Alan said...

Or, to put all that much more briefly, as Geoffrey wrote, "The problem, it seems, is you do not recognize the many ways you contradict what you have written in one place with something you wrote somewhere else."

Doug said...

Geoff:

Is the author of Joshua reporting "fact" or reporting something to the best of that author's ability with the knowledge of the day? If it is the former, then you accept a geocentric Universe. If it is the latter, you are accepting a reading of this particular passage of Scripture that makes the passage not literally true - the sun did not "stand still".

It sounds like you're saying that either:

* unless we can, with our current scientific knowledge, explain a miracle, then it didn't happen, or
* God is not sovereign over nature and could not have caused this to happen, or
* "fact" is only "fact" if the description, taken entirely literally, can accurately explain it, or
* all of the above.

You assume that the only way that a literalist can say that the story in Joshua is true is if "stand still" is taken absolutely literally, with all the astrological implications it brings. That's your definition of what a literalist is. That definition is wrong. Further, acknowledging that the writer did not know how this was done does not suddenly make the story wholly, or even partially, embellishment. If the sun was not traversing through the sky, from the point of view of an observer on the Earth, for whatever reason, how would you expect an ancient writer to describe it?

It sounds like you're saying that it couldn't have happened, so the question is moot, and the story is epic. I'm saying God could do it, and however He did it, the events of the day are described as truthfully as the writer could with the knowledge he had.

That's all I'm saying. Am I accurately describing what you're saying?

I think Alan and I both have been clear that we understand both what you have written, as well as the implications of what you have written.

That you fellas keep asking the same questions and/or keep accusing me of things I've already denied, I'd say, no, I don't think you do understand. Your view of what literalism is will be Exhibit A. Thus your implications are incorrect. In your last message, there is still a misstatement of what I've said plainly before.

You want, it sounds, the stories to be literal reports of events otherwise the meaning for the reader does not exist.

I have said very clearly, over and over, that an accurate idea of who God is and what He is like hinges partially on this. Geoff, this very thread should prove it. Dan and I have some different ideas about what God is like, in part because I take some stories at face value and he considers them epic. And so, the question of whether a story is accurate or epic is very important.

Alan said...

"You assume that the only way that a literalist can say that the story in Joshua is true is if "stand still" is taken absolutely literally, with all the astrological implications it brings. That's your definition of what a literalist is. That definition is wrong. "

vs.

"I have said very clearly, over and over, that an accurate idea of who God is and what He is like hinges partially on this. "

So the facts are important, unless they aren't. Ugh.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I think I get your position now. You are saying that what happened in the Book of Joshua is a "miracle" and discussion of the matter is moot.

Is this your position, Doug? There are no extra-textual implications of the report? Is there no referent? No sun circling the earth to be stopped by the verbal command of Joshua?

In all honesty, while I understand your latest explanation - I think - it leaves us no closer to clearing up the matter.

The reason I keep repeated myself is you simply set aside the questions with an attitude that can be summed up in that marvelous bumper sticker, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it".

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

"Astrological"?!? Really? That would be, um, astronomical, Doug.

Really, Alan has pretty much summed up the problem he and I are having here. Your refusal to understand, or perhaps admit, this fundamental contradiction is precisely the point, and gets right to the heart of this post and its predecessor.

Craig said...

Dan,

Yes I agree that God has and will continue to act without respect to our participation or our opinion of the rightness or wrongness of His actions.

Marshall Art said...

""Astrological"?!? Really? That would be, um, astronomical, Doug."

Uh, I think it's "meteorological". He was talking about the weather, wasn't he?

As to the post, this has all been a result of Dan's dismissal of all stories regarding God's active or delegated destruction of entire populations. These stories do not compare to those about creation.

But for the record, I have, as I've stated before, no problem believing that God could have created all in six 24 hour days. I do not believe that we can take for granted that science is so developed that it's devices and calculations used to measure the age of the universe is so precise as to not be subject to gross error the further back it tries to look. At their best, it is all speculation. Until they can prove without question, I can't help but question their results. What's more, what they think they see may be only what they CAN see based on human limitations compared to the power and majesty of God, which, likely doesn't compute.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

this has all been a result of Dan's dismissal of all stories regarding God's active or delegated destruction of entire populations.

And THIS would be an example of storytelling containing NO truth.

As I have frequently pointed out: I dismiss nothing. Just because I interpret a passage differently than MARSHALL isn't to say I "dismiss" it, unless you want to own up to dismissing Jesus' teachings that the Poor are blessed, or other passages where you disagree with a more literal interpretation.

Interpretation is not dismissal. The way we can know this is by realizing that Marshall is not the barometer of all that is right and true. God is.

Alan said...

"Until they can prove without question,"

ROFL.

The speed of light is now up for debate.

Is there any why we brand such people anti-intellectual and anti-science?

How about you Doug or Craig? Do you agree with MA that the speed of light is just a hunch?

" gross error "

6000 vs 14,000,000,000. MA's definition of gross error is 7 orders of magnitude. LOL

These are the sorts of things that make me suspect there is no MA, that it's just all a ruse; pro-wrestling for the blogosphere. No one could actually believe such stupidity, could they?

Alas, 50% of all people are dumber than the average person. Evidently, based on that last comment of MA's, the curve has a very, very long tail at <50%.

Alan said...

"I dismiss nothing. "

Sure you do, Dan. You dismiss MA's interpretation. And since MA speaks for God, thus and therefore...

That's what this is all about (and always has been). MA's ego and the fact that some people dare to question his opinions and intelligence.

Marshall Art said...

YOU, Alan, can question my opinions and intelligence all you like. I couldn't care less what YOU think, since you are not worth my time.

Gauging the speed of light is not analogous to gauging the age of all things. Nice try, no cigar.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

If you "interpret" in a manner that questions the truthfulness of the story as it is written, you have then dismissed the story and replaced it with your own "interpretation". You dismiss that God destroyed the Amelekites because you prefer to believe something different that what that story is saying. To say that your alternative interpretation shows you do not dismiss the story is to equally distort the notion of interpretation and "dismissing". The story says God destroyed. You say He didn't because He couldn't. You have dismissed the story and replaced it with something more to your liking.

"Just because there's butter on my fingers doesn't mean I took some of your popcorn." -Dennis the Menace

The evidence is clear. You throw out the words, thus you dismiss.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Art, for the record, I assume it possible, of course, that God created the Universe in six 24-hour periods.

All the evidence we have so far suggests otherwise, and this interpretation of the first creation story in Genesis is a recent innovation in Biblical exegesis anyway. As it is not at all the point of the creation story, I find this kind of thing kind of a silly exercise in questioning people's understanding of God.

The first creation story in Genesis is heavily cribbed from Assyrian sources, the references to the primordial chaos and God's pushing back the boundaries through the spoken Word echoing ancient legends of the slaying of Tiamat. The time-frame, too, is Assyrian, as is the creative order, and some of the language (which is why, when various tablets from the city of Ugarit were discovered, there was a cottage industry in learning the local dialect, Ugaritic).

Like the relationship between various parts of Hammurabi's Code and Leviticus, we also come to understand how the Israelites imported a legal culture from their more powerful neighbors - probably to placate them, too, because if you follow laws similar to an Empire itching to take you over, you might be able to persuade them to leave you alone.

All this is important as background, as is theology, as is that most basic ingredient when reading the stories from people so very different from one's own experience: respect that they are as intelligent and insightful, all things being equal, as we are. They are not technically sophisticated; the Israelites did not have a huge grasp even of some parts of mathematics (there is no evidence, for example, they had the mathematical concept of "zero", a not unimportant part of mathematics); their storytelling, however, reveals a people keenly aware that is is necessary to talk about who they are as a unique cultural and ethnic group, even as they use various storytelling devices borrowed from neighbors.

cont'd . . .

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall blathered...

If you "interpret" in a manner that questions the truthfulness of the story as it is written, you have then dismissed the story and replaced it with your own "interpretation". You dismiss that God destroyed the Amelekites...

blah blah blah.

Alan, tell you what: Take all the sarcasm that you spread to our critics and use it all on Marshall. He's the unreasonable one.

John, Doug and Craig all disagree with us, but they do so in what I believe is a reasonably respectful manner. Marshall is just relentlessly ridiculous.

I'm not even going to try to respond to this level of nuttiness any further from him (at least not today). So, ridicule away at Marshall, if you are so inclined.

Dan Trabue said...

On the other hand, Craig and Doug would have more credibility in their complaints if they would also call Marshall on this sort of behavior.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

One of the best lessons I ever got in Biblical exegesis while at seminary, from my Hebrew Scripture professor, David Hopkins (past President of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, and past editor of their scholarly journal) was that all that archaeological stuff is interesting, but at the end of the day, what we have when we read the Bible is . . . the text.

Period.

We interrogate the text at various levels, as we have been doing here, discussing theology and storytelling, matters of cultural reflection on story and myth and fact. If any of us had spent any amount of time learning the dead languages of the Bible we could, like Rudolf Bultmann, figure out which parts of which books are editions, glosses, various efforts at cutting and pasting through familiarity with the languages idiomatic structure which reveal the presence of the hand of multiple authors.

Yet, we still, at the end of the day, are sitting and reading, whether in the original or translation, the text. It is through these words the Holy Spirit works. The second creation story may, indeed, bear the marks of Egypt, as the first does Assyria, but that only tells us where they cribbed the various plot points from. It tells us nothing at all about the message the stories are conveying.

That, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, is the text itself. Borrowing from Martin Heidegger in particular, as well as Roland Barthes, David was quite fond of my own favored way of describing the process of reading Scripture, adding something that I, too, have added. David, too, likened reading the Bible to that wrestling match between Jacob and the angel, noting that while Jacob wins, the angel refuses to give up, cheating and giving the guy a charlie horse. In this way he brought out that Heideggerian/Barthesian notion that it is not we who grasp the text at all. Rather, if we are reading the Bible in faith, it is the text that grabs us. We do not shape the meaning of the text. It is the text of the Bible that shapes us, changes us, not through the power of the words on the page, not through some reflection on the factual or mythical or whatever dimension of the stories.

It is God, the sacred and Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who grabs us through the text of the Bible, making meaning where there is none, making life where there is only death, creating out of nothing who we are.

That, my friends, is Biblical exegesis. Did God make galaxies tens of millions of light years away, as well as the light traveling to us so that we might only think they are that far away? Sure, it is logically possible. But then, that would make God a trickster and the evidence from our senses completely unreliable on all sorts of matters. I do believe God has a sense of humor - the Chicago Cubs are evidence enough of that - but I do not believe God is either malicious or a game-player.

Alan said...

"Gauging the speed of light is not analogous to gauging the age of all things. "

Yeah it is, actually, because speed (as you should have learned somewhere in middle school in your remedial math classes) is distance divided by TIME. If you have difficulty with this concept, please consult an 8 year old, I'm sure one could explain it to you.

Which means the speed of light yields a pretty good indication of how far away an object is. If something is over 14 billion light years away, it couldn't have been created 6000 years ago, or we would not be able to see it. In fact, we wouldn't be able to see anything more than 6000 light years away.

But I don't expect you to be smart enough to understand that, MA. You're a buffoon.

Now God could, as Geoffrey says, have created the universe just to *look* like it is 14 billion years old. He could have done that 6000 years ago, or he could have done it 20 seconds ago. But that would make God out to be, at best, a trickster god and at worst, a liar. I think you'd have a hard time finding Scriptural evidence for either conclusion.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Alan, I, too, noticed Art's confusion regarding the role of the speed of light and matters of distance. I didn't mention it because, well, it seemed an actual scientist should address that matter. All the same, distance is a function of time because movement is a function of time, the fourth dimension, so velocity is measured by time and distance, so the speed of light is, indeed, central to astronomical understandings of distance. As Alan pointed out, the general understanding of the relationship is something most middle schoolers, like my older daughter, understand.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

Regarding the first two of your three recent comments, you have just demonstrated that the Bible is crap, particularly the OT, and that any pretense at a Holy Spirit guiding you to do anything is crap as well. You have put notions of "cribbing" from other peoples over what the OT authors have written and claim to maintain a belief in what is essentially a load. You, in your posturing as sophisticated, have rendered the Bible as totally meaningless, except to those who see "layers of meaning" in that which should have none if it you "understanding" of exegesis is to be swallowed.

Really, man. Why bother with the pretense? It's pretty clear you don't believe in God, but only in a concept of "a God".

Marshall Art said...

There's nothing wrong with my behavior, Dan, that a little courage and honesty on your part wouldn't resolve. I'm bending over backwards trying to maintain a respectful and civil attitude in responding to what I see are evasive actions on your part in order to maintain the facade of adhering to the Bible when clearly you are rejecting parts you find objectionable. You think because you haven't whited out those stories or torn them from the binding that you're respecting them? You've clearly changed them from what they say, to something else and do so by ASSUMING something about the manner in which the OT authors recorded their history. You do so by comparing them to heathens who do not believe in God, and claimed to have spoken to animals or some other entities. So the question is, do you think the other peoples' beliefs are equally as true as Christian beliefs? Is our faith a fact or not? Is their faith a fact or not? I don't care what other ancient people did or how they wrote about what was not true to begin with.

Marshall Art said...

"Now God could, as Geoffrey says, have created the universe just to *look* like it is 14 billion years old. He could have done that 6000 years ago, or he could have done it 20 seconds ago. But that would make God out to be, at best, a trickster god and at worst, a liar. I think you'd have a hard time finding Scriptural evidence for either conclusion."

But, I never suggested that God created anything to "trick" us. All I've said is that God created everything and the best that humans have been able to determine might not be as accurate as they think. You take your middle school facts and state that they are more dependable than God. Well, you say, if science says that the universe is X years old, then there's no possible way that they can be wrong, because as you know, they are more knowledgeable than God.

So once again, I'm saying that to the extent to where we have advanced, it appears that creation is more than 6000 years. You, like Geoffrey, are way too sophisticated to dare dispute the religion of science if it butts up against the religion of God. You'll take science every time, because, just like the builders of the Tower of Babble, you know it all.

I, a simple and humble buffoon, do not struggle so. I let science say what it wants while believing God capable of doing what the Bible says he did in the very manner it says he did it. If I choose to set aside the guess work of science, because after all, that's what science is, in favor of God as described in Scripture and doing so makes me a buffoon, I can live with that just fine.

So I know what the textbooks say. I also know that they can measure the speed of light because they look at light that exists NOW. But the creation of all things? That took place, well, at least 6000 years ago. You scientists are guessing.

Alan said...

"That took place, well, at least 6000 years ago. You scientists are guessing."

No. We're not.

I don't pretend to know how God created the world. What I do know is that it took place far more than 6000 years ago. That doesn't lead me to question either God's power, or the Bible, but only the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible that says, in spite of the facts around us, that the universe is 6000 years old.

It doesn't take a genius, a scientist, nor a heretic to question whether that particular *human* interpretation is incorrect and instead of the story of Genesis is instead about the fundamental truth that God created the universe, but that it isn't mean to be a scientific treatise on exactly how and when He did it.

God gave us reason to use, not to ignore.

But, since you and Doug and Craig seem to believe ""the facts are integral to getting a proper understanding of the truths" then if the Biblical writers did not give us the 100% true facts, then we cannot understand the truths written in Genesis.

"You'll take science every time"

Liar.

Marshall Art said...

I said:

"That took place, well, at least 6000 years ago. You scientists are guessing."

Alan said:

"No. We're not."

Oh. So you've proven it, have you? You have the exact age, do you? Even conceding you may closer to the truth, you haven't nailed down anything, but only surmise it is between X and Z. You're guessing.

What's more, as no one lived at the time, there can be no certainty until we're face to face with He Who was.

But your faith in science so greatly supersedes your faith in Scripture that you condescend to those who would question the science as being no more than a work in progress, rather than "gospel" fact.

More importantly, none of this Genesis discussion matters to the discussion regarding the stories of God destroying various populations. These stories are not told in the same manner as the creation story. It's another diversionary tactic used in order to disparage the recording of the events so as to negate the important truth these stories tell of God's nature; that He is capable of such things. Indeed, they give us an indication of just how wrathful He can be and by doing so gives us a reason for needing a Savior. That is, if we need a Savior, from what do we need to be saved if not from a God who is capable of great wrath? This "God of love", so popular with the left, does not provoke feelings of dread, fear or desperation for a means of saving.

Marshall Art said...

Having little to do after another great Bulls victory, I decided to re-read the post, focussing on the "sources" offered. So, putting aside Geoffrey's irrelevant comments that serve to show just how much he knows, Alan's snarky non-counterpoints that also lack relevancy, and also putting aside Dan's invitation to open season on yours truly (an incredible act of grace, I might add), I begin again.

First of all, regarding the first three sources, I found little that supports this statement:

"And even amongst these who are credited with beginning "history" as a category of writing, the emphasis on facts was not always apparently strict."

...except the third, which refers to Herodotus as "the father of lies". And of all those on the list of historians of the second link, only Josephus shows up as a Jewish historian, and it seems he wasn't above an outright self-serving fib or two himself.

But most remarkable (not really) is how little is said (nothing, actually) of those who recorded the history of the Jews before Jospehus, OR, how little was said (nothing, actually) about their styles of writing as pertains fact versus embellishments of any kind. I don't think I came upon any mention of the term "storytelling", or anything like it being equated to "history recording".

Now, I now admit that due to the fact that Dan provided so much of the last source, I have not clicked on it thus far. What is provided shows little that compares to OT histories, particularly those that detail God's involvement in the destruction of various populations. What strikes me is how easily and willingly Dan will equate stories of talking birds by American Indians to reports of Divine interventions of the OT. Are we supposed to back off on our beliefs because some stone age people speak of the world on the back of a giant turtle? So visions induced by mescaline peyote are comparable to direct confrontation with God by Mosess and other OT characters?

The fun part is thinking of the expression: "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." in light of this discussion. And imagine any army thinking they can match up with just any superior force based on the OT stories of the Hebrews doing just that, but without God actually guaranteeing the victory!

Dan tries to explain what provoked this statement from me:

"Just because they were primitive doesn't mean they were stupid."

...by saying that he never meant to suggest such a thing. But his hunch on why the OT authors wouldn't record their history as accurately as possible (in the sense we would do so today) implies that very thing. It suggests that curious people serious about learning of their past would be content with "storytelling" as opposed to facts. "Did God really do that, Uncle Saul?" "No, little Jedidiah. That's just a fairy tale. God didn't do any of the miracles we like to attribute to Him in our histories. We just do that to justify our actions and so we can feel good about ourselves. How does it make your feel about yourself now?"

Marshall Art said...

We have "lore" about our own American history. Washington chopping down a cherry tre, never telling lies and flippping a coin across a river. Few take those kinds of stories as factual, especially once they get into middle school where they learn about how old the earth is. They are told to little kids, not to older kids and adults. Older kids and adults get the real deal because they CAN handle it, even if they don't understand every reason behind it.

What's more, Dan (or for that matter, either of his comrades) has yet to respond to this particular objection: The Jews were mandated by God to eat, dress and act in a manner that separates them from the rest of the world, that distinguishes them as God's Chosen People. As it is against God's nature to tolerate the bearing of false witness, how could He tolerate His Chosen to write falsely about their history, as did other peoples? How could He tolerate their writing falsely about HIM?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

The Jews were mandated by God to eat, dress and act in a manner that separates them from the rest of the world, that distinguishes them as God's Chosen People. As it is against God's nature to tolerate the bearing of false witness, how could He tolerate His Chosen to write falsely about their history, as did other peoples?

Would there be ANY point at all in my repeating the truth that the storytellers back then were NOT "bearing false witness," they were NOT "writing falsely," they were telling stories? Would it help if I pointed out yet again that it is modernistic hubris that calls such storytelling "lies," and not biblical exegesis?

I rather doubt it.

Marshall...

But his hunch on why the OT authors wouldn't record their history as accurately as possible (in the sense we would do so today) implies that very thing. It suggests that curious people serious about learning of their past would be content with "storytelling" as opposed to facts.

And would it help if I pointed out YET AGAIN that Marshall has NO EVIDENCE - NOT A BIT - ZERO - to support this modernistic approach to reading stories? YOU ARE PRESUMING that storytelling that was common to the day is not as valid as modern history recording, but you have no evidence to support it.

Your entire case relies upon your whimsical, unsupported hunches about what a modern Marshall GUESSES people would do back in the day. I find such whimsy not convincing, Marshall.

Given that you have NO SERIOUS EVIDENCE to support your hunches, I hope you'll understand that I must strive to understand the Bible as best I can.

But I doubt that repeating all of this for the tenth (fiftieth?) time will make any difference.

Alan said...

"Oh. So you've proven it, have you? You have the exact age, do you?"

Proof and exact age aren't the same, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that, because you're an idiot. But it does show the rest of us exactly why the anti-intellectual, anti-science types are such idiots: they don't actually know anything about science and people fear what they don't understand.

"But your faith in science"

I said it before and I'll say it again because you're an idiot, MA. I don't have faith in science. Science does not require faith, which is why it is called science, not faith. If you want to at least demonstrate you have the intelligence to read basic English, you could simply stop drooling on your keyboard with the same pablum that we've already refuted over and over.

Seriously, MA, go sober up then type your comments.

"These stories are not told in the same manner as the creation story."

Again, MA concedes the point. He also believes that one can distinguish between different types of literature in the Bible. He's arguing simply because like any small brained mammal or perhaps bird, he enjoys listening to the repetitive clickity-clack of his keyboard.

Game. Set. Match.

Alan said...

" This "God of love", so popular with the left, does not provoke feelings of dread, fear or desperation for a means of saving."

Wow. People could spend days analyzing the psychology of that one sentence and what it tells us about MA.

MA, I pity you.

Marshall Art said...

Oh. Now Alan is a psychologist as well. How about if you speak to the psychology of those who ignore the actual description of God's actions in favor of "God wouldn't do that" after it has been so plainly revealed that He has on more than one occasion.

In the meantime, the question stands: From what, exactly do we need to be saved? There are many who do not believe hell exists, or that God will not deny anyone entry into Heaven. You guys walk closer to that line, so I figure you have an answer. If God is not a wrathful and vengeful God to an extent that should provoke fear and dread in the unrepentent sinner, there seems little reason to hope for a Savior. Saved from what? An eternity in a comfy chair? God displays His wrath in the OT and you guys deny those stories are true, that they contain some other message about God that does NOT include that which is indeed fear-inspiring.

"Proof and exact age aren't the same..."

Oh, really? Do tell! The point is that you have neither. You definitely don't have an exact age, and you damn well have no proof that creation is older than what creationists believe (I do not claim to be a creationist). What you have is the best guess science can provide given the limitations of human ability and invention. That is all I've ever said. I've also said that God's workings might not be such that human ability and invention will ever be capable of accurately determining. The miraculous is unmeasurable. I don't believe that science can contend with the miraculous. That has not the same as being anti-science in the least bit, but it does say quite a bit about your character (as if you haven't provided enough on that score to show your true colors).

But you can't excuse your obvious greater faith that science has pegged the Bible as being incorrect on subject of creation, because everything you've said thus far demonstrates that greater faith. Science just simply can't be wrong about the age of creation, as far as YOU'RE concerned, and Marshall Art is an idiot for daring to question the superior calculations of science on the matter.

"Again, MA concedes the point."

My point never revolved around the creation stories in the first place. My point only dealt with those OT stories dealing with God destroying populations, either personally or by mandating His Chosen People go to war to do it for Him. I only responded to the creation stories because they were brought up in order to dismiss the stories on which I was focused.

Marshall Art said...

"Would there be ANY point at all in my repeating the truth that the storytellers back then were NOT "bearing false witness," they were NOT "writing falsely," they were telling stories?"

Would there be ANY point at all in my repeating that I don't give a flying rat's ass about your "storytellers". I have only concerned myself with those who recorded the history of the Hebrew people in the OT.

"Would it help if I pointed out yet again that it is modernistic hubris that calls such storytelling "lies," and not biblical exegesis?"

A rose by any other name, Danny boy. It is your hunch, your assumption that the OT authors wrote in a less than truthful manner in recording their history. If you can't prove a negative, then prove the positive, that they DID indeed write in an "epic style" that uses embellishment for reasons you've not exactly explained to any degree. You WANT it to be that way. You'd PREFER it was that way in order to maintain a preferred belief regarding the nature of God and the extent to which He would display His wrath.

"And would it help if I pointed out YET AGAIN that Marshall has NO EVIDENCE - NOT A BIT - ZERO - to support this modernistic approach to reading stories?"

Apparently I'M expected to prove a negative. When one reads a history, any history, the assumption is natural and logical that the history is exact to the best understanding of the writer. When one reads a history involving the Creator of all things, the assumption is logical and natural that those who told the history did so in a straightforward manner so as to leave no doubt about the character of God.

And need I remind you that your sources have not supported your contention. For all your supposed reading on how ancient peoples told their histories, none of your links back up the notion that ANY of them wrote as you say they did, aside from one regarding American Indians, which doesn't impress one as "history" at all.

So it has been YOU doing all the presuming about how histories were recorded, and more importantly, that the OT stories were recorded in this method. Talk about whimsy and hunches! What's more, my "entire case" has been that YOUR case is far from conclusive.

I take the OT stories as truthfully told and described as it happened, not because it "appeared" to happen that way to the writers or those who passed down the stories, but because it DID happen the way they recorded them. If God did NOT order the destruction of the Amelekites, including the infants, if God did NOT send the Angel of Death to take the first born, if God did NOT destroy Sodom with a storm, then the stories are lies, the writers are guilty of libel, writing false things about their God, Who, by His nature, does not take kindly to bearing false witness.

So I've offered no "hunches" that I need to support. I've been hoping you'd support yours. You've thus far failed miserably in doing so. We're left with Scripture and your whimsical belief that the falsely recorded history of the Hebrew people are still valuable to relate "truths", none of which are based on real events. The Jews murdered innocent infants and lied about God telling them to do it. Or they didn't murder them, but lied about doing so under God's orders. Or, the other populations were destroyed by other armies and the Jews took credit, THEN said God ordered them, because they needed something to feel good about and the lesson the stories teach, based on total fabrication is that God is love and would never hurt a fly, tra la, tra la!

Marshall Art said...

So get this through your head: Storytelling to teach truths is a valid technique for that purpose. Jesus used it all the time, as did Aesop and Hans Christian Anderson. But storytelling and the recording of history is two different things. Storytelling as a teaching technique was NEVER in question in the previous posts. Your equating the history of the Hebrews as told in the OT to mythic storytelling was. You've not supported that whimsical hunch in the least.

Craig said...

Dan,

Perhaps it might be helpful if you would try one of the following.

1. Maybe you could do a kind of quick survey of the OT and identify which stories you believe to be factually correct and which you believe to be "epic" or "mythic".

2. Alternatively you could take a couple of stories from the OT and demonstrate how you go about doing your exegesis. My suggestion would be that maybe you could walk through the process in some detail beginning with your preconceptions, then moving through your thought process and research, concluding with what Truths you believe are being communicated.

I realize this would take some time on your part, but believe it would be an interesting exercise and would allow folks to understand the process you go through as it relates to something specific.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

Maybe you could do a kind of quick survey of the OT and identify which stories you believe to be factually correct and which you believe to be "epic" or "mythic".


Your suggestions are good idea. But to provide a quick response: Historically, there appears to be a break from the older, storytelling way of passing on history and the more modern way of recording history. That break began between 500 BC and 500 AD.

Thus, much of what is written in the OT would not be held to the standards of the more modern way of history telling as anything afterwards.

Dan Trabue said...

And just to repeat my position on all this: My point is NOT that these stories are "False." I believe these stories to be ENTIRELY TRUE. I just don't think the facts are necessarily historically factual or all that important. They are, generally speaking, besides the point.

I don't need to accept or deny the historicity of Jonah's great fish to get the points of the story. The facts are irrelevant.

Alan said...

We've come to the point in the conversations where all MA can do is yap and lie because he's too much of a pathetic coward to actually engage with what we actually write.

Keep up the yapping, MA. If Dan is right and these conversations do actually serve some purpose, then at least people get to see the level of slobbering abject stupidity it requires to say and believe the things you say.

I believe God created the heavens and the Earth. You keep disagreeing with me, so you must not agree with that. Oh well.

Marshall Art said...

Alan,

I've never disagreed with you on such a statement as:

"I believe God created the heavens and the Earth."

Feel free to find where I did. I don't think you'll find that I "disagree" with how He went about it, especially when I've never stated how I think He did it. I've only gone so far as to say that I believe He is fully capable of creating all things in a mere instant, that He could have done it quite recently, and that the result might look to our best and brightest as having taken "billions and billions" of years to complete.

What I have stated about you, regarding this issue I never brought up, is that your faith is in the best and brightest of us who think it took those billions of years. That's a pretty freakin' accurate assessment of the situation, whether you like the sound of it or not. The Biblical account you doubt. The scientists you don't.

Craig said...

Dan,

Thanks. Why I am asking is that you have indicated earlier that you do accept some OT stories as factual, or at least parts of stories. I would be interested in the process you go through to arrive at your conclusions. I realize this may take some time, and I understand that. You do seem to agree that there is some historical basis for the OT, I'd like to get a sense of what you think that is.

Dan Trabue said...

Actually, Craig, I don't think it's that hard for me to do what you wish.

For the most part, I see no evidence that early peoples recorded history the way we do, with an emphasis on literal, factual, linear history. That does not appear to have started until nearly the time of Christ.

Thus, for the most part, I consider these stories whose facts we can't really wholly verify.

I mean, through archeological and comparative cultural studies we can know whether there was likely an Egypt back then (there was), when the Pharoahs ruled and how that compares with biblical timelines, details like that. There is enough evidence for me to believe that these are people who actually existed, as a rule, and whose stories were likely roughly as told.

Thus, I tend to think there was an actual Jonah who went to a Ninevah and who preached and the whole town got saved. But I can't know much of that nor is it important to me. Since it's not that important to me to understand the story if there was or wasn't an actual Jonah, then the part of the story with the great fish doesn't particularly matter to me, either.
I'm fine with those who believe it literally, I'm fine with those who doubt it literally - as long as we all agree upon the Truths contained within the story. The TRUTHS, not the facts. The facts, to me, are irrelevant to the story. I don't believe I can verify or wholly set aside the facts as described and they simply aren't relevant to understanding the TRUTHS of the story.

And why is that? Because the Bible, to me, is a book of Truth and Truths. The important part, to me, of what we glean from the Bible are the vital Truths of God. Truths such as God is love. Love your enemy. Love your neighbor. Don't store treasures up on earth. Give to those who ask of you. God is a God of Justice, of compassion for the needy. Etc, etc.

With me so far?

Dan Trabue said...

Continuing then:

I'm fine with people who wish to have a literal reading of these OT stories or those who don't take it literally, either way - I think at least some of the more conservative types are that way at least with the creation story, they don't all generally demand that it must be taken literally.

So, if you want to take Jonah as literally written? Fine. Want to take the Creation story as literally written? Fine. No problem.

The only time I have a problem with a literal translation is if the FACTS (facts as presented) would interfere with the TRUTHS of the Bible that we find throughout the Bible. As I have stated repeatedly, some of the rules of good biblical exegesis include:

Interpret the individual through the whole
Interpret the whole through the lens of Jesus' specific teachings
Interpret the obscure and hard to understand in light of the clear and obvious

So, IF a literal interpretation would tend to require someone to set aside what I think is a clear and obvious truth, or set aside a clear teaching of Jesus, or conflict with the teaching of the Bible as a whole, then do I reject that passage as "FALSE!" as some claim? No. But I don't accept it as literal, because doing so would interfere with good biblical exegesis and contradict the teachings of the Bible.

About the only place where I see that happening in the OT is the stories where it appears that we have God commanding people to cause harm to innocents. Thus, the demand that Israel wipe out a city, including innocent bystanders, women, children and babies, THAT literal interpretation would interfere with clear teaching that we are not to shed innocent blood.

And, since I have no compelling reason to take that passage literally (since I know that mythic, epic, non-linear, not strictly factual storytelling appears to have been the norm back then), why WOULD I set aside what I think are clear biblical TRUTHS in favor of unnecessary and slavish devotion to a belief in factual literality?

So, given that, I think stories where God appears to command the destruction of a city, including babies, may well have represented an actual battle, but the teaching: Sometimes, "God may want you to kill babies" lies in stark contrast to the clear and obvious teaching, "Don't shed innocent blood." Thus, I feel no compulsion to try to explain that literally and would disagree with those who would suggest that it is in God's nature to sometimes compel humanity to shed innocent blood, including kill babies.

And a story where God commands people to wipe out a city and even the children and babies, but to save the virgin girls to take home and forcibly make them their wives, since a literal reading would conflict with clear biblical teaching, I feel no compulsion to take it literally.

In summary: I generally don't have an opinion at all about the exact historical accurateness of any given story in the OT. Jonah, the creation stories, the crossing of the Red Sea, the battle of Jericho, Gideon's battle, David and Goliath, David's ascent to king, etc, etc. I have no problems with literal readings of those stories and I have no problems with not-strictly-literal readings of those stories, because a literal reading does not take from or add to the Truth in those stories and in the Bible as a whole and in Jesus' specific teachings.

BUT, in those few stories where a literal reading would require setting aside a clear Biblical Truth, I always side on the side of the clear Biblical Truth.

Dan Trabue said...

And I think the difference between my tribe and yours, Brother Craig, is that you all feel a great need to explain the Truths and retain a literal reading of at least some OT stories (although, again, I think at least some conservatives are fine with a non-literal reading of the Creation story). You appear to feel it is an insult to the Bible and/or God to consider the possibility that some of these stories may not represent literal, linear, factual history as presented. That those who would tell history stories back then in that style were "liars," and deceivers.

My tribe gladly accepts that this is the way that stories have often been told in history and see no compelling biblical or logical reason to consider that the OT authors were any different in how they told stories than any other storytellers back then.

Your most compelling reason (from what I can see) is that Jesus or anyone else in the Bible never refered to these stories as having been non-literal, but as I have pointed out, since I do the exact same thing, I don't find that to be a compelling reason at all.

Your other compelling reason appears to be that, TO YOU, it would appear that people who told history-stories that didn't represent literal, linear history, must be liars and deceivers. Again, I simply find this to be modern chauvinism, a bit whimsical and subjective, and simply not compelling.

So, Craig, my question to you is: what OTHER compelling reason would we have for taking these stories literally? Do you have any others or are those two the big ones?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

Alternatively you could take a couple of stories from the OT and demonstrate how you go about doing your exegesis. My suggestion would be that maybe you could walk through the process in some detail beginning with your preconceptions, then moving through your thought process and research, concluding with what Truths you believe are being communicated.

So, I read the Bible and I learn that these are what I consider to be eternal and abiding Truths about God's nature and human behavior... these would be, I guess, my preconceptions, or my starting points:

1. God is a God of love.
2. God is a God of justice.
3. God is especially concerned about how we humans treat the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, children, the elderly, the sick.
4. We humans ought not deliberately shed innocent blood.
5. We humans ought not deliberately oppress or harm people, especially the most innocent and vulnerable.
6. God will not tempt us or command us to sin. God won't command us to rape puppies. God won't command us to rape children. God won't command us to smash babies heads into the ground. God will not tempt us or command us to sin.
7. If someone THINKS God is commanding us to do something that would normally be a sin and says, "BUT, since it's God commanding it, it can't be a sin, so I gotta do it," is most likely confused or insane. The odds are not in favor of God actually commanding us to sin, with the loophole being, "if God commanded it, it's not a sin."
8. The problem with THAT line of thinking is that, then the line, "God will not tempt us (or command us) to sin" becomes meaningless, so we can logically and biblically set aside that line of thinking, I think.
9. The Bible is a book of Truth. It is God's revelation to humanity.
10. It is not a magic book. We won't read it and perfectly understand and know all things. We STILL must rely upon prayer and our God-given reasoning to sort things out and best understand God's will.
11. Nonetheless, the Bible is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.
12. That said, there is nothing in the Bible or logically that would make us think we MUST take each story in the Bible as representing entirely literal facts. The Bible nowhere makes the case or even the suggestion that we must take each OT history story as a linear, literal, factual history in the more modern sense.
13. Good biblical exegesis includes interpreting the individual through the whole, interpeting the whole through the specific teachings of Jesus, interpreting the obscure and unclear through the plain and obvious, interpret passages with an eye to the sort of literary devices likely being used, etc.

On this point, I will remind you that I WAS a conservative literalist, I took the bible literally, including stories such as the ones we're speaking of. But, the more I read the Bible, the more I studied and researched and prayed and read (and NOT reading "liberal Christians," that's something I just didn't do when I was younger), the more I realized that there simply was no biblical, logical reason to presume that we MUST start with a literal interpretation of facts in the Bible. In short: It was a traditional, conservative, serious prayerful reading of the Bible literally that lead me AWAY from the notion of reading it literally. I just can find NO logical, biblical support for such a reading.

And so, these would be, I guess, at least most of my preconceptions - my starting points for reading any story/passage in the Bible.

Dan Trabue said...

And so, when I open a passage and read this passage from 1 Sam 15...

This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants...

I don't have a problem with the general historical facts that Israel may have attacked the Amalekites, destroying them all. BUT, I see a passage that suggests (or outright says), "God sometimes commands people to kill innocent bystanders, including BABIES, in a nation under judgment." That is what a literal reading of that passage says.

And so:
Literal reading = God sometimes commands people to kill babies
Greater and obvious Truth in the Bible = God does NOT want us to shed innocent blood and God does not tempt us to sin

That, to me, is a conflict. It is an instance of an obscure passage/understanding conflicting with an obvious teaching and so...

I INTERPRET THE OBSCURE THROUGH THE CLEAR.
I INTERPRET THE HARD TO UNDERSTAND THROUGH JESUS' SPECIFIC TEACHINGS.
I INTERPRET WITH AN EYE TOWARDS THE WRITING STYLE BEING USED.

I don't see how it CAN mean that God sometimes commands us to shed innocent blood
AND I have no reason at all why I need to take this literally,
AND I know that the writing standard of the time included a mix of fiction and fact
AND SO, this would suggest to me that this is not a part of the story that ought to be taken as a literal factual repeating of history exactly as it happened.

Could there be other explanations? Sure. Maybe there's something to Doug (I believe it was Doug) who suggested a progressive revelation of God, where God holds different people and different cultures to different standards. This was a different time. "An eye for an eye" was actually a LESS violent way of dealing with disagreements than was normal. MAYBE, that is a possible way of explaining this apparent contradiction.

But, it does not seem to me to be the most likely way of explaining it. My explanation - faulty as it may be - seems to me to be the most biblically sound, reasonable way of explaining how a God who commands us NOT to shed innocent blood appears to command exactly that taboo action elsewhere in the Bible.

Short of a more compelling explanation, that is the one that strikes me as most faithful to the Great Truths taught in God's Holy Word.

Dan Trabue said...

Alan posted the following, with some name-calling. I have removed the name-calling but the comment remains:

MA said...

"He is fully capable of creating all things in a mere instant, that He could have done it quite recently, and that the result might look to our best and brightest as having taken "billions and billions" of years to complete. "

Earlier I wrote, "Now God could, as Geoffrey says, have created the universe just to *look* like it is 14 billion years old. He could have done that 6000 years ago, or he could have done it 20 seconds ago. But that would make God out to be, at best, a trickster god and at worst, a liar. I think you'd have a hard time finding Scriptural evidence for either conclusion."

Holy cow, you're [expressing what I already said and thus, appearing to be a silly person]. Seriously.

Dan Trabue said...

Alan posted the following, with some name-calling. I have removed the name-calling but the comment remains:

MA said...

"I've never disagreed with you on such a statement as:

"I believe God created the heavens and the Earth."

Feel free to find where I did."


You [misrepresent the situation] again and again. I have stated exactly what I believe, yet you say:

"That's a pretty freakin' accurate assessment of the situation, whether you like the sound of it or not. The Biblical account you doubt. The scientists you don't."

Clearly I believe the Bible. You keep arguing with me, so evidently you disagree with the Bible. That's a pretty freakin' accurate assessment of the situation, whether you like the sound of it or not.

But, like I said, it doesn't really matter since you have already clearly stated that you don't actually believe anything you've written on this topic and that Dan is correct...

But please, keep it up. I'm sure I can get you to speak on for another 97 posts. Let's see if we can make you shovel your usual BS and get us to 200 posts!

Doug said...

(Just an aside: I do appreciate the civility Dan is trying to keep the discussion to, even regarding the editing of other people's posts. I know he is normally reluctant to exercise even this level of "comment moderation", as am I on my blogs, so I give him all the credit he is due here.

Having said that, as Dan is moderating comments from his tribe, I say to "my tribe" let's try to keep to that on ours as well. Lead by example and all that.)

Marshall Art said...

I believe I have been very civil of late. I'm attempting to address comments, as well as responses to my comments, regardless of the misreprentations and snark and other less than honest tactics, intended or otherwise. I don't have a problem with Alan's attitude, particularly since Dan gave him free reign to act as he chooses, because as we have learned, if God makes someone a certain way, no one else has the right to demand he change, even if his behavior offends God. Alan was made to be snarky. Leave him be.

To address his latest truncated remarks, Alan again fails to use his allegedly scientific intelligence to understand a simple concept:

I never said or certainly never meant to imply (another thing Alan would have a hard time finding) that God "purposely" created all things to "look" like something it isn't. I merely stated that He created all things, and that our human limitations have not necessarily figured out the details accurately. He made it just as He chose with no concern about how the Alans of the world will see it. He just created it, and men are left to figure it out. Did He "mean" to create the solar system in such a manner that for some it seemed as if the sun revolved around the earth? I don't think so. It's just how man viewed it until he advanced enough to know otherwise.

But our advancements don't guarantee that we are always correct or even close to correct. Alan believes science to be infallible at least to the extent that it can accurately gauge the age of all things as greater than what the Bible suggests. Thus, his faith is in science, on this point at least, in greater levels than in the Bible. Clearly, you don't believe all of the Bible, but only parts, just like Dan and Geoffrey, and thus your Bible is smaller than mine.

You call this an accurate assessment:

"Clearly I believe the Bible. You keep arguing with me, so evidently you disagree with the Bible."

This assumes that anyone must agree with your corrupted understandings in order to consider themselves believers. The arrogance is feodor-like and equally laughable. I agree with what the Bible says (at least far more than you) and not what YOU say it says. I would warn off anyone who thinks you can teach them the truth of the Bible.

I wish to note for the host, that the above comments are neither meant as snark or insult, but a true relection of my feelings and positions. Also, I have a response in mind for your latest comments, but time prevents my doing so now. Finally, you've already declared open season on me. I'm good with that. There's no need to pretend you care about what Alan says about me. I keep insisting on honesty. I meant it.

Alan said...

"Having said that, as Dan is moderating comments from his tribe, I say to "my tribe" let's try to keep to that on ours as well. Lead by example and all that.)"

Hi Doug. Are you going to call out MA for his constant lies? Have I not said that I do not have faith in science, and that the very notion makes no sense since science does not require faith?

Yet your buddy keeps right on lying about that. Is that civil?

Just curious.

Alan said...

MA: "Alan believes science to be infallible "

No, I don't. That's a lie. I believe it is reliable, but it is clearly not infallible and I never said it was.

MA: "Thus, his faith is in science,"

That is also a lie. As I have now stated numerous times, I do not have faith in science. Science does not require faith, which is why it is called "science" and not "religion."

MA: "Clearly, you don't believe all of the Bible, "

That is also a lie. There is no part of the Bible I do not believe, there is no part I "throw out", there is no part I "disregard."

All of that is what makes this comment of MA's even more laughable, "I keep insisting on honesty. I meant it."

MA, you're not interested in honesty, or you would stop lying.

Dan, if you're going to edit out the name calling, will you also edit out the lies? They're at least as un-civil. But then, MA's comments would be left virtually blank.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

I believe I have been very civil of late.

Alan...

if you're going to edit out the name calling, will you also edit out the lies? They're at least as un-civil.

This has been my point that I think Marshall and others are not seeing or agreeing upon. They appear to think that if they express their opinion in the form of a definitive statement that is, on its face, false, that this is NOT crossing a line of incivility.

While you and I agree that repeatedly saying, "Dan/Alan, THIS is what you think and it is AWFUL!" when we DON'T think "this," nor have we said "this."

It's one thing to disagree with another's interpretation of the Bible and/or perhaps their exegesis. I'm fine with that and do it all the time.

It's another thing altogether to presume and repeatedly announce that because another disagrees with your interpretation, that they are rejecting the Bible and/or are being dishonest about seeking God's Word/God's will.

That does not seem less than civil to others, while it does to you and me. Go figure.

Marshall Art said...

Well, boo-hoo, Dan.

You can state anything you like, but if it doesn't align with other things you say, don't blame me for seeing the disparity. Rather, answer the objection and show where I misunderstood, instead of simply restating the claim your other words contradict.

In Alan's case, it's pretty clear. He says he doesn't put his faith in science, or that he puts no faith in science, or that his faith in science isn't greater than his faith in the Bible (so hard to know what the hell he means when he contradicts himself so often). But he does believe that the earth is older (or creation is) than what the Bible suggests. Whence comes this belief? Or is he now saying he doesn't believe the science is more correct after all?

So he can pout and stomp his feet and hold his breath until he turns blue, or however his tantrum might manifest, but I certainly haven't lied at all in inferring what his words compel.

The same goes for you. You insist you haven't thrown out anything from the Bible, but then you explain why you don't believe stories like the destruction of the Amelekites are truly recorded. You can't have it both ways. So if you don't like the way the story is recorded in the Bible, you have dismissed the story and replaced it with some unknown alternative that pleases your sensitive nature as regards the extent of God's wrath.

That wrath, by the way, is never described without such stories and you have yet to answer the begged question of just why we need a Savior if God is not capable of such terrible wrath? From what are we to be saved?

Furthermore, you continue to judge God by laws He has mandated for us to follow and as if He has anywhere in the Bible demonstrated that He is in any way bound by those laws. You seem to insist that His justice is based on what our sense of justice is. You accuse me of modern biases in denying that the OT authors wrote in the same way other peoples did, while you project your modern sense of justice upon God Himself and demand He abide by it.

And as far as lying, I will only say that I have not lied about anything. What is true is as I have said before: you don't like how your own words are rebounded back to you by those of us who read them objectively.

Alan said...

"And as far as lying, I will only say that I have not lied about anything."

And that's another lie. It just doesn't stop with you, does it?

Alan said...

MA, do you believe God is a giant chicken?

Psalm 61:4: "I long to dwell in your tent forever and take refuge in the shelter of your wings."

And just where is God's tent? Canvas or nylon?

I assume you take that literally, since to do otherwise would be to "dismiss" that verse, making up some "unknown alternative text."

Doug said...

MA, do you believe God is a giant chicken?

If I may, this is (yet another) example of (what can only be) deliberate misreading of what we've been saying for purposes of finding an opportunity to be snarky.

MA and I have been very clear about the idea of believe the description of historical events as recorded by the author. Nothing, ever, at all, has been suggested by any of us that therefore every bit of poetry or flowery language must also be taken literally. As I've noted before, you are imposing your definition of "literalism" on us, or at worst, a definition specifically crated that you can then turn around and ridicule us for supposedly believing.

And then you have the audacity to call us liars when we don't fit your definition.

I'm all for honest discussion, even with tempers flaring. I don't see how that qualifies.

Dan Trabue said...

Doug...

Nothing, ever, at all, has been suggested by any of us that therefore every bit of poetry or flowery language must also be taken literally.

The problem, Doug, as I see it is the lack of grace and civility in the initial argument. OF COURSE, every bit of poetry or flowery language need not be taken literally. Alan's objections are just a repeating back of the objections against us, amplified so you can see the irony. But some appear to be missing the irony.

In fact, it has been my/our position all along that exegesis requires we strive to understand the style of writing being employed.

And if you or Marshall think that a passage (Luke's "Blessed are you who are poor," for instance) ought not be taken literally and I/we disagree with that, we may say, "I don't find that to be a plausible way of interpreting that," or "I can agree that we can be informed by Matthew's version, but I don't think we can eliminate a more literal version of out hand..."

What we DON'T do - and what we object to - is telling Marshall he's a liar because we disagree with you or Marshall; or telling him that he reject parts of the Bible because we disagree with his take or interpretation.

Alan (unless I'm seriously mistaken) is merely responding in kind to Marshall, and amplifying it to the point of absurdity, to help Marshall see the absurdity of his telling us we reject the Bible in order to align it to our own design.

That is offensive, lacking in grace, reflecting poor discussion skills and not a little stupid.

Marty said...

Marshall: "you don't like how your own words are rebounded back to you by those of us who read them objectively."

Oh..that's hilarious Marshall. You couldn't read them objectively if your life depended on it. You're too bull headed and locked into your own fearful bias and interpretation to even look at the words objectively. You're not kidding anybody but yourself and others who think like you.

Dan, you've really exposed the fear that fundamentalists have with regard to their faith. Their whole reason for belief is based on fear of going to hell. It has nothing to do with love or gratefulness or even the awesomeness of God's grace and mercy and what that means for them. It's sad.

Alan said...

Doug, I might be chastened by your comment if you ever had the guts to call MA out on his lies. Instead, you're simply being hypocritical.

Doug, have I or have I not repeatedly stated my understanding about science? Have I not clearly stated that I do not have "faith" in science, that I do not hold it higher than the Bible, etc? Have I not stated repeatedly that I believe God created the heavens and the Earth?

And yet, MA keeps lying about all those points. It isn't my interpretation or opinion that he lies. I state A about my beliefs (a subject on which I really do think I qualify as an expert) and he then lies and says Not-A about my beliefs. Thus it isn't my opinion that he's lying, it isn't just rhetoric on my part, it is quite plainly the truth.

And if you, Doug, cannot distinguish between someone saying A and someone else saying Not-A, then this entire conversation between you and Dan is rather pointless because that is rather the issue isn't it?

Now, if you can drop the hypocrisy for a minute and actually chastise MA, then maybe I'd consider your condemnation to be worth the electrons they're printed in.

Otherwise, be assured that I will give your comment all the consideration it deserves.

So, Doug, I know you don't like to answer questions, but prefer to interrogate others, but can you tell me how, exactly MA's lies qualify as "honest discussion"?

Thanks.

Alan said...

"MA and I have been very clear about the idea of believe the description of historical events as recorded by the author. "

Um.... so, uh, you don't believe creation was an historical event or series of events? *I* believe creation was an historical event (or series of events).

But you aren't a creationist, are you Doug? (Have you ever actually answered that?)

My example of Psalms is that of course you do not think God is a giant chicken. So you draw the line somewhere. Who knows what you think about the age of the universe, but you probably draw a line there too.

You're all fine and good with people "throwing out", as MA would say, stories that don't fit their conception about a particular type of Biblical literature when it suits you.

But heaven forbid you disagree with where that line is drawn, eh?

(Note to MA: Now is the time to lie and say that I don't believe creation was an historical event. Just cut and paste and put "not" in front of my sentence above, so as not to overtax your brain too much. And now will be the time when Doug ignores your newest lies and instead displays more phony indignation about something I've written.)

*sniff* *sniff*

Marshall Art said...

Don't cry, Alan. I don't hate you. I feel sorry for you. Try to remain calm. I'm here to help.

I don't think you've given me any reason to believe you don't think creation was a historical event. But you have given me reason to believe you have more faith in science's explanation of it than the Bible's. You can deny you have faith in science all you want, but that conflicts with your leaning on the scientific explanation over the Bible's.

But Doug is correct, and Dan is not, regarding the use of a Psalm to counter our argument regarding the veracity of the OT stories Dan has rejected. (Yes, "rejected" in favor of an alternative explanation not entirely made clear by him.) There is no example of the same recorders of the battle stories claiming God has wings in even a figurative sense (which would be easily discerned by honest, rational readers like me).

And again, I haven't lied about anything you've said. I even admit that you make particular statements. But I also note, honestly and clearly, as well as accurately, that you then say other things that contradict your claims. So does Dan. And often.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

"Oh..that's hilarious Marshall. You couldn't read them objectively if your life depended on it."

Just a little bit biased in favor of the boys here, aren't you, Marty? That's OK. I'm not offended by that.

But aside from entertainment value, I profit nothing from NOT reading their words objectively. Frankly, I'm equally amused being honest about what their words reveal. (I will admit that it's likely not very Christian to derive amusement in this manner. But I can't help it. It amuses.)

"You're too bull headed and locked into your own fearful bias and interpretation to even look at the words objectively."

If this were true, I'd simply say to Dan and the boys, "You're full of crap!" and leave it at that. But instead, I ask questions and try to get them to explain themselves so as to better understand what they're saying for my own sake. If they were able to do so, I would then profit immensely. But instead, I get, "Because I SAID SO!" And you call ME "bull-headed and locked in"! Talk about irony!

"Dan, you've really exposed the fear that fundamentalists have with regard to their faith."

To quote the Duke: "That'll be the day." Our fear is for YOUR souls and salvation due to your wacky views on the faith.

"Their whole reason for belief is based on fear of going to hell."

I regard myself as saved. What fear of hell would I have?

"It has nothing to do with love or gratefulness or even the awesomeness of God's grace and mercy and what that means for them."

Sez you. But I thank you for your honest, albeit mistaken, appraisal. It encapsulates a general misunderstanding of your side of these debates about ours.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"The problem, Doug, as I see it is the lack of grace and civility in the initial argument."

This is a sorry ploy, Dan. It is both desperate and dishonest. There is nothing graceless and uncivil about expressing our perceptions of what we see as flaws in your reasonings and understandings. It's a typical tactic to stifle opposition. It's like calling me a homophobe because I disagree with the homosexual agenda. It's like calling conservatives hateful for standing up for the enforcement of immigration law.

"Alan's objections are just a repeating back of the objections against us, amplified so you can see the irony. But some appear to be missing the irony."

I can understand why you'd think so. You employ the same tactic of using oranges to compare to our apples and think you've made a point. That's not irony. It's something else that would qualify as "uncivil" under your house rules to say.

"
What we DON'T do - and what we object to - is telling Marshall he's a liar because we disagree with you or Marshall..."


That's good, because I haven't lied yet. And I haven't called anyone a liar because of mere disagreement.

"...or telling him that he reject parts of the Bible because we disagree with his take or interpretation."

But you HAVE rejected the parts in contention. You say otherwise because you haven't torn them from the Book or because you stil read them. But you don't believe them as written. You replace what's written with something else more palatable to your preferences. That's rejection no matter how you slice it.

"Alan (unless I'm seriously mistaken) is merely responding in kind to Marshall, and amplifying it to the point of absurdity..."

No. Alan's just being absurd because he's a hateful person. That's the way God made him, so I accept that and tolerate it.

"That is offensive, lacking in grace, reflecting poor discussion skills and not a little stupid."

Seeing your position opposed might indeed be offensive to you. There's not much anyone can do about that. But there's also little anyone can do differently that would assuage that offense except to not do it at all and instead totally agree with you, OR, go with the totally cowardly "agree to disagree". The poor discussion skilss are yours, as you fail to meet your own expectations for that or Biblical interpretation. The least true is that I've been at all "stupid". That's just a hypocritical rejection of your own rules of decorum.

Alan said...

"You can deny you have faith in science all you want, but that conflicts with your leaning on the scientific explanation over the Bible's."

You propose a dichotomy where none exists. The Bible says that God created the Heavens and the Earth. It uses poetic and metaphorical language to express that fundamental truth. Science says it happened at least 14 billion years ago, but science is completely unable to make any claims about God one way or the other. So, there is no conflict as long as one asks science questions of science and theology questions of the Bible. The Bible was never meant to be a science textbook, and science is not able to answer questions about faith.

We orthodox Reformed folks (as opposed to you fundies) believe the Bible is necessary and sufficient for our faith. We don't believe it is a textbook on how to raise crops, perform chemistry experiments, build a car, or perform open heart surgery. God gave us (well, not you, obviously, but some of us) brains to use to figure the rest of that stuff out.

So once again, liar, I do not have more faith in science than the Bible, since science doesn't require faith. The fact that I believe God created humans in His own image, which necessarily means that I have the ability to reason and explore His creation, doesn't mean I value science more than the Bible. It only means I respect the imago dei and don't think that God is a liar or a trickster.

Please, MA, provide Scriptural evidence that God lies. I don't think you'll find any. But you apparently think that the Bible lies and/or that God's general revelation of creation is a lie. (General revelation is a theological concept. I'm sure there's a coloring book somewhere that will explain it to you.)

So... You apparently believe that the Bible can use poetic imagery or metaphorical language to express truths, thus you claim that you do not believe that God has wings and owns a tent. I also believe that the Bible can use poetic imagery or metaphorical language to express truths, thus I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, but not necessarily in 6 days 6000 years ago.

But somehow all of that means that you get to lie about my beliefs.

You're a liar MA, and what is worse, you know you're a liar, and I think you just keep lying because you're too immature to do anything else. Which is fine, because I enjoy watching you make an a** of yourself again and again and again and again and again.

Every time you comment, I am just more convinced by the vapid, intellectually vacant, pathetic, and pathological nature of the arguments of you and your cronies.

"That's good, because I haven't lied yet."

And the lies from MA just keep on coming....

Marty said...

"Just a little bit biased in favor of the boys here, aren't you, Marty?"

Well, they do make more sense to me. But biased? Not so much. Heck, Dan thinks Jonah existed. Not me. I'd be willing to bet a fisherman wrote that whale of a story.

"I'd simply say to Dan and the boys, "You're full of crap!" and leave it at that"

You pretty much have done that. But since you enjoy constant blathering on and on it takes you several thousand words to say it.

"Our fear is for YOUR souls and salvation"

Aww...that's nice of you Marshall, but really, you need not fear..God's grace is sufficient.

"I regard myself as saved. What fear of hell would I have?"

What are you saved from Marshall?

"It encapsulates a general misunderstanding"

No misunderstanding here. It's all quite clear.

Dan Trabue said...

Doug...

We agree that poetry is poetry, so there is no disagreement on the Psalms with regards to this whole discussion. But in the historical record, for reasons already defined, we see problems with considering portions 'epic'.

Doug, I don't think you're getting my point.

1. We ALL AGREE that SOME of the Bible is non-literal.

2. We ALL AGREE that we (you, Marshall, me, Alan... everyone) HAS to use our God-given reasoning to sort out that which is rightly considered literal and that which is better considered metaphor or non-literal. The poetic, the hyperbolic, the imagery, the fiction, the parables, the literally historic... NONE of that is spelled out for us in the Bible. We all HAVE to use our God-given reasoning to figure out which is which.

3. I understand that YOU THINK the case for a more literal history in the OT makes the most sense. That is YOUR hunch, Marshall's hunch. It's your best guess you reached using YOUR God-given reasoning. MY hunch is that a literally factual historic version does not make sense in some cases in the OT. We're ALL trying to understand God's Word. NONE of us are lying or rejecting the Bible when we interpret things differently.

4. When Marshall REJECTS a literal interpretation of Luke's "Blessed are you who are poor," I don't say that he's rejecting the Bible. I don't call him a liar for his position. I just think he's mistaken.

5. NONE of us can prove our hunch on any of these interpretations is the One True Understanding. We simply can't. Anyone who says they can prove it or that they know that they alone are correct and anyone who disagrees with them is rejecting the Bible is lying, at least to themselves, and obviously mistaken.

6. Our objection is to Marshall's belligerent take on our disagreement. It's not enough for him to say "we disagree." He must insist that we are rejecting the Bible (or "parts of the Bible") when we are simply NOT doing so.

Marshall seems to want to be able to say that when HE rejects a literal translation (Blessed are you who are poor) he is not rejecting that part of the Bible, but when WE disagree with a literal translation (Kill them babies!), we are rejecting parts of the Bible. If he were at least consistent ("Yes, I AM rejecting Luke's reading of the SOTM, and you are rejecting 'kill those babies.'"), then there would at least be some internal integrity to his argument and the hypocrisy angle wouldn't be there. But he wishes to have it both ways. That way, he can say that we reject the bible, while he merely interprets.

THAT is the problem with Marshall's approach to this dialog.

Doug said...

Dan, I certainly understand your frustration, but (and again, I must repeat myself) there is a fundamental difference between saying I don't agree with your interpretation of event/teaching/concept X, and saying that event X simply didn't happen.

Apples. Oranges.

I keep coming back to the idea that we're talking about the historical record. MA does not (as far as I know) say that the SOTM did not take place. He acknowledges that it did take place, but has a different idea of what it means than you do. Nothing is being "removed", so to speak.

You, on the other hand, take certain passages of the OT historical record, and have decided, by whatever exegesis you choose, that some of those things, not only didn't happen, but do not tell us anything about God, since they appear contradictory. The effect, then, appears to be that those portions of the Bible are utterly ignored and, for all intents and purposes, are not there. Hence, the "smaller Bible" claim.

Now, I understand that you do consider the Bible a book of truth and truths. But from my perspective, if you consider a command supposedly from God to kill all inhabitants to be contradictory to His nature, that He would never have done it, and thus that portion of the story is entirely fabricated for the pupose of storytelling, then there's no spiritual truth to be gleaned from it; certainly no truth about the nature of God Himself.

To take a passage like that and, in defense against the "smaller Bible" charge, you claim you can still get some truth from it seems (again, from over here) a stretch, and very nearly made-up simply to say you don't reject portions of the Scriptures. Yes, yes, I'm sure you're not doing that, but it really looks that way from here.

Now, one could make the case that a good portion of the book of Numbers isn't going to reveal much spiritual truth, either. The census, I'd wager, hasn't been the topic of many sermons. But we're not saying that it didn't happen.

So this is not about what I take literally vs. what you take literally. If you're illustrating your point of contention with an event that we all agreed happened (the SOTM), then it's you who still doesn't get our point, which, at this stage, I find incredible. My bullet-point list lo those many days and comments ago, talked specifically and solely about the recording of historical events, and particularly what they can tell us about God Himself, and the potential dangers in assuming they're epic tales. When you get away from that, you actually stumble into where we agree, while still accusing, which makes for epic frustration all around.

Dan Trabue said...

Thanks for the thoughts, Doug. A response...

I keep coming back to the idea that we're talking about the historical record. MA does not (as far as I know) say that the SOTM did not take place. He acknowledges that it did take place, but has a different idea of what it means than you do.

I know. And I keep coming back to:

Marshall rejects a literal interpretation of the passage - straight from Jesus' mouth - "Blessed are you who are poor, blessed are you who are hungry... Woe to you who are rich..." in favor of something NON-literal.

I reject a literal interpretation of the passage, "I want you to destroy them all - the men, women, children and babies..." in favor of something NON-literal and, I think, extremely biblical and logical.

I don't see a difference. I am NOT rejecting the passage any more than Marshall is rejecting the passage. We are BOTH offering non-literal interpretations of these passages, both with reasons we think are biblical and logical.

I don't see the difference and consider the repeated charge of "rejecting the Bible" to be nothing short of an unadulterated false witness.

Doug said...

I don't see a difference. I am NOT rejecting the passage any more than Marshall is rejecting the passage. We are BOTH offering non-literal interpretations of these passages, both with reasons we think are biblical and logical.

Fair enough. But as your topic was "Story telling", your complaint is off-topic in your own post. That's why these things get so fragmented and go off on so many tangents.

Dan Trabue said...

How so? I don't see your point.

Alan said...

"Fair enough. But as your topic was "Story telling", your complaint is off-topic in your own post."

Yeah, Dan!

Can't you see that you shouldn't comment about other things on your own blog?

I see Doug dodges my questions. What's he afraid of? Hardly surprising. These folks only want an interrogation, not a discussion. They refuse to answer questions, but whine when you don't answer theirs.

Doug said...

Dan, you are comparing the interpretation of a concept -- what do these words mean -- with a question of accurate recording -- did the event happen? That the word "literal" is used in each of the questions does not mean they're equivalent, so I don't think it's a fair question. That's one example of the sort of fragmentation that gets folks frustrated, and then tempers flare.

The post title is "Story Telling". For my part, I've tried to stay on-topic, and I've tried to point out areas of agreement (yes, I do believe that fictional stories can help explain a concept, but not necessarily something more concrete like the behavior of God). When I've given a quick, short answer to a question asked of me that is tangentially related (or, in some cases, not related at all) to the topic, it often got pounced on (usually via misinterpretation), and off we went into the weeds. If I don't want to get into the weeds, I'm accused of dodging questions.

Some of that sort of thing is inevitable in a written medium, with no verbal cues. But some here are much more prone to that than others, and I've already stated my thoughts on that, so I won't belabor the point. But keeping things as close to on-topic as possible would, I believe, make discussions here more productive.

Alan said...

"If I don't want to get into the weeds, I'm accused of dodging questions."

No, you're fine getting into the weeds when you want to hypocritically criticize anyone but your cronies.

Anyway, back to the topic...

It amazes me how much obvious rhetorical gymnastics people will attempt in order to avoid the very basic and obvious fact underlying all this rambling, which is this: we all draw lines between literal/historical and epic/figurative language in the Bible. While one can argue until they're blue in the face about the appropriate place to draw those lines, what one cannot honestly do, which we've seen people attempt again and again throughout this discussion, is draw such lines then claim you haven't done so, or claim that doing so is "throwing out" verses or having a "tiny Bible" or try the blatantly disingenuous approach of saying as Doug and others have repeatedly, "Well, yes we're allowed to make such a distinction about that particular verse or story, but only we're allowed to do so. When you do the exact same thing, you discard verses, or ignore them, or throw them out, etc."

Those are exactly the sort of lies that get us off on the tangents that bother Doug so much that he can't even bring himself to call them out when he sees them made by his cronies.

Doug said...

"Well, yes we're allowed to make such a distinction about that particular verse or story,

When speaking of concepts, etc. such as Dan's example of the Sermon on the Mount, we're all allowed to interpret.

... but only we're allowed to do so.

This has never been said, at least by me.

When you do the exact same thing, you discard verses, or ignore them, or throw them out, etc."

When speaking of an historical record, as I've very recently reiterated, there is, to me, a potential consequence of doing just that, as I've very recently explained.

I've been very clear with the distinction and why. You still conflate the two, and thus misstate the disagreement as solely an "us-vs-you" thing. You refuse to see the distinction. Not my problem.

Alan said...

" You refuse to see the distinction."

There's a difference, don't you think, between "refus[ing] to see the distinction" and thinking that the distinction is a false one?

So while you''re complaining about people misinterpreting, Doug, I do hope you'll take a moment to look in the mirror.

Or not. Probably not.

Marshall Art said...

Doug touched on it, but I'd like to get more specific.

Dan tried to compare the story of God commanding the destruction of the Amelekites to the SOTM in this manner: He said I was rejecting what Jesus said regarding "Blessed are the poor." This is untrue. The comparison is false. It would only be equal if I said that Jesus never really said that. But I never even hinted such a thing. Our disagreement on that verse, if there is one, is over what Jesus meant when He said it. But I believe He did indeed say it.

In the same way, I believe God did indeed command the Hebrews to destroy the Amelekites in the very manner Dan finds so upsetting. He doesn't. Or at least that's how his words have impressed us. By deciding that God didn't actually say that, as Jesus actually said, "Blessed are the poor..." Dan has effectively rejected that section of the OT. Dismissed it as false, untrue, fiction, and by doing so has rejected also the implications regarding God's nature the story records. And it doesn't really matter what alternate meaning Dan has for it (should he ever grace us with the alternative), it is still rejected in practice.

So, maybe Dan has another example of how I may have rejected, altered or dismissed any section of Scripture.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

He said I was rejecting what Jesus said regarding "Blessed are the poor." This is untrue. The comparison is false. It would only be equal if I said that Jesus never really said that.

There is a passage that says, "God said, 'kill all the people, including the babies.'"

I don't think it appropriate to interpret that passage literally.

There is another passage that says, "Blessed are you who are poor..."

Marshall does not think we ought to take that passage literally.

Yes, there IS a difference in the text: One is a TRUTH and Marshall rejects that truth. The other deals with a historic story. I reject taking that as a literal story, I reject a literal interpretation of the facts, but I reject no Truths found in the passage, UNLESS you contend that it is a Truth that God sometimes commands us to kill our enemies, including their babies.

IF you think that is a Truth, then yes, I reject Marshall's interpretation of that "truth," which Marshall arrived at by insisting on taking a passage's facts literally when I see no compelling reason to do so and very compelling reasons not to do so (for one: That "truth" flies against other much more clear truths found throughout the Bible).

Of the two "rejections" (rejecting a literally factual interpretation of a story and rejecting a literal truth of a story), I would suggest that rejecting the literal Truth to be more troubling.

We disagree all the time on the facts of stories in the Bible (was the creation literally six days or not? Was the story of Lazarus a parable or a literally factual story) and that's okay. It's a more serious thing to reject biblical Truths than it is to disagree about the factual accuracy of a story.

Seems to me.

Marshall...

Dan has effectively rejected that section of the OT. Dismissed it as false, untrue, fiction

You can repeat a falsehood 10,000 times, Marshall, and it will remain a falsehood.

I do not count any of the stories in the Bible as false. I disagree with treating a text as modern history when it was not written in that manner, as far as we can tell.

Do you think those conservatives who don't believe in a six day creation or a six thousand year old earth are calling the Bible "false?" "Fiction?" OR, do you think they merely disagree with treating that text as a literal, scientific and historic recounting of Creation?

Marshall Art said...

I believe continuing to bring up the apple of creation to be a dishonest tactic in a discussion regarding the orange of OT recordings of God commanding or engaging in the destruction of people He so condemned.

Comparing the two stories above, we cannot do so with different starting points. We must both begin with whether or not the statements being debated were actually spoken. The "truths" contained therein is irrelevant at this point. I believe both were indeed spoken, recorded as if they actually happened and both authors are doing just that (regardless of the accuracy of the exact words used). THAT'S my argument. You reject the OT story as not truely recorded, while assuming the NT author writes in a style so drastically different that we can rest assured Jesus said just that.

Using your own interpretation rules, however, we cannot look at the Luke version alone without keeping in mind the other. Thus, to insist that in Luke Jesus was only speaking of the financially poor is willful on your part, but not necessarily an accurate assessment of the case. BUT, and this is important, I do NOT suggest that a different interpretation of the Luke passages equates to an entirely altered story to replace what the OT author recorded, an altertered story I've still not read. In one case, the words spoken are accepted as having actually been spoken, in the OT case, you reject that notion. I accept both as actually having been spoken and there has been presented no compelling reason to reject either. In short, your arguments are not compelling as they cannot be made to explain away the OT stories no matter what other peoples' did.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

Comparing the two stories above, we cannot do so with different starting points. We must both begin with whether or not the statements being debated were actually spoken.

Why?

Before continuing with too many more words, Marshall, how about answering some more of the questions already asked of you? That would probably help in at least my understanding.

Thanks.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

I believe continuing to bring up the apple of creation to be a dishonest tactic in a discussion regarding the orange of OT recordings of God commanding or engaging in the destruction of people He so condemned.

You can believe what you want. Factually, though, I'm not being dishonest in bringing it up. It seems to point to a flaw in your reasoning and is part of why you're not convincing me of your position.

Marshall...

to insist that in Luke Jesus was only speaking of the financially poor is willful on your part, but not necessarily an accurate assessment of the case.

1. I have not insisted on "financially poor" as the only interpretation. You can read where I've pointed that out before multiple times. I find it to be the most reasonable and likely point that Jesus was making, a literal one. But certainly, it is ALSO true that we are to be poor in spirit and that those who are poor in spirit are ALSO blessed, along with the actual poor. Both/And.

2. I don't think that taking "blessed are you who are poor... blessed are you who hunger..., woe to you who are rich..." at face value is inaccurate. I'd be willing to bet that at least some of your colleagues here would agree that it Luke's quote of Jesus is actually speaking of the poor, as seems obvious from the text.

John Wesley, Matthew Henry and other traditionalists certainly have thought so.

Alan said...

"Comparing the two stories above, we cannot do so with different starting points."

Because one is your starting point, Dan, and therefore it must always be wrong, and the other is MA's starting point and it must therefore always be right.

Now I know some might call that inconsistent. But they're wrong, because they don't know that MA speaks for God.

Marshall Art said...

"...how about answering some more of the questions already asked of you?"

I'd be more than happy to do so. Which ones do you have in mind?

In the meantime,

"Comparing the two stories above, we cannot do so with different starting points."

You ask "why?". Because it makes no sense to debate two different things and expect any kind of understanding, to say nothing of resolution.

Thus, you bring up the Luke version of the beatitudes and suggest that I have rejected it. I have not. I only differ on the meaning based on the Matthew version.

But in the Amelekite situation, you don't even offer an interpretation. You say God couldn't have said that. But in both cases, He is plainly said to have said both things. In the Luke passage, we both agree He said what Luke said He said. (Geez) OK? He said it.

But in the Amelekite situation, we DON'T agree that He said what the recorder of events said He said. Indeed, you don't believe He said it at all. Thus, you have rejected that part of the Bible wherein God commanded the taking of lives. I understand that none of you guys can bear the thought of being known as one who has rejected ANY of the Bible. But how can you say otherwise when it is so clear? Your alternate version, which you haven't offered still, replaces the text. It does NOT interpret it. Interpret is what we both are doing with the Luke passage. With the OT stories, you are removing in and putting in it's place something entirely different. No. You haven't whited out the text and typed in that different story, but the result is the same.

Dan Trabue said...

Thus, you bring up the Luke version of the beatitudes and suggest that I have rejected it. I have not. I only differ on the meaning based on the Matthew version.

And I differ on the meaning of the "kill babies" texts based upon the Bible and reason and all the evidence that I see.

We both are looking at the texts.

We both are finding reasons not to take these texts literally.

We both do so in our respective efforts to seek God's will.

I get that you see a difference. And I do, too, but a different "difference." As stated, you are rejecting literal TRUTHS from the bible, while I'm merely disagreeing with taking a passage (like the Creation stories, like the "kill babies" stories) as representing literal historic facts. But NOT rejecting Biblical Truths.

Of the two, I find the rejection of literal TRUTHS to be a more sobering rejection than merely disagreeing on whether some facts happen the way that your hunch suggests.

Dan Trabue said...

But we've said all this before.

Dan Trabue said...

Returning to something Doug said earlier...

I keep coming back to the idea that we're talking about the historical record. MA does not (as far as I know) say that the SOTM did not take place. He acknowledges that it did take place, but has a different idea of what it means than you do.

Is it your position, Doug (or anyone), that thinking that the text, the facts and good biblical exegesis don't dictate a factually literal historic rendering of the Creation story is a more serious problem with a person's Biblical exegesis than rejecting a literal interpretation of a Truth teaching, such as "Blessed are you who are poor?"


Is it your position, Doug (or anyone), that thinking that the text, the facts and good biblical exegesis don't dictate a factually literal historic rendering of the "kill babies" story is a more serious problem with a person's Biblical exegesis than rejecting a literal interpretation of a Truth teaching, such as "Blessed are you who are poor?"

Also Doug, I'm curious if you think it's possible that Christians of good faith can earnestly read the Bible, seeking God's will, praying for insight and wisdom and possibly come to the conclusion that the Genesis creation stories are astounding TRUTHS, but they are Truths written in mythic language?

Do you think it's possible that Christians of good faith can earnestly read the Bible, seeking God's will, praying for insight and wisdom and possibly come to the conclusion that the Amalekite "destroy-them-all" type of stories are astounding TRUTHS, but they are Truths written in epic language?

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

I haven't rejected any "literal truths". You just haven't made the case that yours exists in one case and not in the other.

First, you have to assume that Jesus was indeed preaching two different truths using almost identical language but omitting the punchlines in Luke ("in spirit"), while retaining the reward. So, both the poor as well as the poor in spirit, will have the kingdom. Don't you think that would be a bit confusing? Don't you think that would result in disputes among followers that didn't attend the same sermons?

What's more, if one were to honestly consider the entirety of the Gospel, it's more than clear that Christ was always dealing with the spiritual. I'd go so far as to say that has always been the case throughout the Bible. It isn't so much caring for the poor, as it is encouraging better behavior from those who would take advantage and further oppress the poor.

Furthermore, your interpretation can easily be taken to mean that poverty is an ideal state for us to achieve, a worthy goal in life. There's nothing to support this in any way.

But we're still left with the distinction of whether or not it was said at all. I believe it was because it is stated so by the author. In the same way, I believe God made the command you find offensive. The difference is that you dismiss it because you don't like the ramifications for what it means regarding God's nature. You like the ramifications of His sermon in Luke because it's all sweet and kind. I do, too, but I acknowledge that our Father in Heaven, not unlike most good fathers on earth, will punish and rule His children as He sees fit, whether we understand His reasoning or not. You reject this recording of events because of rules He mandates for us, as if He is required to abide them as well. This also assumes the child can demand of the father that he abide by the rules he sets for the child.

And to say that it conflicts with other teachings regarding the nature of God is totally incorrect. It is no more in conflict with His nature than is the father who spanks his child so proving he is not really a loving father. Also, there are enough stories of God destroying "innocent" people to make a mockery of the idea that it is not in His nature to ever take a life for reasons we can't understand.

So, you can't resolve these difficult aspects in your mind so you reject them, replacing them with alternative "truths" I've yet to see, and claim by doing so you've rejected nothing. At the same time, you haven't resolved the issue of the authors using God to excuse that which you say God would never condone. If the nation destroyed all those people, including infants, and said "God made me do it", then they have recorded lies. Even if they are relating some as yet undescribed truth, they are blatantly libeling God in order to do it. It is not told in the form of a parable or fable or even a myth, or else the entire OT is a parable, fable or myth, which at some undefined point becomes more believable as historical recording based on what other peoples customs were that you have not in any way come close to proving was the custom of the OT authors.

continuing...

Marshall Art said...

It appears to me that you have found things you don't like and looked for ways to permit you to dismiss their having happened as written. I look at those same stories and believe they happened as recorded because there is nothing that disproves them. You look at God destroying people and wonder how a loving God can do such a thing, then look for ways to permit you to pretend there's some other "truth" contained therein. I do not wonder about God's love simply because He acted in a manner that is dramatically violent.

And if God is incapable of performing those actions and commanding them of His people, then how can we resolve the issue of hell? Is that also mythic even with Christ teaching about avoiding it? How can any of those OT stories compare with being resigned to hell? It would seem to me that for a God who could provide eternal punishment, a flood that wipes out most of mankind is nothing. Indeed, it is not so unlike the notion of capital punishment versus life in prison. Though innocents may have perished in Sodom, for there must have been infants amongst their people, we can only speculate as to their eternal situation.

When you question His words, as they are recorded in the OT, you also question His purposes. I would rather leave the passage as is, never fully understanding it (that is, why would God do that?), than to pretend there is some "hidden meaning" to discern beyond what the words already teach. Your "interpretation" raises far more questions than you even care to hear, much less answer. And you insist that we ignore those questions and assume the same weren't asked from the time the "mythic" stories were first told.

Frankly, I can't see anyone in ancient times never asking, "Did it really happen like that?" and then being told, "Well, no, but that's the way we tell stories." or that anyone would simply assume a meaning different than what the words used actually mean. That is, that they would automatically assume this "truth" you insist exists, without having to be told it's there even though the words used do not suggest it.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

you can't resolve these difficult aspects in your mind so you reject them, eplacing them with alternative "truths" I've yet to see, and claim by doing so you've rejected nothing.

You can re-state a falsehood a million times and it WILL REMAIN A FALSEHOOD, Marshall.

1. I don't reject the passage. If you write that falsehood again, I will just delete it. You've already stated that falsehood enough, there's no need to keep repeating it.

2. I CAN resolve the problems of a literal interpretation (one that teaches that God sometimes commands us to kill babies) by NOT taking it literally. I have NO REASON to take it literally and PLENTY of obvious, biblical reasons NOT to take it literally, so I don't. Therefore, I have NO PROBLEM resolving these sorts of passages.

3. I don't replace them with "alternative Truths," I make what I consider to be reasonable biblical exegetical decisions on how to interpret it, since YOUR exegesis seems so obviously biblically, morally wrong.

So, don't bother repeating that falsehood ever again here, Marshall. I'm bored of the repetition. What you COULD do is answer the question:

Do you think it's possible that Christians of good faith can earnestly read the Bible, seeking God's will, praying for insight and wisdom and possibly come to the conclusion that the Genesis creation stories are astounding TRUTHS, but they are Truths written in mythic or otherwise non-literal language?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

It appears to me that you have found things you don't like and looked for ways to permit you to dismiss their having happened as written.

FALSEHOOD.

I have told you repeatedly that I ACCEPTED a literal translation back when I was younger. It was ONLY repeated study of the BIBLE that led me away from a literal interpretation. And it was READING THE BIBLE LITERALLY that led me away from a literal interpretation.

So, again as always, it remains a falsehood to suggest that I found "things I don't like" and looked for ways to ignore it. Rather, I found that MY ORIGINAL interpretation DID NOT MATCH WITH GOOD BIBLICAL EXEGESIS, so I had to find a way of interpreting such passages that was MORE IN LINE WITH SOUND MORAL AND BIBLICAL TEACHING.

Saying anything else will remain a blatant falsehood.

Thou shalt not bear false witness, Marshall. Now, THERE's a passage you should learn to take literally.

Marshall Art said...

"Do you think it's possible that Christians of good faith can earnestly read the Bible, seeking God's will, praying for insight and wisdom and possibly come to the conclusion that the Genesis creation stories are astounding TRUTHS, but they are Truths written in mythic or otherwise non-literal language?"

Anything is possible. So what? People are capable of coming to believe anything, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, true or false, logical or illogical. The question is moot unless you're trying to force an "agree to disagree" non-resolution. This is otherwise known as a white flag.

You like to refer to past beliefs, as if they are in any way comparable to my current beliefs, be the in regards to faith or politics. They aren't. Not by a long shot. I don't much care what you used to believe, as your perspective about my beliefs shows your past wasn't any more sensibly formed than is your present. My point is that despite your objections to the contrary, your notion of "GOOD BIBLICAL EXEGESIS" falls far short of the real thing.

As I am out of time for now, I will have to save my restating of my conclusions from your words for later on. It seems, however that we are both guilty of restating an opinion hoping for it to sink in. The difference is that mine is not in the least bit false and I'll explain why. The main problem is that you're spending too much time on defending the wrong thing. I'll explain that, too.

Marshall Art said...

So, to continue...

We compare two sets of verses, both of which indicate God speaking. In the first, is God the Father commanding the Israelites to war on another people and wipe them out entirely, leaving no one alive. In the second, is God the Son saying the poor are blessed.

I do not, in any way, shape or form dispute the point that these things were actually said by God. You do. You say the OT words were never actually spoken by God. That is a clear example of rejecting a portion of the Bible. You make a claim, based on supposed facts about the way other ancient people wrote their histories (as if it was true of absolutely every group of people of that time---another point you only assume), and assume without any evidence that the OT authors wrote Israelite history in the same manner.

My point on this issue is that without evidence that determines such a writing style was actually employed by the OT authors, it is, at best, unwise, if not absolutely foolhardy, to proceed as if the OT authors actually did write in that manner. Worse, without said evidence, it indicates a willingness to dispense with the portions in question in order to resolve the perceived disparity in God's character.

You seem to think that you resolve the issue by not taking the passages literally as actual records of actual events, when you haven't resolved the issue at all. "Not taking it literally" is not a resolution. It's a rejection. To resolve the questions you have regarding God's character would require finding some way of uniting the troublesome passages with the untroublesome. "Not taking it literally" is avoiding that attempt at resolution.

If you believe a loving God would not take innocent life, that's one thing, despite the many depictions of Him doing just that. But regardless of those many depictions, you're still left with a loving God consigning some people to eternal torment of hell (however that undescribed place might exist). Even if those so consigned are not saved, are they all, to the last of them, so bad as to be justly condemned to such a sentence? And you don't see the problem with your understanding of God's nature with a place called "hell" as the destination of some of your fellow brothers and sisters? Your position screams of "illogic".

So whether or not we come to agree with the literal truth of the OT stories or not, you're argument against it is about as weak as can be.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

I do not, in any way, shape or form dispute the point that these things were actually said by God. You do. You say the OT words were never actually spoken by God. That is a clear example of rejecting a portion of the Bible.

So, doubting the HISTORICITY of a passage is "rejecting the Bible," BUT, rejecting the TRUTH being taught, that is NOT rejecting the Bible?

"Not taking it literally" is not a resolution. It's a rejection.

Says you. I disagree.

I do not, in any way, shape or form dispute the point that these things were actually said by God. You do.

So, disagreeing with Marshall on whether a given passage is literal or figurative, THAT is what is rejecting the Bible? One has to agree with Marshall on which pieces are to be taken figuratively and which ones aren't in order to not reject the Bible? Is THAT what you're saying?

If so, you'll excuse me if I simply don't place that much faith in Marshall.

And so, as to Christians who disagree with Marshall on Genesis, are they ALSO rejecting the Bible?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

My point on this issue is that without evidence that determines such a writing style was actually employed by the OT authors, it is, at best, unwise, if not absolutely foolhardy, to proceed as if the OT authors actually did write in that manner. Worse, without said evidence, it indicates a willingness to dispense with the portions in question in order to resolve the perceived disparity in God's character.

So, MARSHALL has no evidence that determines such a writing style was actually employed by the OT authors, right? Then is he being foolish to presume that his hunch is the One True Way, despite not having any evidence on thinking that, CONTRARY TO ALL KNOWN EVIDENCE, biblical writers wrote in a style that did not exist at the time?

In other words, WHY IS IT that DAN ought to stick to Marshall's hunch, just because Marshall does not find Dan's evidence sufficient?

Don't you think that Dan has an obligation to stick to the position that Dan finds the most biblical, logical, historical and moral, as opposed to Marshall's hunch?

Marshall Art said...

I don't know how many times I need to re-iterate that you can believe what you want. But if you want to discuss how you arrive at thse beliefs, you're going to get comments on that process, or lack thereof.

I also don't know how many times I have to say that I, Marshall Art am not saying anything the Bible isn't saying. So in one sense, yes, if you disagree with me, you're disagreeing with Scripture. This is more true than if it was said of you because I'm actually going by more of what is actually written as opposed to truths you believe the words mean, whether they do or not. This also makes my understanding to be far less of a hunch than yours, because I'm using the actual words of the text as written, and not some capricious alternate that I think sounds better.

"So, doubting the HISTORICITY of a passage is "rejecting the Bible," BUT, rejecting the TRUTH being taught, that is NOT rejecting the Bible?"

Somewhat. In the first part, I'm saying you're doubting the validity of the writings of the person who recorded the histories as being accurate depictions of that history. This is a rejection. As to the second part, when the time comes that you choose to actually provide that "truth" you think the words of the OT writers provided for you, we can discuss the extent of that rejection. What is clear, is that you reject the description of one aspect of God's nature that the actual words illustrate for us. Once again, you reject that part of the Bible.

"So, disagreeing with Marshall on whether a given passage is literal or figurative, THAT is what is rejecting the Bible?"

No. Describing a given passage as figurative, or not a literal recording of actual history based on the flimsy arguments you've presented (insulting to the OT authors by doing so, I might add) is rejecting those passages of the Bible.

"One has to agree with Marshall on which pieces are to be taken figuratively..."

No. One needs to provide something far more solid than what you've presented to determine when a history is told accurately or in some "epic" style.

"If so, you'll excuse me if I simply don't place that much faith in Marshall."

As I'm no expert, no apologies are necessary or expected. But you'd still be far better off.

"So, MARSHALL has no evidence that determines such a writing style was actually employed by the OT authors, right?"

So what? What I have is faith that God inspired the writers to relate the history accurately, truthfully and in a manner that doesn't require different generations of people to guess about what is said.

Marshall Art said...

"CONTRARY TO ALL KNOWN EVIDENCE"

This is the problem, Dan. You have provided none of that "known evidence". You've provided speculation of a very specious kind. Yet, here is just one example of something that supports my position that yours is not all that solid.

What's more, this idea that OT writers wrote in a style that "didn't exist" is beyond lame. Just who makes this claim besides yourself? Once again, I just can't believe that people back then didn't want to know facts about their ancestors in the same way we do. This concept is inanely unsupportable.

"In other words, WHY IS IT that DAN ought to stick to Marshall's hunch, just because Marshall does not find Dan's evidence sufficient?"

More to the point, Marshall's perspective isn't so full of holes. It makes more sense. It doesn't require the massive suspension of reality and faith in the truthfulness of the text. It isn't nearly as goofy. I could go on. :)

Marshall Art said...

As it happens, I just heard part of an interview with a guy who wrote a book that touches on these stories in contention here, regarding God's commands to destroy. I need to see if I can hear the interview again on the station's website, and/or get the guy's book. It might provide an explanation for those commands that we BOTH can live with. From what little I was able to hear, it made one instance sound far more reasonable than goofy statements about "epic writing styles".

Dan Trabue said...

That you don't agree and yet can't offer anything more reasonable does not make another fellow believers hunches "goofy." I'd find that charge more reasonable IF you had ANY SIGNIFICANT REASON WHATSOEVER for holding your position other than that's the one you're familiar with.

Marshall Art said...

Actually, Dan, a goofy perspective is goofy even without a better alternative available. My alternative thus far is that the OT stories are simply told truthfully as stated. One does not go looking for alternatives without some reason to do so. Your poor exegesis (not the process, but your application of it) is goofy for its lack of connection to the OT writers. You label them because of some reading of yours that described how others of their time did things. Nothing to show that the OT guys did things the same. You just choose to believe it. That's goofy.

You say that the Bible in the NT contradicts the notion that God would act in a manner the OT describes several times. That's goofy because you don't make the connection of why that would be so, except to say what God commands of us, which is also goofy because there's nothing in the Bible that states God acts in the manner He commands of us, or that we can expect, insist or demand that He'd better. I could go on, but the point here is that I find your explanations goofy because of how poorly constructed they are, depending so greatly on suspensions of common sense and logic. I know that comes off as offensive, but I can't think of a better way to say it without altering the important meaning of it. You keep calling my positions hunches. How is that any better? Because I don't offer sources with info that doesn't support my "hunches" as your sources fail to support yours? That would be goofy, too.