The Rainbow, and the covenant.

JimiTime

We know how a rainbow happens these days, but below is the scripture from Genesis 9, in which God seemingly creates the rainbow. He says its the sign of a covenant. What do we think. Was there no rainbows before then?

Genesis 9:
Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."
12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

17 So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth."

Slav

This rainbow bit and the whole flood story (as well as pretty much everything in the Tanakh) is an attempt of Israel, the Ancient Church, to explain the world around them, both physical and spiritual. They were surrounded by pagan myths and believes and every natural phenomena (like a rainbow for example) had a strong connection with paganism. If pagans say that the universe was created as a side effect of some theogony or as some unwanted baby of a god, then Israel say that the world was created by God intentionally and only out of His love. If pagans say that the Demiurge has either lost any interest in the world he created or maybe is even dead by now then Israel say that God is the living God and He still loves his creation. If pagans say that there are other generations of gods who are more powerful or more successful or at least more attached to the world then Israel say that there are no other gods before Him. That's the gospel of Moses: God the creator is here and He loves us. It was as controversial for the ancient world as the gospel of crucified and resurrected Jesus, the incarnated God, for Jew and Gentiles.

So if there was a pagan myth about the Great Flood (seen as a historical fact by ancient people) then Israel must come up with their anti-pagan interpretation of the events. If we read that rainbow is explained as the Convent of God then it's so to make Jews every time they see a rainbow think about one God and not about Iris or Ninurta. I think this is the context in which we should read the Old Testament: it's just polemic with and war against paganism; otherwise a lot of nuances and meanings could be lost. After all it was just παιδαγωγος to Christ (Gal 3:24-25) - not even a "tutor" or a "teacher" as some translations suggest but merely a slave escorting children so the kids will arrive where they supposed to and not where they think will be more fun.

JimiTime

Slav wrote: »

This rainbow bit and the whole flood story (as well as pretty much everything in the Tanakh) is an attempt of Israel, the Ancient Church, to explain the world around them, both physical and spiritual. They were surrounded by pagan myths and believes and every natural phenomena (like a rainbow for example) had a strong connection with paganism. If pagans say that the universe was created as a side effect of some theogony or as some unwanted baby of a god, then Israel say that the world was created by God intentionally and only out of His love. If pagans say that the Demiurge has either lost any interest in the world he created or maybe is even dead by now then Israel say that God is the living God and He still loves his creation. If pagans say that there are other generations of gods who are more powerful or more successful or at least more attached to the world then Israel say that there are no other gods before Him. That's the gospel of Moses: God the creator is here and He loves us. It was as controversial for the ancient world as the gospel of crucified and resurrected Jesus, the incarnated God, for Jew and Gentiles.

So if there was a pagan myth about the Great Flood (seen as a historical fact by ancient people) then Israel must come up with their anti-pagan interpretation of the events. If we read that rainbow is explained as the Convent of God then it's so to make Jews every time they see a rainbow think about one God and not about Iris or Ninurta. I think this is the context in which we should read the Old Testament: it's just polemic with and war against paganism; otherwise a lot of nuances and meanings could be lost. After all it was just παιδαγωγος to Christ (Gal 3:24-25) - not even a "tutor" or a "teacher" as some translations suggest but merely a slave escorting children so the kids will arrive where they supposed to and not where they think will be more fun.

So Noah and the flood is just a made up story to 'Godify' pagan myths of the time? Like Christmas is the Christian attempt to 'Christify' a pagan feast?

Slav

No, it's not a made up story and I see no analogy with accepting pagan feasts into Christianity. The flood is the historical fact for ancient people and Genesis says how Israel should understand the events.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

So Noah and the flood is just a made up story to 'Godify' pagan myths of the time? Like Christmas is the Christian attempt to 'Christify' a pagan feast?

Not a made up story. More an interpretation of a much older story for a newly emerging people IMO.

JimiTime

Slav wrote: »

No, it's not a made up story and I see no analogy with accepting pagan feasts into Christianity. The flood is the historical fact for ancient people and Genesis says how Israel should understand the events.

Sorry Slav, I'm confused as to what you're saying. Your first post said: then Israel must come up with their anti-pagan interpretation of the events.

It seems to me like you're saying Israel came up with things to explain things pagans were saying were something else? Are you saying that Noah and the flood is true or made up? Are you saying that historically, there was a deluge, and Israel made up the Noah story to have a 'Living God' version of events?

Forgive me, as I'm not sure what it is you are saying.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

Not a made up story. More an interpretation of a much older story for a newly emerging people IMO.

Is this not just semantical? You seem to be saying 'There was a flood'. Then Israel interpreted this event? So when you say 'interpret', do you mean 'made up a story', or 'had it on authority'? At the moment it seems 'interpreted', simply means they looked at the flood and from their own heads rather than any source, created a story which included the Living God.

fontanalis

They probably read the epic of Gilgamesh.

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this not just semantical? You seem to be saying 'There was a flood'. Then Israel interpreted this event? So when you say 'interpret', do you mean 'made up a story', or 'had it on authority'? At the moment it seems 'interpreted', simply means they looked at the flood and from their own heads rather than any source, created a story which included the Living God.

I agree with you, Jimi. They can't have their cake and eat it. If we take an incident in history and 'interpret' it we can have two possible outcomes:
1. We correctly describe the event and its meaning.
2. We falsify the event and its meaning.

The Flood account was either historical or fictional. If the latter, what does that say about God and His truth?

And how do we determine what, if any, of the Biblical record is history or fiction? The Virgin birth? The miracles of Christ? The Resurrection?

Why is the New Testament not merely a fictionalised account by the Church in its war against paganism?
_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

wolfsbane

Slav wrote: »

I think this is the context in which we should read the Old Testament: it's just polemic with and war against paganism; otherwise a lot of nuances and meanings could be lost. After all it was just παιδαγωγος to Christ (Gal 3:24-25) - not even a "tutor" or a "teacher" as some translations suggest but merely a slave escorting children so the kids will arrive where they supposed to and not where they think will be more fun.

The disciplinarian was the Law, the Old Covenant, the sacrificial system and legislation - not the Old Testament Scriptures. The New Covenant dispensed with the former, but not the latter.

The OT Scriptures are God's faithful record of His dealings with man until Messiah came. It is God-breathed, not the imaginations of men in their struggle with competing ideologies.
_________________________________________________________________
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

We know how a rainbow happens these days, but below is the scripture from Genesis 9, in which God seemingly creates the rainbow. He says its the sign of a covenant. What do we think. Was there no rainbows before then?

Genesis 9:
Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."
12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

17 So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth."

We don't have much to go on, but on face value I would say the rainbow was a new thing. Maybe clouds were new too. Possibly the earth had a different weather system from the beginning till the Flood.
_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree with you, Jimi. They can't have their cake and eat it.

Well I'm asking them to clarify at the moment, I'm not sure if I've understood their point yet:)

If we take an incident in history and 'interpret' it we can have two possible outcomes:
1. We correctly describe the event and its meaning.
2. We falsify the event and its meaning.

The Flood account was either historical or fictional.

Well if it is alledged that the Noah story is fictional, it would raise other questions. Abraham? Twelve tribes? etc. I suppose, only those who alledge it can answer how they discern what is narrative and what is made up for want of a better term.

If the latter, what does that say about God and His truth?

TBH, its more about Genesis than anything else as far as I can see. Though thare are references to things like Adam and Eve, and the flood later in scripture as if they were actual events, so it is something that requires explaination from those who say they are just stories IMO. What happens with the story of Abraham etc is the obvious question it raises within me. I know you aren't a fan of the symbolic interpretation of Genesis:) but I can see much language that could be symbolic in that particular instance (my present position is that I don't know if its symbolic or not). Noah though? Not really.

Though, lets not forget what I asked in this thread. What is your position on my question about the rainbow?

EDIT: Just seen ur reply to the rainbow question. cheers.

Slav

JimiTime wrote: »

It seems to me like you're saying Israel came up with things to explain things pagans were saying were something else? Are you saying that Noah and the flood is true or made up?

I was saying that it does not really matter how accurate it is historically. For most people these days it's obvious that a flood exactly as described in myths and in the Bible could not take place and at the same time of course there are people, mostly from the Creationism camp, who would insist that the events did take place and exactly as described in the Bible. I don't see this issue being important at all. What is important is that during that time it was taken as a historical fact and that if you look at it purely from the historical position (i.e. you take away all spiritual part of it) the biblical account is remarkably close to the pagan flood myths.

Now imagine Israel surrounded and constantly tempted by paganism. There is a story (or rather a number of stories) of flood telling them about the role of pagan gods in the events. But Israel knows that it could not be true, those gods were not God of Abraham, they were false gods, they were non-existent gods! And so we have the Flood story in Genesis. We can understand it differently and essentially it is a matter of faith.

As non-believers we can see it as yet another man-made flood myth but this time of a monotheistic flavour.

As believers we can see it as a product of the Old Covenant Church, that very young at the time bride of Christ, raised, guarded and guided by God and therefore has to be understood literally as infallible teaching.

If you see Bible infallible in spiritual questions then it's OK to admit the it was written by men who had to deal with the realities and knowledge system of their time and so they don't have to be 100% historically accurate all the time.

If you see the Bible as a collection of books about everything including history with every aspect of it guided by God then sooner or later you'll probably want to reconcile the knowledge you have from the Bible from the knowledge you have from other sources.

This could be a challenging task as for instance in case of the rainbow your basic understanding of optics would suggest that you only need rain and the Sun shining through the clouds to have a rainbow. We can assume that before the flood, for example, Sun emitted light in a very narrow spectrum, or the Earth atmosphere worked as a narrow band filter or that water had a different index of refraction or no index of refraction at all, or (as wolfsbane suggested) the weather was totally different before the Flood (clouds did not have gaps perhaps?) but in my opinion all this would be attempts to find an answer to a non-existing question. Of course, I guess this is all OK unless it takes too much of your effort so the main idea of the Bible slips away from you: God is with us (Old Testament) and God is among us (New Testament) - this is crucial, everything else, including your view on historical accuracy or inaccuracy of the Bible, I think is pretty much irrelevant.

Are you saying that historically, there was a deluge, and Israel made up the Noah story to have a 'Living God' version of events?

No, they did not make anything up. They had a historical fact in front of them. They also knew that the interpretation of the events given by their pagan neighbours cannot be true. The story of Noah was their sincere understanding in the light of their faith of what had happened before, during and after the Flood. This was the Truth as they saw it.

It might look like the role of God is somehow passive in this process but you can also see it from a slightly different angle: suppose you are God and you see that your people are constantly hearing a pagan myth about Great Flood with all the pagan stuff in it. Let's assume that there were never any floods like that, it's only 100% man-made fictional story, a product of human fears and imagination and an attribute of the corrupted world. The problem with this is that your people believe this myth and took the pagan gods for real. You cannot really blame them: that's what history operated with at their time. The Flood was an established fact for them. So what are your options? Ask Moses to proclaim another commandment, something like "Thou shalt not believe the forgery about Ziusudra and the Flood"? That would be silly. Replace the pagan gods with one God and represent the story this way? That would be lying. Difficult decision, isn't it? What you can do however is tell them what will happen instead of what has happened. Is it silly? No, it's smart and beautiful! Is it lying? No, it's absolute Truth! And you see, this way it does not matter if that ancient story about the flood is 100% truth or 100% made-up Sumerian myth - it's not that important as in any case it would not invalidate and it would not support the biblical story of Noah.

Now as a Christian reader of Genesis I can see the Ark! It is here, it is physical, I can experience it and I know I'm welcome aboard. This is what important to me and to be honest seeing the Ark here and now I could not care less how historically accurate the biblical account of the flood is or if the speed of light in any medium was the same as in vacuum prior to the Flood!

Slav

wolfsbane wrote: »

The disciplinarian was the Law, the Old Covenant, the sacrificial system and legislation - not the Old Testament Scriptures. The New Covenant dispensed with the former, but not the latter.

Many many generations of people of Israel came and passed without Scriptures. But they did have the Covenant.

Even when it finally was written down the books in question were still referred as Law or Teaching.

dvae

Just a small point,,,,,,,
some believe that there was no such thing as rain before the flood..
There is no real mention of rain until then.
Noah preached that the flood was coming but no one listened.
Perhaps because the idea of water falling from the sky seemed mad.

Genesis 2:5-6
5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/#fen-NIV-36a"][COLOR=#0000ff]a[/COLOR][/URL and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/#fen-NIV-36b"][COLOR=#0000ff]b[/COLOR][/URL and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/#fen-NIV-37c"][COLOR=#0000ff]c[/COLOR][/URL came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground

JimiTime

Before I proceed Slav, I'd like to extend my appreciation for your time in participation here. Also, I'd like to seperate the issues here.

1. I agree that these questions are not of great importance with regards to salvation etc. Whether there was a flood or not etc. So I'd like to leave that approach at the door:)

I am looking for an exegesis on what the writer intended to convey, and if what he conveyed was accurate. The answers to which can obviously raise other questions with regards to The Bible, more specifically Genesis.

So with that in mind, I'll continue:)

Slav wrote: »

I was saying that it does not really matter how accurate it is historically.

For the sake of this thread, it is. I would like to establish how we conclude that something which is presented as a historic narrative is actually just a story when we seemingly accept other stories as true. If the writer of Genesis presents it all as history, then how can we tell what is real and what isn't? Can we believe the story of Abraham? Joseph? Did Noah exist? Did Enoch exist?

You may not see its importance in the grand scheme of things, but I see it as important in interpreting Genesis, and thats the angle I wish to approach from.

For most people these days it's obvious that a flood exactly as described in myths and in the Bible could not take place and at the same time of course there are people, mostly from the Creationism camp, who would insist that the events did take place and exactly as described in the Bible. I don't see this issue being important at all. What is important is that during that time it was taken as a historical fact and that if you look at it purely from the historical position (i.e. you take away all spiritual part of it) the biblical account is remarkably close to the pagan flood myths.

But if it wasn't true, then it is no different to the Pagan myths. It also, as mentioned earlier, raises questions about any of the historical accounts/stories that the writer of Genesis told.

Now imagine Israel surrounded and constantly tempted by paganism. There is a story (or rather a number of stories) of flood telling them about the role of pagan gods in the events. But Israel knows that it could not be true, those gods were not God of Abraham,

How do we know there was an Abraham? Is his story not told by the same source? How do we discern that the Noah account was a story for the time, but that Abrahams story was accurate historical narrative?

they were false gods, they were non-existent gods! And so we have the Flood story in Genesis. We can understand it differently and essentially it is a matter of faith.

Faith in what?

As non-believers we can see it as yet another man-made flood myth but this time of a monotheistic flavour.

As a believer, thats how this explaination seems to me tbh.:)

As believers we can see it as a product of the Old Covenant Church, that very young at the time bride of Christ, raised, guarded and guided by God and therefore has to be understood literally as infallible teaching.

This is really confusing me. Because its a product of the Old Covenant Church, those people had to understand it literally as infallible teaching? Is this like 'Current truth'? As I see it, you have 'Truth' and you have 'Non Truth'. If God was part of Israel, and inspired Moses etc, then why would Moses not know the ACTUAL story of the flood?

If you see Bible infallible in spiritual questions then it's OK to admit the it was written by men who had to deal with the realities and knowledge system of their time and so they don't have to be 100% historically accurate all the time.

My question would be, why make up false stories, because whatever twist you put on it, if something is presented as history, which is in fact wrong, its a false story. Moses would have known he was making stuff up, but had a means justifies the ends thought process. Unless we are saying that Moses thought it was true. If that was the case it raises the question of how he came to believe it? What does it mean to be God inspired etc?

If you see the Bible as a collection of books about everything including history

Its a testimony, an insight and a witness IMO.

with every aspect of it guided by God

I'm undeided about this.

then sooner or later you'll probably want to reconcile the knowledge you have from the Bible from the knowledge you have from other sources.

In some cases yes. For instance, the Prophecies in Daniel about the world powers.

This could be a challenging task as for instance in case of the rainbow your basic understanding of optics would suggest that you only need rain and the Sun shining through the clouds to have a rainbow.

I didn't say it WASN'T going to be a challenge:)

We can assume that before the flood, for example, Sun emitted light in a very narrow spectrum, or the Earth atmosphere worked as a narrow band filter or that water had a different index of refraction or no index of refraction at all, or (as wolfsbane suggested) the weather was totally different before the Flood (clouds did not have gaps perhaps?) but in my opinion all this would be attempts to find an answer to a non-existing question.

The question is certainly there, though we may not have an independant source to detail an answer. We are told that people lived for 900 years etc too. Do we simply disgard this as false, because there is no modern source to confirm such a thing?

Of course, I guess this is all OK unless it takes too much of your effort so the main idea of the Bible slips away from you: God is with us (Old Testament) and God is among us (New Testament) - this is crucial, everything else, including your view on historical accuracy or inaccuracy of the Bible, I think is pretty much irrelevant.

I agree to a point.

No, they did not make anything up. They had a historical fact in front of them. They also knew that the interpretation of the events given by their pagan neighbours cannot be true. The story of Noah was their sincere understanding in the light of their faith of what had happened before, during and after the Flood. This was the Truth as they saw it.

The truth as they saw it? They either made up the Noah story to counter the Pagan myths, or they didn't. It really is that simple. How can it be 'sincere understanding', if no-one actually knew what happened? You may have a point, if they simply said, 'God sent the flood as a punishment on the wicked'. However, it crosses the line when it goes on to detail very specifically an elaborate story about Noah and his family etc. If it was not true, then somebody at some stage 'Made it up'.

Maybe you could argue that Moses, in the 'history' part of Genesis was passing on the stories that were about among the hebrews of his time, and we don't know where the stories came from. Passed from generation to generation etc. Again though, this raises the question about Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Joseph etc does it not? Moses however, was 'welcome in all rooms' of Gods house, so it is hard to believe that he was passing on fairy tales in a book that was informing us about The Living God. Sure, the message stays clear, but why wrap it in myth? Look at Elijah and the Ba'al prophets. God was active. He dwarfed all the false gods of the nations, because he actually existed and showed it.

It might look like the role of God is somehow passive in this process but you can also see it from a slightly different angle: suppose you are God and you see that your people are constantly hearing a pagan myth about Great Flood with all the pagan stuff in it. Let's assume that there were never any floods like that, it's only 100% man-made fictional story, a product of human fears and imagination and an attribute of the corrupted world. The problem with this is that your people believe this myth and took the pagan gods for real. You cannot really blame them: that's what history operated with at their time. The Flood was an established fact for them. So what are your options?

The Israelites witness the 10 plagues (Or was that true?) They then see the Red sea parting (Or did they?). They see the ark of the covenant with its fire at nights and smoke during the day (or was this true?) They get Manna from heaven, water from a rock etc. If a flood never happened but the pagan stories were such a destructive influence, it would have been quite easy to declare that the story was pagan myth. If the flood ACTUALLy happened, then God could simply tell them what ACTUALLY happened.

BTW, please don't take my little bracket comments up as being throwaway. Its hard to put tone in writing, and the bracket comments refer to my questioning of what we can take as being historic or not. Your input is most valued.

What you can do however is tell them what will happen instead of what has happened.

Except he told them what DID happen. As prophetic as the story is, it was still presented as what had gone before.

No, it's absolute Truth!

It talks specifically about a guy named Noah in a place in history, if it didn't happen, then it is FAR from absolute truth.

And you see, this way it does not matter if that ancient story about the flood is 100% truth or 100% made-up Sumerian myth - it's not that important as in any case it would not invalidate and it would not support the biblical story of Noah.

It may not invalidate the prophetic nature of the ark story, but it certainly invalidates the truth of the story itself.

Now as a Christian reader of Genesis I can see the Ark! It is here, it is physical, I can experience it and I know I'm welcome aboard. This is what important to me and to be honest seeing the Ark here and now I could not care less how historically accurate the biblical account of the flood is or if the speed of light in any medium was the same as in vacuum prior to the Flood!

Thats fair enough, I realise what is important as a Christian. However, this thread is for kneading out what the options are in relation to the exegesis of Genesis. Well it was more specifically the rainbow question, but I like where its gone:)

Again, I appreciate the input Slav. thanks.:)

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this not just semantical? You seem to be saying 'There was a flood'. Then Israel interpreted this event? So when you say 'interpret', do you mean 'made up a story', or 'had it on authority'? At the moment it seems 'interpreted', simply means they looked at the flood and from their own heads rather than any source, created a story which included the Living God.

Firstly, personally I believe that there was indeed an actual historical flood. Secondly IMO the earliest books of the OT are an attempt to explain the creation and the origins of the Israelites, in terms the Israelites of the time could understand. These more than likely are being written down after many years in an oral tradition of story telling etc. As far as an actual historical figure of Noah as described (perhaps there was a real Noah - do I believe he built a giant ship with thousands of animals on board - no) perhaps the story is based on fact, maybe Noah was a real man who took his family and livestock and escaped the flood. Set up camp somewhere else and flourished. He gave thanks to God for delivering him from destruction.

As for the argument that unless you hold every word of the story of Noah to be 100% factual that you cannot then hold every word of the story of Jesus for example to be 100% factual is flawed. The question I ask myself regarding creation, Adam & Eve, Noah is that if the story is not 100% accurate does that negate the underlying meaning behind it. IMO it doesn't.

wolfsbane

Slav said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The disciplinarian was the Law, the Old Covenant, the sacrificial system and legislation - not the Old Testament Scriptures. The New Covenant dispensed with the former, but not the latter.
Many many generations of people of Israel came and passed without Scriptures. But they did have the Covenant.

Even when it finally was written down the books in question were still referred as Law or Teaching.

By the time they had the Covenant they also had written Scripture. The whole history of mankind and of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in particular was committed to Moses and the prophets by the Holy spirit. It is all God's word. To suggest any of it was invented by man or was a deceit from God is sheer heresy.
_________________________________________________________________
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

wolfsbane

prinz wrote: »

Firstly, personally I believe that there was indeed an actual historical flood. Secondly IMO the earliest books of the OT are an attempt to explain the creation and the origins of the Israelites, in terms the Israelites of the time could understand. These more than likely are being written down after many years in an oral tradition of story telling etc. As far as an actual historical figure of Noah as described (perhaps there was a real Noah - do I believe he built a giant ship with thousands of animals on board - no) perhaps the story is based on fact, maybe Noah was a real man who took his family and livestock and escaped the flood. Set up camp somewhere else and flourished. He gave thanks to God for delivering him from destruction.

As for the argument that unless you hold every word of the story of Noah to be 100% factual that you cannot then hold every word of the story of Jesus for example to be 100% factual is flawed. The question I ask myself regarding creation, Adam & Eve, Noah is that if the story is not 100% accurate does that negate the underlying meaning behind it. IMO it doesn't.

So how does that work with other narratives? Is the virgin conception of Jesus 100% accurate, or was Mary pregnant by Joseph (or someone unknown) and it doesn't matter, for the story is just to tell us of God's gracious use of a humble couple to bring His Son into the world?

Or the resurrection of Christ. Maybe He didn't really die, just died as some today on the operating table, then revived in the cool of the tomb. Or maybe He did die and it was His spirit that arose, not His body. The point was to tell His disciples that He still existed.

Any thoughts on what can be taken as unadulterated fact?
_________________________________________________________________
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

prinz

wolfsbane wrote: »

So how does that work with other narratives? Is the virgin conception of Jesus 100% accurate, or was Mary pregnant by Joseph (or someone unknown) and it doesn't matter, for the story is just to tell us of God's gracious use of a humble couple to bring His Son into the world? Or the resurrection of Christ. Maybe He didn't really die, just died as some today on the operating table, then revived in the cool of the tomb. Or maybe He did die and it was His spirit that arose, not His body. The point was to tell His disciples that He still existed.Any thoughts on what can be taken as unadulterated fact?

Any of the above would completely undermine the entire concept of the history of Christ and His mission, and what He tells us. It would negate Jesus Himself. That's the difference.

Interpreting the story of Noah/the Ark and the rainbow as an illustration of how God saved his chosen people and is merciful does not undermine the God of the OT. It completes it.

In my mind I see the early Israelites being told the story of their God and someone says 'remember that flood we have heard about? Why did God do that? Will He do it again'? Is it heresy nowadays to say the Lord works in mysterious ways?

PDN

God says to Noah, "I'm making a covenant with you this day, and as a sign of this covenant I'm giving you the rainbow."

Noah says, "Thanks God".

Fast Forward a few centuries

God says to Abraham, "I'm making a covenant with you this day, and as a sign of this covenant you're going to have to be circumcised."

Abraham says, "Hang on.............. what happened to the rainbow?"

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

God says to Noah, "I'm making a covenant with you this day, and as a sign of this covenant I'm giving you the rainbow."

Noah says, "Thanks God".

Fast Forward a few centuries

God says to Abraham, "I'm making a covenant with you this day, and as a sign of this covenant you're going to have to be circumcised."

Abraham says, "Hang on.............. what happened to the rainbow?"

LOL:D

Slav

Hi Jimi, I know I'm terrible at explaining things but I did my best last night. Not sure I can do better now but I'll try to answer your questions below. However, what I think we should do first is to understand what the Bile and what it is not. First question here is do we know how and by whom the Bible was created. What would be your answers to the following questions:

If we say that the Bible is the word of God what exactly do we mean by that? How was it written? Was is written directly by God? Was it dictated word by word in the manner of Qu'ran? Was it written by faithful men guided by the Holy Spirit and if so what was the exact role of the Holy Spirit in it, i.e. how did He technically accomplished it? Is the writer and the Holy Spirit are co-authors or it's "copyrighted" only by one of them? Did every book or story we can find in the Bible existed as a written text form its very beginning or it's possible that initially it existed only in a verbal form?

How did God ensure that the scriptures are free from errors?

What are the criteria for us to recognise a certain text as "God approved"?

JimiTime wrote: »

For the sake of this thread, it is.

And my point was that for the sake of this thread is it not!

If the writer of Genesis presents it all as history

I don't think the writer of Genesis presents it all as history. It might have historical claims and accounts but never for the sake of history.

then how can we tell what is real and what isn't?

Everything in Genesis is real. The question is however what is in Genesis and what is not.

Can we believe the story of Abraham? Joseph?

Most certainly.

Did Noah exist?

Possibly, but most certainly we can believe the story of Noah.

Did Enoch exist?

Possibly, but the story of Enoch is doubtful if we are talking about the Book of Enoch.

You may not see its importance in the grand scheme of things, but I see it as important in interpreting Genesis, and thats the angle I wish to approach from.

No, I don't see its importance in the context of the Bible, not just in the grand scheme of things.

But if it wasn't true, then it is no different to the Pagan myths.

I see it as being totally different. That's what so fascinating about it: it does not need to be 100% historically accurate in order to be true. The Bible is not about history.

How do we know there was an Abraham? Is his story not told by the same source? How do we discern that the Noah account was a story for the time, but that Abrahams story was accurate historical narrative?

Same the story of Abraham does not have to be 100% historically accurate in order to be 100% true.

Faith in what?

Christian faith.

This is really confusing me. Because its a product of the Old Covenant Church, those people had to understand it literally as infallible teaching?

Not just they, we should understand it literally as well. For example, I (am trying to) understand the first chapters of Genesis literally although I am far from the idea of Young Earth, man being made out of real mud, the tree of knowledge being a plant, etc. Simply because I don't see it as a book about cosmology: it's about something else. Same story with the Flood.

If God was part of Israel

Well, I think He was with Israel but He was not a part of it.

and inspired Moses etc, then why would Moses not know the ACTUAL story of the flood?

Because God never teaches men science, technologies, history, arts, philosophy, etc, etc, etc. Only faith. I even think that it does not ever teach absolute morals and if a moral issue is in clash with with faith (which can easily happen in a corrupted world) faith always takes priority.

My question would be, why make up false stories, because whatever twist you put on it, if something is presented as history, which is in fact wrong, its a false story. Moses would have known he was making stuff up, but had a means justifies the ends thought process.

I'm not sure why you're saying "making stuff up". It was reality, it was a fact. While I question that it was absolute historical fact and reality I never questioned it being absolute spiritual reality.

Unless we are saying that Moses thought it was true. If that was the case it raises the question of how he came to believe it? What does it mean to be God inspired etc?

Exactly, this is the question.

Its a testimony, an insight and a witness IMO.

It is. The question is what the testimony is about.

We are told that people lived for 900 years etc too. Do we simply disgard this as false, because there is no modern source to confirm such a thing?

If we are curious what was the human life span few thousand years ago then consulting the Bible about it would not be the best choice because it's not supposed to be a work on biological anthropology (but this is your primary source if your are interested in Christian anthropology, for example). You can also put it though a simple test: change 900 to 90 or to 9000? Does it change anything in the matter of faith? If you think it does, stick with 900. If you think it does not, consult any modern scientific research in biological anthropology as your best source of information available now.

They either made up the Noah story to counter the Pagan myths, or they didn't. It really is that simple. How can it be 'sincere understanding', if no-one actually knew what happened? You may have a point, if they simply said, 'God sent the flood as a punishment on the wicked'. However, it crosses the line when it goes on to detail very specifically an elaborate story about Noah and his family etc. If it was not true, then somebody at some stage 'Made it up'.

Well, they did not have to make anything up because they already have it. As I have said if you look at Genesis and pagan myths they are very close "historically" almost in every detail.

Maybe you could argue that Moses, in the 'history' part of Genesis was passing on the stories that were about among the hebrews of his time, and we don't know where the stories came from. Passed from generation to generation etc.

I'm absolutely sure that was the case. Flood myths pre-date Moses and it's nearly impossible that Jews did not know them.

Again though, this raises the question about Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Joseph etc does it not?

It does if you try to read Bible as a historical book. If you look at it as at a spiritual book I see no questions.

Moses however, was 'welcome in all rooms' of Gods house, so it is hard to believe that he was passing on fairy tales in a book that was informing us about The Living God.

Can we call a story about the antitype of the Christian Church a fairy tale?

Sure, the message stays clear, but why wrap it in myth? Look at Elijah and the Ba'al prophets. God was active. He dwarfed all the false gods of the nations, because he actually existed and showed it.

Baal worshipping was taking place in real life; pagan myths lived in people mind. What should God do? In addition to Manna set up another miracle for the Jew in desert: airing Discovery channel every night where He would be a presenter in the Myths Busters programme?

it would have been quite easy to declare that the story was pagan myth.

I don't think it would and I don't think it would be right even if there were never any floods.

Except he told them what DID happen.

But it still reality is not it? Remember God is not obliged to teach us history.

It talks specifically about a guy named Noah in a place in history, if it didn't happen, then it is FAR from absolute truth.

And I say that talks about the Ark and it as absolute true.

It may not invalidate the prophetic nature of the ark story, but it certainly invalidates the truth of the story itself

There is no prophetic nature of the story as far as I can see; it is pure prophesy. The story is about God the Saviour, isn't it? And He is the principal character in it BTW, not Noah.

However, this thread is for kneading out what the options are in relation to the exegesis of Genesis.

I though this is exactly what I was talking about, no?

Well it was more specifically the rainbow question, but I like where its gone

This was unavoidable!

Slav

wolfsbane wrote: »

By the time they had the Covenant they also had written Scripture. The whole history of mankind and of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in particular was committed to Moses and the prophets by the Holy spirit.

So do you believe that at least the pre-Exodus stories were written down by Moses himself and since then they have always been kept in written form?

wolfsbane

Slav wrote: »

So do you believe that at least the pre-Exodus stories were written down by Moses himself and since then they have always been kept in written form?

Yes, that seems to be what the Bible says about itself.
___________________________________________________________________
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

wolfsbane

prinz said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So how does that work with other narratives? Is the virgin conception of Jesus 100% accurate, or was Mary pregnant by Joseph (or someone unknown) and it doesn't matter, for the story is just to tell us of God's gracious use of a humble couple to bring His Son into the world? Or the resurrection of Christ. Maybe He didn't really die, just died as some today on the operating table, then revived in the cool of the tomb. Or maybe He did die and it was His spirit that arose, not His body. The point was to tell His disciples that He still existed.Any thoughts on what can be taken as unadulterated fact?
Any of the above would completely undermine the entire concept of the history of Christ and His mission, and what He tells us. It would negate Jesus Himself. That's the difference.

But if the Noah story need not be 100% correct for us to get the message God wants us to have, why do the gospel accounts have to be? If there was no actual Joseph, for example, there still could be Jesus. If Christ and His work is the only part that is essential, all the rest of the story could be pious imagination. That is where your treatment of the OT leads to for the NT.

But that is not what the Bible says about its witness. It is not true just about the essentials, it is true about everything it asserts.

Interpreting the story of Noah/the Ark and the rainbow as an illustration of how God saved his chosen people and is merciful does not undermine the God of the OT. It completes it.

Interpreting the NT stories as an illustration of how God provides atonement for His people would do the same. No need of actual events, other than Christ and His death. Even the resurrection of Christ can be non-physical, if it is to be an illustration of God's acceptance of Christ's offering.

In my mind I see the early Israelites being told the story of their God and someone says 'remember that flood we have heard about? Why did God do that? Will He do it again'? Is it heresy nowadays to say the Lord works in mysterious ways?

It is heresy to say He didn't do what He plainly said He did.
_________________________________________________________________
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

prinz

wolfsbane wrote: »

But if the Noah story need not be 100% correct for us to get the message God wants us to have, why do the gospel accounts have to be? If there was no actual Joseph, for example, there still could be Jesus. If Christ and His work is the only part that is essential, all the rest of the story could be pious imagination. That is where your treatment of the OT leads to for the NT..

Tbh I would elevate Christ and His work above all else. There is a huge difference in taking the Gospels as truth and taking the story of the ark as an allegorical tale which may well be based on an element of fact. I wouldn't approach all of the OT in this way.

wolfsbane

prinz wrote: »

Tbh I would elevate Christ and His work above all else. There is a huge difference in taking the Gospels as truth and taking the story of the ark as an allegorical tale which may well be based on an element of fact. I wouldn't approach all of the OT in this way.

OK, so you think it acceptable to pick and choose what bits of apparent historical narrative are history and what are not. Obviously the crucial bits must be kept as history. But is this an honest treatment of any text, much less one that proclaims itself to be the Word of God?

And what about Christ and the apostles when they refer to the OT events? They seem to regard the apparent historical narrative as history. Were they mistaken, or are we to treat their comments as illustrations of truth and not factual?
_________________________________________________________________
1 Peter 3:20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

JimiTime

Slav wrote: »

Hi Jimi, I know I'm terrible at explaining things but I did my best last night. Not sure I can do better now but I'll try to answer your questions below. However, what I think we should do first is to understand what the Bile and what it is not. First question here is do we know how and by whom the Bible was created. What would be your answers to the following questions:

If we say that the Bible is the word of God what exactly do we mean by that? How was it written? Was is written directly by God? Was it dictated word by word in the manner of Qu'ran? Was it written by faithful men guided by the Holy Spirit and if so what was the exact role of the Holy Spirit in it, i.e. how did He technically accomplished it? Is the writer and the Holy Spirit are co-authors or it's "copyrighted" only by one of them? Did every book or story we can find in the Bible existed as a written text form its very beginning or it's possible that initially it existed only in a verbal form?

How did God ensure that the scriptures are free from errors?

What are the criteria for us to recognise a certain text as "God approved"?



And my point was that for the sake of this thread is it not!


I don't think the writer of Genesis presents it all as history. It might have historical claims and accounts but never for the sake of history.

Everything in Genesis is real. The question is however what is in Genesis and what is not.

Most certainly.

Possibly, but most certainly we can believe the story of Noah.

Possibly, but the story of Enoch is doubtful if we are talking about the Book of Enoch.

No, I don't see its importance in the context of the Bible, not just in the grand scheme of things.

I see it as being totally different. That's what so fascinating about it: it does not need to be 100% historically accurate in order to be true. The Bible is not about history.

Same the story of Abraham does not have to be 100% historically accurate in order to be 100% true.

Christian faith.

Not just they, we should understand it literally as well. For example, I (am trying to) understand the first chapters of Genesis literally although I am far from the idea of Young Earth, man being made out of real mud, the tree of knowledge being a plant, etc. Simply because I don't see it as a book about cosmology: it's about something else. Same story with the Flood.

Well, I think He was with Israel but He was not a part of it.

Because God never teaches men science, technologies, history, arts, philosophy, etc, etc, etc. Only faith. I even think that it does not ever teach absolute morals and if a moral issue is in clash with with faith (which can easily happen in a corrupted world) faith always takes priority.


I'm not sure why you're saying "making stuff up". It was reality, it was a fact. While I question that it was absolute historical fact and reality I never questioned it being absolute spiritual reality.


Exactly, this is the question.


It is. The question is what the testimony is about.


If we are curious what was the human life span few thousand years ago then consulting the Bible about it would not be the best choice because it's not supposed to be a work on biological anthropology (but this is your primary source if your are interested in Christian anthropology, for example). You can also put it though a simple test: change 900 to 90 or to 9000? Does it change anything in the matter of faith? If you think it does, stick with 900. If you think it does not, consult any modern scientific research in biological anthropology as your best source of information available now.

Well, they did not have to make anything up because they already have it. As I have said if you look at Genesis and pagan myths they are very close "historically" almost in every detail.

I'm absolutely sure that was the case. Flood myths pre-date Moses and it's nearly impossible that Jews did not know them.

It does if you try to read Bible as a historical book. If you look at it as at a spiritual book I see no questions.

Can we call a story about the antitype of the Christian Church a fairy tale?

Baal worshipping was taking place in real life; pagan myths lived in people mind. What should God do? In addition to Manna set up another miracle for the Jew in desert: airing Discovery channel every night where He would be a presenter in the Myths Busters programme?

I don't think it would and I don't think it would be right even if there were never any floods.

But it still reality is not it? Remember God is not obliged to teach us history.

And I say that talks about the Ark and it as absolute true.

There is no prophetic nature of the story as far as I can see; it is pure prophesy. The story is about God the Saviour, isn't it? And He is the principal character in it BTW, not Noah.

I though this is exactly what I was talking about, no?

This was unavoidable!

I've just spent the last hour replying to the above, and lost it all Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Its going to be a while before I motivate myself to do it again Slav, sorry. :mad::(

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

I've just spent the last hour replying to the above, and lost it all Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Its going to be a while before I motivate myself to do it again Slav, sorry. :mad::(

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You should have seen it too, I would say it was probably the best post on boards EVER. Even when i make a new one, i don't think I could come close to its glory:)

wolfsbane

Slav wrote: »

Because God never teaches men science, technologies, history, arts, philosophy, etc, etc, etc. Only faith. I even think that it does not ever teach absolute morals and if a moral issue is in clash with with faith (which can easily happen in a corrupted world) faith always takes priority.

That's an amazing assertion! So God does not teach us, for example, that Christ was born of Mary, that He suffered under Pilate, was crucified, buried and rose again? You say any or all of this could be fiction, a tale to tell us matters of faith. Parables, not history.

But Paul seemed to think God taught history, since he says:
1 Corinthians 15:16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!
_________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Slav

wolfsbane wrote: »

Slav wrote: »

So do you believe that at least the pre-Exodus stories were written down by Moses himself and since then they have always been kept in written form?

Yes, that seems to be what the Bible says about itself.

Ok, fair enough then.

Slav

JimiTime wrote: »

I've just spent the last hour replying to the above, and lost it all Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Its going to be a while before I motivate myself to do it again Slav, sorry. :mad::(

No worries, we are not in a rush. I'm sure the new version will be even better!

Slav

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's an amazing assertion! So God does not teach us, for example, that Christ was born of Mary, that He suffered under Pilate, was crucified, buried and rose again? You say any or all of this could be fiction, a tale to tell us matters of faith. Parables, not history.

These are all directly related to faith as you correctly quoted Paul. Take any of them away and the whole gospel falls down. If Christ did not resurrect then indeed the faith is in vain; however if it was, for example, Andrew or James and not Peter or John who first of the apostles entered the empty tomb, it would not make any difference for us I guess. For the former is faith and latter is kind of history.

But Paul seemed to think God taught history, since he says:
1 Corinthians 15:16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

God did not teach anything here. He died and rose. It's the apostles who witness and teach. Otherwise it sounds like if Paul instructed the Corinthians to treat their copy of Gospel (yet to be written at that time) as the written word of God.

wolfsbane

Slav said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That's an amazing assertion! So God does not teach us, for example, that Christ was born of Mary, that He suffered under Pilate, was crucified, buried and rose again? You say any or all of this could be fiction, a tale to tell us matters of faith. Parables, not history.
These are all directly related to faith as you correctly quoted Paul. Take any of them away and the whole gospel falls down. If Christ did not resurrect then indeed the faith is in vain; however if it was, for example, Andrew or James and not Peter or John who first of the apostles entered the empty tomb, it would not make any difference for us I guess. For the former is faith and latter is kind of history.

So when we come to Biblical history, only the bits that are essential for the faith need be factual. Everything else might be invented for the purpose of conveying the faith. Seems a bit convenient for anyone seeking to defend the credibility of the faith - no challenges allowed on chronology, the Flood, the Exodus, the Conquest, Solomon's kingdom, Jonah & the fish, Daniel, etc.

That strikes me as a pretty poor concept of the truth, as God's word claims to be. Very strange in light of Christ's claim:
John 10:35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

What then did Christ mean when He said:
Matthew 23:34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Here He ( apparently) pointed to two historical events. Like these and all His references to Adam & Eve, Noah, Jonah, etc. and their circumstances, are they non-historical?
_________________________________________________________________
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Slav

wolfsbane wrote: »

So when we come to Biblical history, only the bits that are essential for the faith need be factual.

No, not exactly. The Biblical history I think is not much different from any other historical study. Everything that is written by an eyewitness can be seen as a historical fact. When it's written by someone who knew the eyewitness then it's still pretty accurate but does not need to be 100% historically accurate (e.g. which apostle entered the tomb first after all? Did Maria Magdalena talk to an angel (or angels) at the tomb or she did not? Did she meet Christ on her way back or later that day?). Further the event from the writer the greater the possibility of historical inaccuracies. However in the faith matters we can be sure it's all 100% accurate thanks to the works of Holy Spirit.

wolfsbane

Slav said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So when we come to Biblical history, only the bits that are essential for the faith need be factual.
No, not exactly. The Biblical history I think is not much different from any other historical study. Everything that is written by an eyewitness can be seen as a historical fact. When it's written by someone who knew the eyewitness then it's still pretty accurate but does not need to be 100% historically accurate (e.g. which apostle entered the tomb first after all? Did Maria Magdalena talk to an angel (or angels) at the tomb or she did not? Did she meet Christ on her way back or later that day?). Further the event from the writer the greater the possibility of historical inaccuracies. However in the faith matters we can be sure it's all 100% accurate thanks to the works of Holy Spirit.

I see what you are saying and I appreciate your holding to the infallibility of the faith sayings. But is that what the Bible teaches about itself, that the non-faith bits may be in error? Jesus sometimes appealed to little details to establish the orthodoxy of His words:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Jesus was quoting from Psalm 82:
Psalm 82:6 I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
7 But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.”

Jesus was reminding them that the law called the judges 'gods'. He says the terminology must be proper since the Scripture cannot be broken.

Or the case of Jonah. As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so also He will be in the tomb. We could say it did not matter if Jonah was only two days or four or more days in the fish, the important 'faith' aspect was his imprisonment and release by God. But Christ shows all the detail is important.

Rather than seeing the reports at the Resurrection being contradictory, we can take them as selectively incomplete and capable of reconciliation when the full facts are disclosed.
_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 2:5 So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet:
6 ‘ But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;
For out of you shall come a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.’”

Slav

wolfsbane wrote: »

I see what you are saying and I appreciate your holding to the infallibility of the faith sayings. But is that what the Bible teaches about itself, that the non-faith bits may be in error? Jesus sometimes appealed to little details to establish the orthodoxy of His words:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Jesus was quoting from Psalm 82:
Psalm 82:6 I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
7 But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.”

Jesus was reminding them that the law called the judges 'gods'. He says the terminology must be proper since the Scripture cannot be broken.

To be honest I don't see it as a non-faith bit. Judges were gods because Israel - God's people and their faith - were effectively in their hands as they were set guarding God's Law. What is it about if not about faith?

Or the case of Jonah. As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so also He will be in the tomb. We could say it did not matter if Jonah was only two days or four or more days in the fish, the important 'faith' aspect was his imprisonment and release by God. But Christ shows all the detail is important.

That's where we will disagree I guess. If I'm not mistaken you understand, for instance, 6 days of creation and the day of rest literally as 7 sequential 24-hour time periods and therefore Sabbath is the same time period as the 7th day. I understand the 6 days as epochs that reveal the gradual development of created world in dialogue with God. The 7th day is the sign by which people in pagan world would recognise God the Creator and it was a common belief that the gemiurge had a rest after creation (usually for good). God of the Bible is saying that he did not leave the creation. He remembers it and wants to be remembered by his people. Sabbath is the covenant and the symbol of this communion of God and men.

Similar story with Jonah. It does not really matter whether it's possible to survive inside a fish for 3 days or not. The story does not need to be read as a historical account in order to be 100% true and in order for OT-NT cross references to be significant and meanfull.

Rather than seeing the reports at the Resurrection being contradictory, we can take them as selectively incomplete and capable of reconciliation when the full facts are disclosed.

I don't know how. For example, according to synoptic gospels Maria Magdalene met an angel at the tomb who said that Christ resurrected and so she went to other disciples to tell them about resurrection. However, according to John she did not see anybody at the tomb and then "she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

For me it's quite clear that according to the synoptic accounts she did meet an angel (or two angels in case of Luke) at the tomb and according to John she did not. Therefore in John (unlike Matthew, Mark and Luke) she did not know about resurrection yet when she was talking to apostles. Does it make any difference? I don't think it does.

Slav

This is another example that illustrates relations between theological and historical accounts (iconography if you don't mind).

This is a classical icon of Pentecost:



The two apostles on the top are Peter (left) and Paul (right). Historically this is incorrect as everybody knows that Paul could not be in that room. Theologically it would be incorrect to depict it without Paul.

wolfsbane

Slav wrote: »

This is another example that illustrates relations between theological and historical accounts (iconography if you don't mind).

This is a classical icon of Pentecost:



The two apostles on the top are Peter (left) and Paul (right). Historically this is incorrect as everybody knows that Paul could not be in that room. Theologically it would be incorrect to depict it without Paul.

That's because theology, unlike the Bible, can be in error.
_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.

wolfsbane

Slav said:

That's where we will disagree I guess. If I'm not mistaken you understand, for instance, 6 days of creation and the day of rest literally as 7 sequential 24-hour time periods and therefore Sabbath is the same time period as the 7th day.

Correct.

I understand the 6 days as epochs that reveal the gradual development of created world in dialogue with God. The 7th day is the sign by which people in pagan world would recognise God the Creator and it was a common belief that the gemiurge had a rest after creation (usually for good). God of the Bible is saying that he did not leave the creation. He remembers it and wants to be remembered by his people. Sabbath is the covenant and the symbol of this communion of God and men.

But that would make nonsense of the details given in the text: the 'epoch' would have an evening and a morning, distinguished by darkness/light. What epoch had that?

Similar story with Jonah. It does not really matter whether it's possible to survive inside a fish for 3 days or not. The story does not need to be read as a historical account in order to be 100% true and in order for OT-NT cross references to be significant and meanfull.

Did Christ then not need to be in the grave for 3 days? Why must we take what is said of Him as historical, but not the reference to Jonah?

And how do you tell what is history in the Bible and what is just a story that illustrates a truth? Was Jesus born of a virgin? Was He heralded by angels? Visited by the wise men? Taken to Egypt? Raised in Nazareth? Etc.

Are we supposed to believe the Bible when it tells us spiritual things, but not when it tells us material details?

Does it not seem self-serving to say the Bible is totally reliable in all matters we cannot check (spiritual things) but is allowed to be mistaken in all the things we can check? Seems a neat way to claim spiritual infallibility!

Quote:
Rather than seeing the reports at the Resurrection being contradictory, we can take them as selectively incomplete and capable of reconciliation when the full facts are disclosed.
I don't know how. For example, according to synoptic gospels Maria Magdalene met an angel at the tomb who said that Christ resurrected and so she went to other disciples to tell them about resurrection. However, according to John she did not see anybody at the tomb and then "she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

For me it's quite clear that according to the synoptic accounts she did meet an angel (or two angels in case of Luke) at the tomb and according to John she did not. Therefore in John (unlike Matthew, Mark and Luke) she did not know about resurrection yet when she was talking to apostles.

There are certainly difficulties reconciling the accounts, but some credible efforts have been made, and no doubt more will follow. Orville E. Daniel has a helpful harmonisation in his book, A Harmony of the Four Gospels.

Does it make any difference? I don't think it does.

Why should we believe Christ physically rose from the dead as the report alleges, if it got several other of the facts wrong? Not inconsequential facts, either, but matters of eye witness to His resurrection.
_________________________________________________________________
Luke 24:46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things.

Acts 2:31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.