There is a longstanding traditional position that’s well-established. The “inspiration” of Scripture is not akin to “inspiration” with respect to music. Maybe you should do more “asking” before dismissing a basic position. It’s not about you accepting or rejecting the position, but understanding it.
1 Like
That is not the doctrine of inspiration.
Inspiration is considered mysterious, in that we don’t have to specify precisely how. I find it helpful to think about as providential governance. The God who rose Jesus from the dead providentially made his word known to us in Scripture.
We see parallels in historical work all the time. The way stories are told, the way narratives are developed, is that we pick and choose the details we tell. For literary effect, we tell aligned and contrasting stories, juxtaposition parallelism and juxtaposition to make larger points. So, yes, there is commonality in these stories. There is also a lot of stories that were not told. It is worth asking why these stories were included rather than others.
I’d also point out that this was a different culture than ours. In our context, even one of these stories is exceedingly unlikely. In their context? Well, it seems they have a very different cultural context than ours. Maybe it was more likely in their context.
@Jeremy_Christian, have you read some of the books by Walton on Genesis yet?
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Adam-Eve-Genesis/dp/0830824618/
1 Like
Or my favorite, The Lost World of Scripture. I don’t know how to get fancy and put the cover up 
1 Like
“Inspiration” in music is, at best, an analogy. I’ve had experience of dreaming the core part of a song, such as the hook line, rhythmic tricks, cryptic lyrics etc. It’s close to magic, and feels very different from the usual graft. But if I had to explain it dispassionately, it would be in terms of the subconscious processing of existing ideas, not being “enthused by the god.” Be that as it may, at the end of the day the most “inspired” music is not Holy Scripture.
@deuteroKJ is right to point a finger at the understanding of the doctrine of inspiration. The Bible itself has plenty to say about it, from Paul’s “all Scripture is God-breathed,” through Hebrews’ “The Holy Spirit says…”, to the Old Testament "word (dabar) of the Lord, which actually brings about what it predicts. What is universal is the that the authors’ process of wrestling with what they are getting from the Spirit results in “the word of the Lord”. There is no hint, anywhere, that there is a distinction between what is human and what is divine: even the god-man Jesus takes the teaching of Genesis as the indisputible foundation for his own doctrine.
The idea of human beings as a rather inefficient filter for somewhat vague “inspiration” is a modernist and postmodernist failure to deal with double-causation. Just as people can’t grasp, and therefore deny, that Jesus was simultaneously fully man and fully God, so they cannot see Scriptural inspiration as anything but an uneven mixture of divine influence and human authorship. In fact, in this they downgrade both the Incarnation and the doctrine of scriptural inspiration.
1 Like
I am asking. That’s why I’m here. But in this case the answer can only really be like these …
So the basic position is a hand-wave “God works in mysterious ways” kind of stance? Is that a position?
Parellels are one thing. This is the same story. In two cases, the same Pharoah. After the first time, Abimalek is right back out on his balcony pointing out women he wants brought to him? How silly must he had felt that second time?
Right, ‘we’ do. So you’re saying God’s using literary effects? This isn’t a literary effect. According to you all, these stories actually happened three times.
Is it really God’s word in that case?
This is the problem I have with this. These three duplicate stories, which are obviously editing errors in any other case, are being argued by what seems to be a group of intelligent rational people as being God’s “mysterious” ways in this case. Not just duplicated in writing, but you all believe it’s a duplication of actual events.
To be clear I do think there’s something to this. I’ve seen for myself how the stories told in the first 11 chapters of Genesis actually fit 2000 years of Mesopotamian history (5500-3500BC) according to the timeline that can be constructed through the lineages given. A feat that I find difficult to see how a scribe from 5000 years ago could achieve.
But beyond that the texts that make up the bible are pieces written by dozens of different writers. Were all the texts included God-inspired? Humans long after the fact decided what to include and what not to. Did God control this as well? Especially considering the story itself depicts a God unable to control the behavior of humans. This explanation isn’t consistent with the God depicted in the story. I feel maintaining consistency in our explanations is key.
God isn’t inconsistent, we are. So when inconsistency is encountered, this generally isn’t God, it’s the fallible human element.
Can this max post limit be turned off? Even though I’ve been on this site for like 5 days now, every 5 posts or so I get a prompt that says I’ve exceeded the number of replies a new user can create on their first day. It then makes me wait x number of hours. Having to wait like 14 hours to post a reply is exceedingly frustrating.
1 Like
It’s not an assumption. Here’s an article I wrote on how I see it being an accurate depiction of Earth’s history… https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Genesis-Accurately-Describes-Geological-and-Biological-Formation-of-Planet-from-Surface-Perspective
The humans in Genesis 1 were not Adam/Eve. The mandates “be fruitful and multiply” and “fill/subdue the Earth” would take generations to carry out. A/E showed right from the get go to disobey and not follow God’s mandates. Could A/E really have accomplished these mandates? Could they really be included in the “good” category of creation?
“be fruitful and multiply” and “fill/subdue the Earth” is exactly what homo sapiens did. Then came Adam and Eve. By the time they were created the planet was already fully populated by humans.
1 Like
Settling for mystery when it comes to divine action need not be a hand-wave but a recognition of our finitude. Actually, the basic orthodox doctrines (e.g., inspiration, Trinity, hypostatic union) were formulated to do both (a) explain and–and this is important but often forgotten–(b) to preserve the mystery entailed.
Only one Pharaoh (Gen 12). Abimelech, king of Gerar/Philistines (Gen 20 & 26) may or may not be the same individual in each instance. “Abimelech” may be more of a title than a specific name (it means “my father is king”). Either way, it’s not out of the question that it did happen more than once and with more than one couple. To chalk it up as a duplicate narrative is itself a result of a different set of presuppositions. Thus your continued use of “obvious(ly)”…but I don’t see it so.
As to all your other questions–yes, yes, yes–I take it to have happened three times, that God did inspire multiple writers over long stretches of time, and including complex tensions even related to God’s character and actions. He’s a big God; he can handle it. While I embrace a notion of consistency, yours seems to be too tight and tied to rationalistic presuppositions. That worked in a foregone intellectual age, but not today.
I have not, but you’ve piqued my interest. The one about Adam and Eve and the one about the Flood are available on Kindle. I’ve downloaded those.
The word translated as “Adam” הָאָדָם means “man”.
The name Adam is אדם
Had an image to show that too, but new people can only post one image. I’m going to lose my sh…
Continued …
I can’t do another reply for 7 more hours, but it does appear I can edit previous posts, so I’m just going to tack onto this one.
@swamidass Can something be done about this? It’s cramping my style.
No, not out of the question, just highly unlikely. Even given the culture. In the story, the idea to say Sarah was Abraham’s sister was because it was expected this might happen, so there is that. But even then it’s not just that. It’s the fact that the king/pharaoh did actually choose the wife of the story’s protagonist all three times, then God intervened all three times, then the king/pharaoh sent the protagonist off with riches all three times.
This being the result of redaction/editing is way more likely in my opinion.
I don’t doubt it. But the story depicts God struggling to control humans and what they do. Yet he’s able to author a book through them to this degree? Inconsistent.
I’d suggest this is for rhetorical effect. Or are we to assume that the editors had such bad theology, but we now know better?
1 Like
Well, here you’re suggesting that on top of employing literary effect, God’s also employing rhetoric? So, in the case of the editors, was the quality of their theology a factor, or was God in control of that too?
Thank you!!!
2 Likes
Am I wrong or is that more an issue with your view than mine? In mine, God is the “singular agent” and the “us” is the perspective of the storyteller. In yours, it suggests God is not the “singular agent”, but that He was aided by a committee of unnamed immortal constituents.
v27 is an issue with my view. I’ll have to ponder that one.
@Jeremy_Christian I have a question that can easily be misinterpreted.
You say that you are a Christian that does not go to Church. You are fascinated by Adam, certain that he was real, but do not think other characters in Genesis are real, nor do you think the Bible is inspired. Very interesting. I have a follow up question.
At Peaceful Science, we welcome people from a wide range of views, and some surprising characters find their way into our community. So none of this is a prelude to exclusion. I’m just asking to clarify where you stand on some things. If we stand in different places, this would explain a great deal of the difference in view we are saying here.
My question: Do you believe that God bodily rose Jesus from the dead in 1st century Palestine? For me, this is the starting point from which I make sense of inspiration. If you don’t share this starting point, it would explain a lot. If you do, that would be a helpful starting point from which to come to common understanding.
Peace.
1 Like
Yes, I do.
In my view, that’s what the aspect of belief in Jesus/God is all about. It’s all about free will. To believe God raised Jesus from the dead after three days is to acknowledge God truly holds power over life/death/the natural world.
So, to believe that means you willfully acknowledge God as the authority, which I believe is the key. Free will in eternity is a very dangerous thing. Allowing one with free will who has not acknowledged God’s authority is like introducing a potential cancer into an environment where actions and decisions aren’t temporary as they are here.
There must be order. Rules. To have that there must be an authority who is acknowledged as such by all involved who sets and enforces those rules.
So this sacrifice makes it possible for all through simply believing Jesus’ resurrection to gain access.
If that makes sense. Makes sense to me. But yes, I certainly understand the need for clarification.
By this, are you referring to the “divine council”?
This shows still some lack of clarity concerning inspiration. The inspired human authors use literary effect and rhetoric (and many other things). If you deny inspiration, fine, but then I struggle to know what common ground we share to discuss the text and its implications for theology and practice.
The plural-vs.-singular tension is a problem for everyone. The traditional view of taking the “us” as the Trinity solves is by anachronism IMO. My view sees YHWH as the ultimate creator–however he did it–but the image is something that also belongs to other divine beings (angels, etc.). These beings–other than the other persons of what we now know as the Trinity–are created (some of them have known names, like Michael and Gabriel).
Your reading doesn’t fit the Hebrew grammar & syntax. It is a direct quote from God, not an indirect quote, which your view seems to indicate. Correct me if I’m wrong. (But, again, without a shared view of inspiration, I’m not sure what truth value you see in the text’s grammar & syntax.)
I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
1 Like
This to me sounds more akin to inspiration as I was speaking before, like in music or art. In biblical literature study, from what I understand, identifying styling/phrasing tendencies or common practices is often used to identify who the author is.
This is the issue I have with thinking of it as “God’s word”. It’s colored, by phrasing, by use of literary effects and such, and heavily influenced by the author. It’s in the author’s “voice”. And is often limited to the author’s level of knowledge, especially in regards to the natural world. If inspiration doesn’t mean that it’s in some way dictated then I don’t see how it could be viewed as God’s word. Jimi Hendrix covering a Bob Dylan song is still very much a Jimi Hendrix song. You know what I mean?
Plus, this conflicts with the whole theme of free will in the story being told. Sure, the author could willingly give over to God’s will, but God seems to make it a point to never override the will of humanity. The way cultures work, governance, practices like slavery, these aren’t how God made things. But He never puts His foot down and says “don’t”. These are how humans worked things out, and God always seems to let it be and work within the framework of the man-made world. He doesn’t make people do anything, though He does sometimes try to coax through threat, shows of power, plagues, etc. But it’s always about causing the person to choose to do what’s desired. Being God, I assume He could just take you over and make you do whatever He wants. There is that bit in the exodus where it says God “hardened Pharoah’s heart”, or something to that effect. That’s such a strange moment compared to the rest of it. But even that was to convince the Hebrews through His show of power over their Egyptian oppressors, that they should trust Him as they were about to be led out into the wilderness between the walls and laws of the cities.
So yes, it seems we are very much seeing inspiration very differently. I’m curious to learn how you see it. Right now I’m struggling to grasp it.
1 Like
This is the key to your problem concerning inspiration. I suggest you pick up an evangelical systematic theology and read its take on inspiration. Here’s a start.
1 Like