I'm reading through a children's Bible with my daughter. I'm not a huge fan of the thing, but it's not terrible either.
When we read about Babel, the story went like this:
The people started building a tower to make their own names great, and so they were rejecting God. God was angry with them, so he gave them all different languages, so they couldn't communicate any more. So they moved: some here, some there. And that's why we have languages.
This is fairly close to the biblical account.
I've always had some troubles with this passage. My main trouble is that I don't believe it. I'm sure you're aware, with all this evolution stuff, that people call Genesis 1-11 into question to varying degrees. Some say the whole thing is 'literal' (whatever they mean by literal). Some say 1-3 isn't (whatever they mean by isn't), and some say 1-11 isn't (ibid!).
I know almost nothing about the Hebrew, but I'm pretty sure that ch 11 is not 'literal'. I do not believe that God confused the people's languages so that they woke up one morning, couldn't communicate, and so scattered. I just don't. I can't.
There are many good reasons based on linguistics and geography.
But the most significant reason for me is that life doesn't work like that, and I don't believe God does either. I don't believe that he clicked his fingers and gave them distinct languages overnight, and that they couldn't remember their former languages. Languages are not culturally independent entities. Did their individual cultures change according to the language God gave them? Of course not... It's a silly thought
Much more sensible is that they scattered 'by chance', and languages developed organically. I don't doubt for a second that God did this. God does everything, he's sovereign. But it's not reasonable to believe that the exact telling of the narrative is precisely the way it happened. I don't think there's any reason to enforce such conditions (on any of the Bible, let along Gen 11).
The other issue I have, is that there is absolutely no indication from the passage that God was angry. In fact, the way it reads, God is mildly impressed. Mankind tried to make their name great, and God wouldn't allow it. He didn't say it was silly or naughty, in fact, he recognised that their names were pretty great. He said "If they keep going on like this, nothing will be impossible for them".
I've heard this preached on several times, and at least a few of those times, the word evil was added. "If they keep going on like this, no [evil] will be impossible for them". But the passage doesn't say that!
Have you had the same experience?
I don't know what God's issue is. I assume it's his glory that is at stake, and I'm happy to believe that perhaps a less great mankind is more worship-ful (though I'm not convinced). The point, though, is that it's not clear. God may have meant evil, but he didn't say evil, and he didn't sound like he meant evil, so let's not pretend it means evil just because it fits better with our preconceived notions of the character of God - a ubiquitous danger.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hi Tony,
ReplyDeleteReally intense topic! I certainly agree with your comment about preachers etc adding to God's reaction and agree that is disrespectful to God and Scripture.
I guess my issue is your treatment of Scripture, it seems you take some of it very literally and other parts you rationalise as improbable and conclude they are symbolic (or something like that). I personally don't like to treat Scripture that way.
I'm a person who majored in Biology in my science degree (finishing 17 years ago).I came through Uni as I guess a sort of theistic evolutionist.
Now I would be much happier to throw my hat is with the creationists! Mostly because I have seen God do amazing things that bend the laws of science and so science has slipped down significantly in my estimation as I see the Bible and God Himself explain life and the world to me in a much more convincing way than Science ever has.
That may seem really naive, but I genuinely find when I allow myself to see the world in a "scientific" way then I can't believe in miracles! So I choose to embrace God as so beyond those restrictions that nothing is impossible!
So I tend to read about Babel and take it very literally. And that may be irrational but that is only because my interest in being rational has been thoroughly replaced by the need to be trusting and focussed on my personal Saviour who has more than proven than He is trustworthy and worthy of adoration.
Jenny
I think these are valid points. I certainly agree with you that the need to trust supersedes any other need, though I think the need for rationality is absolute. That being said I see nothing irrational about trusting that God can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why seeing the world in a 'scientific' way leads to not believing God does miracles. Scientific just means consistent, right? I mean, when you throw a ball in the way you view the act scientifically. Based on consistent reproducibility, you know the ball will fall to the ground. Viewing the world in this way does not imply that God won't suddenly choose to make that ball hang in mid-air for the rest of time. It's just accepting that the world generally operates self consistently, but that God is ultimately omniscient.
Or have I missed the point?
I certainly agree with you though, that God has a lot more to tell us about the world through the bible than he chooses to through natural science. Absolutely.
As for taking parts of the Bible very literally, I'm not so sure that I do. I don't take many of the narratives particularly literally. I don't trust any one of the gospels absolutely. I certainly don't trust John in a "literally" type sense. If the Bible has some theology to teach, I take that theology for what it says. I believe the gospels are mutually consistent in terms of doctrine, not narrative. I believe the whole Bible fulfils this purpose.
The apocalyptic literature is just as "literal" as Numbers 1-10 in my framework. But you read one one way and the other another.
So in this sense I think perhaps I have a lower view of Scripture than most Christians, though perhaps it's also in line with the reformation slogan "inerrant in matters of theology [teaching, doctrine - whatever it says]".
Thanks for the interesting comment Jenny.
Incidentally, one might argue that rejecting a 'scientific' view of the world is rejecting a major part of God's character. Possibly rejecting theistic evolution is rejecting what God has disclosed to us through the world and even the Bible. Is it not possible that we're forcing a reading on the Bible that God never intended and so shutting out a significant revelation through natural science?
ReplyDeletemmm.... yes and no to lots of those points. I guess when I say that I reject a scientific interpretation of the world (although I actually didn't say that, I said science had more or less been demoted and is secondary in how I look at the world) I am more referring to medicine (an application of science) and biology. Having been involved in healing ministry this is essential, basically to put on my supernatural hat and tune my ears to the Holy Spirit, it doesn't leave much room for rationality and scientific explanations. That is just how it works! Although I could argue that it is a thoroughly rational to intimately trust the creator of the universe! And perhaps my using the words rational and irrational was unhelpful.
ReplyDeleteScience is great (I obviously think that, I'm a science teacher) and I love learning about how awesome God is through looking at the natural world.
I don't mean to have a go at you about the way you view Scripture and perhaps I was a bit accusatory and I apologise. Really it is my issue I had a lot years under very intellectual Bible teaching (UNSW-Campus Bible Study, lots of Anglican churches in Sydney, attended lecture courses at Moore College, so many Katoomba Conferences that it was ridiculous!) and benefitted greatly (solid theology and doctrine) and missed out hugely (major deficit of the Spirit and understanding and experiencing a personal relationship with God). So I think I'm still rebelling! It may take me a while yet to get back to the middle.
Thanks for the response again Jenny.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't even slightly offended by your comment, I'm sorry if I sounded like I was getting defensive.
It's interesting the stuff about CBS and personal relationship. I'm still trying to work out what I think about those sorts of things. On the one hand I had a slightly negative experience of the Evangelical Union system. On the other hand, I love it. And I still believe that some of the most godly people I know, who are genuinely experience the presence of God in their lives, are leaders within EU-type systems. On the other, there were some real issues along the lines you mention, and I felt that too.
I think my only real issue with your comment (which I think you alluded to agreeing with in the end) was the false dichotomy between God's miraculous intervention and the scientific framework. I think you are highly rational if you trust scientific explanations (even medicine and biology) but are convinced that there's a personal god out there who cares enough about you and the world to intervene at various times for his own reasons. There's nothing irrational about that.
But I think you were using irrational to mean "You've gotta believe that God is willing to do something far outside of the ordinary", which is trust, not irrationality.
So I think at the end of the day, with regard to that, we agree. With regard to Babel, we don't. But that's ok!