I like this project already.
So Genesis 8-9 sees the dwindling of the flood and its aftermath, and brings us up to the death of Noah at the ripe old age of damn-near-a-thousand.
Two things occurred to me when reading through these chapters this time, and I have a feeling it'll be a recurring theme for me (not that I'll necessarily subject you to it every time I notice it. No fear.):
The first is that it absolutely astounds me that anyone can get anything at all out of the Bible by approaching it from the aforementioned literalist interpretation. I just don't get it. The language, imagery and symbolism is so rich, and the story so beautifully laid out that I just feel like it'd be highway robbery to boil it down to mere documentation.
The second one, however, stems from that. I think a large part of the perceived war between atheists and Christians stems from a fundamental insecurity. Many atheists that I know are confident in their faith, and as a result don't feel the need to wander around with a giant stick whomping every religious person they come in contact with over the head in an attempt to scientifically disprove the metaphysical and spiritual. Since this is a flawed exercise from the beginning, and can never, ever be fully successful, it's bound to be frustrating. That, I think, is why Hitchens, Dawkins and their ilk of militant, smug, annoying new atheists are so angry all the time. They have to be on the attack non-stop, otherwise they may stop and notice that their entire premise is fundamentally unsound. Then they'd have to find other work. And finding work is hard nowadays.
On the other side of the line sit the Pat Robertsons of the world, backed by legions of only marginally informed but limitlessly [note: I like how Chrome wants to correct that word to "mirthlessly"] enthusiastic Christians who walk around with equally big sticks whomping every atheist, or so-called "liberal" Christian that they meet over the head in an attempt to prove that every single word in the Bible is to be taken 21st-century-literally, with no margin for interpretation, allegory or any of those other nasty words. This is also an impossible task. Every animal, bird, reptile, etc, in the entire world - all millions of species - in a boat 450 feet long and 45 feet high? Best of luck with that.
This is also bound to be frustrating as well, and that could explain why so many are so vehement about taking the literalism to the extreme. They'd have to be on the attack non-stop, otherwise they may stop and notice that spending long enough squabbling against common sense, and knowledge, evidence will lead to a complete loss of the big picture, and a cheapening of the whole experience in general.
Anyway...
The rainbow thing is sort of weird, too. In 9:15, God "sets his bow in the clouds."
The Hebrew word for "bow" there is used dozens of times throughout the Old Testament, and in every other case, it refers to a weapon. The one you shoot arrows with. The one that kills things. That one.
I don't want to have a problem with the rainbow being a sign of the covenant, and in a way I don't. BUT, I do have a bit of trouble with the editorializing of scriptural interpretation here. I bet if you ask just about anyone who has a familiarity with the story what the sign of the covenant with Noah is, they'll tell you it's a rainbow and that'll be that. I'd be very surprised if too many responded by saying that God told Noah that he was holstering his thing-that-kills-things - setting it in the clouds.
Maybe I'm just tired (it is late...) but it just feels like a softening of God here. A slight modification to make Him a bit more palatable. I don't have the knowledge/experience with the history of Biblical interpretation, but I'd really like to trace the origin of the rainbow aspect to the Noah story. It seems like it'd have a remarkable effect on the way God is/was viewed here. Like a very real, dangerous and uncomfortable aspect of God is being shunted away because it's downright inconvenient.
Reminds me of when Lucy asks the Beavers in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe if Aslan is safe. I wonder how many Christians today would feel the confidence to scoff at the question and respond with "Who said anything about safe? Course he's not safe. But He's good."
---
Speaking of tidying up when God's inconvenient, I hate the Tower of Babel story, and I don't understand it at all. It doesn't jive with who I'd prefer God to be, and I have a fair bit of trouble rationalizing away many of the problems that a lot of people have with the story.
Rather than trying, I'm just going to leave you with a song that I'd prefer if I didn't really like, but I really do (also, if you're inclined, give a listen to the original version, and the Streetlight Manifesto cover).
So Genesis 8-9 sees the dwindling of the flood and its aftermath, and brings us up to the death of Noah at the ripe old age of damn-near-a-thousand.
Two things occurred to me when reading through these chapters this time, and I have a feeling it'll be a recurring theme for me (not that I'll necessarily subject you to it every time I notice it. No fear.):
The first is that it absolutely astounds me that anyone can get anything at all out of the Bible by approaching it from the aforementioned literalist interpretation. I just don't get it. The language, imagery and symbolism is so rich, and the story so beautifully laid out that I just feel like it'd be highway robbery to boil it down to mere documentation.
The second one, however, stems from that. I think a large part of the perceived war between atheists and Christians stems from a fundamental insecurity. Many atheists that I know are confident in their faith, and as a result don't feel the need to wander around with a giant stick whomping every religious person they come in contact with over the head in an attempt to scientifically disprove the metaphysical and spiritual. Since this is a flawed exercise from the beginning, and can never, ever be fully successful, it's bound to be frustrating. That, I think, is why Hitchens, Dawkins and their ilk of militant, smug, annoying new atheists are so angry all the time. They have to be on the attack non-stop, otherwise they may stop and notice that their entire premise is fundamentally unsound. Then they'd have to find other work. And finding work is hard nowadays.
On the other side of the line sit the Pat Robertsons of the world, backed by legions of only marginally informed but limitlessly [note: I like how Chrome wants to correct that word to "mirthlessly"] enthusiastic Christians who walk around with equally big sticks whomping every atheist, or so-called "liberal" Christian that they meet over the head in an attempt to prove that every single word in the Bible is to be taken 21st-century-literally, with no margin for interpretation, allegory or any of those other nasty words. This is also an impossible task. Every animal, bird, reptile, etc, in the entire world - all millions of species - in a boat 450 feet long and 45 feet high? Best of luck with that.
This is also bound to be frustrating as well, and that could explain why so many are so vehement about taking the literalism to the extreme. They'd have to be on the attack non-stop, otherwise they may stop and notice that spending long enough squabbling against common sense, and knowledge, evidence will lead to a complete loss of the big picture, and a cheapening of the whole experience in general.
Anyway...
The rainbow thing is sort of weird, too. In 9:15, God "sets his bow in the clouds."
The Hebrew word for "bow" there is used dozens of times throughout the Old Testament, and in every other case, it refers to a weapon. The one you shoot arrows with. The one that kills things. That one.
I don't want to have a problem with the rainbow being a sign of the covenant, and in a way I don't. BUT, I do have a bit of trouble with the editorializing of scriptural interpretation here. I bet if you ask just about anyone who has a familiarity with the story what the sign of the covenant with Noah is, they'll tell you it's a rainbow and that'll be that. I'd be very surprised if too many responded by saying that God told Noah that he was holstering his thing-that-kills-things - setting it in the clouds.
Maybe I'm just tired (it is late...) but it just feels like a softening of God here. A slight modification to make Him a bit more palatable. I don't have the knowledge/experience with the history of Biblical interpretation, but I'd really like to trace the origin of the rainbow aspect to the Noah story. It seems like it'd have a remarkable effect on the way God is/was viewed here. Like a very real, dangerous and uncomfortable aspect of God is being shunted away because it's downright inconvenient.
Reminds me of when Lucy asks the Beavers in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe if Aslan is safe. I wonder how many Christians today would feel the confidence to scoff at the question and respond with "Who said anything about safe? Course he's not safe. But He's good."
---
Speaking of tidying up when God's inconvenient, I hate the Tower of Babel story, and I don't understand it at all. It doesn't jive with who I'd prefer God to be, and I have a fair bit of trouble rationalizing away many of the problems that a lot of people have with the story.
Rather than trying, I'm just going to leave you with a song that I'd prefer if I didn't really like, but I really do (also, if you're inclined, give a listen to the original version, and the Streetlight Manifesto cover).
I've been going over the Old Testament in school this year with a Biblical literalist who also understands and delights in symbolism as much as anybody I've seen. While literalism as regards Genesis does strike me as kind of dumb, it's not the worst thing in the world.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Tower of Babel: Nimrod and his folks were ignoring the Dominion Mandate. They didn't want to fill the Earth, they wanted to stay in one place, building a monument to their contentment and marking their eternal settlement. The world was young and God wanted man to subdue the earth and experience all of it. Confusing the tongues forced people to move, to take dominion, and this was really for their benefit.
Also, if you want some commentary on these chapters and tomorrow's, this is pretty good: http://frted.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/god-questions-his-creation-pdf/
No, you're right, it's not the worst thing in the world, but I would submit that the person that you're going over the OT with is not the kind of literalist that I have a problem with.
DeleteAnd while that kind still isn't the worst thing in the world, I do think that they do themselves, others and the scriptures themselves a pretty grave disservice.
Yeah, I've heard the agrarian, dominion mandate argument before, and there are things about it that I get and can understand, but I think what really bugs me and makes me uncomfortable is that when people disobey God elsewhere, He calls them on it, and says "you disobeyed my order to ______ by ______, and now this is happening," but here He doesn't say "I told you to expand across the land and not to build a city so now this is happening," He says "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them," which comes across as just petty, and that troubles me.
I'll take a look at that commentary, though - thanks for the link, and for stopping by, checking it out and commenting!
I think the problem from God's point of view comes in 11:5 when the people say, "let us build ourselves a town and a tower with its top reaching to heaven. Let us make a name for ourselves, so that we may not be scattered about the whole earth." I mean, Countgrasshopper is right - God was after instructing the people to "Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth". Their idea is in direct defiance with the word of God. He told them to people the earth, and they decided to stay in one place and attempt to become like gods themselves.
ReplyDeleteAs with the majority of stories in Genesis, I think the tower of Babel is an allegory; there is a message, and it is a lesson on pride. Pride is a vice, and humility is the virtue. When God says, " Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language...nothing will be impossible for them," it isn't petty at all; it is a warning against pride. He sees what they're up to, and He knows that it isn't going to stop unless He puts a stop to it.
To me, all of the words in the Bible mean nothing without us reading them and putting them into action in our own lives. It isn't the letters on paper that matter; it is how the lessons affect us here and now. When we go about life thinking that we are equal to God, we become self-absorbed. We care less for God's will and more for our own. We don't serve God; we serve ourselves - selfishly. The people are punished for trying to equate themselves with the god of all creation, and the result is that they are separated physically and intellectually. With different languages, they can't share their ideas, and they are thereby forcibly humbled. The lesson is that God is great, and our purpose is to do His will, not to be his peer.
Imagine for a second that everyone in the world could communicate freely and openly. Imagine that we could all share ideas, agree on terms, and work together for the benefit of all. What couldn't we accomplish? Our collective consciousness is what creates our world. Currently it seems to be dominated by fear, greed, and ignorance, but what if it wasn't? Where would the challenges be? Where could we find the chance to experience growth? The tower of Babel story explains why things are the way they are today, and it presents us with the opportunity to reflect on our own motives for the things we try to build in our own lives. We may not be building towers, but we do build relationships, companies and organizations. When you're on top of any one of these organizations, there is the tendency to think you got there because of your own hard work, but the Lord gives and the Lord takes away.
Thanks so much for the thoughts and comments Ryan. Keep it up. I'm interested to hear the rest of your interpretations, and I love the way you get your point across!