LH: "There are far-reaching implications and potentially great
dangers to Biblical exegesis here. The most obvious fear is the
"slippery slope" that we will wind up accepting only those parts
of the Bible we like and dismissing the parts we don't like as
"merely cultural.""
This fear is reinforced by observation - it has happened
many times in history. I myself have been challenged about this
in advocating the "language of appearance" - coming from those
who favour what they call a "literal understanding".
LH: ".. many Biblical passages should clearly be obeyed in a
straightforward way at all times and in all cultures ("Love your
enemies") -- there are some passages where we believe the
interpretation needs to be heavily influenced by our
understanding of the (human) author's beliefs and culture. (...
Paul's command that women should keep their heads covered in
church ...)
Curiously, I don't find your example of a straightforward
passage straightforward! Matthew 5:43 comes in a section where
Christ is contrasting the old and the new. The pattern of former
times was going to be changed in numerous ways. God's covenant
people in the Mosaic era were not required to love their enemies
- repeated commands are found to destroy them. Many Psalms are
full of prayers for destruction on the enemies of God and his
people. (I concur that this command of Christ is independent of
culture as far as Christians are concerned.)
Then you refer to the need for our interpretation "to be
heavily influenced by our understanding of the (human) author's
beliefs and culture." I feel this should be rephrased as there
is the Divine author also to consider. Our need is to recognise
how God's word is applied to specific cultures - which may be far
different from our own. The cultural beliefs of the human author
are of no great importance because they are concealed. Through
the human author, God speaks to culture-bound individuals and
groups.
LH: "The "language of appearance," the use of idiomatic language,
and the ancients' non-scientific worldview are all important
hermeneutical points! I am fully satisfied with the way they deal
with every passage which seems to use flat-earth, geocentric
language -- every passage except one: Genesis 1. On this passage,
I am still NOT satisfied with the "language of appearance or
idiom" approach."
My original comments took note of your reference to Job,
various Psalms, etc. We are now agreed that it is inappropriate
to use terms like "flat-Earth" and "geocentric" for biblical
cosmology for most of the Bible. The only difference on this
point relates to Genesis 1.
So, it is reasonable to ask the question "Why is Genesis 1
different?"
LH: "At this point, I'm afraid it's more of an intuitive feeling
than one I can eloquently express, so please bear with me."
I hope we can all approach this with the humility to which
Christ calls us. I am interested in your FIRST step of
expression.
LH: "First of all, recall what we know -- or at least hope we
know with reasonable assurance -- about this sequence of events:
the formation of heavier elements in stellar cores/supernovae,
.... and the sequence in which life appeared in the ocean and
then on land."
Although I want to be sensitive to your "intuitive feeling",
I do not think you are wise in making this your starting point.
To illustrate the point I want to make, I will draw on Henri
Blocher's "In the Beginning" (IVP, 1984) - not because I accept
all his exegesis, but because his book is widely regarded as
providing significant input to the discussion about Genesis.
"The Bible must not be placed under any other authority!
On that point we cannot compromise. If the Bible is the Word of
God, no authority, even one at the apex of the scientific world,
may impose his authority on the Bible in order to dictate how it
is to be understood, even with the best of intentions." (p.25)
"In order to submit ourselves to God in his sovereign
declarations and in the condescension of his inspiration of men,
we conclude that the place of the sciences in the reading of the
Bible is this: they have neither authority, nor even a
substantial ministerial role within the actual interpretation;
they act as warnings and confirmations at a later stage." (p.27)
I am happy to say "Amen" to Blocher's methodology - and feel
it speaks to the methodology you have chosen to make your point.
You go on to give us three scenarios regarding the meaning
of Genesis 1. The first two do not satisfy you, and the
implication is that the third does. My problem is that none of
the three satisfy me - but I address only your third scenario
here.
LH: "Finally, re-read Genesis 1 one more time, this time assuming
that the author (and his intended audience) really DID believe
in a flat-earth, "sky sandwich" cosmology. Suddenly, the
ordering of Days 1-6 makes a lot of sense! If you now contrast
Genesis 1 with contemporary pagan creation myths, a revealed
truth from God fairly leaps out at us!"
My problem here is: the second sentence does not follow from
the first! What is the logical connection? The third sentence
is true within many interpretations of Genesis 1.
I will refer you again to Blocher (p.51). He re-presents
the "ordering" of Genesis 1 - a structure which is not novel to him.
--------------------------------------------------------------
FORMING FILLING
"separation" "adornment"
"spaces" "peopling"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Light/Darkness (day 1) Luminaries (Day 4)
Expanse of sky (Day 2) Birds (Day 5)
Separation of waters (2) Sea creatures (Day 5)
Dry land (Day 3) Land animals/man (Day 6)
Vegetation (Day 3) Gift of food (Day 6)
--------------------------------------------------------------
There is a coherent order. It does make a lot of sense.
But this is not dependent in any way on a Flat Earth, "sky
sandwich" cosmology. If you want to defend this understanding
of Genesis 1, you will need to appeal, not to the order, but to
the words and phrases - and to show that the writer does have a
cosmology and that he is not using the language of appearance.
I have a few words on the comments of Clarence F Sills Jr. I
have to say that I am not familiar with Owen Barfield's book
Saving the Appearances.
CS: "David's claim that APPEARANCE IS REALITY (to primitive
peoples) triggered this post. There is a good deal of evidence
that this is not the case. The case, in Barfield's view, is much
more complex: both primitives and we recognize that the reality
we perceive is a "representation," but there is a significant
difference: we are unconscious about our own participation in
perception (we have to be reminded of it by philosophers), while
primitives generally are not."
My "claim" related to the Biblical text, not "primitive
peoples" in general. The problem with most, if not all,
"primitive peoples" is that they are animistic. Behind the seen
world lies a spirit world with powers that need placating and
influencing. This cannot be a non-scientific culture - as there
is no belief in providence or the faithfulness of the Creator
God.
Whilst I am doubtful that Barfield's book is relevant to the
specific issues being discussed here, I am grateful to Clarence
for the recommendation. I will attempt to follow this point up.
I have to say that vacation time has come for this Reflectorite!
My apology is that having got involved in an interesting (and
constructive) exchange on these points, I have no access to the
Internet for the next two weeks. Thanks to all participants -
and especially to Loren.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***