Genesis: A literary analysis

http://www.cresourcei.org/gen3.html#top

The Zombie writers: our divine Bible

     

  In my previous post I talked about how the Bible is embedded in a specific context and how inaccessible it may seem to us here in the 21st century.  Unfortunately, far too many believers remain blissfully unaware of this fact or ignorant of its implications.  It is very heartwarming to think of the Bible as the proverbial love letter to each one of us and I think on a certain level that is true.  However, we have to realize that this mode of thinking has caused us to gloss over a simple reality: that the words of our Scriptures had an original writer with a specific intention for what he was trying to get across.  Not to mention the original audience would have understood it in a very specific way based on the time, place and current historical circumstance.  In the words of Bible scholar Peter Enns "The Bible was written for us, but it was not written to us." 

     The prime example of this idea I am presenting is found in the first few chapters of Genesis. Here we get the Israelite version of the Creation story.  I say Israelite version because the Genesis story is not the only ancient account of origins or the oldest.  Indeed the concepts of man being made from earth or a single group surviving a massive flood are not unique to Genesis.  And while the Genesis account is unique and stands out from the rest of the stories of the ancient world it does share a great deal with other ancient legends.  For example water is at the beginning of the Creation Story in Genesis.  This is  a common symbol in the ancient world for chaos, disorder, and dysfunction.  So what was the ancient writer communicating?  He is telling us that the one true God brought about an orderly, functioning, and inhabitable world out of primordial chaos.  All the things that are necessary for man and animal to survive are provided, vegetation, seasons, light, other animals, dry land, oceans, a barrier between man and the waters of chaos.  Then the Creator God dealt the final blow to chaos by resting on the seventh day, thus establishing the world as his sanctuary.  

     My main takeaway from this is that the ancient context of Israel heavily influence how the story looks and sounds.  Thereby making Genesis and by extension the rest of the Bible a product of its time.  Let that sink in for a few minutes for the ramifications to become clear.  In many cases modern interpreters read the Bible as if it was outside of time and space.  Each and every story, law and idea is true in the same way today as it was back then.  Here is where the idea gets sticky, modern readers assume that ancients readers understood things the same way we do.   Meaning that the ancient readership expected the same things from Scripture that we do like precise facts, scientifically and historically accurate data and so on.  We imagine that like us post-enlightenment thinkers, the authors of the Bible wrote things down exactly as they happened in order to give a precise historical account.   Now we can't help the way we instinctively think about history, however, it is anachronistic for us to project our strictly factual sensibilities on the text of the Bible.  

     Unfortunately for us moderns, most Bible scholars will tell us that the ancients did not write history as we currently understand it.  Rather, they wrote stories as theological constructs about God, their relationship to Him or to the outside world.  In reality, rather than a strict empirical account of history, what we are seeing in the pages of the Bible is the spiritual journey of Israel and their evolving perception of God and themselves.  

We all know what a spiritual journey is like.  Things start out simple and get progressively more involved with time.  As we learn more about God and ourselves we understand what is required of us in a different light than from when we first started.  We look back at the zealotry of our youth and shake our heads over our stupidity and wonder how we ever could have thought our actions were God's will.

     So what is my conclusion?  Is the Bible completely irrelevant now since it was written in a context that we don't share?  Do we throw parts of the Bible out that portray ancient morality and violate our modern sensibilities?  In the words of Paul "May it never be!"  

     

     On the contrary, the imperative is on us to thoroughly understand where the Biblical writers were coming from.  Then we can approach the text honestly, no longer needing to force the text into our context and allow the Bible to speak for itself.  And that's the point isn't it?  To allow the Bible to speak to us?  Our faith in the Bible can't be shaken because they wrote like we would, from our own time and place and not like some angelic zombies overflowing with cosmic truth.  

We can rest assured that the Bible is God's living Word because after all God used the Book and the people of the Book to change the world.

The Word under layers of Context

    My view of the Bible is being severely challenged, but in a good way.  A good friend of mine always says if my view of the Bible is unchallenged then I'm not growing in my faith and the his point is well taken.  My current growth/challenge is the nature of Biblical inspiration and more specifically the level of Biblical inspiration.  I've seen affirmation of this central idea in Christianity in every statement of faith I've ever read or agreed to, but I've never wondered what exactly those statements of faith mean until now.

     I'll put it to you like this; we all realize to some degree that the Bible was written over a long period of time in a variety of circumstances and contexts.  None of which are similar to ours.  We are separated from the events in the Bible not only by time; but also by language, religion; as well as culture and worldview.  I'm sure most (if not all) Christians wish to travel back in time to witness some biblical story as it happened, but the truth is we probably wouldn't understand what in the world was going on unless we happened to understand Hebrew or Aramaic.  So in a very real, practical sense there are barriers between us and the words in our English bible.  We don't necessarily even have the original words of Jesus because he didn't speak Greek and the manuscripts we have are all in Greek.  I don't mean to imply that our English translations are completely unreliable, I only mean to say that we need to keep in mind  that we are removed from the original context of what we are reading. Therefore, in my opinion the translations we use are not entirely self sufficient when it comes to providing a well rounded and accurate picture of what the Scriptures are trying to communicate.

     Now I can see a reader becoming unsettled by this and shifting uncomfortably in their seat.  Now before you press the heresy button in your mind let me explain further.  I have listened to discussions where it was basically said that the believer together with the Holy Spirit residing in him is completely capable of properly interpreting Scripture in and of himself.  So I know it sounds like I'm saying that the Bible is not easily understood by the average believer.  Isn't the Holy Spirit sufficient to supply all necessary knowledge about the Bible?  

      I would like to remind the reader of a story.  The story of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus.  We all are familiar with story.  The two men unknowingly encounter the risen Messiah, they explain to him their anguished disappointment at Jesus's death.  The Masters response is mysteriously epic.

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken!26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

     I can't stress enough what this means for us.  Here's why; we can reasonably assume that the two disciples had personally witnessed the Master's ministry.  They almost certainly were Jews and obviously familiar with the language and culture.  And Jesus went through the entire "Old" Testament explaining what it said about him!  If those two first century disciples, who had seen the ministry of Jesus needed this to be explained explained to them, how much more so do we?  

     This brings me back around to my original point about Biblical inspiration.  I believe we need to rethink how the Holy Spirit works in our lives and through the written text.  It is through our personal study and striving to understand the original context of the Bible that the Holy Spirit does the work of revelation.  So as I know, the Spirit doesn't miraculously allow us to understand Greek, or Hebrew, or Aramaic.  That's our job.  

     In conclusion the words of Bible are embedded in ancient languages and specific worldview.  We have it on the best authority that the Bible is chock full of insights about Jesus.  If we are unfamiliar with those languages and worldview then we won't comprehend the fullness of what they are able to tell us about our anointed Messiah.  Something to think about.

Historical Adam?

https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=267142101#episodeGuid=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnapi.kaltura.com%2Fp%2F618072%2Fsp%2F61807200%2FplayManifest%2FentryId%2F1_7b3he48x%2FflavorId%2F0_nadkvpwl%2Fprotocol%2Fhttp%2Fformat%2Furl%2Fa.mp3%3FclientTag%3Dfeed%3A1_jlj47tkv

Genesis and temple imagery

http://youtu.be/EUb9P5HXueo

Genesis: supernatural and natural United

http://www.blackhawkchurch.org/archive/sermon_resources/walton.pdf

Is God is on the ropes?

God is on the ropes: The brilliant new science that has creationists and the Christian right terrified

Revelation and biblical criticism 

http://theleetlegraycells.tumblr.com/post/107005408814/tamar-ross-on-revelation-and-biblical-criticism

Jolly ol Saint Nick

http://theleetlegraycells.tumblr.com/post/107006072384

Story

http://voice.adobe.com/v/9ygTBws2L5p

The land before time

     Have you ever wondered what life was like before anything we know today existed?  It is hard to imagine the prehistoric, and the further back you go the harder it gets.  I recently have been listening to some lectures on ancient Mediterranean religions and was fascinated by what religion/ spirituality looked like as far back as the Stone Age.  Essentially as soon as man became man he perceived spirituality and began setting things aside as sacred.  These ideas were basic and related to life processes that they couldn't understand, such as birth and death.  

     Rituals to express their awe and respect for humans entering and exiting this world developed and are interpreted by modern day archeologists as the first evidence of the sacred.  The ancients would bury the dead in a fetal position to replicate birth and bury their dead close by the community so they would have easy access for communal meals that were held to carry on relationships with their dead loved ones.  They seemed to believe that the dead went on living in some fashion and would provide them with tools and other gifts to facilitate their existence in that other world.  As time progressed these rituals became more elaborate such as the embalming and burial process in Egypt.  

     I can't help, but wonder at this rudimentary stage of human development, about 20,000 years ago, what exactly did they believe in?  What did they hope for?  Did they have faith in something or someone?  Why would they take the time to create pomp and circumstance for things that were beyond them.  How did they think they would profit from setting these things aside?

    Perhaps they were merely afraid of everything they couldn't understand, and to a certain extant this is true.  The polytheistic mythologies were often woven around natural events, the sun, stars, night-time and seasons each were eventually came to be represented by at least one God.  Again as time went on these myths became more elaborate and attempted to explain the how and why for the way life was.  However, I often wonder how all of humanity, seemingly independent of each other all arrived at very similar conclusions.  In a broad, overarching way the ancient religions of the world all reflected similar values and similar methodology for worshiping the sacred reality they all perceived.  

     Case in point, human cultures the world over set up temple cultic systems regardless of whether it was Hebrew or Hindu.  These often if not always involved animal sacrifices as well as yearly festivals.  Celebrations of fertility are rampant, the idea that there are such things as deities is standard and connections between death, life and sexual reproduction are commonplace.  

     How did everyone get the same general idea about what religion should look like?  What I would like to think is that somewhere deep in the human psyche there is the ability to perceive the divine and the patterns we see is mankind universally coming to this understanding.  Call me crazy, but certainly looks like they arrived at this understanding on their own.  I think humanity began to glimpse what God had built into the very fabric of Creation. 

     I find the concept of humanity as a whole perceiving a spiritual dimension to be truly awe inspiring.  Now I'm fully aware that it was by no means "pure and undefiled religion" and was convoluted and twisted along the way devolving into worship of everything under the sun, but it was religion.  

So my ultimate question is can we derive any meaning from the ancients religious longings.  Is there some fundamental religious truths that we as human being were/are automatically able to sense in the world around us.  Some food for thought at any rate.

I just read the the stuff

    

     I grew up in a conservative Christian household, I don't use the f-word very often, but it very accurately describes my upbringing, Fundamentalist.  Now I don't thnk there is anything inherently bad in that word, but in this day and age it amounts to relegating you to the dark ages.  

    I want to make it very clear from the beginning that I'm not on a warpath against the way I was raised or against my family who raised me in the way that they thought was right.  Like any child who grows up, leaves home and encounters new ideas, theology, world views and information I have naturally changed and altered my ideas from those of my family.  So this is me just documenting what I have found in my journey.

     One of the things about a fundamentalist Christian mindset is that you take the idea of sheltering very seriously, in a very real way your job is make sure that worldly ideas do not find much of an audience.  This is a task that every parent in some way is trying to fulfill, even the most non-religious parent tries to shelter their children from something at least until they reach a certain age.  So the end result if the parent is successful there are some things their children have never heard about.  One of the things I was never been exposed to was scriptural criticism.  

     I'll be honest when I started hearing about how there are different and conflicting accounts in the Bible, debates about when the Bible was written and who had the most say in the editing process, and  how it contained literature that was best read figuratively I wanted to retreat back into my naïveté.  However as I have eased myself into this scary, foreign place of Biblical criticism I have found much that has enriched my understanding of the book that I grew up reading.  

     

     Now that I have eased my recovering fundamentalist self into this area of study, the ideas make perfect sense.  An important principle in any historical study is that history rarely gives you what you expect from it.  The unified narrative that we commonly hear from any part of history is almost never that simple, we should expect no different from a historical study of the Bible.  Now that is an important distinction to make, this is a historical exploration of the Bible not a theological one.  Not that one doesn't have serious ramifications for the other, it most certainly does.  I have been seriously challenged by a historical reading of Genesis, but that's a subject for another blog.  The point is and this applies to any area of history, especially ancient history; there is a difference between the theological narrative we commonly understand and what the physical evidence we possess can support.  This is true for copies of the scripture that we possess and archeological evidence for things like the worldwide flood and the Exodus.  Those are also topics for another blogpost.  

     So I have shared an overview of my journey and I hope that has been helpful, I'm still a recovering fundamentalist and honestly a lot of what I see still scares me, but I see a path now that involves grappling and understanding the facts instead of ignoring them.  That is what I find to be the most exciting, I want to know the real story behind the Bible because that will help me make the most informed interpretations.  I don't intend on being a full blown Biblical scholar, but I certainly intend on becoming an informed student of both the theological and historical Bible

Is Christian Conservatism Passé?

     I recently completed a "Great Courses" lecture series on the roots of conservatism as a political movement.  If you aren't familiar with the Great Courses I would highly recommend them.  

     What I took from the lecture series, which covered conservatism in both the UK and America was a detectable pattern in the ways that we propose, respond and react to change.  Conservatism as defined by the lecture series was essentially resistance to change and the preservation of the past or of the status quo.  However since change is inevitable, conservatism is put in the position of having to adapt and choose the option which accommodates the required change while best preserving the original intent of the law or statute.  This is ordinarily the pattern, a problem is perceived, a progressive or unorthodox solution is proposed and a battle ensues with the conservatives digging in their heels  trying to preserve what they see as the traditional and historically honored way of doing things.  The outcome is usually not completely to either sides liking and the process continues.  Occasionally, however conservatives buck that trend, realize that they cannot maintain their current position and choose to innovate, instead proposing the changes themselves.  

     Now the point of all this that we see these same trend I described above in religion as well.  Every generation has its hot button issues, whether it be abortion, gay marriage, evolution or the veracity of the Bible, all these are well contested today.  The issues of yesterday may be less familiar, women working outside the home, giving women the vote, giving the vote to people of various skin colors, rabid anti-Catholicism and I could go on.  These issues are quite passé, we don't give them a second thought as religious people even though they were each huge religious issues in their day.  These problems were resolved only in the past century and yet we today don't question whether everyone should vote or whether women can work outside the home.  These questions were argued, hotly debated and eventually a solution with a consensus of opinion was reached, then we moved on.  We take so much for granted today in regards to what our culture looks like and we don't always remember that what we take for granted was once considered radical and we forget the generations of Conservatives who believed civilization would collapse if everyone could vote and women could work.  

     I don't mean to say that we should give up since change is inevitable, but I do say that the historical context should give us pause and push us towards exploring new solutions to the issues that we face.   We look back in embarrassment at our conservative predecessors who promoted racism and sexism in the belief that they were preserving the best of our nations traditions.  I also don't mean to convey that todays issue are all comparable to the racism that was built into our cultural institutions, but today we consider the equality of the races to be a no-brainer and it certainly wasn't thought to be so at the time.  Equality of any sort was considered to be dangerous in the 19th century and only radicals and socialists proposed those sorts of ideas.  Once again the lessons of history should teach us that just because an idea is radical, new and unorthodox we shouldn't reject it out of hand, because it may be tomorrow's conservatism.  

     A generation from now our hard fought issues that we lived and died over will have acquired a solution and social consensus, quite possibly very different from what we can see from our current vantage point.  If you could take anything from this blog  I hope it would be that as Solomom says there is nothing new under the sun and it's all been done before.  It is part of nature to conserve that which is most familiar to us, but we don't have the luxury of only having our own generation to think about.  Yes that's right, we need to think of the next generation and how they will treat our attempts of conservation.  Believe it or not the future is theirs not ours and we owe it to them to treat the future with care not dogma

How then shall be saved Pt 2

     So let's think twice about the sinners prayer.  I'm not saying anything about it is wrong with it in particular.  I only question whether or not in fact we are fulfilling the Great Commission  by getting as many people as possible to repeat those words.

     So this brings me into new territory, openly wondering if a statement of belief given at one point in time regardless of what change it actually brings about in someone's life is in fact enough to ensure one's eternal destiny.  In order for you go understand why I question this, lets consider this.  A hypothetical situation in which a man comes to the end of his rope attending a revival meeting and is moved to walk down the aisle and is led in the Sinners prayer.  A year later he murders a man.  The next year he murders again.  At his trial where he is sentenced to five consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole for a total of 12 brutal, cold blooded murders.  He serves his sentences and dies in prison.  Whatever happened to his confession of faith?  Does it still hold true?  Despite his complete and utter disregard for that emotional moment will he somehow be welcomed into eternity?

     I'm communicating my struggle more than anything else here.  My point is not to invalidate this method of evangelism based on my own experience and some armchair theology.  Since I am the father of two rambunctious boys under the age of  two and I have every intention of raising them in the faith that I hold dear.  Therefore I have a personal interest in figuring this out.  How am I to present the gospel to my kids?  What's a proper age where they can adequately understand it?  So theoretical questions become personal real fast.  

    But enough questions, do we have any solutions to this dilemma?

It is my opinion, that belief in God must be fostered from the very beginning of life.  Its not something that is separated from everyday life and reserved for certain moments and times.  One or two days a week is no way to treat such an all encompassing thing like faith.  If it is possible to raise your children in you faith you should do so, not with the intention of leading them at some point into one single moment where they will commit themselves to God, but with the intention of leading into a life committed to God.    Don't get me wrong, it has to start somewhere, but a vision for multi-generational faith that is passed on by example as well as by words is essential if these crazy ideas we have about God and his plan for the world are to be passed on with any effectiveness.  And most importantly this faith must be geared toward a life in service of God and his people. 

     Just as your faith in God should not be reserved for certain days or seasons of the year, so also our achievement of salvation shouldn't be be tied to a specific time or place.  The spirit of the matter is not that we said a certain prayer at some point in our lives, but that we have chosen the life that God intended for members of the his family and we live it, day in and day out.  Not perfectly, but with our whole heart, walking, falling, repenting, walking again. 

How then shall we be saved?

     Recently I've been giving a lot of thought to the traditional way through which we are ushered into the Christian faith.  I don't intend to get into huge theological issues here, I mainly want to talk about the methodology of becoming a believer.  For instance when I was about 8 or 9 years of age, as a result of a conversation about a member of our church who had recently passed away; my father led me in the sinners prayer.  We sat down on a log in the backwoods of Northeastern Pennsylvania and I repeated the words after him and I was for all intents and purposes considered a Christian at that point.  I wasn't baptized until much later, so perhaps some would not consider me a full fledged member until then, but I think most would agree that my eternal destiny was decided at that moment.
     Now generally, although I know of some exceptions, regardless of what brand of Evangelical Christianity you identify with now whether it be Baptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic etc.. This is how you began,  a short formula, a declaration of intent, a series of words that conferred upon you the immediate status of being a member of the Family of God.  This methodology is used  in Christian evangelism the world over and is popular in large part I think because it fits the motif of the gospel message being simple.  Jesus died for us and all we need or can do is make a verbal statement accepting that fact. This secures for us a place in heaven where we will live eternally, period of discussion.  This inherent simplicity of the gospel makes it easily packaged and unpackaged in the hopes of reaching as large demographic as possible.  I'm not going into a lot of detail or exploring a lot of background information here purposely because I assume most of my readers will understand, perhaps even better than I what I am referencing.
   Now here is the good part, the part where most people will think they know where I am going with this and either check out or are still with me.  So I will come clean and say I am not a big fan of the sinners prayer, I know that sets me apart from normative Christianity and perhaps raises red flags about me in some people's eyes, but the good thing is I'm kind of used to that.  I don't really fit in that well with normative Christianity, I disagree with a great deal of it and some of it downright embarrasses me.
      However, and this is a big however because regardless of how much I disagree with Christianity I haven't abandoned it.
     So I disagree with Christians on this issue, so what?  What else is new?  Everyone disagrees, why should this disagreement matter?  It matters to me because it is a well recognized problem within the church and I have talked to pastors who testify to the pews being filled with insincere believers. . .  Believers who profess faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ, but when it comes down to brass tacks can't seem to be bothered to so anything much about it.
     And that is something to be concerned about.

To be continued.