neo-x wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Thanks neo-x.
So the question is: How far do we read in the author's beliefs into their intent for a given text?
Really, unless they specifically touch upon it, I don't think it should be read into the text at all.
Here's a thought, maybe rather than just accepting one understanding, we should pay attention to three different understandings?
- 1) Man's beliefs at the time (as we understand them) - including what the human author believed with their intent,
2) Neutral understanding - where we accept text at face value without injecting modern science or achaic beliefs into the text
3) Modern understanding - whether what we know is true via modern science an the like can be supported by the text (for example, Day-Age proponents, and RTB in particular really love pulling out Scripture that they apply scientific understanding to).
Given we accept there is also a divine author at play (I know you likely don't believe this), but then we would have God working with fallible man.
Therefore, while the authors would have had a wrong knowledge about this and that on deeper levels, Scripture must not incorporate those wrong ideas specifically. That said, Scripture can work with those ideas so long as it doesn't specifically endorse those ideas as correct.
For example, with the Tower of Babel. Does Scripture specifically affirm that the people could reach God if they built the tower high enough? Or is it just talking about the people building such a tower and what they thought such would do? Certainly there are perhaps miraculous elements involved in confusing their language, and God speaks of himself in plural (Gen 11:7 confer with Isaiah 6:8 where "I" is identified as "us"), but besides an archaic feel, nothing says their views were correct that they could reach some spiritual heavenly plain where God sat on a throne of clouds or something the like.
Or, with "the heavens and the earth", if accept that God is dual authoring Scripture, then is Scripture really injecting all you're saying of what they human author would have believed? Or is it just more an understanding of we all experience (i.e., people at all times looked up into the sky and saw the heavens, saw stars at night, the Sun, Moon, etc). Again, it might be the case that the author and people at the time had wrong perceptions, but there is nothing specifically injected in Scripture regarding such. Just compare Genesis 1 to many other creation stories found in different ancient civilisations and you'll see a vast difference, right?
All that said, you make a valid point.
I see it as an issue that many who take up the Historical-Grammatical method can make.
What I see you doing is pushing this method to an extremity, incorporating human knowledge of the day in with the intent of the author in Scripture. And why not? I even think it was very clever that you did such, whether you were intending to be clever or not.
It highlights an issue with HG where one can place too much priority on understanding what the human author intended and people of the time would have understood, such that the divine author is nowhere to be seen keeping things in check.
My issue with it is not so much that the authors beliefs should always supersede the scripture's divine meanings, rather to me it explains some parts of the bible making more sense, like TOB story. And that only comes when we realize that those people had different beliefs and that they read scriptures somewhat differently than us, atleast at some points in the Genesis story. That even makes it easy for me to understand why water is never mentioned, specifically, being created in Genesis, why the lights in the sky appear on day 4 rather than day 1 and so on and so forth.
Do I think that is what the message is being conveyed? not at all. But I do think its a rich background of beliefs which perhaps explain many of the choice of words incorporated by the authors.
Today we know better and as ACB put it why not include everything that was exists be read in Gen1:1? but my point again would be, even if you did so, that was not a concern of the author, I mean this was the least of his worries. And his account of creation and its emphasis was different than what we use it today for, as in debating creation models and theories and all that.
I think we've equally got to be careful not to read in what we think they thought.
Water is not created, because it is part of the formless and void Earth in Gen 1:2 which the Spirit of God is brooding over.
With Genesis 1:1, unless you perform some reading into the text about what we believe the authors believed, then a straight forward reading is what YEC and OECs (Day-Age/Progressive Creationists) generally accept this to mean which is the entire universe. The only of difference, is whether this is an introductory verse that includes all six days of creation (YECs), or whether verse 1 forms part of God's creation act (OECs).
There are no cues I see that warrant a more archaic interpretation, indeed the language seems very straight forward to me here.
And if we should we include an archaic understanding of the author, then do we really know what they thought?
Keep in mind this. And it's something I cover a lot in that hermeneutics thread.
If God made a covenant with Moses, and directly gave him the 10 Commandments,
it isn't far-fetched to think that Moses or priestly people could have dreamt dreams of how it was.
Consider that I think is more the case we have a strong oral passing down of stories.
Moses was responsible for pulling it all together, shaping and filling in blanks.
Possibly, any awkwardness you see is due to a compilation of such.
You know, I wasn't convinced by JPED, but I do notice difference styles throughout.
So something seems to be going on, and I think something like I mention here re: oral traditions is probably likely.
But anyway, I think I'm becoming sidetracked now...
Neo-X wrote:My personal opinion is that there are clearly truths in the story and a few problems as well, whether it was the author's ignorance of the matter or their simple understanding or whether the oral traditions and legends spoke of things as such. It doesn't make it anymore less important to me.
Anyway, now can we say we can ignore the author's idea of things and read it at neutral way? I believe such a thing is impossible. At the end of the day, the author's ideas of the things he penned down must weigh at least somewhat on the text, wouldn't they?
Yes, that aligns with what is called "single meaning" and is definitely what the Historical-Grammatical method seeks to do.
However, for example with Gen 1:1 where you read in:
1) an archaic understanding of heavenly plains or something, which you believe the author would have believed them to be, compared with
2) a very modern understanding where someone might say there is an understanding of the heavens, solar system, planetary rotations and the like all encapsulated in "the heavens and the earth" phrase (though I don't know any who say this but its possible some might get carried away).
3) A neutral understanding would just say we look up in the sky and see the heavens. We see stars, we see a sun. So by heavens and the earth, the intention is just that everything above (heavens) and below (earth).
So that is what I mean by neutral (maybe there's a better word?) -- speaking to a shared common experience. It matters not whether the author understood that an Earth day requires Earth to rotate, because they actually experience days like everyone has at all times. It is to the experience they're speaking to, and not an understanding of what it is.
In a way it is similar to the moral argument. It is an ontological argument that accepts the reality of morality, that some things really are morally good and bad. We all live by such. Even if we say otherwise, we'll be inconsistent and still act and behave like something things really are good and bad. So we all accept morality exists. Right? But epistemological concerns of how this understanding of morality formed and came to be -- well, such isn't so clear.
Similarly, a neutral understanding like I'm putting forward would just accept what is being said in the text, without worrying about what the people of the time actually believed on deeper levels. It's not that such isn't important, and indeed it can influence how we correctly interpret this or that word, but I'm not personally concerned about the thought of some heavenly mythical plain in Tower of Babel. Therefore, when we read Scripture if it can be read in a
neutrally consistent manner, then that should be the interpretation one takes. Especially if, as you get into, God is involved also as a dual author.
Neo-X wrote:Its only natural in my opinion. But now we come to the important point you raised and that is there is a dual author, a divine one as well, so it really boils down to what he wants to say?
I really didn't think you accepted this, but I am delighted to hear you do see God's hand somewhere in it all.
Neo-X wrote:There are a few choices:
1. We can say, God used fallible men to write his word, somethings they got right and some they got wrong. Their sources were part human part divine. The bible do shows at times this to be true.
2. They got it all correct, but they had some believes quite in contrast to our understanding and which we know now are false. How much does this affect their writings? I believe its a genuine concern even if its a trivial one compared to the intent of the divine author.
3. They got it all correct and they understood it the same as we do today.
What do you think?
There is no reason to maintain inspiration outside of Scripture
-- that the authors must have been inerrant in their full understanding of matters.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says:
- All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
This obviously doesn't cover the New Testament, but would Genesis.
Finally, we get a sense of how God may have worked in 2 Peter 1:21 which says:
- For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
The word "moved" is the same as "driven" found in Acts 27:15-17:
- The ship was caught by the storm and could not head into the wind; so we gave way to it and were driven along. 16 As we passed to the lee of a small island called Cauda, we were hardly able to make the lifeboat secure, 17 so the men hoisted it aboard. Then they passed ropes under the ship itself to hold it together. Because they were afraid they would run aground on the sandbars of Syrtis, they lowered the sea anchor and let the ship be driven along.
Here we have a great analogy for what is going on regarding the Holy Spirit's role in Scripture.
While sailors were active on the ship, they were ultimately at the mercy of the storm and wind as to what finally results.
Similar reasoning would say the human authors were active, but driven to write as the Spirit directed. Such activeness might be voice and words used, but ultimately if you believe in inspiration, then not a thing that was penned wasn't intended by the Holy Spirit.
So then, given God does not lie and didn't err Himself, your option #2 above is the only valid option with respect to divine inspiration of Scripture. And I believe these passages I just present may help answer some of the questions you raise in #2.
NOW, finally, what if someone decides to discard that God was involved in authoring Scripture?
One thing I want to note, is that the reason I accept divine inspiration and inerrancy isn't because I've proved Scripture is 100% accurate.
I've been shown many "contradictions", literally 100s, many of which were easily resolved. There is one that has stuck as troublesome that I came across many years ago, and I haven't looked into again since. But, I give benefit of doubt because by and large most challenges are quite plainly idiotic.
BUT, because Scripture can't be proven to be true, then many think that means we must reject it.
I disagree with that logic.
If one does decide to reject Scripture as inerrant because it just seems too fantastic a claim (which I think is the main reason people balk),
then I still think the message comes through loud and clear about God and his relationship with us.
Israel's story is one of history mixed in with their relationship, and rebellion against, God.
It shows humanities utter failure to remain faithful to God, and yet God's loyalty in remaining faithful to us and desire to have us with him.
God did not desire sacrifice for our sin, but much preferred that we just desired what He desires and love each other and God.
Christ on the cross is where we finally find God getting his way with us, the relationship God always desired from before creation.
Any Christian who reads the Bible from start to finish can easily pick up on this story.
You don't need to believe in inerrancy to see it.
So what I'm saying here as final words, is that for me, Scriptural inerrancy is something I accept even if it hasn't been proven.
And while I see it as very important, it is definitely secondary to fuller story of what is being said about us and God, and indeed Christ Himself.
Nor is using one word, in one verse, in one chapter of scripture, out of a passage, and context a valid way to present a case, when OEC used the word 'replenish' which lets debunk now... 'Replete' singular is full- and the usage rendered replenish means simply to 'fill'. And then dinosaurs- hmmm, and/or dragons right. All too easy.