I don’t think in those terms of symbolism you have presented, & I don’t believe that great portions of the Bible are closed for me.

There are interesting parallels in what you are saying, but like many major patterns of understanding the Bible, there are limits to how far it can be applied without stretching it too far so it begins tearing the fabric, or ( to use another metaphor) “compressing the toes to fit the foot into Cinderella’s glass slipper”.

Hi Robert

Once you get into, it doesn’t stretch it at all. For instance, the judgment on Solomon’s Temple (as “the world in a box") follows the Creation pattern, but it’s de-creation. Revelation does the same with Herod’s temple: the end of the Old Creation.

Dannii -
From Genesis alone there may be many possible interpretations. However I think other parts of the Bible make certain things clear, such as the cause and reason for death, which greatly reduce the number of interpretations.

No argument from me here at all.  I’m certainly not arguing for Genesis 1 or 2 to be understood as myth.  I think they are historical accounts, which inform us as to who made the world (God), how he made it (by speaking), what he made (everything) and the significance of humankind in his creation.  All I’m saying is that this history has been communicated in a particular literary genre (or genres) and that studying other examples of similar genres may help us to understand it better.  I agree, nevertheless, that we can still understand it sufficiently without recourse to those examples.
Bob

Martin (Enkidu) Shields - 30 June 2008 03:26 PM

[quote author="Bob Cameron"]
I think that Neil’s comments are essentially on target.  Imagine a person of average intellect who has one Bible (in a language they can understand)…

At this point you’ve tried to hide the fact that you’re already admitting a whole range of external information which has been used to give them a Bible in a language they can understand!

Fair go Martin - I haven’t “tried to hide” anything.  The fact that I didn’t spell out the things you have chosen to spell out in some detail doesn’t mean that I intentionally hid them.

I don’t disagree with your analysis with regard to the use of external sources in the translation process.  No one will ever interact purely with the text of the Bible without any reference whatsoever to other influences (culture, history, family, personality, literature, archaeology, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera).

But my point still stands, I think, as we see if we extend the hypothesis a little further:
Imagine a person of average intellect in the New Testament era who has spoken Koine Greek all their life and who has one of the gospels and some of Paul’s letters in their hands and nothing else.  It seems to me that with careful reading and study they could come to a good understanding of the Biblical message overall and of all the great truths of the Gospel.

Bob

[quote author="Bob Cameron"]
Fair go Martin - I haven’t “tried to hide” anything.  The fact that I didn’t spell out the things you have chosen to spell out in some detail doesn’t mean that I intentionally hid them.

OK, perhaps it is not intentional “hiding” but it is “hiding” nonetheless. By excluding the task of translation you obscure the fact that we cannot understand the text without information external to the text. This, ISTM, essentially undermines your claim that such external information is not essential to our understanding of the Bible.

[quote author="Bob Cameron"]But my point still stands, I think, as we see if we extend the hypothesis a little further:
Imagine a person of average intellect in the New Testament era who has spoken Koine Greek all their life and who has one of the gospels and some of Paul’s letters in their hands and nothing else.  It seems to me that with careful reading and study they could come to a good understanding of the Biblical message overall and of all the great truths of the Gospel.

True, but of course such a person does not now exist, and when they did exist they already possessed a vast array of information outside the text which enabled them to understand the authors’ message. So even then, the text alone is not sufficient!

Since the original point (IIRC) was that external information is not essential to our understanding of the text, I think these considerations demonstrate that such a position cannot be maintained. I would argue that ignoring external information (as Gordon is wont to do ;-) ) can potentially result in us misunderstanding the text!

Martin

It was the “tried to” that I was objecting to rather than the “hide”.  Having said that, I’m not really sure what we’re arguing about now.  I’ve already agreed that:

1) we cannot read the Bible independently of external information / influences / resources
[To quote myself here: I don’t disagree with your analysis with regard to the use of external sources in the translation process.  No one will ever interact purely with the text of the Bible without any reference whatsoever to other influences (culture, history, family, personality, literature, archaeology, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera).]; and that

2) particular external sources such as the Enuma Elish can be helpful to our understanding.

I am prepared nevertheless to support Gordon, Neil and others insofar as I don’t think a person needs to consciously consult external sources to be able to understand the Bible sufficiently (i.e., to come to Christ for salvation, to grow in Christlikeness and to testify to his saving grace to others).  Are you saying that they do?

Bob

Bob Cameron - 30 June 2008 08:40 PM

I don’t think a person needs to consciously consult external sources to be able to understand the Bible sufficiently (i.e., to come to Christ for salvation, to grow in Christlikeness and to testify to his saving grace to others).

Hi Bob. ISTM that given the work done by others (that includes extensive use of external sources) to translate the Bible into our own language, yes we can have an adequate understanding of the Gospel of Jesus from most translations to make an intelligent commitment to faith (without further recourse to external sources). However, it also seems sensible to acknowledge that the translations we have reflect to some extent the particular biases or world views of the translation teams, and that assumptions have be made as to the meaning of the original documents given our limited understanding of the cultural context in which they were written.

Angus Johnson - 30 June 2008 09:17 PM

. . . it also seems sensible to acknowledge that the translations we have reflect to some extent the particular biases or world views of the translation teams, and that assumptions have be made as to the meaning of the original documents given our limited understanding of the cultural context in which they were written.

Hi Angus
A lot hangs on the phrase “to some extent”.  Yes indeed, all translations will reflect some translation biases and some cultural limitations.  Yet Christians of different language groups and cultures have understood the same truths about God, Jesus, and salvation throughout history, which is what one would expect if it really is, as I believe it is, God’s word written.
Regards,
Bob
Postscript: Those biases, etc. are minimised by having a large, international and interdenominational translation team when preparing a new version of the Bible.

[quote author="Bob Cameron"]I am prepared nevertheless to support Gordon, Neil and others insofar as I don’t think a person needs to consciously consult external sources to be able to understand the Bible sufficiently (i.e., to come to Christ for salvation, to grow in Christlikeness and to testify to his saving grace to others).  Are you saying that they do?

Can you translate the text unconsciously?

It may not be difficult to obtain the external information needed to correctly translate the meaning of the essential doctrines of the Bible into terms all can understand, but I don’t think you can do it without external sources. Someone has to do it, and it is either done for you (by translators) or else you have to do it yourself (and so do it consciously). If by not having to “consciously consult” an external source you mean that we can understand by reading an English version of the Bible, the necessity for consulting external sources still exists, it has just been carried out by someone else.

Furthermore, it appears that the argument here has moved from understanding the Bible to understanding key elements of the Bible (i.e. “to come to Christ for salvation, to grow in Christlikeness and to testify to his saving grace to others"), but I don’t think it started at that point:

[quote author="Neil Foster"]So to take Paul’s epistles, for example- I am all for reading the epistles against the context of their composition where we can see it from the book of Acts. I reckon that is probably one of the reasons (not the only one) that we have Acts. But to go outside Acts and to start speculating on the context of Paul’s letters where the NT doesn’t give us the information can lead us down an uncontrolled path where we “read down” what Paul seems to be saying by supposed background information which really ends up supporting a view of the text we have come to for others reasons.

What, for example, was “baptism for the dead”? Clearly Paul and the Corinthians shared some vital piece of information which has not been preserved for us today which enabled them to unambiguously identify the referent.

I would argue that the external information we need to understand the central tenets of the Bible is readily available, but that we do nonetheless need such information. There are, however, areas of Scripture for which such external information is either not readily available or sufficiently sparse to make the meaning of the text obscure. For these, the more external data the better.

Finally, I’d be interested in seeing a biblical justification for the notion that external sources are unnecessary for us to understand the meaning of Scripture.

Martin

Can you translate the text unconsciously?

It was reading the Bible that I was talking about, not translating it.  (I think that was pretty clear, especially in my second, revised example of a New Testament reader who had spoken Koine Greek all his life!) The rest of your point in regard to translation I have already agreed with.

Furthermore, it appears that the argument here has moved from understanding the Bible to understanding key elements of the Bible (i.e. “to come to Christ for salvation, to grow in Christlikeness and to testify to his saving grace to others"), but I don’t think it started at that point.

The starting point of this thread was a very specific element of the Bible, vis, the apparent conflict between the two creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2.
Bob

[quote author="Bob Cameron"]The starting point of this thread was a very specific element of the Bible, vis, the apparent conflict between the two creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2.

You are indeed correct. I’d argue that these passages fall into the “need external help” category, partly because English translations do not make sufficient appeal to the available external information. In fact, I’d argue that English translations can be rather misleading over the meaning of some parts of Gen 1-11 because they translate in such a way as to make the passage too easily fit with modern cosmology and conceal difficulties which would otherwise cause modern readers to question the text further!

Dannii Willis - 25 June 2008 09:40 PM

Unfortunately man is prone to error and so throughout the Bible we see excellent written Greek and sloppy Greek for instance.

I’d like to know what you think “sloppy” Greek is… sounds awfully prescriptionist to me.

The only way the Bible could be free from things like sloppy Greek is if God wrote it himself with pen in hand.

Why do you believe this? Is God incapable of doing his work through mankind?

boy these forums race along quick as! anywho…

Hi Dannii,

Back to your question about “sloppy” Greek. The Bible was written by man, you can see the authors stating they wrote it in each book. The book of John has simple Greek, James has the most outstanding Greek and Mark has “sloppy” Greek. Mark has “sloppy” Greek probably because Mark was a fisherman / of working class demographic.

I think it was mentioned earlier that the sequence of events in each Gospel are different to each other, but the message is exactly the same. This is the point I’m making, it is the message that holds the authority of God and is perfect and is not contradictory. The way each book was written can differ in terms of style and one can see the influence of human element, e.g. great Greek vs. sloppy Greek, differing sequence of events. These points of difference in no way impact the authority of the message. That’s how I’m seeing it presently anyway!

In regards to Michael Bull’s comment:

The events in Genesis 2 are history, and they are arranged to follow the pattern of Creation in chapter 1. So, they are history, but like much of the Bible, are arranged chiastically so that the central point or ‘thesis’ is at the centre.

Does this in any way impact the original question of why the sequence of events differ comparing Gen 1 to Gen 2? Seeing that you seem to know a bit, what’s your take on this?

Cheers brothers and sisters.

Actually most authors didn’t add their names, so they’re really guesses.

But what makes their Greek ‘outstanding’ or ‘sloppy’? How can you even evaluate that? It sounds to me that you’re mistaking different registers for proficiency in language.

Well I probably should have double checked that point then about the authors. But the fact that at least some do, shows that they are saying they wrote it with a pen in their hand.

In regards to what is outstanding or sloppy, perhaps the point you are making is drawing from pluralist talk where everything is equal. That outstanding can be sloppy, and sloppy can be outstanding.

My point - the fact that they are written in different styles shows a human element.

Many of them would have used scribes. Gal 6:11 is quite funny in fact! Paul’s own hand writing probably wasn’t the neatest.

I agree completely that the authors all have different styles. I don’t like the claim that some of the Biblical writers were prone to error and wrote sloppy Greek. It’s not a claim I’ve heard anyone else ever make before.
No, I’m not a pluralist, though I am a descriptionist and not a prescriptionist. You make it sound like there is one outstanding way to write Greek that all Greek writers aspired to be, which sounds prescriptionistic. There definitely are different registers, but a higher register doesn’t imply in any way that it’s more outstanding than a lower register, or that a lower register has errors.
It is possible however that some of the Greek isn’t natural, is this what you mean by sloppy? Like how most of our English Bibles are really written in ‘Biblish’, if some of the NT was originally written in Aramaic it could have been translated into Greek, but into a Greek that wasn’t natural. But again that’s speculation as I’ve never heard anyone say the Greek isn’t natural.