Genesis 6-9: Noah's journey
So, God comes to Noah and says "Build a boat and put a bunch of animals on it." A boat is no problem. Then God says, "I am going to make it rain." And Noah's thinking, "What is rain?" Then Noah winds up on the boat for more than a little bit, while it rains for a month and 10 days. Holy Cow! I can't stand my own kids after 2 straight days of rain. Perhaps someone up in Washington state can better understand this than I can. In the end, God says, "I will save you, but everyone else must die." So I wonder . . .
What is it like to have never seen rain?
Is this story from a flat earth perspective, where God simply opened up the waters above the earth and allowed them to flood all of the earth?
Is there such a thing as "greenhouse" effect? Was this healthy global warminig before we knew of such a thing?
How much fertilizer did that boat produce?
Did Noah want to open the door and let anyone in? Why did God want to start over so bad that he denied access to anyone else?
How much faith did Noah have?!!! Would I be able to follow him even if I didn't know what rain was?
What is it like to have never seen rain?
Is this story from a flat earth perspective, where God simply opened up the waters above the earth and allowed them to flood all of the earth?
Is there such a thing as "greenhouse" effect? Was this healthy global warminig before we knew of such a thing?
How much fertilizer did that boat produce?
Did Noah want to open the door and let anyone in? Why did God want to start over so bad that he denied access to anyone else?
How much faith did Noah have?!!! Would I be able to follow him even if I didn't know what rain was?
posted by Randy Rogers at
10:55 AM
18 Comments:
After asking the questions, I have one further thought on why Noah couldn't open the door.
I suppose that God intended the building of the boat to be the witness to the people that something was coming. They would have to have faith to get into the boat. Since they did not believe, judgment came and there was no time for true belief then. So, the door remained shut.
I hope you’ll comment on Utnapishtim. I have read that…
After the "Babylonian Noah," a guy named Utnapishtim, had survived the Gods-sent flood that wiped out humanity, but before he'd spotted land from the ark the Gods had told him to build, he sent out birds. At first the birds came back. Then one didn't. Hurray, said Utnapishtim, that means "Dry land!"
Happy Utnapishtim sacrificed to the Gods.
QUOTING
And the Gods smell the pleasant fragrance of the smoke.
I put out and released a raven.
The raven went, and saw the waters receding.
And it ate, preened (?), lifted its tail and did not turn round.
Then I put (everything ?) out to the four winds, and I made a sacrifice.
Set out a surqinnu-offering upon the mountain peak,
Arranged the jars seven and seven;
Into the bottom of them I poured (essences of ?) reeds, pine, and myrtle.
The gods smelt the fragrance,
The gods smelt the pleasant fragrance...
Epic of Gilgamesh, 11th tablet (early second millennium BC), -- which you can find in: Dalley, Stephanie. Myths From Mesopotamia; Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (1989 / 2000), pg. 113- 4]
I’ve also read that….
After the Bible-onian Noah, a guy named Noah, had survived the Gods-sent flood that wiped out humanity, but before he'd spotted land from the ark the Gods had told him to build, he sent out birds. At first the birds came back. Then one didn't. Hurray, said Noah, that means "Dry land!"
Happy Noah sacrificed to the Gods. >>
And the Gods smell the pleasant fragrance of the smoke,
and was pleased
QUOTING
Genesis 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
21 And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
Old Testament, Genesis Chapter 8
Any chance these stories are somehow related?
How come their phony gods liked the smell of sacrifices just like our real God does/did?
There is also a Panamanian Mestizo myth of a giant canoe being built and provisioned much as Noah's Ark is described. The messenger of prophecy was probably a parrot or something from the Great Spirit(s). The similarity would seem to reinforce, rather than detract from, the accuity of the detail in the Biblical story, including the notion of a worldwide flood, rather than regional. A couple of possible reasons for the existance of differng but similar Flood stories, yet the Biblical account holds sway, are that God seems to have chosen a people who kept the record better than others, and He mitigated their mistakes with His Truth and/or God has revealed some Truth in every culture to prepare them for the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth(are we ready?).
The natural forces which must have been present, preceding, during, and after, the Flood helps to explain how some of the Earth's crust and some lower but shallow stratum may have been formed and conditioned to our modern perspective more quickly than Geophysics allows.
Robe FRe
p.s. I have edited my avatar to protest 'flat-earth' perspectives as non-plussing.
One paleoclimatological theory of the flood is that one reason dinosaurs were able to grow so large is the temp and humidity was such that they never were exposed to chilling temperatures and vegetation was also abundant as a result of warm temperature and abundant water from seepage(artesian wells?) from the ground and creeks(Gen 2:6. but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground). Then, due to some awe inspiring factor such as a cosmic collision, or decreasing numbers of gigantic volcanic eruptions, the Earth was moved from its original into a more distant orbit around the Sun, or wobbled way off its axis, or just naturally, due to time, experienced a core cooling. This resulted in an atmospheric cooling that triggered the first occurence of rain on the Earth, and it was a big one.
It would be almost as if the report of warming today is merely a return to conditions experienced during that pre Noah time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Could this apparent current warming trend portend a return of the Nephilim, or are they just fish fodder?
I think maybe it was a coling trend that triggered the rain for Noah's flood. This cooling trend seems to have perhaps culminated in the Ice Age and now we are on the warming side of that trend, although back in 1980 the scientific outlook was for cooler temps, increased rain forest and expanded ice caps. Suddenly, 20 years, and we are warming the Earth into a desert. But I do wonder where in its orbit and distance from the Sun the Earth may have been when God spoke to Noah and delivered him from the flood, and if we, the Earth, may be approaching that relative position in our wobbly orbit around the Sun again?
here is a link to House Church USA, as presented by anbaptist USA.
http://www.house-church.net/house.htm
we have some doifferences but not a lot.
RobeFRe
OK. Time got away from me, and I did not respond to this dblog as I should. So apologies.
The one entry that I wanted to respond to was on the Gilgamesh Epic, a Babylonian account that is parallel to Noah's account.
The first question is, "Are they related?" I think they are related in terms of ancient culture, but I do not think that one necessarily borrows from another. It is possible that both stories (not evaluating their divine nature yet) developed out of the ancient middle eastern cultures and their understanding of the divine. It seems that most anciet religious cultures, including those in the Americas, have some knowledge or belief in a flood-event that shaped their current existence and religious experience. Most of the flood events occurred before recorded time, and thus reflect a time when the gods (or God) was in great conflict with creation. In each case a human hero responds to a divine challenge to overcome the chaos of the water (which was viewed as an anciet barrier between the gods and humanity) in order to be the new leader of their people. Because of the scope of the flood-event, animals are usually included in the story to show how life survived such a global test. The events end in sacrifice of thanksgiving, and the hero usually earns some measure of respect and independence from the capricious nature of the gods.
Now, the basic story/template is fairly similar. However, there are big differences in the content of the stories, especially in the Jewish story. The character of God (monotheistic and benevolent), the challenge he lays before Noah (to build in faith), the character and faith required of Noah, and the result (God's glory, not his demise) are just a few of the significant differences that can be found. This does not mean that the Noah story was first, but it shows that the nature of the story is of a different quality.
Personally, I think that the Noah story is as close to the original event as you will find, and it reflects the true nature of God and humanity. I think all other cultural representations of a flood event represent a skewed version of the nature of God(s) and humanity. Of course, you might expect I would say this because I presuppose that Judaism is unique in world history as a chosen people of God, and the the Jewish people have been given special revelation about God, including Genesis 1-11. So, I think that the Noah story is special among all of these traditions.
So, in summary, do I see a connection? Yes. Do I see literary interdependence? Not necessarily. What is the connection? At the least, a cultural one--in which every ancient world culture has attempted to answer the question "How did we end up where we are, why does it rain, and what is a rainbow?" You could also conclude, based on my presuppositions, that the Noah story is the original, and the rest of the stories are copies or interpretations. However, it is difficult to understand how Incas or Mayans could have such ideas without written knowledge of Jewish writings.
Unless, the Jewish God, who is the Father of Jesus Christ, has planted the story in every culture and heart in order to lead them to understand his created order as best they can. This may well be the best explanation for the connections between the various cultural renditions of the flood story.
Our culture seems to be arguing for a new version of the flood catastrophe--as Robert as pointed out above in some posts. I find it takes as much faith to believe the Global Warming story as it does to believe the Noah story. It all depends on how you interpret the evidence.
How come their phony gods liked the smell of sacrifices just like our real God does/did?
This is a typical way for religious cultures, ancient or otherwise, to express how the gods here their prayers. The incense burning is a symbol of prayers, and the rising of the smoke is a symbol of the prayer rising to God. Truly, the Christian God does not need smoke to here our prayers. This is a ceremony designed for people so that they can tangibly express the spiritual prayers they make. God hears our prayers without incense or sacrifice. It is truly a figure of religious speech.
GENESIS
8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And WHEN THE LORD SMELLED THE PLEASING ODOR, THE LORD SAID IN HIS HEART, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
BUSCO
How come their phony gods liked the smell of sacrifices just like our real God does/did?
RANDY
This is a typical way for religious cultures, ancient or otherwise, to express how the gods here their prayers. The incense burning is a symbol of prayers, and the rising of the smoke is a symbol of the prayer rising to God. Truly, the Christian God does not need smoke to here our prayers. This is a ceremony designed for people so that they can tangibly express the spiritual prayers they make. God hears our prayers without incense or sacrifice. It is truly a figure of religious speech.
BUSCO
Genesis 8:21 is metaphor, not fact?
And our real God is a parallel with their pagan gods? And our Gods holy sacrifice was parallel with their pagan sacrifice? The difference is one of degree, not of quality. The Jews would have agreed – after all Josephus mentions gentiles sacrificing at the temple in Jerusalem. It was understood sacrificing to our God and sacrificing to their gods worked the same way.
You are a cultural relativist then. Does your congregation know?
I've heard it said, "Jesus was a new God. You knew that. But stop for a minute, go slow. Think about that again. See, you can't have a new God until you first know what God means. And if your new God is a God, well, then He's really not new, he's a new version of an old idea."
From what you say, sounds like you'd agree.
-------------------
And century after century God commanded his people kill all those soft cuddly animals, and burn them – for a metaphor?
-------------------
Can you name your source for the metaphor business? I'm not aware of any ancients saying the smoke of sacrifice was a metaphor. I am familiar with ancients writing that the gods were somehow sustained by the smoke. Lucian does a nice parody of this in one of his dialogues. I hope you won't make me look it up. The idea is expressed nicely in Birds:
Prometheus: Zeus is done for.
Pisthetaerus: Ah! and since when, pray?
Prometheus : Since you founded this city in the air. There is not a man who now sacrifices to the gods; the smoke of the victims no longer reaches us. Not the smallest offering comes!
Aristophanes, Birds 1513 – 1515
And Homer gives an example of the other common variation, that the gods are pleased and somehow persuaded by the smoke of sacrifice:
"No, come, let us ask some holy man ... who can tell why Phoibos Apollo is so angry, if for the sake of some vow, some hecatomb [sacrifice] he blames us, IF GIVEN THE FRAGRANT SMOKE OF LAMBS, of he goats, somehow HE CAN BE MADE WILLING to beat the bane aside from us.' "
Iliad, 1.62 ... 67
The cause and effect here suggests common theology with Genesis 8:21, don't you think?
And Jewish sources give accounts of a connection between smoke and divinity that don't suggest the metaphor of prayer.
"Then the young man said to the angel, "Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?" 7: He replied, "As for the heart and liver, if a DEMON OR EVIL SPIRIT gives trouble to any one, YOU MAKE A SMOKE FROM THESE before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again.”
Tobit Chapter 6:6-8
"When all was ready, the angel enjoined him to set the loaves and the flesh, but without the vessels, upon the rock; which when they had done, he touched the flesh with the rod which he had in his hand, which, upon the breaking out of a flame, was consumed, together with the loaves; and THE ANGEL ASCENDED OPENLY, IN THEIR SIGHT, UP TO HEAVEN, BY MEANS OF THE SMOKE, as by a vehicle. Now Manoah was afraid that some danger would come to them from this sight of God; but his wife bade him be of good courage, for that God appeared to them for their benefit."
Josephus, Antiquities ~5.280
-------------------
I don't see how to explain the ancient evidence other than that paganism and Judaism both shared the belief that the smoke of sacrifice really did ascend to God/ gods who really did like it.
I wonder if each culture came up with that idea on it's own, or if someone borrowed from someone else.
Busco
Busco,
Nice, lengthy post.
However, I am not sure that you were exactly clear in your presentation. And I think you need to slow down in your conclusions somewhat.
Genesis 8:21 is metaphor, not fact?
I DON’T SEE A PROBLEM WITH GENESIS 8:21 BEING A METAPHOR. GOD IS A GOD OF SPIRIT, AND HE IS NOT LIMITED TO OUR PHYSICAL NATURE. HE HEARS OUR PRAYERS WITH OR WITHOUT SMOKE. THE REASON HE INSTITUTED SMOKE FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE IS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY COULD UNDERSTAND. IT IS A CULTURALLY LIMITED EXPRESSION OF PRAYER.
You are a cultural relativist then. Does your congregation know?
I AM NOT SURE IF THIS IS A COMPLIMENT OR INSULT. MY CONGREGATION MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. HOWEVER, I THINK THAT PART OF THE CHALLENGE OF PREACHING AND TEACHING THE WORD IS BRIDGING GENERATIONAL AND CULTURAL GAPS, AS WELL AS TIME. IF YOU DON’T THINK THAT YOUR OWN INTERPRETATIONS ARE CULTURALLY RELATIVE, THEN YOU ARE BLIND TO THE LIMITATIONS OF YOUR OWN RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION. BY THE WAY, THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM TRUTH BEING RELATIVE. BUT THAT IS A DISCUSSION FOR A DIFFERENT POST.
I've heard it said, "Jesus was a new God. You knew that. But stop for a minute, go slow. Think about that again. See, you can't have a new God until you first know what God means. And if your new God is a God, well, then He's really not new, he's a new version of an old idea."
From what you say, sounds like you'd agree.
I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN, SO I CAN’T SAY IF I AGREE OR NOT.
And century after century God commanded his people kill all those soft cuddly animals, and burn them – for a metaphor?
NOT FOR A METAPHOR, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THAT WAS THE BEST WAY TO COMMUNICATE. HE DOES NOT HAVE US DO IT ANYMORE. WHY? BECAUSE IT IS NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE, THANKS TO JESUS CHRIST.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE SACRIFICES ARE NOT WITHOUT PURPOSE OR EFFECT. PAUL ARGUES THAT THEY ARE VALUABLE, AND JESUS DID NOT COME TO ERASE THEM, BUT TO FULFILL THE LAW. THE OLD COVENANT WAS VALUABLE FOR ITS COMMUNICATION OF THE CHARACTER OF GOD. IT WAS UNIQUE IN ITS PRESENTATION. YET, WE CANNOT DENY THAT OTHER CULTURES ALSO RECEIVED SOME NATURE OF REVELATION FROM GOD (ROMANS 1:19-20). SO FOR OTHER CULTURES TO HAVE THE SAME UNDERSTANDING OF GOD “SMELLING” SACRIFICES SHOULD NOT BE A SHOCK. HOWEVER, I WANT TO AFFIRM THAT I BELIEVE THAT GOD’S PRESENTATION TO THE ISRAELITES AND THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW OF MOSES WAS UNIQUE AND DIVINE. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS NOT A METAPHORICAL QUALITY, NOR DEEPER TRUTH UNDERNEATH THE OUTWARD SIGN.
AGAIN, MY POINT IS THAT GOD IS NOT BOUND TO THE PHYSICAL. IN FACT, HE WOULD PREFER THAT WE PRAY IN OUR HEARTS RATHER THAN BURN INCENSE.
And Jewish sources give accounts of a connection between smoke and divinity that don't suggest the metaphor of prayer.
IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT JEWS FROM 2000 BC AND FROM 100 BC THOUGHT THAT GOD LITERALLY SMELLED THEIR SACRIFICES, THEN I DO NOT DISAGREE. IF YOU ASK ME, I WILL TELL YOU THAT THEIR UNDERSTANDING WAS LIMITED. GOD LOOKS AT THEIR ATTITUDES AND NOT THEIR SMOKE.
My final response:
I MUST ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE MANAGED TO WRITE A LENGTHY ENTRY WITHOUT GIVING YOUR TRUE STANCE ON THE ISSUE. I WOULD ARGUE THAT THEY ALL SHARED A COMMON IDEA—THAT GOD WOULD RECEIVE THEIR PRAYERS IF THEY DID IT IN THE RIGHT WAY. NOW, WHAT IS THE RIGHT WAY? HOW CAN WE KNOW IF GOD HEAR’S OUR PRAYER? WELL, CHECK THE SMOKE FROM THE SACRIFICE. IF IT RISES INTO THE ATMOSPHERE AND DISPERSES INTO THE WINDS, THEN GOD MUST HEAR IT. THIS IS THE EXTENT OF THEIR SIMPLIFIED UNDERSTANDING OF PRAYER AND SACRIFICE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS DIFFERENT, YET NO MORE VALID. ALL PRAYER IS RECEIVED BASED ON OUR ATTITUDE, THOUGH, NOT ON THE DIRECTION OF THE SMOKE. IT IS THE PROPHETS WHO ATTEMPTED TO GET THE PEOPLE TO SEE THIS WITH THE CRITICISM OF THE OUTWARD RELIGION OF THE PEOPLE, WHICH DID NOT AFFECT THEIR ATTITUDES. See Micah 6:6-8. With what shall I come to the LORD
And bow myself before the God on high?
Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings,
With yearling calves?
7 Does the LORD take delight in thousands of rams,
In ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I present my firstborn for my rebellious acts,
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He has told you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness,
And to walk humbly with your God?
For me, it is metaphor. God is no more pleased with smoke in his spiritual nose that he is pleased with my deoderant. However, my heart can stink to high heaven, and it doesn't take a nose to for God to smell that.
I have often heard and read that God wants obedience rather than sacrifice.
Busco
You are a cultural relativist then. Does your congregation know?
Randy
I AM NOT SURE IF THIS IS A COMPLIMENT OR INSULT. MY CONGREGATION MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.
Busco:
Having noticed you compare this or that belief of yours with what one would expect a Baptist minister to believe, I had a go at jocularity. Unsuccessful I see.
------------------------
Randy
I MUST ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE MANAGED TO WRITE A LENGTHY ENTRY WITHOUT GIVING YOUR TRUE STANCE ON THE ISSUE
And
For me, it is metaphor. God is no more pleased with smoke in his spiritual nose that he is pleased with my deoderant.
Busco
OK. We're discussing your blog and your ideas, so I don't know why my stance is relevant. But since you ask, my stance is a number of ancient near eastern cultures shared/ inherited myths. And when the Assyrian myth is similar to the Babylonian myth is similar to the Akkadian myth is similar to the Sumerian myth, it is generally and reasonably agreed borrowing happened. The evidence suggests that list can be extended to Assyrian, Babylonian, Akkadian, Sumerian, Judean. My stance is, I know of no reasoned analysis of the evidence that can conclude otherwise than that our story and our theologies – God, heaven, hell, souls, floods, animal sacrifice, smoke—were not borrowed from earlier religions.
My questions were directed at seeing if your analysis could give an Our Religion was New and Unique explanation of those facts.
Your analysis of the smoke evidence seems to me entirely self consistent – because it is circular special pleading. You know of no ancient author saying smoke was a metaphor. I cited and quoted ancient passages, pagan and Jewish, including our Bible, whose plain readings indicate the ancients did in fact think real gods really did like the smell of smoke. So far the only reasoned analysis of the evidence indicates our religion borrowed central theologies from pagan religion.
Randy, you are a Baptist minister. I knew from the start your _conclusion_ is going to be smoke is a metaphor. The object of interest is not the certain conclusion but the reasoning that gets you there. Can we get there from the surrounding evidence or only by backing in from our general belief in the truth of Jesus?
Randy, our religion is in decline in the larger culture because believers are unable to explain their stories—OT stories, NT stores— without falling back on flat-Earth stubbornness. Snip the evidence, no facts, here's what I believe. Here's my stance. Our stories carry meaning. But the-Earth-is-flat-the-Bible-says-so explanations are proven losers. They assure, in the larger culture, the loss of both the story and the meaning. They betray the values of our faith.
Busco
What?! We are supposed to work out our faith? Well, maybee--, if Paul said so.
Busco,
Sorry I missed the humor. And I apologize for the capital letters--seems like I was yelling. :)
Thanks for offering your stance and opinions. It helps me to know more of your perspective.
I must admit that I appreciate your pointed comments and desire communicate in a relevant way with the culture. Your perspective certainly challenges me, and I am indebted (if even a little irritated) by your directness.
I guess one of the things that irritates me most is your stereo-type of the Baptist minister, which I do not fully understand. However, I seemed to have fit the mold well, so I shouldn't be too irritated by it. I think that some of the things that frustrate you about Baptist ministers also frustrate me.
Now considering your critique of my thought process, I offer the following:
Busco writes: My stance is, I know of no reasoned analysis of the evidence that can conclude otherwise than that our story and our theologies – God, heaven, hell, souls, floods, animal sacrifice, smoke—were not borrowed from earlier religions.
1. I suggested that Judaism dealt with cultural issues much in the same way that other cultures did. Do I think that they all had similar understandings of religious phenomena? Yes. Do I think the Judaism is unique? Yes, due to the revelation of Yahweh and the meaning and new expression of religious traditions that he provided the Jews, especially in the Law.
I think in some measure that we agree in the uniqueness of Judaism and the Revelation of the Law. However, I do not think it beneifts our case to simply say that there is no connection between the ancient religions and Judaism. I think you can accept connection and still recognize the uniqueness of Judaism. For me, the history indicates that God, through general revelation, opened the general public to his reality. Then, through special revelation (Law) he drew a peculiar people out of the general truths (which the people did not fully understand and often misinterpreted) and into direct relationship with him.
So, I agree that the end result of Judaism and the Law is unique. However, I do not think it was presented in a cultural vacuum, but instead built on the cultural revelations that God himself had already put into motion. This is a matter of starting points. You view that the initial revelation of God prior to the Law was of no value. I view the initial revelation of God prior to the Law (and Abraham) to be foundational, even if it was misunderstood by many. Otherwise, how could a figure like Melchizedek find righteousness in God before Abraham and the Law? Something was happening before the principles of Judaism were fully spelled out. This type of thinking also leads me to suggest that now everything in ancient cultures was completely lacking in knowledge of Yahweh. However, I am willing to admint that all cultures were devoid of any eternal value apart from pleasing God. It would seem, then, that ancient cultures were in deep trouble spiritually. So, Abraham was called out of, and influenced by, those cultures into a new and growing relationship with God.
2. i don't understand why you see my logic as circular. I did take a logic class in college, but for me presuppositions have everything to do with where you wind up. I would imagine that under the same scrutiny, your arguments could be found to be circular to some extent. For me, the best analysis is to state that we start at different points, and thus arrive at different conclusions.
3. One of my presuppositions is that I do not view your citations of Judaism to be accurate or valid points for your argument. You do provide references, all of which I have in my library on my walls in my office. I have read these passages and know where they come from. The dating of most of the Judaic writings is perhaps 1000-1500 years removed from the initials discussion of smoke rising and God's nose. Now, I don't doubt that you know this. However, I do not view these passages you have cited (Tobit, for example) as relevant to the discussion. Furthermore,just because the ancients believed a certain myth does not mean I have to believe it. All of the ancient writings can see one thing, and I, from my own world view, can see something different. So, the surrounding evidence suggests one thing--and I interpret all of that evidence through a certain lens. I do not see the problem with my thought process, and I certainly understand my interpretive presuppositions. So, your criticism seems to be with my presuppositions, and I suppose that I would have the same criticisms of your presuppositions. In essence, we must agree to disagree here, and I don't think you have a philosophical or theological or moral high ground. I don't see how your presuppositions are better than mine.
Ultimately, I agree with your last statement and have always thought I have done a good job of addressing the issues you raise. I am thankful for the critique, and it has caused me to re-evaluate my thought process. I would hope my studies and PhD work have given me a broader perspective than the average Baptist pastor, but I admit to some narrow presuppositions concerning my academic discipline. There is always work to do in these areas, and I am greatful for your direct and insightful critique.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Randy, you said,
"Our culture seems to be arguing for a new version of the flood catastrophe--as Robert as pointed..."
I may have left that door open but what I was trying to point out is that many things in the Bible are corroborated by secular reporting. This peculiar situation gives Christians an opportunity to enjoin with those of other ilk in convesations concerning God's role in our lives.
I am not sure that I like much of any thing new as far as theological explainin' goes and although perspectives are always changing they really stay pretty much the same as a group. Human is human and Divine is Divine and alas evil is evil. For the most part the skies are always cloudy with a chance of Sonshine.
Another thing I wonder about is why it is so easy to talk about how things ought to be and how bad things have become because 0f al;l the terrible things people think and lie about when more and more peoople are at least in body coming to Christ. Now that might address another aspect of my wondering eye--that concerning the reluctance of some to participate in the things that made the conditions for their own introduction to Christ possible and so they continually look for some other way to find God or present Grace than the way in which He has used to make himself known. This tendency seems to at first glance turn salvation into a cheap parlor trick and to deny the Spirit His power. Yet, of course, even in the most unorthodoxy the Spirit is able to do what God wills. All that to say that the metaphor of smoke rising to god's nostril is not trapped in antiquity but an analogy which I have heard as recently as the sixties and tho from one whom I considered ancient it has played on my mind quiet often and so must not be so ancient a metaphor as all that it was made out to be by much more learned students than I. 'How else shal my prayers rise to God's nostril if not on the whisp of a smoke?' Or if I do not repent then have I disobeyed the Spirit of God who came to me within the authority of God's Grace and called me to Him, if I do not repent(or is that some pitiful feeling of regret, much as love is often projected to be a warm fuzzy feeling?)have I not answered the call? And if I have anse3=wered the call then how shall others know it, by that glint in my eye and odor of breath that surely can be no other but the Love of Jesus coursing through my veins? Surely the Spirit of God comes to those who in humility have answered his call and begun to show that immersion into that Spirit.
hmmm smoke on the water?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home