John Kesler

The view that biblical authors considered heaven to be "up" is strengthened by comparing the language of Luke 24 and Matthew 28:

That the angel had to descend to get from heaven obviously indicates that heaven was "up" above the earth.

Steven Carr

I'll go along with serving as a reason for keeping the Sabbath. After all, the 10 Commandments explicitly state that people should keep a Sabbath because all was created in 6 days. So Genesis 1 certainly did do service as a reason for keeping the Sabbath.

You might be right about it serving as a polemic against Baal and any other Canaanite god.

But can we know this for sure? Nobody knows exactly when Gen. 1 was written or by whom or for whom.

Guessing the motivations of unknown authors writing at unknown times must involve a bit of guesswork surely.

Was Gen. 1 ever used for polemical purposes against Baal or other Canaanite gods?

Steven Carr

And here is a bit from the start :-

'When earthlings experience a proleptic opening of their eyes, they see that the very spot where they are is the gate of heaven (Gen. 28:16, 17), filled with heavenly chariots of fire ( 2 Kgs. 6:17).'

And here is 2 Kings 6, which has nothing whatever to do with people seeing Heaven here on Earth.

13 "Go, find out where he is," the king ordered, "so I can send men and capture him." The report came back: "He is in Dothan." 14 Then he sent horses and chariots and a strong force there. They went by night and surrounded the city.

15 When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. "Oh, my lord, what shall we do?" the servant asked.

16 "Don't be afraid," the prophet answered. "Those who are with us are more than those who are with them."

17 And Elisha prayed, "O LORD, open his eyes so he may see." Then the LORD opened the servant's eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

Where is the gate of Heaven here? Is Heaven full of horses and chariots of fire that we can't normally see until our eyes have been opened for us?

As for Genesis 28, Jacob was dreaming, and it was well known that you could travel to places in dreams that could not normally reach. So this hardly counts against the idea that heaven was a place that could be reached by travel, except that such a journey was incredibly exceptional.

You know, when I start to read articles which begin by telling me things which aren't true, I don't always finish them.

Lots of Christian interpretation of the Bible is just really bad.

Sauron

I think it *is* relevant. When an author chastises somebody for some fault, and has proposed an alternate explanation. But this author is found comitting the same fault. And since the contrived nature of the literalist/creationist explanation was one reason for rejecting it, substituting a different interpretation (that is also highly contrived) seems to be an obvious flaw.

Mind you, I don't think it's a fatal flaw to her argument. I was just disappointed that she didn't catch herself (and correct herself) committing the same mistake as she was pointing out in creationism.

To help cut through a lot of the discussion: I understand the concept you are driving at here; that there is a poetic allegory at work in the creation story of genesis. For everything in heaven, a corresponding action on earth. "As above, so below", answering almost like an antiphonal Hail Mary. I have also heard the genesis creation story portrayed as a series of empty vessels being filled: the seas are created empty, but then are filled with fish, the heavens are empty, but then are filled with birds, etc. So let's be clear: I understand your suggestion here. I'm just not convinced that this is what is going on in Ch1 and Ch2 of genesis.

What I would like to see is some evidence that narrative poetics were in use by the Hebrews at this time, in some other venue or document. The advanced poetics you describe seem somewhat out of the reach of the Hebrews at this time. Unless, of course, this is just a dressing-up of a Babylonian myth borrowed by the Hebrews, which (given the advanced state of Babylon) easily explains a narrative poetic like this.

That's my point: I don't concede that Gen 1 is not a cosmological treatise. There was clearly a need to explain the origin of the natural world - and as I mentioned earlier, such explanations went further than just Genesis Ch1; they extended out to Chs 6 and 7 (Noah and the flood, etc.) What I don't understand is how any of the poetics involved would prevent this from being a cosmological treatise at the same time.

To put this another way: what good would it have done to offer a poetically phrased response to Baal, Ashtoreth, etc. if the response didn't explain the creation of the natural world to the Hebrews *at least as* effectively as stories about the other Canaanite deities explained it? A narrative poetic story about YHWH's creation needed to make sense to the ancient Hebrews, cosmologically speaking. If it failed to present a clear and believable story -- for the bronze age mind -- then the narrative poetic would not be as well received. Its mission of being a response to Baal would thus not be accomplished. So: in order for genesis to accomplish the mission you have set out for it, it must have a valid cosmological component and intent.

1. We have to establish that:

a. they *saw* the contradictions in the first place, or that
b. they considered them to be contradictions; or, that
c. they felt justified (and entitled) to "straighten out the kinks" in any such contradictions - depending upon their reverence for the document, they might have felt doing so was blasphemous.

2. Why would we a priori assume that they were able to use literary devices and narrative poetics? I guess that gets back to my earlier question about external proof that such devices were in use by the Hebrews in other venues.

OK, understood. Yet having admitted that, you indicated (on a different thread) the following:

The ancient record is there — manuscript complexities and inconsistencies and all. Still, I think it's a viable record. Trustworthy even.

Does that summary apply to the genesis account as well? Given that you have admitted / argued that the text:
1. was compiled;
2. at different times;
3. then edited and arranged - I assume you have no problem with admitting multiple editors;
4. is poetic in nature;

what precisely remains to be called "viable" or "trustworthy"? Are you describing the fidelity of transmission of the core textual elements here? Or did I take your comment out of context?

Once someone admits 1-4 above, it seems to me that not much is left to be called "viable" or "trustworthy". The text is a moving target. As I indicated earlier, when discussing Meredith Kline's argument, her result is that the genesis account is so thoroughly plasticized that it can serve any purpose one desires.

It doesn't seem to me that the creation story ends with the expulsion from Eden. Since the world was re-created after the flood, and since there are explanations given for the rise of particular nations or groups of people (nephilim, Nimrod, Cain/Abel, Shem/Ham/Japeth, etc.) None of those elements fit into any kind of narrative poetic model like the one you are proposing. Yet those elements ought to be there, since they have similar value as the cosmology sections of genesis.

So since these elements are left out, what does that do to the hypothesis that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are actually a narrative poetic? If it is, then it's a narrative poetic that is notably incomplete. These other parts in later chapters of genesis are stranded outside the body of the narrative poetic.

I'm going to leave the rest of the points as either (a) too trivial to debate, (b) already addressed above, or (c) items that I might even agree with. I have to say that I've enjoyed reading your responses thoroughly. It's too bad that Kline didn't have the benefit of your editing on her document; I think you could have brought some much needed clarity to her work.

judge

Thanks for the essay. I will try to find some time this weekend to read it fully. However one initial comment.

As hinted at in this thread the shrewd observer may in fact be able to notice the earth is in fact not flat.

IIUC correctly the same phenomenon described in post 4 can be witnessed with ships sailing away.

I have snipped out a large portion of your essay, but I think you were "holding that thought" throughout. Aplogies if I have misrepresented you.

p.s. Are you the infidelguy?

Chili

Slow down please. How would you explain that God created the heavens in the plural and earth in the singular?

Chili

And how is it that Mary was "assumed" into heaven as opposed to ascent?

John Kesler

My concern is with the Bible, not Catholic tradition.

Chili

Thanks, that explains a lot. Tradition would know why Mary was assumed into heaven and why it is that the sea was no longer in the new heavens (plural) and new earth (singular).

Hint, this would be the evidence of her Assumption.

jonesg

Its about the awakening of awareness of something beyond the temporal and our relationship towards that which is beyond.