@ Dannii. {Rev. Denis Kirkaldy asked me to pass on his regards to you. Meanwhile, ...}
I’m sure we both misinterpret God’s word at different times…
Of course! Neither of us is perfect; and we are both subject to the occasionally distorting lens of sin.
What I know about mythology is that it manifests itself in the texts themselves. This is why I was asking what linguistic or textual reasons you had for calling it a myth. If mythology is not manifest in the text, then all that “mythology” can mean is that you think it is not history for external reasons.
It is by no means so cut-and-dried, Dannii. Here is what a real expert on mythology, Prof. David Leeming, has to say about mythology (op. cit., pp.viii-ix):
As always when discussing mythology, it is important to define terms. The myths collected and discussed here are for the most part religious narratives that transcend the possibilities of common experience and that express any given culture’s literal or metaphorical understanding of various aspects of reality. In this sense myths have to do with the relation of the culture, or of human beings in general, to the unknown in the cosmos. To so-called fundamentalists of any given culture the religious stories of that culture are literally true, while stories of other cultures and religions are understood to be mere folklore - what in common usage we in fact mean by “myth” [this usage being why I - Ian Shanahan - prefer to deploy the more technical term mythos]. For others, both within given cultures and outside of them, myths are seen as important metaphorical constructs reflecting understandings that cannot be expressed in any other way. For many mythologists these literally false stories are “true” in the sense that they form an actual, real part of any culture’s identity. What are ... the Jews without Yahweh’s covenant, the Christians without [Jesus’s] resurrection? Understood in this way, it is possible to speak of the “myths” of the three monotheistic Abrahamic religions just as we speak of the “myths” of the ancient peoples whose sacred stories are no longer treated as the scripture of viable religions. ... But with nonexclusionary vision, other people’s religious narratives can be seen as tribe-defining cultural dreams and as significant metaphors that can speak truthfully to people across cultural and sectarian boundaries.
[boldface emphasis added]
I wish to nuance Leeming’s observations a little further by adding two of my own, that:
1. Between extreme “fundamentalism” - to adopt Leeming’s epithet - (as in the YECs’ Weltanschauung), and non-fundamentalism, there is a continuum of believers’ interpretations, the ratio between historico-literalist and metaphorical readings of Scripture defining where one sits within that continuum.
2. Certain mythoimay, or may not, spring from some historiophysical event. Every true Christian, for example, believes ipso facto that the mythos of Jesus’s resurrection is an historiophysical fact - which, by Leeming’s criteria, makes us all “fundamentalists”.
I don’t know… Genesis 7 is quite similar to Exodus 14, which is definitely thought of as a miracle. In both cases God controls the weather.
Exodus 14 “definitely thought of as a miracle”? Not necessarily by every Christian: the events narrated in Exodus 7-14, from what I have read over the years, are intimately connected with the volcanic island of Thera - i.e. modern-day Santorini - exploding. Check out, for example, Graham Phillips’ intriguing book The Moses Legacy: In Search of the Origins of God - The Evidence of History [Pan Books, London, 2003].
I’m not sure about gematria… that’s like in Matt 1 isn’t it? Is there gematria in that story? Couldn’t it be thought of as just a type of constrained writing? But in any case, even if there was gematria with this story, why does that mean it must be mythological or allegorical? And even if it was, it was definitely still within the Son of God’s power!
Yes Dannii, there is some very elementary gematria in Matthew 1. For other readers’ benefit, Matthew 1:17 speaks of multiples of 14 generations of descendants from David to Jesus (erroneously in fact: count them!); and the gematria of “David” in Hebrew and Koinē Greek is respectively 14 and 21 (Δαβιδ = 21). “Constrained writing”? Au contraire, it adds semiotic depth. The presence (or absence) of gematria within a given Bible passage is in no way contingent upon that passage’s historicity (or lack thereof), and is indeed “within the Son of God’s power” - which is actually evinced by the suprafortuitousness of the entire Bible’s gematrial network. I’m in the process of writing a book, Greek Fire: An Introduction to Gematria in the New Testament, less than 40% complete; let me know your e-mail address and I can send you a PDF of the work-in-progress ... though I suspect bits therein might well make you erupt into apoplexy!
I ask because this is an unofficial Sydney Anglican forum, who are usually considered to be evangelical. You seem to believe the unusual mix of both the Bible’s infallibility while also accepting that Paul made mistakes in what he wrote. Those don’t seem like beliefs evangelicals usually hold to. ... I do think that the evangelical focus on the Bible and its truth is better than the non-evangelicals nonfocus.
For more detail about my own ‘flavour’ of Christianity, see my post above, to Owen, #100. When you conjecture that “[I] seem to believe the unusual mix of both the Bible’s infallibility while also accepting that Paul made mistakes in what he wrote”, I would respond by declaring that I have a subtle understanding of the Bible’s infallibility - not necessarily the same thing as “inerrancy” at all! - and that Paul may or may not be mistaken, depending upon the precise nature of the questions one asks. Furthermore: (i) in the nearly 2000 years since Paul was alive, scientific knowledge has expanded astronomically (pardon the pun!); and (ii) Paul was no scientist. For instance, when I asked you in my post #97 “Men die; Grass dies. Verily, all men are grass. Is this statement true, Dannii?” - which you didn’t answer, by the way - the point I was trying to get at was that the answer depends entirely upon how you interpret the statement. If one approaches it rationally, as a question in logic (syllogism), then the statement is clearly “False”; but if instead one is thinking about it in poetic, metaphorical terms, then yes, the statement is “True”. (Incidentally, this little apophthegm is the essence of Isaiah 40:6-8!) Dannii, I do suspect that you - and indeed all YECs - need to evolve your notion of Biblical truth somewhat, in various dimensions and levels of subtlety ... particularly when I read the last paragraph of your response to Owen:
I believe that we must be firm about the gospel only. But that means being firm about sin too. And a huge problem that many people have about sin is that it doesn’t make sense to them, because what the Bible calls sin’s consequence, they know to be a natural part of life. This is why I am firm that physical human death is a result and consequence of sin.
I could rebut the ‘logic’ of some of this, not to mention again its blindness in relation to the palaeontological record, but I’ll leave that to Owen…
Yes, Ken. I did wonder (e.g. Romans 14) about that particular ‘noise’ in the satirist’s ‘signal’; let’s hope it hasn’t frightened off the natives. And yet, through all the expletives and scorn, he still pretty funnily nails the lid on the coffin of YEC - the central hammer-blow being “why aren’t dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible”?
Oh, and before some YEC smart-alec brings up ‘Behemoth’ (Job 40:15) and ‘Leviathan’ (e.g. Job 41:1) as examples of Biblical citation of dinosaurs, my cursory research into the matter - using the free e-sword software - finds that the consensus view is:
1. Behemoth [singular: ‘Behemah’] = a Nile hippopotamus (literally ‘river-horse’), or perhaps an African elephant (NB: Barnes and other commentators note that the Egyptian word pehemout means ‘water ox’, in context undoubtedly a hippopotamus);
2. Leviathan = Nile crocodile (or maybe a whale), the word’s Hebrew etymology meaning ‘a twisted (or twisting) animal’ - though in other OT contexts it seems to be somewhat more ambiguous.
Such a consensus could only be reached if you think God was ignorant of the biology of the creatures he made. Far better to say we don’t know what they are, or that they’re made up animals.
And a huge problem that many people have about sin is that it doesn’t make sense to them, because what the Bible calls sin’s consequence, they know to be a natural part of life.
(Post #99)
This is a good insight, Dannii, thanks. If one can rationalise death, it’s a short step to rationalising sin. The inevitablity of death ought to be a potent reminder of the reality of God’s impending judgement. ‘man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment’ (Heb 9:27). But I fear we have mostly lost the weight of this.
Such a consensus could only be reached if you think God was ignorant of the biology of the creatures he made.
Why? I don’t think God was in any way ignorant of any aspect of his Creation: that would contradict his Absolute Divinity.
Far better to say we don’t know what they are, or that they’re made up animals.
Again, why?. Certainly, this might be the case for Leviathan; but given the etymological evidence behind Behemoth, I’d say the matter is pretty well settled.
@Ros. I have no quarrel with those sentences by Dannii that you quoted in themselves, only the conclusion that he reached from them immediately thereafter (which you omit here). So your assertion -
If one can rationalise death, it’s a short step to rationalising sin.
- is codswallop: physical death is a question of physics and biology; sin is both a cause and an outcome of humanity’s less-than-perfect moral and ethical condition. The two phenomena are utterly disconnected. Were this not so, then we would be led ineluctably to the demonstrably preposterous scenario of dinosaurs living contemporaneously with early man, as I explicated in my earlier posts.
I have no quarrel with those sentences by Dannii that you quoted in themselves,
Good!
My statement ‘If one can rationalise death, it’s a short step to rationalising sin.’ is essentially a restatement of Dannii’s statement, as quoted, but written the other way around.
‘And a huge problem that many people have about sin is that it doesn’t make sense to them,’ → ‘rationalising sin’
‘because’ → ‘it’s a short step to’
‘what the Bible calls sin’s consequence, they know to be a natural part of life ‘→ ‘If one can rationalise death’
only the conclusion that he reached from them immediately thereafter (which you omit here).
I omitted the conclusion he drew because I was not commenting on it, so if you reject my statement on this basis, your argument is invalid.
Do you think people don’t rationalise sin? Do you think people don’t rationalise death? I think they certainly do.
In what respect Ros? I know that I do possess an at-times parachthonic (even sulphurous) idiolect, but that aspect of it has not been invoked here anywhere in the slightest. (If you’re referring to “codswallop”, then it is a 20th-century slang expression - not ‘bad’, let alone taboo, language; its etymology appears to be unknown.) So please deal with your own excessive prudishness and linguistic ignorance.
I omitted the conclusion he drew because I was not commenting on it, so if you reject my statement on this basis, your argument is invalid.
Your reasoning here is illogical (do I really have to spell out why?). Anyway, I didn’t. I rejected it - and it remains codswallop - precisely because, as I wrote before,
physical death is a question of physics and biology; sin is both a cause and an outcome of humanity’s less-than-perfect moral and ethical condition. The two phenomena are utterly disconnected. Were this not so, then we would be led ineluctably to the demonstrably preposterous scenario of dinosaurs living contemporaneously with early man, as I explicated in my earlier posts.
And it is not intrinsically “a restatement of Dannii’s statement, as quoted, but written the other way around”, since sin has other distinct consequences within the carapace of “a natural part of life” besides physical death: sin engenders punishment in all manner of physical forms (e.g. repeated inebriation leading to bad hangovers and ultimately poor health), and - in the absence of God’s grace poured out upon metanoia - judgement, thence eternal spiritual death.
Do you think people don’t rationalise sin? Do you think people don’t rationalise death? I think they certainly do.
My answer: ‘some probably do’; and ‘no’ - at least not those people with even the slightest knowledge of the mechanisms underpinning physical reality. And we are talking about physical death here, aren’t we?
Sin leads to death in respect that we are placed out of relationship with God, by our repeated sinning. We are bound in slavery until death if we are addicted to sin. Only Jesus can break this cycle.
Man’s (Adams) sin seperated us all from God. We cannot get back into relationship with God, and receive life, without a complete faith in Him. We are also in a state of spiritual death without God, and our lives suffer unto death.
So the statement is intrinsically true, that sin causes death. It may be viewed as a true statement by people of all ages and intelligence.
(i guess the only pitfall is inflicting our own perspective and understanding of this statement to people who may see that statement from a deeper or more naive perspective. -that is why many Christians argue on this matter)
If we want life, Jesus gives us just that, in more ways than we could imagine. If we want death and corruption, simply ignore Jesus and God.
@Ian
This is not the first time you have used coarse, obscene or profane language. And I will include the video to your account, since you posted it. I didn’t get past the first ten seconds before both my husband and 18-year old son jumped up and complained (literally).
I omitted the conclusion he drew because I was not commenting on it, so if you reject my statement on this basis, your argument is invalid.
Your reasoning here is illogical (do I really have to spell out why?).
.
My reasoning is perfectly logical. My statement was not dependent on Dannii’s conclusion in any way, therefore it is invalid to reject my statement on the basis of Dannii’s conclusion.
Anyway, I didn’t.
You certainly did. You cited Dannii’s conclusion, then went on tho state
So your assertion -
If one can rationalise death, it’s a short step to rationalising sin.
- is (false):
I rejected it - because, as I wrote before, (etc.)
I was merely noting that people rationalise sin and death, and noting a relationship between the two rationalisations. I don’t claim that people are necessarily logical. This is just observable behaviour. You can’t discount it because of the dinosaurs.
Nor do I concede that you have proven your point about physical death. I think that too big a subject to be resolved by a few people on a minor forum! That is why I declined to debate it in the first place, and have attempted to refrain from that specific debate, but that is clearly not how you have read my posts.
And it is not intrinsically “a restatement of Dannii’s statement, as quoted, but written the other way around”, since sin has other distinct consequences within the carapace of “a natural part of life” besides physical death: sin engenders punishment in all manner of physical forms (e.g. repeated inebriation leading to bad hangovers and ultimately poor health),
I didn’t say the two statements are exactly the same. I do think they are the same in essence, and your reference to real physical consequences of sin (!!!) doesn’t weaken this. But I think Dannii would be a better judge of how well or badly I reflected the essence of his statement.
My answer: ‘some probably do’; and ‘no’ - at least not those people with even the slightest knowledge of the mechanisms underpinning physical reality. And we are talking about physical death here, aren’t we?
Actually, the subject of my post was how people think about sin and death generally, and particularly that death has become disassociated from judgement in the minds of many. This with impediments to the gospel in mind.
I think there are many and various ways that people rationalise sin, and rationalise death, often without admitting to themselves what they are doing. (I have earlier noted mankind’s capacity for self-deception.)
Sin causes spiritual death, certainly. But physical death preceded sin.
@Ros.
This is not the first time you have used coarse, obscene or profane language.
PRECISELY where have I done this? Put up or shut up…
Anyway, do you believe that I deliberately set out to offend you? If not, then as an adult, you choose to take umbrage - and that choice has nothing whatsoever to do with me, but everything to do with your own desire to wield undeserved power over another because of your own self-fabricated sensitivities. This ‘politics of offence’ doesn’t work on me, deary: you can take your self-begotten prudishness and shove it…
And I will include the video to your account, since you posted it.
How very logical of you. Actually, my providing a link to that video is homologous to me quoting, in inverted commas, somebody else’s words that happen to contain taboo language. Don’t shoot the messenger… As for your husband and son complaining, that’s entirely their choice. (You would all benefit from reading and pondering Romans 14:2-4.)
Your statement -
I omitted the conclusion he drew because I was not commenting on it, so if you reject my statement on this basis, your argument is invalid.
- is indeed illogical, because a statement can be validly rejected on the grounds of a conclusion that happens to be unstated. Anyway, I established its erroneousness on its own terms: your statement made about as much sense as someone asserting “ïf an artist rationalizes using too much yellow paint, it’s a short step to rationalizing capital punishment” - i.e. a total non sequitur because the two phenomena are unrelated. Hence, the balance of your ‘reasoning’ above falls flat.
I was merely noting that people rationalise sin and death, and noting a relationship between the two rationalisations.
Yet again, there is no relationship…
Nor do I concede that you have proven your point about physical death.
Aside from your malapropos invocation of “proof” (an idea applicable only to mathematics), since you make this assertion, please illustrate just where I have gone wrong.
I didn’t say the two statements are exactly the same. I do think they are the same in essence, and your reference to real physical consequences of sin (!!!) doesn’t weaken this.
Nor did I - as was made crystal clear in the very excerpt of my post that you quoted. And my “reference to real physical consequences of sin” is by no means equivalent to avowing that sin led to the phenomenon of physical death initially manifesting itself within the cosmos.
... death has become disassociated from judgement in the minds of many. This with impediments to the gospel in mind. I think there are many and various ways that people rationalise sin, ... often without admitting to themselves what they are doing. (I have earlier noted mankind’s capacity for self-deception.)
Again, why?. Certainly, this might be the case for Leviathan; but given the etymological evidence behind Behemoth, I’d say the matter is pretty well settled.
No hippo has a tail like a cedar!
And it is not intrinsically “a restatement of Dannii’s statement, as quoted, but written the other way around”, since sin has other distinct consequences within the carapace of “a natural part of life” besides physical death: sin engenders punishment in all manner of physical forms (e.g. repeated inebriation leading to bad hangovers and ultimately poor health), and - in the absence of God’s grace poured out upon metanoia - judgement, thence eternal spiritual death.
I did not say, nor did I intend to imply, that sin has only one consequence. Yes these are all consequences of sin. Our point of disagreement is that I believe the existence of human physical death is a consequence of the first human’s sin too, based on Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.
Good God, Dannii! Hasn’t it occurred to you, after all that has been published within this thread, that Job 40:17 is purely POETICAL? Particularly given that the very next verse, v.18, portrays Behemoth’s bones as bronze tubes while possessing limbs like iron bars? Do you read that first bit literally as well, thereby believing that God created an animal with a metal skeleton? Is your Biblical exegesis really so moronically monodimensional and contrary to authorial intent? Anyway, v.17 says “stiff like a cedar” - mere analogy…
I did not say, nor did I intend to imply, that sin has only one consequence. Yes these are all consequences of sin.
That message is for Ros.
... Our point of disagreement is that I believe the existence of human physical death is a consequence of the first human’s sin too, based on Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.
... which you must be misinterpreting, because your belief flies in the face of overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary.
Sin causes spiritual death, certainly. But physical death preceded sin.
I think this is true. But the point of the Genesis account is to teach the nations around Israel the true nature of God and man, in the context of folk stories that they are well versed in through their religions. It is a message set in the distant past, and it is true in many ways I believe. The sequence of creation events seem to be backed up by Science, although not in the same time frame as Science had proven.
I believe, as do many theologians, that the Genesis 1-12 account is an allegorical, pre-history story, written late in history. I dont think many theologians, except for Creationists, agree that Genesis 1-12 can be taken historically, really.
One needs to study this section of scripture in the context of the author, and its intended audience. To ignore this is to not give justice to what God wants to say, through the prophets.
The message is one of spiritual benefit mainly, to my way of thinking. God through His word tries to bring us back into spritual oneness with Him. Scripture is God breathed, and it is useful to mankind.
I know for a fact that God exists. I also believe in the theory of evolution, but we don’t know everything. And we dont need to.
Good God, Dannii! Hasn’t it occurred to you, after all that has been published within this thread, that Job 40:17 is purely POETICAL? Particularly given that the very next verse, v.18, portrays Behemoth’s bones as bronze tubes while possessing limbs like iron bars? Do you read that first bit literally as well, thereby believing that God created an animal with a metal skeleton? Is your Biblical exegesis really so moronically monodimensional and contrary to authorial intent? Anyway, v.17 says “stiff like a cedar” - mere analogy…
...
....!
Yes of course I know it’s symbolism! A hippo has a tail like a cedar in the same way that it has a long neck like a skyscraper or legs like a chopstick. The symbolism doesn’t fit! Hippos have short whispy tails that seem barely able to keep the flies away - hardly fitting of a comparison to the mighty cedars!
... which you must be misinterpreting, because your belief flies in the face of overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary.
@Ian. I object to some of your language, as well as the posting of the video, based on passages such as Ephesians 5:4 and Colossians 3:8. I find it astounding that you could think it is okay, and excused by Romans 14:2-4. I know of no Biblical objection to my alleged prudery. Your allegation of my supposed desire to wield power is entirely your own invention.
a statement can be validly rejected on the grounds of a conclusion that happens to be unstated.
So, if AB gives C, and C is demonstrably false, that invalidates AB whether C is stated or not. Is this what you are saying?
Nor do I concede that you have proven your point about physical death.
Aside from your malapropos invocation of “proof” (an idea applicable only to mathematics), since you make this assertion, please illustrate just where I have gone wrong.
In putting human wisdom, whether in the form of science, or the study of mythos, above God’s word.
[null]Obama vs. Catholics, Catholics vs. ObamaNew York Times (blog)[{}]This would frame the issue as yet another intra-Catholic dispute over sexuality and abortion, rather than an external assault on Catholic religious liberty. Seen in this light, Georgetown University's decision to invite Kathleen Sebelius, ...
[null]Rally fights for abortion law changeThe West Australian[{}]Liberal MP Peter Abetz has spoken out against WA's abortion laws, warning "the womb is most dangerous place for children to be in this State" at a rally last night attended by hundreds of right-to-life campaigners. Addressing the 750-strong rally at ...
[null]As Obama Seeks the Votes of WomenNew York Times[{}]Ms. Brown seems to scorn Mr. Obama's support for women's efforts to get a “seat at the table,” but I found it more disturbing that a number of her friends and family members “all laughed” over whether contraception or abortion rights were key in their ...
[null]Pastor wants gays held in electric penThe West Australian[{}]And, in reference to President Obama's same-sex marriage and pro-choice abortion stance , when asked who he'll vote for in the Presidential election, Mr Worley said: "I'm not going to vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover.and more»
Pastor wants gays held in electric pen The West Australian And, in reference to President Obama's same-sex marriage and pro-choice abortion stance , when asked who he'll vote for in the Presidential election, Mr Worley said: "I'm not going to vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover.
[null]Bird's eye view of how we go tweet, tweet, tweetThe Australian[{}]BEER lovers, fans of Justin Bieber, evangelical groups and Adelaide foodies are among the most isolated groups on Twitter. But discussions about politics, the internet and the price of gas bills were some of the most connected topics, according to a ...
RSS Feed