OK MrE.
I’m not sure the video did help, not in the way I think you must have intended. I don’t think I get the same insights from the Lewis Carroll’s stories, or Brent Smiths lyric interpretation as you do. I can be dense though. I’m not sure what you mean when you say your thread is about “… time” and “…It’s about eternity beyond time.” I do think I might be able to discuss “…the things we’ve been taught to accept without question or further inquiry.” I know, in my Christian discipleship journey, I have changed my mind on some things that I guess I picked up as a novice, and have since developed a more thorough, nuanced, and scripturally accurate understanding. I do know that I have known some, who through many years, maintain a strong allegiance to ideas or concepts that I have abandoned for a fuller understanding. In your life, what ideas have you felt you have been “taught to accept without question or further inquiry”?
I appreciate the conversation. I think the story and the video did help you, even if you don’t yet recognize how. You do recognize them as stories or songs/lyrics/words put together by an author or writer to tell a certain narrative in a certain way. Maybe you see it as a mix with some basis of fact, some fantasy, some allegory, and so forth. Alice Pleasance Liddell (1852 – 1934) was after all, a real person. Is her journey in Wonderland much different than the adventures of Adam and Eve in Paradise, as told to us by the writer- Moses?
But many Christians cannot, or more properly will not, consider Genesis with any kind of critical lens. Primarily because they’ve been taught and told and scolded, not to. “The Creation Story” is not treated as a story at all, rather as historical fact. Christians will insist that the Earth is only some 6000 years old, because they’ve counted the years and generations since Adam.
This rabbit hole is an exploration of a time that extends beyond and before the time of that story as told by Moses, of Adam and Eve, and the descendants of that ‘family tree.’ It invites an inquiry into the idea that there may well have been a “replanting” of firstfruits as the original languages point toward, that began a new season of life for a very old earth, that had “become” desolate and barren.
With respect to time and eternity-- the thing about eternity is that it is not only forward looking… It existed before we started counting it and it extends backwards infinitely. So to pretend that there was a beginning of a story that is a beginning of all things, is ludicrous in my opinion. We just don’t fully know what came before. Geology and Archeology alike betray the Genesis account as being the beginning of all things.
And I hope that answers also your last question, but there are a great many examples of things we’ve been taught that cannot stand scrutiny.
MrE
I hear you. One of my best friends is an astronomer, a disciple of Jesus, a missionary, and an educator. He tells me of observing, with his naked eye, events on distant orbs (galaxies) that happened, according to all scientific measuring techniques, 2,500,000 years ago. He says, it’s not sufficient to simply say God made the light we see in process; that is, it is illogical to suggest God made light we see, that originates from 2.5 million light-years away having already traveled that distance on the day of creation. He says, that is because we are not just observing light, but light that is generated or reflected as part of an event. We are looking back in time that far, at actual events, because we see the event by the emitted light. If a star exploded at that distance from us we would see that event 2.5 million years later, the same way we observe all events close to home. i.e. I observe the event of me typing, because I see the light of the event reflected off my keyboard, and I perceive the light emitted from my monitor. Although I am less convinced by modern claims made concerning origins through the science of archeology and geology, the science of astronomy, as told by a trusted friend, got me thinking in a whole new way. Even as I ponder the omnipotence of God, and how He graciously reveals Himself in the Genesis account as recorded by Moses, I must realize I have grown in my ability to walk by faith (taking God at His word) and not by sight (believing only what I can observe is true). Concerning the effectiveness of His Word, God said: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8-9. I understand, and accept that. I observe something, or I read something new to me, and I try to fit that which I just experienced into a framework of what I already know, and what I have already experienced. This is human. Personally, I agree with you in that I think most of the commenters I have heard speak of the genesis account, do this too, they try to make it fit into what they already know. I accept that there is WAY MORE that I don’t know than what I do know, and much (most) of what God does lies outside of my experience, and even outside of what I can comprehend.
I will say though, I have not experienced the kind of opposition that you have regarding this, or other subjects; I have never been “taught to accept without question or further inquiry”? I have run up against some who are reluctant to consider other points of view, but I do not feel they have restricted me in any way. I accept them for their state of sanctification, without regard to whether they can still accept me in my state. I know I am wrong on many things simply because I have changed my point of view in the past, and there is nothing to suggest I won’t continue to do so. If I expect to grow, I expect to change. So, I hold my views loosely and yield to God’s processes he has for my sanctification.
Sorry if this response s too long. I have a bad habit of giving more than others are ready to receive.
Resting in Him with You
KP
Wonderful.
And of course, no one is literally preventing you or me from inquiry. At least not today. Not yet. There are MANY and even most Christian forums where even a conversation like this cannot be had however. That’s a fact.
What I mean by ‘taught to accept without question’- is a reference to the kind of Sunday School instruction those of us who grew up in the church might have had. That same scope of scripture continues from the pulpits of those same churches, where dialog like we are free to have here at Crosswalk like normal people in street, or a coffee shop could have, I’d suggest even as mild as your chats with your Christian-astronomer friend would not be welcome in the weekly Bible Study group fellowships of most evangelical churches.
I’m extremely thankful for Crosswalk and forums like it, that allow adult conversation on otherwise unorthodox or sensitive subjects.
So, MrE
As one unfettered from convention, I would be interested in your take on this portion of Holy Scripture:
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:2-5
The “Light” that God called forth, do you think He call it into existence, or do you think it existed prior to God calling for it?
Is this “light”, that God called forth, what you and I immediately think of as the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, or is it the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum, on which we now know all matter is built, or does it mean something else, like understanding or truth?
I’m interested in your conclusions.
Thanx
I was traveling and consequently slow to respond.
As with the Hebrew concerning ‘the beginning’ as well as ‘formless and void’ -the concept of darkness and light are more complex than what meets the eye (pun intended). As such, I’m willing to share some observations, rather than conclusions per se.
I recognize the duality of things heavenly, or spiritual in contrast to earthly, or physical counter elements. One, a reflection of the other, so first there is that. Secondly, these elements are as a result, simply not singular in nature. That is, any particular thing may be one thing, AND at the same time something else. I hope that isn’t confusing- I intend it not to be.
With English words, as but one example- “light” is as you point out, a visible portion of the spectrum, or the whole of that spectrum, visible or not, or it is simply energy… Or— depending on how the word is used within a certain construct and context, light can be referring to the relative weight of some particular object.
Context becomes important-- actually, the most important factor.
Within the Genesis text, this premise of a new beginning from a world that had become a ruin is extremely important when considering these further details provided in those first few verses. Examining the Hebrew, that “darkness” follows the formless and empty descriptions. Not only had the world become a ruin and a desolation, the Hebrew word employed for darkness relates as well, to something having been destroyed, rather than simply a condition or lacking of light. It’s sorrowful. It’s sad and miserable. It’s loss.
That is the darkness that Moses describes that accompanies the desolation of the earth “in the beginning” of his story.
Then, the “light” that comes is more than illumination and more than electromagnetic energy— while it is all that, it is more. It is all that, --and–
In the context of all the misery and desolation and sadness, the light that comes is the polar opposite. Rather than death and destruction, it is love and light and-- happiness.
The concept is explained many times in scripture using an illustrative example of a seed that falls and dies, and is buried in the soil. Of soil that is ploughed and prepared and watered, and with the coming of the light, new life springs forth from the firstfruits preserved from a previous harvest. This is the story of Genesis.
It makes a difference. It’s a monumental difference to “begin” with an earth that has become a ruin and desolated-- humanity wiped out at the beginning of the story, versus the traditional, orthodox understanding. A dark, miserable, sad and sorrowful beginning in a world where something had gone terribly wrong, yet this isn’t the story of that pitiful ending that brought about such devastation and death. That particular story before this story remains unknown and untold. -Something- happened that wiped out life and left the earth in a ruinous state.
And when it seemed all hope was lost-- elohim (divine beings) breathed new life (and light) and began rebuilding a world that had befallen tragedy. It says the spirit (wind/breath) of the elohim was moving/hovering over the surface of the water. If you wanted to drill down on this, the Hebrew is much more explicit-- something like the elohim were seeding/seminating within this concept of replanting a world with the firstfruit for a new generation using the seeds from the past harvesting.
This is a biblical understanding of a concept that exists throughout scripture from right here in Genesis through John’s Revelation where he stipulates-- the harvesters of the earth are angels (elohim).
In Matthew 13:39 Jesus teaches this principle from beginning to end through parable. A parable that he instructs, saying-- if you don’t understand this one, you wont understand anything.
The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels (elohim).
It’s a fascinating study of the word.
Rev14-- it doesn’t matter if you think of this that follows as a future event, or something in the past-- it is both. It is seasonal and cyclical. It’s natural and eternal.
Then I looked, and here was the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him were 144,000, who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. I also heard a sound coming out of heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder. Now the sound I heard was like that made by harpists playing their harps, and they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one was able to learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are the ones who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These were redeemed from humanity as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb, and no lie was found on their lips; they are blameless.
Then I looked, and a white cloud appeared, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man! He had a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. Then another angel came out of the temple, shouting in a loud voice to the one seated on the cloud, “Use your sickle and start to reap, because the time to reap has come, since the earth’s harvest is ripe!” So the one seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was reaped.
The story begins, exactly how it ends.
[quote=“MrE, post:27, topic:5689”]
It’s a fascinating study of the word.
[/quote] Fascinting indeed.
Yours is an explanation I had never heard before.
Thanks for elaborating on your point of view.
KP
We’ve barely scratched the surface.
“I’d know him anywhere.”
There are two stories within the first few pages of every Bible.
In one, the elohim are the creators… plural. And ‘on the third day’ something significant happens:
The elohim said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.
Elohim, elohim, elohim— described in detail for seven days of creation, what these elohim did.
But then, there is another, more detailed account that begins in Chapter 2 of this book of beginnings. And it singles out one particular elohim and it describes what the role of this one particular elohim was in the creative process. And what is quite interesting is “when.” The story begins-- a second time-
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the LORD God made the earth and heavens.
Did you catch that? The first chapter of Genesis is all about the collective group of generic elohim. But this second account calls out this LORD (Yahweh) elohim. The chief elohim. The supreme one of the supreme ones. It’s the very first time that one of the elohim is called out distinctly as with a name.
It begs a question-- if Moses (our story teller) knows of this distinct one, why does he not reference this one as the sole creator in Genesis 1?
Regardless, in the second chapter and second telling Moses relates that it was this one particular elohim who was the one who specifically created humankind. And he does so BEFORE that third day…
Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. The LORD God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Obviously before that third day creation account in Gen 1. If anyone has some adequate way of reconciling the story in Gen 1 with this more detailed version in Gen 2-- I’d love to hear it.
In Gen 1-- elohim create man in their own likeness on the sixth day–
Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
In Gen 2, Yahweh (LORD) elohim creates mankind before any plant has sprung up (i.e. before the third day) and places him to cultivate the ground.
When Psalm 82 as Heiser points out, is talking about ben elohim (sons of elohim) it is again, plural in every sense. Sons… and elohim.
When Jesus points to the same passage in John 10-- he asserts directly that there is such a thing as “sons of God” in this same plurality vernacular.
Sadly, the Greek, like the translators before them of the Hebrew-- lose much of the potency of differentiation. They use “Theos” indiscriminately, the way English translators insert the generic “God” when original texts use elohim.
Still, it’s unmistakable. Jesus is pointing with both hands at Psalm 82.
What do you think the apostle Paul was talking about when he wrote in Romans 8-
For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility—not willingly but because of God who subjected it—in hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children.
ben elohim (sons of divine beings) is how it would be written in Hebrew. It loses a little flavor in Greek.
Yet the premise is something Paul understood fully. And it’s something that we’ve lost a grip on. Neither Paul nor Jesus thought of this ‘son of God’ concept as singular. It’s considered to be the first, not the only. Paul writes on-
–that God’s son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
MrE
Actually, what I think is:
Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9 NKJV)
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:26-27)
and
Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. (1 John 3:1)
It feels like the bible has made the explanation clear (for me anyway).
KP
MrE
Oh, and I forgot to add, Paul himself had just told us (the readers of the letter to the Romans) who these “Sons of god” are that he is refering to, in the preceding sentence:
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” (i.e. I am your son) The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs–heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. (Romans 8:14-17)
So from these, and other passages, I think the simplest, (or the Occam’s razor) explanation is the bible speaks of the Sons of God as being those who are led by The Holy Spirit of God, Right?
KP
Yes-- and more, not less than that. Sons and daughters. Children of God. Offspring of God. Descendants. Progeny. Fruit.
Have you ever heard a preacher do a sermon on Ps 82?
God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:
“How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
*”The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
“I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”
Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
I know of the start of one— Jesus said:
“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
Mr E
I have not. Although, my experience with “sermons” is that it seems felt by necessity to aim the lesson at the spiritually youngest in the room.
Do you have personal thoughts (insights) on this specific Psalm?
KP
Sure. I have personal thoughts on pretty much everything. A few of them I even post publicly.
This particular one is interesting because it points to a spiritual realm that is ‘other’ worldly. What Heiser refers to as a “Divine Council” where a supreme God sits in charge of a council of lessor gods. It’s a concept that Jesus understood well enough to draw attention to it, yet few pastor-teacher-preachers ever do. Why?
I reckon that’s because they find it challenging to their belief system as a whole, because they find it difficult to explain away, and because it makes them and their dumb-downed audiences-- uncomfortable.
What Jesus says here in (John 10) is profound and if people were to embrace fully embrace it, they would be transformed. I think that his followers-- some of them, got it. And once they understood it to be truth, they were changed forever and it made them entirely fearless. No threats of harm or imprisonment, torture or death could touch their understanding of the promise that Jesus taught about a life after death. He taught about the temporary nature of everything they thought was real, and the eternal nature of themselves, offering a divine sense of themselves that he had fully grasped ahold of.
He recognized himself as-- “God’s son” – ben elohim. And his point in quoting from Ps 82 was to instill in us the idea that we too are ben elohim. Elohim, as the ones to whom the word (spirit) of God came, and himself as the one God set apart ‘as His very own’ to send into the world’ on a rescue mission. To save and to redeem and to release from captivity, those who had fallen into “sin” and made prisoners of ‘the system.’
It’s an action-adventure-love story of epic proportions.