Hi again t-w-smith. Thanks for your explanation here. I may not fully grasp your arguments here so correct me if I misunderstand you at any point.t_w_smith_2015 wrote:Hi Flann-5: You are of course correct that we can take the literal words of any parable and apply a lesson based on our current perceptions to our current circumstances but in retort I’ll ask you how many times you’ve heard something perfection innocent offered which is met with hostility because the other person’s experiences brought to mind something completely different. A prime example of this is the swastika. It was used perfectly innocently by many religions for a long time before Hitler rose to power and yet now most people can’t look at it without a negative reaction. This is the result of taking a literal interpretation of something based solely on the here and now. As for an example of the Bible taking on new meaning by identifying conditions of the time, I’ll quote Genesis because it fits well into the topic of myth vs reality:
“And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day”
Obviously the greater light is the sun and the lesser light is the moon and the firmament is Heaven. Today we know that the Firmament is space and it’s not readily clear why they didn’t just say the sun and the moon. As it happens, the sun and moon represented gods and goddesses in many “pagan” religions and thus it was inappropriate to reference them in conjunction with “the true god”. (my use of quotes in no way represents my own believe but are rather used for emphasis) If you understand that the culture at that time wasn’t able to perceive space for what it was, you realize that our culture, being technologically advanced, must see beyond their limited knowledge to perceive Heaven; that or deny Heaven as a myth because clearly space is not the firmament of the Bible.
Further, if we don’t understand the reference to “lesser” religions, as viewed by Christianity, then we must assume that the arrogance of the devout distorted the lessons of the Bible or again deny the word of God as a myth. On the other hand, acknowledge that Christianity was gracious enough to recognize the existence and relative importance of other religions, per the tolerance of Christ, then the reality of God and the importance of the word of God are still viable and important.
I think it's a reasonable point that something may have a different meaning for different people at various times.
I agree with you that in the Genesis example the expression the greater and lesser light are used rather than sun and moon for the reasons you mentioned to do with paganism.
As you say we still "obviously" know that this is what these lights are referring to so we do understand it's the sun and moon.
We may not know the cultural info on paganism but I think if we read on in the book we see this conflict between monotheism and paganism and could deduce from this that this is the reason for this expression as you rightly say.
In fact in the gospels and elsewhere in the bible we often get incidental explanatory comments by the writer on cultural practices of the time and of particular groups such as Pharisees,Samaritans, Gentiles and Jews.
The conflict between Jews and Samaritans for instance is mentioned and the roots of it are found in old testament narratives.
We may not have read this earlier narrative but we still can grasp the concept of racial and religious conflict.
To get back to your example from Genesis. In the very first verse it says that God created the heavens and the earth using the plural so it's not considered one place and seems to imply further spaces for want of a better word.
Even we with the naked eye can see on a clear night that the stars are far beyond the clouds certainly but very distant and so could they I'm sure.
So I'm not sure that the firmament means low in the sky and in fact I believe a good translation is the expanse rather than vault. So while of course they neither had telescopes nor our knowledge of space I think the distance of the stars would have been understood well enough if imperfectly.
I'm not completely clear on your point about denying Heaven so you may need to expand on this. Of course God is portrayed to exist separate from the creation so didn't live in any part of it prior to it's creation and while heaven is said to be his dwelling place this could not logically be part of this creation but another domain and God is spirit of course so language is often used anthropomorphically to accommodate our understanding.
Perhaps I am making your case for you here but I think this just involves reflection on what is actually said.
We can understand the essential points that God is the creator and made the sun and moon without too much difficulty.
On the point of "lesser religions."
I'm not into bashing other religions for the fun it.They get enough of that from others. I did give Gnostic Bishop some grief today about his but I think perhaps that was provoked. Still I think that Judeo-Christianity is quite unique in it's understanding of God and this inevitably conflicts with pagan religions as there are definitional realities as to who or what God actually is involving the distinction between God and the creation.
Maybe I've missed your points here and I wasn't quite clear in my mind on some of them so you can correct and clarify if necessary.