Just how high did YHWH fear the men of Babel would build their Tower?
August 24, 2007
As a Christian, I was taught that the building of the Tower of Babel (in all likelihood, a ziggurat) was not an attempt to physically reach heaven, rather a spiritual attempt at humanistic arrogance.
The fact that the text says, “Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top {will reach} into heaven” merely reflects the naiveté of the builders’ view of the cosmos. The builders only imagined in their ignorance that YHWH lived above the sky, and could be reached if the tower were just tall enough.
I now strongly disagree with this view. The Biblical text, in both Old and New Testaments, makes it perfectly clear, in numerous examples, that God lives above the above the firmament of the sky in Heaven.
- 2 Sam 22:8 and Job 26:11 both describe Heaven as being supported by pillars or some other kind of foundation, which could be rocked to and fro with the shaking of the Earth
- Psalm 2:4 describes God sitting in the heavens
- John 3:13 describes Heaven as being “up” and Earth is being “down”.
- And of course the classic example is Acts 1:9-11, where Jesus physically ascends into Heaven and a promise is made by two mysterious men that this very Jesus will someday descend from Heaven.
There are many examples like this. The point is, the Bible clearly presents God and Jesus as living in Heaven, and that Heaven is somewhere up there beyond the skies. This is a picture of the universe the authors of Scripture thought they lived in. The text of Genesis 11 is no anomalous, naïve view. It is consistent with the rest of Scripture. The attempt was made to build a Tower “whose top {will reach} into heaven”, and YHWH came “down” to investigate. This is consistent with the thinking of the rest of the Bible. So why did my old Bible teachers insist that the text meant something other than what it says?Because they must. The last 50 years of history have been an unprecedented period of human exploration. Since 1957, when Sputnik 1 went into orbit and struck fear in all Americans, humanity has explored further above the skies than had ever been dreamt of by the ancient writers of Genesis. When Yuri Gagarin became the first human to enter space in 1961, urban legend suggests that he said, “I don’t see any God up here”. Whether he actually said it or not is irrelevant, because he did not see God or Heaven up there. Neither did the Mercury astronauts who first orbited Earth. Neither did the Apollo astronauts who first landed on the moon in 1969.
I remember when I was a kid in the late 1960s. My mother had a vinyl LP that was produced in the 1950s that I enjoyed playing because it was very vivid. It contained a dramatization of Christians boarding a bus that would take them to Heaven. It was sort of a magic bus, and the narrator described it as turning into a kind of spaceship and blasting off. The record described the bus passing the moon, then Mars, then Jupiter! Then just past Jupiter, maybe on the other side, there was Heaven! The narrator described the cubic structure, the streets of Gold, the Tree of Life and the Gates of giant pearls and gemstones. This LP was made as an inspirational message for adults just 50 years ago. The idea that an eternal Heaven is located somewhere behind Jupiter is now known to be impossible. Pioneer, Voyager, Cassini, and finally Galileo have conclusively shown that there is no Heaven behind Jupiter, nor anywhere else in the Solar System.
Now as we probe ever deeper into this incredible Universe with our robots and telescopes, most modern conservative Bible scholars are forced to concede that there is no Heaven “up there” (well, except for Mormons who still think God lives on Planet Kolob, but let’s not go there). Never mind that Jesus physically ascended in Heaven, because now science forces the clear reading of the Biblical text to be twisted to maintain any modern relevance. So now instead of “up there”, Heaven is now located “out there”. It has never been explained any better than as some kind of Star Trek influenced alternate realty of some sort, or a maybe as a contrived set of extra spatial dimensions (which don’t exist above the quantum level, if at all). If this is true, why did Elijah, then Jesus physically ascend upwards into Heaven with men watching as they went? Others just ignore the question completely and basically tell the laity to just trust God. So even though the text is pretty clear, and its simplest meaning is wrong, don’t worry somehow God will make it all work out in the end.
- HeIsSailing
Related Post: Ignorance is Bliss: The Origin of Languages?
Entry Filed under: HeIsSailing. Tags: Bible, christianity, faith, freethinking, myths, religion, science, skepticism, spirituality.
32 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Forums (start your own topics)
Top Posts
SU Users: StumbleUpon It!!
If you are a new visitor to our site, please read these 2 posts for an understanding of who we are:
1.
Epiphanist | August 24, 2007 at 5:00 am
What are scientists looking for in space anyway? It is obvious that whatever it is was not there in the time of Genesis and is still not there now. The USA Today poll shows that the general American population do not have sufficient understanding to question the scandalous expense of space travel and exploration, they are still expecting something magic to come from the sky. The Kingdom is in your heart. This is the relevance of the Babel story. Communication with your neighbour is much more important than hunting for a pie in the sky.
2.
Epiphanist | August 24, 2007 at 7:52 am
There are a few bits left out in this republishing of the original which puts my comment out of context. Never mind, this subject is still on my mind too, have just posted today.
3.
Brad | August 24, 2007 at 11:19 am
Hrmmm…. I wonder how the recorders of Genesis would have found relevant an inspired discussion of astrophysics. Is it really any wonder that God relied on symbolism to communicate something beyond their understanding?
Assuming that God inspired/authored/had some hand in the writing of Genesis, then it would have to be using the language of the people receiving it. How could he communicate something that a language simply has no words to describe?
4.
Heather | August 24, 2007 at 11:48 am
In a way, you still see it presented this way today. There’s a popular Christian singer named Rebecca St. James, and if you’ve ever watched her speak while on stage about God, she usually does so in the concept of God as “up there” and us “down here.” She also points sometimes, too. When she prays in the middle of songs, she directs the prayers upwards, towards heaven. I’ve seen this in churches, as well, and I think this is hugely attached to the fact that the Bible clearly states that the location of God is up in the sky.
And I do think to make it metaphorical or spiritual is twisting the text (even though that’s what I do) because it’s not what the authors intended. Plus, as you allude to, HIS, how can you make the physical ascension a metaphor, if they are clearly describing Jesus rising up to heaven, and then a cloud obscuring him from sight?
5.
J.P. Mitchell | August 24, 2007 at 12:34 pm
It is hard to say what each author of the Bible meant. Many were writing to a specific time in history or audience. Their “up” may have meant something different than the other author’s “up”. As well, we should really examine the original Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic words, or their roots, in context with the rest of the sentences.
All throughout history, man has continuously taken Biblical scripture out of context to support their reasoning, their cause, their way of life.
6.
dianarn | August 24, 2007 at 12:51 pm
I always thought that was a funny passage. I would think that a “God,” who is omnipotent and omniscient, who created the entire universe would not be afraid of a bunch of humans building a tower. For one, check out our skyscrapers. God didn’t interfere with those.
And they’re pretty tall. How much taller would the tower of Babel have been?
It’s still funny that the Creator of the universe would find this a threat. Unless this one wasn’t really God. 
My question was answered in part, by Zecharia Sitchin’s book, “The Twelfth Planet.” The Bible says, “And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” The important verse is “let us make us a name [shem], lest we be scattered abroad….” In his book, Sitchin writes, “The Mesopotamian texts that refer to the inner enclosures of temples, or to the heavenly journeys of the gods, or even to instances where mortals ascended to the heavens, employ the Sumerian term mu or its Semitic derivatives shu-mu (’that which is a mu’), sham or shem. Because the term also connoted ‘that by which one is remembered,’ the word has come to be taken as meaning ‘name.’ But the universal application of ‘name’ to early texts that spoke of an object used in flying has obscured the true meaning of the ancient records.”
So he’s basically saying that “shem” didn’t really mean name in this phrase, but “sky-vehicle.” But I wonder, how would they know how to make one? They must have been pretty good at it, because “God” found it pretty dangerous.
7.
lostgirlfound | August 24, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Maybe part of the answer is that, when Jesus said, “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,” he meant right here, right now. Maybe the biggest part of our energy should be spent bringing “heaven to earth,” and helping make this place liveable for the billion of our fellow humans that suffer hunger, poverty, and see countries like the US as “Satan,” and live in “hell” each day. Just a thought …
8.
Jim | August 24, 2007 at 2:21 pm
HeIsSailing,
Sweet post!
9.
Stephen P | August 25, 2007 at 9:13 am
The same way that teachers the world over do it. Start by describing concepts that your audience can understand. Give them names. Use these to describe more difficult/abstract concepts. Give these concepts names. Keep on building up until you get where you want to go. It’s nothing very difficult for a being capable of creating a universe - let alone one who has centuries to spare and the undivided attention of generations of followers.
10.
PB and J | August 26, 2007 at 9:12 pm
i am with Brad on this one, and i think StephenP is also right. here goes….
Brad makes an excellent point about hypothetically, if God exists, then He would need to communicate in a manner that people would understand.
StephenP responds, “Start by describing concepts that your audience can understand. Give them names. Use these to describe more difficult/abstract concepts. Give these concepts names. Keep on building up until you get where you want to go.”
that, in my opinion, is exactly what the Tanakh shows. a very basic teaching to early people like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. then a more structured definition of morality when Israel emerges from Egypt. then a critic on the way people had misunderstood the intent of Torah in the Prophets.
and finally, a full revelation of the intent of all Tanakh in two commands, “Love God with your heart, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself”.
doesnt this make Stephen P and Brad both be correct???
peter
11.
Heather | August 26, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Except isn’t there a difference between saying that God lives in the sky/heaven, and God not living up there? At what point is the information given simply incorrect? Because the concepts being described here aren’t dealing with morality, or how the Torah was understood. It’s describing the layout/structure of the universe, and the location of heaven/wherever God dwells.
Why give instructions that make it seem as though God is directly in the sky? Why not just keep it vague, and say it’s elsewhere?
12.
PB and J | August 26, 2007 at 10:00 pm
heather
good point, but i think we have to remember that it is we who translate the word to be “sky”. the Jew would translate it much differently. they would have an alternate definition as the allegorical dimensionless “heaven” whatever-you-wanna-call-the-place-where-God-lives.
this really is no different than a word like “batman” in English. we all understand that the word refers to a character known as Bruce Wayne from Gotham City, but another might only understand the literal meaning as “one who takes care of bats” or “one who breeds bats”, etc.
all language uses allegory in its various definitions for words. so why would this be problematic if Hebrews did this as well?
peter
13.
HeIsSailing | August 26, 2007 at 10:36 pm
PBandJ, Stephen & Brad,
I understand the need for God to be understood, and to use idioms that would be understood by the people. I forget the name of the interpreter who said that this was ‘baby talk’ by God, but I understand the point, and I don’t have any problem with this explanation. But at the same time, the Christian will say that Bible and science agree, and this is where I get hung up. God can use ‘baby talk’, but in the end, the information he dispenses has to be correct. At least that is what I was taught to believe.
I have to agree with Heather on this. At what point is the information given just *wrong*?
(PB&J)
But there is a further problem here. You have more than language describing where Heaven is located, you have physical descriptions. Elijah boarded a flaming chariot and ascended physically “up by a whirlwind to heaven” (2Kings2). Jesus also is described as literally ascending, or going up to Heaven, as his disciples gazed up at him! “He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.” (Acts 1). I don’t think there is any allegory intended here. People are watching both these incidents, and it is to be taken literally.
There is no alternate definition of ’sky’ here.
And it is not like the Jewish and early Christians were incapable of writing in spiritual allegory. One look at some of the apocalyptic writings, both canonical and noncanonical will especially convince you of that. The gnostic conception of a heavenly pleroma was much more in line with a spiritual allegory than something we find in canonical writings, and would support your argument much better - but most of that was deemed heretical.
Again, I was taught as a Christian that this stuff had to be scientifically accurate, even if by allegory. But I don’t see anyway to interpret it to have any basis in reality. I love the story, but I see it is human derived mythology.
14.
PB and J | August 27, 2007 at 12:01 am
HeIsSailing
thanks for the response. i think you make a good point. there is no question that much of the “evangelical” world within “Christianity” believes that the Bible is always scientifically accurate even when using allegory. this is not however everyone’s perspective.
for instance, does every “Christian” believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth? first, that is what the Roman Catholic Church did teach before Galileo, but Galileo (and Copernicus) was a “Christian” as well. second, the church no longer teaches that the Sun revolves around the Earth (except for some extremists, who really do still believe this). but in Psalms there is an allegory of the “Sun coming up”. This was the basis for the “Christian” dogma of the ergocentric view of the world. but fortunately, some of us (most today) dont still believe that the dogmatic interpretation of “Sun coming up” requires a literal perspective about scientific knowledge.
in concluding, a side note, but very interesting, did you know that the Bible doesnt actually say that the Flood covered the entire Earth? and yet, most “Christians” contend that the only view (if one holds to complete scientific accuracy of Scripture) is that the Flood was worldwide because “the Bible says so”. funny, because the Bible doesnt even say so.
so i think you are right that many “Christians” are very out of place. but that doesnt imply that all of us are. nor does it mean that the literary device of allegory wasnt being used in reference to “heavens”.
peter
15.
Heather | August 27, 2007 at 5:15 am
But I don’t think this works because of everything surrounding the word “sky” here. Building the tower to reach the heavens, God looking down. In other circumstances, given how the word “heaven/heavens” was used, it doesn’t really come across as allegorical.
Simply because Christians don’t take certain aspects literally doesn’t mean that the verses are allegorical. I think that’s reading too much into the author’s intent.
16.
HeIsSailing | August 27, 2007 at 7:06 am
PB&J, I was raised in a very conservative and restrictive Bible environment. When I was very young, I was told by some of the older folks that dinosaurs never existed and fossils were God’s way of testing our faith. Even as 10 year old, I knew that was bunk.
Just for the record, I know the church for centuries believed the sun, and everything else in the universe revolved around the Earth. I think this was based more on philosophical grounds more than anything else. Today’s atheists who claim that the Bible says the the Sun goes around the Earth are being a little rediculous. We still speak of the sun rising and setting - I never had a problem with that.
And not to get too far afield, but yes, the Bible does say that it was a worldwide flood. I tried PB&J, believe me, I tried my best as a Christian to weasel out of a global flood but the text clearly implies that the flood was global.
Gen 6:17 - God will bring a flood to destroy ALL flesh. Everything that is in the earth shall die. This looks global to me.
Gen 6:19 - Noah is bring two of EVERY sort of living thing into the ark to keep them alive. Other verses draw a distinction between clean and non-clean flesh. Again, when it says EVERY sort of living thing, I take it to mean EVERY sort of living thing.
Gen 7:22 - Everything that had life in the dry land died. Again, when it says everything, I assume it means *everything*.
Gen 7:20 - all the mountains were covered. Again, I take this to mean, *ALL* the mountains were covered. Even the highest ones.
Now, I have heard some argue that the text means that the flood only coverered the known world of the Middle East. There are two more reasons why the text clearly indicates a global flood:
If this were a local flood, God would have told Noah to herd the animals to higher ground. Not spend > 100 years building a barge!
After the flood, God makes a covenant with Noah by placing a rainbow in the sky. He promises never again to bring a flood to destroy the Earth. Have there been local floods since that time? If there have been, God broke his promise.
Again, I now think this story is pure mythology. But as a Christian, and a physicist at that, believe me, I could never get this text to say it was a local flood, despite my desperately wanting it to say so.
These days, I can just read the Bible as really cool myth, and wonder what history lies behind these passages. I no longer have to worry about taking things literally or not. I mean no offense to you when I say that Christians have placed a terrible stranglehold on the Bible with its doctrine of inerrancy, when it was never intended to be inerrant! But that is the Christian mindset.
17.
Heather | August 27, 2007 at 11:11 am
HIS,
Would this be the same God that doesn’t confuse anyone?
18.
Brad | August 27, 2007 at 12:48 pm
HIS,
Jim, a contributor at COAS, wrote the following on his most recent post:
The full post can be found here:
http://seminarianblog.com/2007/08/27/bees-inerrancy/#more-148
I feel like this is a good starting point. The bible and science do not disagree because they certainly talk about the same thing, but for a totally different purpose. God’s people, however many thousand years ago, did not need to know about physics and the cosmos to understand God. It didn’t help. If I knew everything there was to know about female genitalia and hormonal fluxautions during a woman’s menstrual cycle, would it bring me into a better relationship with my wife? Ummm… nope. Is my knowledge of her and awareness of who she is in disagreement with science? Not at all.
HIS said:
“Again, I was taught as a Christian that this stuff had to be scientifically accurate, even if by allegory”
And that is a very unfortunate symptom of Christianity’s uncritical adoption of modernity. This is a long post as it is, but for an even more detailed discourse on this, please see the link to our most recent post above.
Good conversation, HIS. This is definitely a topic that needs to be ironed out for Christian and non-Christian alike.
19.
Heather | August 27, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Brad,
But with the car accident example, aren’t you going into the area of subjective truth? How I describe an accident would be the truth as I see it, and thus true on a certain level. But it may not be what actually happened. Nor would I expect the person to remember how it objectively happened. Even if there were four accounts — we could probably piece together the objective account, but each of those accounts would also include things that did not happen. The person simply thought they did.
For me, it’s not a matter of whether people “needed” to know how the cosmos worked. It’s how the information was relayed, and that it was relied, sometimes in specifics, about the location of heaven. Would you say that Jesus literally ascended up to the clouds? Or would you say that was metaphorical/allegorical? To me, that’s almost like picking and choosing, only this happens to make sure that the Bible can still be called inerrant. To the writers, the ascension would mean that Jesus literally did what the Bible said he did, in that moment.
I mean, what if we one day discover that it’s scientifically impossible for people to be nailed to the cross because there’s these tiny bugs inside that incinerate people who are nailed to the crosses? Incinerate them in thirty seconds or less? Wouldn’t you say at this point that it would be difficult to accept the crucifixion as something that literally happened, and be very hard to make it an allegory?
20.
Jim | August 27, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Noticed some comments on my post over here. Thanks Brad for incorporating it. =)
Karen, I brought up the car accident example merely to show that one can be truthful without being exact and/or exhaustive. As far as subjective and objective truth, that’s another matter, and I think another example would be better suited to address it. I think Mike will have one soon at our blog. Stay tuned.
HeIsSailing, you make a great point regarding my definition of inerrancy at my post. I should have included examples. Scientific accuracy simply can’t be something we try to fit the Bible into. It just wasn’t written with that purpose.
To apply the principle, when we see the creation account in Genesis 1-4, it works. I know this is a hairy hairy passage, but hear me out, as I’m narrowly using it, just to illustrate a narrow point. It affirms that God created all things. It says nothing about the science of it. It doesn’t use scientific language at all (’creepy crawly things”??). So, for example, asking how old the earth is is an invalid question to ask of the Bible, as a cursory glance at the language shows it did not attempt to convey any scientific meaning or talk about that.
We can debate all day long about what the text does say and mean, but hopefully we can find common ground about how it doesn’t communicate.
But taking Biblical passages as truthful in what they affirm is not the only qualifier. How communication had developed, and its original purposes must go alongside it.
Now with respect to heaven…the Bible just doesn’t give us a whole lot. Descriptors of it are vague, and fleeting. Much misinformation has been borne about heaven from the church, but it has stepped past what the Bible has given us.
“Again, the Biblical writers were fully capable of writing more sophisticated language concerning Heavenly pleromas and spiritual matters than we give them credit for.”
I would question this. The disciples of Jesus are very widely regarded as being fishermen of low education. Paul was smart as anything, and he gave us the most information on heaven, even then, he couldn’t describe it too precisely.
21.
Brad | August 27, 2007 at 2:58 pm
There is so much here, I could write another 3 posts… so I will try to address the key issues here, and please forgive me for not answering all of these questions…
“But with the car accident example, aren’t you going into the area of subjective truth?”
Is the person’s experience any less truthful? I understand the certainty issues of subjective truth, but the example is not meant to be pushed too far. Jim uses this description to support inerrency, but also included is divine inspiration (which is a part of inerrency he chose not to explain in as much detail). While human subjective perspective is flawed, the claims of scripture to be divinely inspired put certain limits on that so as to maintain truthfulness. I know that is a whole other issue, so I will refrain from more detail for now.
“Would you say that Jesus literally ascended up to the clouds?”
Sure. It is what they claim to have seen. Did they see him beyond the clouds? No. Does it really matter? Not really. Is it possible he just disappeared once he got beyond their sight? Sure. Does any of that really matter as to the truthfulness of what happened? not at all.
“Or would you say that was metaphorical/allegorical?”
That is VERY possible, but I would not say that it was ONLY metaphorical/allegorical. Scripture shows that events in the past happened historically in order to be an example to future generations (1 Cor. 10:1-11 is a GREAT example of this). It does not have to be an “either/or” question, it MAY be a “both/and.”
“I mean, what if we one day discover that it’s scientifically impossible….”
“What if” can be applied infinitely to any situation. It is the Christian belief that God does not necessarily work within human means. If God were constrained by the same laws of Physics that He supposedly created, would he be God or would he be a laughingstock? Why must God fit into our view of the universe? Must a parent operate within a child’s view of truth, knowledge, and/or reality? Grade school would look awfully different if they did.
“When Christians make this argument, they never follow through and give an example.”
Sometimes this is very true. Sometimes Christians do not understand it, and sometimes they are comfortable in the mysterious “gray area” of scripture that we can’t quite make sense of (like the Trinity). I probably fall into the latter because I learn every day that I have increasingly more to learn. But, this comment seems in strange opposition to your complaint against the scientific Christian explanation that forces scripture in compliance with science. Yet scripture’s aim is not to be “scientifically accurate,” but to facilitate a growing relationship with our Creator. Again, I mention my illustration with my wife. It is not less true, just a totally different goal.
“But if Heaven is in some alternate reality, why did Jesus ascend? Elijah? Why did God come ‘down’? How is that ‘baby talk’ to be translated into that model of Heaven?”
Honestly? I don’t know. I think the problem lies in giving answers to questions that God Himself has not answered. He did not think it important enough (or at least vital in having a relationship with Him) to include some of those details. I honestly don’t have a problem with that, and do not know why it must be one (at least to the degree that it can be for some).
HIS,
Your questions do not come off as flippant, but frustrated. And that’s cool. I would be the same way if I had the inane answers that it seems you have gotten from some. I think the best answer in this case, however is “wait and see,” or at the minimum, “I don’t know, but it could be…..”
“Again, the Biblical writers were fully capable of writing more sophisticated language concerning Heavenly pleromas and spiritual matters than we give them credit for. ”
I wholeheartedly agree. Does the answer to “why” this is so, HAVE to be “because it isn’t true?” Or could it be that there is more truth left to be discovered/revealed? Scripture is startlingly silent on some things, yet very loud on others. There is a clear indication that writers (and God) had priorities. How helpful would a scientific discourse on how Jesus or Elijah “ascended” to heaven actually be if God’s goal is primarily to bring His creation back into relationship with Him? Sure, it would be of some importance, but not comparatively. God is a good editor.
(I apparently, am not, if the length of this post is any indication)
22.
Brad | August 27, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Hehe, so Jim posted while I was writing… I like his response much more.
23.
Justin | August 27, 2007 at 3:15 pm
very thorough response brad, well done.
24.
Radec | August 27, 2007 at 5:09 pm
“Does any of that really matter as to the truthfulness of what happened? not at all.”
I have issue with this statement. I believe it does matter when parts of the story flat out don’t match with the rest of the story.
Take for example me telling the story of being on the airplane when a pilot forgets to take the mic off… (the punchline being “don’t forget the coffee… if you’d like the Joke is here - http://www.snopes.com/risque/tattled/coffee.asp )
The story works because it is plausible…I COULD have been on an airplane where this event happened. What if I were to tell the story where all the events happened on a rocket ship to mars? The story wouldn’t work, and it justs sounds silly. The facts need not be proven right, but at a minimum they do need to be plausible.
25.
Heather | August 27, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Brad,
I understand not getting to every question. If you did that, you wouldn’t get anything else done.
But here, aren’t you essentially using the Bible to support a claim the BIble makes about itself? I would say that in the car example, the truth would be true for that person. But that’s not necessarily the “Truth.” Because at this point, we’d have to qualify what we mean by truth, which is why I see the car example working against any claim to inerrancy. Anything that people described is shaded, to some degree, by their paradigm.
I would say that yes, it would matter to the truthfulness. To go back to the car example: say the person says that a polka-dot elephant barged into the car, and thus causing it to crash. THis is actually not true, but to the person, that’s what s/he believes. In this case, what happened does affect the truthfulness, because the perception affects the truthfulness. I mean, honestly, why not just have Jesus vanish, rather than raise to the sky, and a voice say that Jesus is now in heaven? Why orchastrate the events in a way that plays right into that world view?
My point with this example is that holding to the concept of inerrancy seems to change the meaning of the BIble to ensure that it stays inerrant. Such as the examples with the bugs, and if that were true, the meaning would then become purely metaphorical. We know that any description of God literally in the sky, or the pillars of the Earth, are literally not true. So many Christians would say that those are metaphorical, only, even though the author’s intent was literal. To me, what’s driving the belief that it’s metaphorical is the concept that the Bible must be inerrant, rather than what the Bible says itself. Rather than evaluating if the Tower of Bable can be true based on what we know of the location of heaven on the story itself, outside factors are introduced, such as the necessity of inerrancy. That inerrancy then forces the reader to say that the story is metaphorical/allegorical, rather than what the author’s actually intended, or what the story’s actually saying. As HIS says, it doesn’t answer how the stories can be accurate, or even provide a means of judging the accuracy of the stories, if we can determine the literalness vs. metaphor based on a need for inerrancy. It’s like approaching the Bible with the conclusion already set.
26.
PB and J | August 27, 2007 at 5:18 pm
HeIsSailing
sorry, i know yall have moved on…dont want to be a burden on a side pt…but notice that Genesis doesnt say it covered the entire land, just all “living” things. Jews judge life based upon the circulation of blood. so plants are “alive”. thus, there could very easily have been land that wasnt touched as long as there werent animals or people living there.
so theoretically, it is possible, that isnt wasnt the whole earth.
but aside from that, i think the crux really has to do with understanding etymology and linguistics. personally, as a literature major in college, i dont think you are being fair to the use of language. i think you are holding the Bible to a much higher standard than any other type of literature…and finally, i never said that i believe the Bible is 100% inerrant. i think there may be certain things (for sure in our Text today) that are not true. i know this shocks many, but i dont think its fair to textual criticism to say that the Scriptures are inerrant today for sure and not even likely in the original. with that said, i also can say that i believe they are extremely accurate, especially compared with other texts of the day.
peter
27.
Heather | August 27, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Peter,
Wait. Are you saying that plants *aren’t* alive?
Well, doesn’t it get held to that higher standard by Christians themselves? (Perhaps not if they don’t take it as inerrant).
The thing is, the Bible is supposed to be produced by those guided by an absolute Truth, and yet I see it the same as another type of literature.
No, I don’t do this level of analyse on any other literature. But nor do I get told that any other literature is the result of a divine encounter, nor am I told that in other literature, supernatural things occured on the level of the Bible.
Except I’d probably get told that for the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an. The difference here is that Christianity is heavily emphasized in the Western world. If the Qur’an were just as much, then I’d be going through the same process.
28.
PB and J | August 27, 2007 at 8:13 pm
heather,
sorry, i mistyped, i meant “arent”.
i think you make some really good pts. there is no question that it SHOULD be held to a high standard for those who claim “inerrancy”. and for those of us who dont necessarily cling to inerrancy, i STILL think it should be held to an extremely high standard.
the reason i asked that question is because when reading and analyzing a literary text, it is understood that there are allegories within it. we would not criticize another book for saying something like, “they were building a ship that was big enough to carry the whole population of San Fransisco in it.” of course, one might respond this is a ridiculous point. ok, then how about Milton’s Paradise Lost. it IS intended to have theological implications and Milton would have called it “true”, but Milton often uses allegory, saying ridiculous things, because we the reader understand it wasnt intended to be taken literally.
however, suppose this wasnt allegory, and the writer of Genesis was trying to be literal. if that is the case, then what??? it doesnt prove the Message of the Text is wrong, only that the details are (and unrelated details at that). personally, i can understand why a person would choose to reject some details of Scripture, but that doesnt mean that the Message is wrong. if the Message of the New Testament, say, is about Jesus and following him as our Rabbi, then the details about scientific understanding arent important. even theological details dont destroy the Message. here is why, because Jesus didnt write the NT. so there is a lot of possible “error” that could have come through the misinterpretation of his disciples.
even if this is the case (which i am not saying it is, just hypothesizing), the Message doesnt have to be thrown out.
that was all i was trying to get across.
what do you think?
peter
29.
Heather | August 27, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Peter,
I think this is the catch right here — we’d understand that it wasn’t indended to be taken literally. I don’t think we have that with many of the biblical elements that are taken allegorically today. I do think they were written to be taken literally, and that was the author’s intent. Milton would’ve called his text true in an allegorical sense. Would the Tanakh writers have done the same? Or the NT writers?
I don’t have a problem with it taken allegorically today. My difficulty comes from taking it allegorically and still holding to the claim on inerrancy, when it is in fact an “error.” Now, I don’t mean this in the sense that the writers lied, but that the writers were communicating from their own cultural view, and thus would get some things wrong.
I think this depends on the person, honestly. For some, if there isn’t a literal Adam/Eve, then Paul’s whole process of sin coming from Adam/Eve/the serpent is wrong, and without “original sin,” there was no need for Jesus and the whole thing is bunk. For that person, it’s chipping away at the message, and re-defining the elements of the message. Another person might say that the Tanakh has to be true, because Jesus said it was, and so if it’s not true, then Jesus is a liar (I’ve seen both of these used, although I’m not sure by posters here). But I think for some, if the writers got those physical details wrong, then it would call the theological details into question, such as heaven/hell/salvation which in many ways, are hard to define in the first place.
I understand what you mean about not throwing the message out, and that’s one of the things that troubles me about Fundamentalism. And I mean no insult to an ex-fundamentalists here. But everything of the faith seems wrapped up in the Bible, and so if that goes, everything goes. Fundamentalism doesn’t seem to focus on a relationship with the divine, or encountering the divine, but rather on the Bible-must-be-literally-true. Then again, I suppose it makes sense if the Bible is the only way one has of defining what the relationship with God is? There just doesn’t seem to be something “bigger” than the Bible driving fundamentalism.
30.
epiphanist | August 28, 2007 at 6:31 am
Well HIS. I am glad that you managed to get this post off the ground at last. LOL Also amused by the confusing babble from the squabbling crowd - very fitting.
31.
Changing the way you thin&hellip | January 23, 2008 at 12:07 am
[...] renewed. Let’s not conform to all these religions created by our ancestors who believed in myths and unseen spiritual forces. Let’s view life through the lens of knowledge, science, and what [...]
32.
Satan: The Greatest Bible&hellip | April 3, 2008 at 11:11 pm
[...] HeIsSailing wrote on several myths of the Bible including the Leviathan, the creation story, the tower of Babel, and the origins of languages. I wrote an entry on the Exodus. However, I believe one of the [...]