I've seen some aversion to the idea that the creation account in Genesis is not historical narrative. They say, "If you say that's not historical narrative where does it end? It's got to be all or nothing." Obviously it would be easier to say it's all or nothing, but I think that idea's retarded. The answer I always want to giveto their response is, "Well, you have to use your brain." They also say "literal" which I hate. I don't know what that means - I use historical narrative because literal also has an importance connotation. As in, if you don't take it literally you don't take it seriously.
I don't think Gen 1 to 2:3 is historical narrative. 1) I don't think the Israelites took it as such, 2) it wasn't eye-witnessed but a special revelation from God, and 3) the message/purpose doesn't require it to be historical narrative. It seems like people do a cursory reading and assume it's historical narrative and/or are afraid of going down that slippery slope so they don't even think of it.
But if we didn't have the info we have from science about the universe's origins, I wonder if we wouldn't take it as historical narrative. I take the equal position of science and the Bible (the Book of Nature and the Bible), so science does influence my biblical interpretations. I think that's also a deterrence.
I'm also skeptical of people trying to make the creation account fit into the scientific account. It's a kind of progressive creationism, as in people say the days were long periods of time and the order of creation is consistent with science. I don't think the Israelites would have seen Genesis as such.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Here's a thought Nath. I can be historical narrative,and literal without coming to the conclusions that I think annoy you... if I have a sense of your position here.
First, I agree with the idea of historical narrative - I can't remember the writer, but we've talked about it before, who suggests that Genesis is an histori-cultural narrative. The point isn't to give an exact description of "how" God created, rather to remind the Israelites in the wilderness "that" God created rather than holding to an Egyptian many gods theory.
Second, it could be literal use of language. I'm thinking of two things here. Many commentators seem to think that "yom" really is a literal day... but if the point is not to give an exact creation narrative you could use yom without trying to specify a 24 hour period. Additionally, I can say, "I built a house." I built a house last year." By that I could mean, within ten months of the last year I poured a foundation, framed, roofed, plumbed, sided, finished, a house. My statement doesn't have to be specific about the details of how I did it, and it's still a literal statement. There's a bunch packed into my statement... "I built a house last year."
Two things tha hang me up in this discussion: 1)I have no problem believing that God could created within any time frame he chose to use, but how does it do damage to say if you don't take it literally you're taking away from the story? 2)If take it literally you have to deal with God resting. Most of the literalists take the God resting passage and talk about how God took a break from his work of creating and sustaining the universe. It begs the question... "Who was sustaining the universe during his rest?"
The dogmatic attachment to a literal 6 - 24 hour day creation escapes me.
JJR
I am confused on the lingo, so this his how I use the terms. I am using historical narrative to say that this is how it actually happened, or physical nonfiction. I don't understand the "literal use of language," although I like the sound of it. It seems like this means using physical terms, as in he used a physical description as opposed to something spiritual. Or perhaps, he meant only what he said and the things in the story do not represent something else. It seems like you're saying that literal does not point a specific use of a term and something can be vague and still literal.
I don't understand the "how does it do damage to say if you don't take it literally you're taking away from the story" question. Could you explain that more?
I agree that God resting is a problem if you think it's historical narrative. The idea of God resting is funny to me - what would that look like?
It's weird how this turned into the John and Nathan blog.
I hold to the belief that the creation story is purely allegorical. Anyone who disagrees is narrow minded and dumb.
Post a Comment