So do process theism or panentheism solve the problem? (And the problem of the OT extends well beyond the Reformed tradition, including to Aquinas and Chrysostom, to mention only two.)
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why we should read OT narrative like general fiction
- Thread starter Deacon
- Start date
So do process theism or panentheism solve the problem? (And the problem of the OT extends well beyond the Reformed tradition, including to Aquinas and Chrysostom, to mention only two.)
Process theism would have problems with many of the same passages Classical theists plus the parting of the Red Sea (Unless explained through natural phenomena), the prophecy of Tyre, etc. So process theism is even worse. I am not very familiar with process theism and have only read books by non-process theists about what what process theists say. I have not read books by actual process theist writers.
I am very unfamiliar with panentheism but from what I can tell there is an Eastern Orthodox tradition and a Universalist tradition. So, I'd have to ask you "Which do you mean?" if you want to continue talking about panentheism.
Classical Theism is made a part of the western church starting with Augustine. (Although, elements are trying to sneak in before that.) So, yes, the problems with the Old Testament existed well before the reformation.
Which group in the Wikipedia article are you talking about?
I'm sorry the "everyone else is doing it" routine doesn't work with me.
If you want to give me a better example of a modern-day anthropomorphisation, I'll use it from now on.
The word fiction was used by you in the OP, so I'm not sure what you're being offended by,
"blatantly" was the wrong word to use and I apologize. I should have used the word "clearly".
I agree
When I read Exodus 32, (not 31) I read about God telling Moses to get out of the way because he is going to kill all the people. At this point Moses talks to him and convinces him not to do it. So the Bible says that God changed his mind. He only killed some of them.
It's very clear. There is no ambiguity. This can't be understood at face value while at the same time holding to classical theism. This is where anthropomorphisation comes in. And yes, that makes the entire story a fiction. God really wasn't going to kill all of them. Moses really didn't convince God of anything. And God definitely didn't change his mind. God had already decided what to do or already knew what was going to happen.
I'm sorry you found my post to be aggressive, but it is how classical theists describe this passage if they don't completely ignore it to begin with.
Interesting thread. My input: I am currently reading a novel and a true account, both on the war on terrorism. The true account is 13 Hours in Bengazi, which is a moment by moment account from the viewpoint of the independent operators there. The novel is about a fictional ex-SEAL operator who takes down terrorists.
I'm not sure how two books could be more different and still be on similar subjects. The novel has the "apex predator" on the president's secret anti-terror team, who figures out everything and destroys the opposition. On the other hand, the non-fiction account has top operators (former SEALs, highly trained CIA operators, etc.) who lose their equipment, turn the wrong way in their vehicle (right towards the terrorists), think they are invincible (":God is making the bullets miss, right now."), etc. The term "the fog of war" comes to mind.
The application here is that the OT stories read like truth and not like fiction: Noah gets drunk, Moses is not allowed to enter the promised land, righteous Lot's daughters get him drunk and get pregnant, great King David commits adultery and murder. That is real life: complex, full of failure and the need to depend on God, with good guys who do bad things and bad guys who occasionally do good things (Gibeonites joining Israel, Ahab somewhat repenting, etc.).
I'm not sure how two books could be more different and still be on similar subjects. The novel has the "apex predator" on the president's secret anti-terror team, who figures out everything and destroys the opposition. On the other hand, the non-fiction account has top operators (former SEALs, highly trained CIA operators, etc.) who lose their equipment, turn the wrong way in their vehicle (right towards the terrorists), think they are invincible (":God is making the bullets miss, right now."), etc. The term "the fog of war" comes to mind.
The application here is that the OT stories read like truth and not like fiction: Noah gets drunk, Moses is not allowed to enter the promised land, righteous Lot's daughters get him drunk and get pregnant, great King David commits adultery and murder. That is real life: complex, full of failure and the need to depend on God, with good guys who do bad things and bad guys who occasionally do good things (Gibeonites joining Israel, Ahab somewhat repenting, etc.).
The point of the thread (and the point of reading biblical narrative like general fiction) is not comparing reality to fantasy, its about our expectations.
‘Real life’ can happen in both settings.
If you are expecting only a historical version of events you’re looking to gain a lot of facts, you are not looking deeper into the authors intentions for constructing the story the way it was done.
But the biblical authors have done much more than string facts together into a story, the authors have carefully produced a story that tells us something about God (God-breathed).
You might say ‘the sum of the parts is greater than the whole’.
In each account of the story John mentions in the above post, the author plays a role. In the historical account you perhaps gain a greater knowledge of the “fog of war”. In the fictionalized version you (perhaps) feel the tug of political motivations, the deeper meaning of the author is more evident.
Rob
‘Real life’ can happen in both settings.
If you are expecting only a historical version of events you’re looking to gain a lot of facts, you are not looking deeper into the authors intentions for constructing the story the way it was done.
But the biblical authors have done much more than string facts together into a story, the authors have carefully produced a story that tells us something about God (God-breathed).
You might say ‘the sum of the parts is greater than the whole’.
In each account of the story John mentions in the above post, the author plays a role. In the historical account you perhaps gain a greater knowledge of the “fog of war”. In the fictionalized version you (perhaps) feel the tug of political motivations, the deeper meaning of the author is more evident.
Rob
Who's the author of this video course?
The Bible is definitely literature, and must be interpreted as such. Here on the BB I have often advocated learning what figures of speech are and how they figure in exegesis, especially of prophecy. The problem comes when we mis-characterize genre. Though there are a few parables in the OT (a type of fiction), if we read the OT as fiction we are mistaking genre, and that means we will fail in our exegesis.
True.
True. The Bible is definitely literature. In fact, as Ziggy pointed out, it has had huge influence in shaping modern literature.
Once again, the problem is when we try to read the historical narrative of the OT as fiction, we are mistaking the genre. If you read a horror novel (something I studiously avoid) as a humorous novel, you miss the entire point of the book. (I've never quite figured out the goals of Stephen King, other than to horrify and make money.)
Speaking of the horror genre, last year I read through the Literary Study Bible (ESV), with notes by Ryken. I was horrified to find in his glossary the term "horror story" which was then applied to certain narratives in the OT. That characterization is so over the top it is laughable.
Nope, never have.I take it you've never read any Gabriel García Marquez?
Okay, wait. I'm not following you here. What's wrong with saying that "words have meanings"?
Nothing is wrong with saying "words have meanings". But we have to realize that sometimes words are used to communicate things other than their technical meanings.
Think of Preludes - "The worlds revolve like ancient women gathering fuel in vacant lots." Apply the method some would use to exegete Scripture and the stanza is meaningless because the words are used to convey something greater than their technical meaning.
Context matters. Ignoring this is how some have argued errors like God departing from Christ on the Cross.
Okay, thank you for the the explanation.
Here is the entry: "horror story. A story that portrays frightening or grotesque experiences in sxuch a way as to make a reader feel terror. The story of the ten plagues (Exodus 7-12) and the narrative of the murderous rape of the concubine (Judges 19) are examples of horror stories in the Bible" (p. 1891).
So to Ryken, God's judgment on a wicked nation ruled by a man who opposed God completely, and a vicious rape, are equivalent in genre. To me that is an unthinkable comparison.
I mentioned this comment by Ziggy before, and I'm going to agree with it here explicitly .If any of you have read much Shakespeare, you know how great the Biblical influence is there.
I would further say that history as it occurs is a huge influence in literature, but only very rarely is the opposite true. (Animal Farm by Orwell may be the exception.) Back in the day I read a lot of spy stories, especially by John Le Carré and Len Deighton. Fun stuff. However, three things influenced and actually totally changed the genre: the collapse of the Soviet Union, advances in technology (the Internet, cell phones), and the terror of 9/11. Those two authors have published novels since the first event, but had to change their whole approach. The Soviet Union was such a great impetus to spy fiction! 9/11 then actually turned the entire genre upside down. If you read a spy novel nowadays from before 9/11 you find yourself saying, "What about terrorism?"
The field of SF has totally changed, too. I'm pretty sure that none of the major authors of SF predicted the Internet or cell phones, and I read them all: Asimov, Heinlein, Campbell, etc. The only thing I can think of is that Asimov predicted communicating with phones with full length screens. Oh, yes, maybe we can say that the wrist radio of Dick Tracy was kind of like a cell phone. Now if you are on another planet you must have cell phones and an Internet, or no one will buy your novel.
The point is, when God does something (OT literature) it changes the world, but when humans write something, it must follow and eventually be changed by both God's revelation and by the world. That, my friends, is apples and oranges.
I think "general fiction", though perhaps a useful term in some ways, is unfortunate, as its use here instantly raises the hackles on Bible literalists like myself. It might be a useful term as follows: I can read "general fiction" in two (at least) ways, for entertainment, as I do with Tom Clancy novels and decades ago with Stephen King (about whom I totally agree with JoJ), or I can read it as literature, as I would with the aforementioned Conrad, or Mark Twain, or John Steinbeck. When our daughter was teaching 11th grade English at BJA, one part was a study of Steinbeck's "The Pearl." Read as entertainment, it's an interesting story of poor people suddenly acquiring a treasure, then having bad stuff happen. Read as literature, there's a whole lot more going on in that book.
As a literalist, I hold that the Bible is totally true; even when it quotes the lies of Satan, it does so perfectly. However, the manner in which God had the human authors present His truths is important, and reading scripture as literature (perhaps a bit like the way I read Steinbeck) helps us get from God's word more of what He intends. Not trying to compare novels by even a great human writer with the Bible, but being alert for the same kinds of literary artifacts in each work will aid in our comprehension.
As a literalist, I hold that the Bible is totally true; even when it quotes the lies of Satan, it does so perfectly. However, the manner in which God had the human authors present His truths is important, and reading scripture as literature (perhaps a bit like the way I read Steinbeck) helps us get from God's word more of what He intends. Not trying to compare novels by even a great human writer with the Bible, but being alert for the same kinds of literary artifacts in each work will aid in our comprehension.
#58 was posted while I was keyboard-muddling on #59, or I'd have made the below comments earlier, agreeing with how history has changed recent genres. Clancy bridged the gap to some extent, moving from the pure spy stuff of "Cardinal of the Kremlin" to terrorism in "Sum of All Fears" and "Executive Orders." I'll also add another Asimov correct prediction, that of pocket calculators. In, I think, the 1940s (maybe 50s) his short story "A Feeling of Power" (which might not be the exact title - it's close to 50 years since I read it) tells of a time when our dependence on those calculators was so great that we no longer could do basic arithmetic. The "power" concerned a meek little man who had "discovered" how to multiply and divide. (And Asimov is one of the best examples I know of Paul's writing in 1 Cor. 1, about wise fools - an exceedingly intelligent and learned man who increasingly ran from God as he gained more secular knowledge. Even his extensive knowledge of scripture was "secular", as he considered it no different in kind from other writing. His study of the Bible seemed to help propel him from agnostic to atheist.)