Can God lie?

[M. Partyka]

Hebrews 6:13-18 -- For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, "Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you." And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.Does the choice of words in this passage imply that it is possible for God to lie concerning things other than these "two immutable things"? Can God, for example, lie about something "for our own good"?

The following is from the words of Abbot Joseph in the Conferences of St. John Cassian:


...we ought to regard a lie and to employ it as if its nature were that of hellebore; which is useful if taken when some deadly disease is threatening, but if taken without being required by some great danger is the cause of immediate death. For so also we read that holy men and those most approved by God employed lying, so as not only to incur no guilt of sin from it, but even to attain the greatest goodness; and if deceit could confer glory on them, what on the other hand would the truth have brought them but condemnation? Just as Rahab, of whom Scripture gives a record not only of no good deed but actually of unchastity, yet simply for the lie, by means of which she preferred to hide the spies instead of betraying them, had it vouchsafed to her to be joined with the people of God in everlasting blessing. But if she had preferred to speak the truth and to regard the safety of the citizens, there is no doubt that she and all her house would not have escaped the coming destruction, nor would it have been vouchsafed to her to be inserted in the progenitors of our Lord’s nativity, and reckoned in the list of the patriarchs, and through her descendants that followed, to become the mother of the Saviour of all....When then any grave danger hangs on confession of the truth, then we must take to lying as a refuge, yet in such a way as to be for our salvation troubled by the guilt of a humbled conscience....For God is not only the Judge and inspector of our words and actions, but He also looks into their purpose and aim. And if He sees that anything has been done or promised by some one for the sake of eternal salvation and shows insight into Divine contemplation, even though it may appear to men to be hard and unfair, yet He looks at the inner goodness of the heart and regards the desire of the will rather than the actual words spoken, because He must take into account the aim of the work and the disposition of the doer, whereby, as was said above, one man may be justified by means of a lie, while another may be guilty of a sin of everlasting death by telling the truth. To which end the patriarch Jacob also had regard when he was not afraid to imitate the hairy appearance of his brother’s body by wrapping himself up in skins, and to his credit acquiesced in his mother’s instigation of a lie for this object. For he saw that in this way there would be bestowed on him greater gains of blessing and righteousness than by keeping to the path of simplicity: for he did not doubt that the stain of this lie would at once be washed away by the flood of the paternal blessing, and would speedily be dissolved like a little cloud by the breath of the Holy Spirit; and that richer rewards of merit would be bestowed on him by means of this dissimulation which he put on than by means of the truth, which was natural to him....Lying was then properly employed as a last resort when some need or plan of salvation was linked on to it, on account of which it ought not to be condemned....Nor could that be blamed which was done for the right side with a right purpose and pious intent, and was planned for the salvation and victory of one whose piety was pleasing to God, by a holy dissimulation.

Speaking of Hushai's protecting David's men via lying, Abbot Joseph continues:


Wherefore answer me, I pray you, and say what you would have done, if any similar situation had arisen for you, living now under the gospel; would you prefer to hide them with a similar falsehood, saying in the same way: “They passed on after tasting a little water,” and thus fulfil the command: “Deliver those who are being led to death, and spare not to redeem those who are being killed;” or by speaking the truth, would you have given up those in hiding to the men who would kill them? And what then becomes of the Apostle’s words: “Let no man seek his own but the things of another:” and: “Love seeketh not her own, but the things of others;” and of himself he says: “I seek not mine own good but the good of many that they may be saved?” For if we seek our own, and want obstinately to keep what is good for ourselves, we must even in urgent cases of this sort speak the truth, and so become guilty of the death of another: but if we prefer what is for another’s advantage to our own good, and satisfy the demands of the Apostle, we shall certainly have to put up with the necessity of lying. And therefore we shall not be able to keep a perfect heart of love, or to seek, as Apostolic perfection requires, the things of others, unless we relax a little in those things which concern the strictness and perfection of our own lives, and choose to condescend with ready affection to what is useful to others, and so with the Apostle become weak to the weak, that we may be able to gain the weak. Instructed by which examples, the blessed Apostle James also, and all the chief princes of the primitive Church urged the Apostle Paul in consequence of the weakness of feeble persons to condescend to a fictitious arrangement and insisted on his purifying himself according to the requirements of the law, and shaving his head and paying his vows, as they thought that the present harm which would come from this hypocrisy was of no account, but had regard rather to the gain which would result from his still continued preaching. For the gain to the Apostle Paul from his strictness would not have counterbalanced the loss to all nations from his speedy death. And this would certainly have been then incurred by the whole Church unless this good and salutary hypocrisy had preserved him for the preaching of the Gospel. For then we may rightly and pardonably acquiesce in the wrong of a lie, when, as we said, a greater harm depends on telling the truth, and when the good which results to us from speaking the truth cannot counterbalance the harm which will be caused by it.So it appears that lying can be acceptable for us under certain circumstances. But is it therefore also acceptable for God to do the same should he determine that a lie would be better for us to believe than the truth?

[M. Partyka]

A little more from Abbot Joseph:


And to rise to still higher instances, when king Hezekiah was lying on his bed and afflicted with grievous sickness the prophet Isaiah addressed him in the person of God, and said: “Thus saith the Lord: set thine house in order for thou shalt die and not live. And Hezekiah,” it says, “turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord and said: I beseech thee, O Lord, remember how I have walked before Thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and how I have done what was right in Thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore.” After which it was again said to him: “Go, return, and speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying: Thus saith the Lord God of David thy father: I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: and behold, I will add to thy days fifteen years: and I will deliver thee out of the hand of the king of the Assyrians, and I will defend this city for thy sake and for my servant David’s sake.” What can be clearer than this proof that out of consideration for mercy and goodness the Lord would rather break His word and instead of the pre-arranged limit of death extend the life of him who prayed, for fifteen years, rather than be found inexorable because of His unchangeable decree? In the same way too the Divine sentence says to the men of Nineveh: “Yet three days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown;” and presently this stern and abrupt sentence is softened by their penitence and fasting, and is turned to the side of mercy with goodness that is easy to be intreated. But if any one maintains that the Lord had threatened the destruction of their city (while He foreknew that they would be converted) for this reason, that He might incite them to a salutary penitence, it follows that those who are set over their brethren may, if need arises, without any blame for telling lies, threaten those who need improvement with severer treatment than they are really going to inflict. But if one says that God revoked that severe sentence in consideration of their penitence, according to what he says by Ezekiel: “If I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: and he becomes penitent for his sin, and doeth judgment and justice, he shall surely live, he shall not die;” we are similarly taught that we ought not obstinately to stick to our determination, but that we should with gentle pity soften down the threats which necessity called forth. And that we may not fancy that the Lord granted this specially to the Ninevites, He continually affirms by Jeremiah that He will do the same in general towards all, and promises that without delay He will change His sentence in accordance with our deserts; saying: “I will suddenly speak against a nation and against a kingdom to root out and to pull down and to destroy it. If that nation repent of the evil, which I have spoken against it, I also will repent of the evil which I thought to do to them. And I will suddenly speak of a nation and a kingdom, to build up and to plant it. If it shall do evil in My sight, that it obey not My voice: I will repent of the good that I thought to do to it.” To Ezekiel also: “Leave out not a word, if so be they will hearken and be converted every one from his evil way: that I may repent Me of the evil that I thought to do to them for the wickedness of their doings.” And by these passages it is declared that we ought not obstinately to stick to our decisions, but to modify them with reason and judgment, and that better courses should always be adopted and preferred, and that we should turn without any delay to that course which is considered the more profitable. For this above all that invaluable sentence teaches us, because though each man’s end is known beforehand to Him before his birth, yet somehow He so orders all things by a plan and method for all, and with regard to man’s disposition, that He decides on everything not by the mere exercise of His power, nor according to the ineffable knowledge which His Prescience possesses, but according to the present actions of men, and rejects or draws to Himself each one, and daily either grants or withholds His grace. And that this is so the election of Saul also shows us, of whose miserable end the foreknowledge of God certainly could not be ignorant, and yet He chose him out of so many thousands of Israel and anointed him king, rewarding the then existing merits of his life, and not considering the sin of his coming fall, so that after he became reprobate, God complains almost in human terms and, with man’s feelings, as if He repented of his choice, saying: “It repenteth Me that I have appointed Saul king: for he hath forsaken Me, and hath not performed My words;” and again: “But Samuel was grieved for Saul because the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.” Finally this that He afterwards executed, that the Lord also declares by the prophet Ezekiel that He will by His daily judgment do with all men, saying: “Yea, if I shall say to the righteous that he shall surely live, and he trusting in his righteousness commit iniquity: all his righteousness shall be forgotten, and in his iniquity which he hath committed, in the same he shall die. And if I shall say to the wicked: Thou shalt surely die; and if he repent of his sin and do judgment and righteousness, and if that wicked man restore the pledge and render what he hath robbed, and walk in the commandments of life, and do no righteous thing, he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins which he hath committed shall be imputed unto him.”

[Moses Ibrahim]

We as humans lie to save others like Hushai did for David's men. I personally think that in certain cases it may be better to lie than to be the cause of temptation to another person. If someone were to hide in my house being a fugitive and knowing full well that death awaits him by society, I may very well lie to keep this man safe as he may still well repent and amend his sinful ways. But God certainly does not lie. Plain and simple. If God is a liar, which one of his sacred scriptures should we reject since now we cannot trust Him? If God is a liar, should we still believe that life eternal awaits us? Do any of His promises still hold true? It is certain God is no liar, as God is also not a respecter of persons in that He does not show favoritism to the righteous and neglects sinners (for He causes the sun to shine on both and the rain to fall on both). So as God is Truth, how can he also lie?

In regards to God hearing our prayers and changing the so called course of action as He did for Hezekiah, had he not repented God would have taken his life. God said ask and you shall receive (taking into account that the things being asked for are beneficial). This is how the merciful God does everything to our benefit as St. John Chrysostom says: 'Give glory to God for those righteous who died and are now with God, and give glory to God for those sinners who died and now can no longer commit sins against God.' (horribly paraphrased from memory). But does this mean that God is a liar? Of course not, for we cannot comprehend God and His judgments. To call Him a liar on this account would mean to discredit Him totally, but since He is merciful, can we limit His mercy? How far does pre-ordination/pre-destination play out with God? Who knows! For St. Gregory the Dialogist told his Disciple Peter that God pre-destines things a little!

[Misha]

"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel."

Ezekiel 14,9



????????????

[M. Partyka]

"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel."

Ezekiel 14,9

????????????I think this falls into the same pattern as 2 Thess 2:10-12 -- "...they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

God doesn't himself do the lying, but rather makes it possible for the hearers of the lie to believe the lie, which is only fair since they had already refused to believe the truth after hearing the truth.

The persons who had come to Ezekiel were idolators who had inwardly rejected God, but they still came to Ezekiel for guidance because they figured, "Hey, Ezekiel still follows God, so if we find out what God's said to him, we can follow that and still do okay." This is why God later says in that same chapter, "Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously...Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver [but] their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD." (Ezek 14:14)

Also, in the preceding chapter, God had already rebuked the false prophets who were preaching lies and their own opinions to the people. Essentially, the people were now coming to Ezekiel for guidance because they realized he was a true prophet, not a false prophet. However, because they had not purposed in their hearts to serve God rather than idols, God instructuted Ezekiel to tell the people, "I'm not going to give you guidance through Ezekiel, and if he tries to give you true guidance without my consent, that'll be bad news for him, because I won't let that happen."

The bottom line is, don't expect God to guide you if you're not really intending to follow him.

[Nina]

No. God does not lie. Remember that Christ came as human even and did not lie, and no sin was found in Him. That is how He saved us all.

[M. Partyka]

No. God does not lie. Remember that Christ came as human even and did not lie, and no sin was found in Him. That is how He saved us all.Here's the thing, though. There comes a time when a parent is going to get asked by his/her child, "Where do babies come from?" Now, instead of telling the child the graphic truth, as the child may not be ready to hear that, the parent may instead rely on mythology such as, "The stork brings babies and drops them down the chimney."

Along the same lines, what if the first eleven chapters of Genesis are God's equivalent of telling us, his children, "Here's how the world came to be as it is today"? It wasn't the truth because we weren't ready for the truth. Now we're able to look at the rocks and the fossils and the genes and say, "Ah, Genesis 1-11 was a stork myth! How clever of God to conceal that from us, since we weren't ready to know the truth! But now, we can finally figure out for ourselves the way things really happened!"

[Herman Blaydoe]

You do realize that myths and parables are not lies, right?

[M. Partyka]

You do realize that myths and parables are not lies, right?I'm still not really clear about myths, but I recognize that parables are not "lies" per se because they are made-up stories intended to teach a point, like Aesop's fables and the like. If you could explain to me the difference between a myth and a parable, that might help.

[Herman Blaydoe]

A myth is not a lie either. In fact a myth often contains more truth than any mere compilation of "facts" or the often one-sided interpretation of those facts often referred to as "history". G. K. Chesterton has a very useful quote about the difference between legend (myth) and history. You do know how to google, yes?

[Herman Blaydoe]

In his book The Message of the Bible, Fr. George Cronk writes:

The early chapters of Genesis were not written as a scientific or empirical history, but as a sacred history. Through poetic, symbolic, legendary and even mythological stories, Genesis 1-11 is an attempt to convey certain religious truths concerning the general relationship between God and Israel. This section of scripture is not a scientific account of the origins of man and the cosmos, but a theological interpretation, within a chronological and genealogical framework, of the human condition and of Israel's role in God's providential plan for the world. (Chpt. 2 pgs. 27-28)

And for any google-challenged people (although I believe it has been posted in these fora before) the relevant quote from the esteemed G. K. Chesterton from his opus Orthodoxy:

It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad.

To me this seems to indicate that history depends on what one particular person decides is important, legend is what a whole people decides is important, and sometimes a mere string of chronological "facts" is not the important thing, at least to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[M. Partyka]

The early chapters of Genesis were not written as a scientific or empirical history, but as a sacred history.I just looked up the word "history" on dictionary.reference.com, and nearly all the definitions boil down to this: History is a record of past events. So, a sacred history is a sacred record of past events. Now, if those events didn't actually happen as described, one would normally call the record "false". We, instead, seem to call it "sacred", as if putting the label "sacred" on it somehow overrides or contradicts its not being true. Is this how the Fathers viewed Genesis? Not true, but "sacred" nonetheless?


Through poetic, symbolic, legendary and even mythological stories, Genesis 1-11 is an attempt to convey certain religious truths concerning the general relationship between God and Israel."Poetic" and "symbolic" I have no problem with. "Legendary" carries with it the idea of embellishment, but not necessarily so -- the first moon landing was legendary and needs no embellishment. But look at the author's use of "mythological": He doesn't say, "legendary and mythological" as if they both belonged in the same category. He says, rather, "Legendary and even mythological." Why throw in the word "even" unless he's trying to make the distinction that anyone hearing the words "legend" and "myth" naturally would make: that "legends" carry a weight of historical truth with them, whereas myths generally do not?


This section of scripture is not a scientific account of the origins of man and the cosmos, but a theological interpretation, within a fictional chronological and genealogical framework, of the human condition and of Israel's role in God's providential plan for the world.I've obviously added a word to the author's original text. Does anybody have a problem with it? Has my addition of one word preserved the author's meaning or changed it radically? Do you think the author would agree with the addition of that word? Do you agree with it?


To me this seems to indicate that history depends on what one particular person decides is important, legend is what a whole people decides is important, and sometimes a mere string of chronological "facts" is not the important thing, at least to this bear of little brain.As I said before, to use the word "history" is to refer to a sequence of past events. These events may have happened, or they may not have happened. What seems to be the case here (and I dare say we never see this done anywhere else in all of literature) is that where the Bible is concerned, if the events actually happened, the record is "true", and if the events didn't actually happen, the record is "sacred", which we as religious persons apparently hold synonymous with "true" even when the meaning it is clearly intended to obfuscate is that of the word "false".

By the way, I'm reading (quickly) Chesterton's The Everlasting Man, which I found online at this link:

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/content.htm

[Herman Blaydoe]

I just looked up the word "history" on dictionary.reference.com, and nearly all the definitions boil down to this: History is a record of past events.

OK, I'll be very happy to take issue with this. The STUDY of past events is not the same thing as a RECORD of past events, so I think you have boiled things down a bit too far.

The origin of the word "history" is late Middle English (also as a verb): via Latin from Greek historia ‘finding out, narrative, history,’ from histōr ‘learned, wise man,’ from an Indo-European root.

It CAN be a chronological record, but there is nothing to indicate that is the ONLY thing it can be. There are different meanings of the word based on a little thing called CONTEXT. The same word can have different meanings depending on how it is used. To "boil down" the meaning of a word to a single context is meaningless.


So, a sacred history is a sacred record of past events.

No it isn't, or at least no it doesn't have to be. Delete the word PAST and we have something we can work with, sacred "history" has as much to do with the future as it does with the past, perhaps even more so.


Now, if those events didn't actually happen as described, one would normally call the record "false".

Why? If we are reading the Illiad, do we call it "false"?


We, instead, seem to call it "sacred", as if putting the label "sacred" on it somehow overrides or contradicts its not being true. Is this how the Fathers viewed Genesis? Not true, but "sacred" nonetheless?

Depends on your definition of "true" to begin with. Your definition seems somewhat limited to mere chronological events and their accuracy. The fact that there may be more to it than that seems to have escaped your notice.


"Poetic" and "symbolic" I have no problem with. "Legendary" carries with it the idea of embellishment, but not necessarily so

The only "embellishment" going on here is yours.


the first moon landing was legendary and needs no embellishment. But look at the author's use of "mythological": He doesn't say, "legendary and mythological" as if they both belonged in the same category. He says, rather, "Legendary and even mythological." Why throw in the word "even" unless he's trying to make the distinction that anyone hearing the words "legend" and "myth" naturally would make: that "legends" carry a weight of historical truth with them, whereas myths generally do not?

Now this is an excellent example of embellishment on your part, trying to add something to the definition that the original author never intended. I really hate to get into semantic arguments, but you are really stretching things here. "Even" is one of those very versatile words that can have several meanings based on that tricky thing we talked about earlier, called context. '...even mythological" can easily mean one is a subset of the other, so it is still both without any exclusion and without the artificially implied meaning you impose upon it.


I've obviously added a word to the author's original text. Does anybody have a problem with it?

That would be me...


Has my addition of one word preserved the author's meaning or changed it radically?

I vote for changed


Do you think the author would agree with the addition of that word? Do you agree with it?

No and no. But here is a question for you. Regardless, do YOU equate "fiction" with "lie"? Do you think that Agatha Christie a professional liar? Should she seek professional help?


As I said before, to use the word "history" is to refer to a sequence of past events.

Yes that is an accurate statement, you did, in fact, say that. However, that is only ONE use of the word, and ignores the fact that there may be other uses/meanings as well. This is a problem I have (and share with G. K. Chesterton) with "history".


These events may have happened, or they may not have happened. What seems to be the case here (and I dare say we never see this done anywhere else in all of literature)

Sorry but this has got to be one of the most silly things said in this forum. "...never anywhere else in all of literature?" You dare far too much I fear. Or you haven't really been exposed to much literature. Have you ever heard of Homer, or Dante? Or a fun little tale called "Beowulf"? Or how about Le Morte d'Arthur?


is that where the Bible is concerned, if the events actually happened, the record is "true", and if the events didn't actually happen, the record is "sacred", which we as religious persons apparently hold synonymous with "true" even when the meaning it is clearly intended to obfuscate is that of the word "false".

There is certainly obfuscation going on, and I recommend that you eschew it forthwith. Or do some more research on words and their meanings. Perhaps a course in etymology would be very useful.

Or maybe just take a good college-level history course. I did. It was revelatory. Especially the paper I did on the Battle of Midway in WWII. I found three eye-witness accounts and all three differed with each other on some very significant chronologies and events. Different people come up with very different "histories" looking at the very same events. So is one true and the other ones false? And this is looking at things merely using your definition of "history", without going into the other permutations and contexts. Gets a bit more complicated than you seem willing to admit.


By the way, I'm reading (quickly) Chesterton's The Everlasting Man, which I found online at this link:

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/content.htm

I hope you enjoy it. I particularly love his books Heretics, Orthodoxy, Manalive, and recently finished The Man who was Thursday. I particularly enjoyed Manalive and highly recommend it, but it is a dangerous story that may expand your concepts and contexts to their breaking points. Or it may go right over your head, hard to say, but it is quite the prosaic ride, regardless.

[Michael Stickles]

I just looked up the word "history" on dictionary.reference.com, and nearly all the definitions boil down to this: History is a record of past events. So, a sacred history is a sacred record of past events. Now, if those events didn't actually happen as described, one would normally call the record "false". We, instead, seem to call it "sacred", as if putting the label "sacred" on it somehow overrides or contradicts its not being true. Is this how the Fathers viewed Genesis? Not true, but "sacred" nonetheless?

While I don't know how Fr. George was using the term, I would not read "sacred history" as "a sacred record of past events", but rather as "a record of that which was sacred within past events". In other words, the sacred and its meaning is what is being conveyed; everything else is less important to the writer. History almost never limits itself to the bare record of past events; rather, the meaning of those events, how they connect to other events, and so on - those are part and parcel of what we call history. Sacred history looks at sacred events, meanings and connections, just as military history looks at military events, meanings and connections, etc.


"Legendary" carries with it the idea of embellishment, but not necessarily so -- the first moon landing was legendary and needs no embellishment. But look at the author's use of "mythological": He doesn't say, "legendary and mythological" as if they both belonged in the same category. He says, rather, "Legendary and even mythological." Why throw in the word "even" unless he's trying to make the distinction that anyone hearing the words "legend" and "myth" naturally would make: that "legends" carry a weight of historical truth with them, whereas myths generally do not?

I don't believe that was the distinction he's trying to make. The common understanding of "myth" as necessarily implying "fictional" is quite incorrect (and I believe rather recent historically). Here is C.S. Lewis' description of myth, which I suspect (though I can't be sure) may be similar to how Fr. George viewed it:


What flows into you from the myth is not truth but reality (truth is always about something, but reality is that about which truth is), and, therefore, every myth becomes the father of innumerable truths on the abstract level. Myth is the mountain whence all the different streams arise which become truths down here in the valley; in hac valle abstractionis (‘In this valley of separation’). Or, if you prefer, myth is the isthmus which connects the peninsular world of thought with that vast continent we really belong to. It is not, like truth, abstract; nor is it, like direct experience, bound to the particular.

In other words, myth is not primarily about telling you what really happened in a mechanical sense (though it may do so, at any level of accuracy or inaccuracy); rather, it is about telling you what really is, as in, what is the nature of that part of reality which the myth addresses.


What seems to be the case here (and I dare say we never see this done anywhere else in all of literature) is that where the Bible is concerned, if the events actually happened, the record is "true", and if the events didn't actually happen, the record is "sacred", which we as religious persons apparently hold synonymous with "true" even when the meaning it is clearly intended to obfuscate is that of the word "false".

Again, I do not think this is what is occurring. You seem to be seeing "true" and "false" here simply in terms of fidelity to the mechanical physical details of historical events. For a sacred history, "true" and "false" must be seen in terms of fidelity to the sacred meaning of events.

Allow me to use an example. In the movie Apollo 13, there is a scene where a heated argument briefly flares up among the astronauts on board the spacecraft. The real Apollo 13 astronauts all said that no such argument occurred; however, they thought the scene a very accurate portrayal of the event. Why? Because it showed the emotional tensions that existed far better than a mechanically accurate portrayal would have done. The scene was mechanically "false", but emotionally "true". So it is with any historical record - it may be "true" for some areas of focus and "false" for others. "Sacred history" is not a way of obfuscating "false" (as if history has, or should have, only one area of focus), but rather a way of specifying which area of focus it is intended to be "true" for.

In Christ,
Michael

[M. Partyka]

Why? If we are reading the Illiad, do we call it "false"?I haven't read the Iliad, so I'm not sure. I would argue that even if it is basically a mythological history, it's still a history in that it's a narrative of past events.


Depends on your definition of "true" to begin with.So far as history goes, "true" means it happened, and "false" means it didn't.


...do YOU equate "fiction" with "lie"?Within the context of history, yes.


Do you think that Agatha Christie a professional liar? Should she seek professional help?No, because it isn't her intent to make us believe that the events she is recording in her novel actually happened in the real world.


Especially the paper I did on the Battle of Midway in WWII. I found three eye-witness accounts and all three differed with each other on some very significant chronologies and events. Different people come up with very different "histories" looking at the very same events. So is one true and the other ones false?Could be. Could be that they were all "false" as regards the actual sequence of events. They would certainly all be false if there were no such thing as the Battle of Midway, correct?

I know the subject of history is a complicated one. I also know that in the past, people weren't so concerned with chronological order as they were with making a point, so there were times that the events in a person's life would be rearranged by his/her biographer if it served to get the biographer's point across. I personally believe that the Gospel of Matthew used this literary technique. I also think that the author of Genesis 1 used this technique to arrange the seven days of creation. So there is some "wiggle room" available in my view of history as either "true" or "false" -- it's difficult for me to conceive of somebody's deliberately altering the order of events in a person's life to suit his/her purposes, but if that was the convention of the time, I can see how one might do so and remain "blameless".

I also know how recollecting past events via different sources can lead to contradictions. I have several rolls of film from a trip I took to Alaska several years ago. There's a section in the sequence of pictures that doesn't match my recollection of the trip. The pictures show me leaving the boat twice on one particular day, but I recall leaving the boat only once that day. Either I'm right, and the pictures were incorrectly arranged by the film developer, or I'm wrong, and the pictures are right. Both are accounts are "true" within reason because I did, in fact, go to Alaska, and both my recollections from memory and the photographic record are similar enough to testify to this. However, had I not been to Alaska, then neither my recollections nor the pictoral record could be considered "true" in any "historical" sense of the word.

My personal feeling, then, is that a historical account is "true" if it relates a series of past events that happened in the real world. A record of historical events that contains significant embellishment or includes a mix of real and fictional events might be considered a legend or historical fiction -- something grounded in truth but not true in itself. So the question is, in which category does Genesis 1-11 fit: history, historical fiction, or fiction? As it stands, I'm thinking fiction at worst, historical fiction at best. But is that good enough to merit the appellation "sacred history", and, more importantly to some, would the Fathers have settled for that?

[M. Partyka]

...I would not read "sacred history" as "a sacred record of past events", but rather as "a record of that which was sacred within past events".I get that, but would you be willing to extend the definition like this?

"Sacred History -- a record of that which was sacred within past events that may or may not have actually happened."

My personal feeling is that once you're putting forward a narrative of events that didn't happen, you're writing fiction, not history, and while you can certainly communicate truth by way of a fictional story, you can't call the story itself "true", because that would imply that the events in the story actually happened.


In the movie Apollo 13, there is a scene where a heated argument briefly flares up among the astronauts on board the spacecraft. The real Apollo 13 astronauts all said that no such argument occurred; however, they thought the scene a very accurate portrayal of the event. Why? Because it showed the emotional tensions that existed far better than a mechanically accurate portrayal would have done. The scene was mechanically "false", but emotionally "true". So it is with any historical record - it may be "true" for some areas of focus and "false" for others. "Sacred history" is not a way of obfuscating "false" (as if history has, or should have, only one area of focus), but rather a way of specifying which area of focus it is intended to be "true" for.I like this example. Let's not forget, however, that the purpose of the movie was not to give a historical account of the Apollo 13 incident. The purpose of the movie was to entertain, and if a heated argument is more entertaining to watch than a quiet emotional conflict, then it's in the best interests of the screenwriter adapting the events into his/her script to use a heated argument in the scene.

Heck, just watch Mythbusters tackle some movie myths and see if you don't get a little bit disillusioned. There's a movie that used to be one of my all-time favorites until Mythbusters demonstrated that the way in which the central conflict of the movie was ultimately resolved wouldn't actually work in real life. That downgraded the movie in my mind to a lesser status. I at least want to believe that what I'm seeing on the screen could have happened, even if it actually didn't -- that's the principle of verisimilitude. Verisimilitude isn't a universally necessary principle in entertainment, of course. When you're watching Star Trek, "willing suspension of disbelief" comes into play and enables you to watch starships cross galaxies at faster-than-light speeds without squinching up your face every five seconds from realizing, "Hey...you can't really do such things!"

So, I would argue that the intent with which something is created, and the context in which something is presented, ought to define how far one can go before the concept of "telling lies" kicks in. Entertainment is all about telling stories for other people's enjoyment -- it's fine if the story is a fiction so long as it's presented as such. History is about telling stories to communicate what has actually happened (and, yes, can also include telling what these events mean in a larger context) -- but fiction is okay, here, too, so long as it is labeled as such. A historical fiction can be very useful toward explaining key points or themes in history, but a historical fiction is not the same thing as an actual history. So, which is Genesis? What did the Fathers believe Genesis was: an actual history, or a historical fiction?

[Michael Stickles]

I get that, but would you be willing to extend the definition like this?

"Sacred History -- a record of that which was sacred within past events that may or may not have actually happened."

No, I would not extend it like that. Because it again removes the focus from the sacred, the spiritual, the reality behind the physical, and puts the physical-mechanical events back on center stage, as if they have to be considered before anything else.

As for what the Fathers would think, we would first need to know not just what they thought of Genesis, but also how they viewed "history" as a subject, before we could know how they would answer your questions (or if they would just see them as nonsense or as missing the point). And I'm not at all sure of the answer to that. A place to start might be Father Seraphim Rose's Genesis, Creation and Early Man, which quotes extensively from the Fathers (primarily St. Basil the Great, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Ambrose of Milan). The foreword and first three chapters are online (http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/foreword.html). I've glanced through it but haven't actually read it.

I should mention at this point that I'm not championing any particular view of Genesis' accuracy as regards descriptions of the physical-mechanical events. These days, I tend to be more concerned with making sure I'm asking the questions the right way, than I am with whether or not I can find answers. The right question may eventually lead to the right answer; the wrong question usually makes it impossible.

As a final aside, I don't put much stock in Mythbusters. They did one some time ago where they tried to bust the myth (from Robin Hood) that an arrow could be split nock-to-tip. The way they went about it showed they had minimal understanding of archery. My Dad (who has shot since he was old enough to hold a bow) used to love to watch that show, but after that fiasco he won't watch it anymore.

In Christ,
Michael

[M. Partyka]

No, I would not extend it like that. Because it again removes the focus from the sacred, the spiritual, the reality behind the physical, and puts the physical-mechanical events back on center stage, as if they have to be considered before anything else.I don't get it. Let's take the flood, for example. What would you consider the sacred and spiritual meaning of the flood that lies behind the physical and mechanical events themselves?

[Michael Stickles]

I don't get it. Let's take the flood, for example. What would you consider the sacred and spiritual meaning of the flood that lies behind the physical and mechanical events themselves?

Well, we could start by looking at Isaiah 54:7-10; Matthew 24:36-44; Luke 17:26-27; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:18-22; and 2 Peter 2:4-9; where the flood and/or the actions of Noah are used as an example for various spiritual truths. We could also look at liturgical references (such as the Akathist to the Wonderworking Icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, which includes the line "Rejoice, O Ark that saves the world from the deluge of our sins.").

We could, and I guess to some degree I just did, but I'm not sure it's really the right path to follow here, because I don't know that this really addresses the problems you're having with Genesis. Since I don't want to waste time trying to find the answer to a question you're not actually asking, let me see if I'm starting to understand the issue correctly. Would these statements accurately reflect where you're coming from?

(1) The Bible is said to be the "Word of God";
(2) If this is true, we can treat Genesis 1-11 as if it had been spoken by God;
(3) However, the discoveries of science have shown that Genesis' account of the creation of the world and its early history cannot be accurate in a historical sense;
(4) But Genesis 1-11 is written as if it was a straightforward historical account of what happened;
(5) Therefore, we must either conclude that God said something He knew was not true, or that the Bible (or at least Genesis) is not the "Word of God".

Is that a fairly accurate summary?

In Christ,
Michael

[M. Partyka]

Well, we could start by looking at Isaiah 54:7-10; Matthew 24:36-44; Luke 17:26-27; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:18-22; and 2 Peter 2:4-9; where the flood and/or the actions of Noah are used as an example for various spiritual truths. We could also look at liturgical references (such as the Akathist to the Wonderworking Icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, which includes the line "Rejoice, O Ark that saves the world from the deluge of our sins.").

We could, and I guess to some degree I just did, but I'm not sure it's really the right path to follow here, because I don't know that this really addresses the problems you're having with Genesis.Well...yes and no....

Look at it this way: Take the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. In the story, a young George Washington chops down a cherry tree that his father planted. When his father finds out, he asks George, "Who chopped down my tree?" George knows that if he admits to his deed, he'll be punished, but, true to form, he remains honest and says, "I cannot tell a lie, Father. It was I who chopped down the cherry tree."

People tell this to children to communicate to them that they should not lie. What's ironic is that the story itself is a fiction, but that's okay, because the purpose of the story is to communicate a message to children that lying is wrong, and it is "figuratively true" in that George Washington was a man of such consistent honesty that one could well imagine such a story's having actually happened. It's not a true story, but so long as it "could have been true", we can treat it and learn lessons from it as if it were indeed historically true (though it would be wrong to say that it was, in fact, historically true if we know that's not really the case).

Now take a story like the flood. If the purpose of the story is to communicate a message to us and not to communicate an actual narrative of real historical events, then we're good. But is the message the story communicates the sole purpose of the story, or does the story also serve to communicate a narrative of actual historical (so far as the author knew at the time) events? If the story of the deluge is just a fictional story, well and good, and there's plenty we can learn from it because it also carries the weight of being included in that tome of literature which we consider "sacred". If the story goes beyond that, however, and is presented as though it were truly a record of actual, historical events, then we've got a problem, as there's no record of a global flood in the geological or fossil records, and there are so many scientific problems with a global flood that everything we knew about the universe would have to be totally thrown out the window before we could accept that such a flood happened as described (and there are diehard creationists out there who do exactly that under the cover of "creation science").

So the question I would ask you is, "Can we take Genesis 1-11 as being a fictional account of pre-Abrahamic history and learn from it as such without asserting anything about its actual historicity?"


Would these statements accurately reflect where you're coming from?...Is that a fairly accurate summary?I'd say so, especially regarding #4 -- "Genesis 1-11 is written as if it was a straightforward historical account of what happened." Not only this, but also that there are portions of the Bible outside of Genesis 1-11 that refer back to it as if it were a straightforward historical account (some of which you have taken the trouble to list yourself at the beginning of your post).

[Michael Stickles]

Two things stand out for me.


If the story of the deluge is just a fictional story, well and good, and there's plenty we can learn from it because it also carries the weight of being included in that tome of literature which we consider "sacred". If the story goes beyond that, however, and is presented as though it were truly a record of actual, historical events, then we've got a problem, as there's no record of a global flood in the geological or fossil records, and there are so many scientific problems with a global flood that everything we knew about the universe would have to be totally thrown out the window before we could accept that such a flood happened as described (and there are diehard creationists out there who do exactly that under the cover of "creation science").

The first thing that hits me is the faith in the level of understanding achieved by modern science. Having made some studies of the history of science, I'm not really able to share that faith. I have to agree with this bit from Fr. Seraphim Rose's book (http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/chapter1.html):


It is a very common view among people who do not go too deeply into the question that "ancient science is wrong, modern science is right, and therefore we can trust everything the modern scientists tell us." But it so happens that one generation overthrows the so-called scientific facts of the preceding generation. We have to realize what is fact and what is theory. Contemporary science has many views which, fifty years from now (if they even last that long), will be overturned, and there will be new theories.

My lifetime hasn't hit 50 years yet, but I've seen plenty of scientific theories and "facts" overthrown in that time. I don't expect that to stop any time soon. While the "softer" sciences like archaeology get shaken up more frequently, the "hard" sciences are not immune (as an aside, I'm expecting one of the next major shake-ups to be a revolution in our understanding of gravity).

The second thing that struck me, though, is even more important.


... before we could accept that such a flood happened as described ...

What strikes me here is the assumption that we actually know, in some detail, what is being described. But do we?



11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

... 17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

We tend to assume that it was rain that caused the flood, but what are the "springs of the great deep"? They seem to be at least as important. Are the "floodgates of the heavens" just a reference to heavy rain, or something more? Does "under the entire heavens" really refer to the whole globe, or is it more local, similar to when Paul spoke in Colossians 1 of the Gospel as having already been preached to "every creature under heaven" despite China and India and the Americas and other places being left out? I'm sure Paul was perfectly aware that creatures existed who had not heard the Gospel - was Genesis using a similar figure of speech? I doubt Noah dropped a sounding line to see how deep the water was, so how was the water's depth over the mountains known? Knowing the way the knowledge was revealed could greatly influence our interpretation of what was described.

The same with Genesis 1 and the story of creation. What is being described, and - since no human was there to see it until day 6 - how was this revealed? Did God describe it verbally to Moses? Show him in a vision, which Moses described? Imbue him with the knowledge in some other way? The answer, again, can have a great effect on how we interpret this. Is "heaven" in verse 8 the physical heavens, or God's abode? And either way, what are the waters above heaven? Were the sun and moon really created on day four, or just set in the sky (which seems to be the main point of the description)? And so on, and so on, and so on.

When we come to the Scriptures, we tend to bring an incredible amount of intellectual, moral, ideological, and philosophical "baggage" along with a warehouse of other people's interpretations, which, upon contact with Scripture, generate a multitude of assumptions, many of which are likely to be unfounded and untrue. Without tracking down and honestly evaluating our assumptions, we cannot know if we are really judging the Scriptures, or merely judging our own misreading of them. And after evaluating, we still may be forced to the conclusion that we don't really know in detail what is being described. That's where I am with both the creation and the flood, and that's why I'm perfectly content to stick to the spiritual meaning and lessons.

In Christ,
Michael

[M. Partyka]

My lifetime hasn't hit 50 years yet, but I've seen plenty of scientific theories and "facts" overthrown in that time. I don't expect that to stop any time soon. While the "softer" sciences like archaeology get shaken up more frequently, the "hard" sciences are not immune (as an aside, I'm expecting one of the next major shake-ups to be a revolution in our understanding of gravity).I'm only 36 myself, but I can't recall even one theory that was "overthrown" so as to totally refute it. I've heard of theories that have been refined -- solid atoms to the "plum pudding" model to the nucleus + electrons model, etc, etc. -- but I think it's been a while since any real "revolutions" have taken place. My present faith in mainstream science as concerns the nonexistent global flood and the antiquity of the earth results mainly from the testimony of a former creationist who worked in the oil industry long enough to recognize that most everything that he had been taught by "creation science" was a lie, and that the claims of mainstream science, claims he himself had once worked to disprove, were true.


We tend to assume that it was rain that caused the flood, but what are the "springs of the great deep"? They seem to be at least as important. Are the "floodgates of the heavens" just a reference to heavy rain, or something more? Does "under the entire heavens" really refer to the whole globe, or is it more local, similar to when Paul spoke in Colossians 1 of the Gospel as having already been preached to "every creature under heaven" despite China and India and the Americas and other places being left out? I'm sure Paul was perfectly aware that creatures existed who had not heard the Gospel - was Genesis using a similar figure of speech? I doubt Noah dropped a sounding line to see how deep the water was, so how was the water's depth over the mountains known? Knowing the way the knowledge was revealed could greatly influence our interpretation of what was described....And either way, what are the waters above heaven?I've tried to read the Genesis flood story after clearing my mind of preconceptions as best I could, and I get a firm impression that when the story says that the whole earth was covered with water, it literally means that. And, if you have been introduced to the ancient Babylonian cosmological model, it makes perfect sense to think that's exactly what was meant. The ancient cosmology portrays the earth as a relative disk of land ("the circle of the earth") in the middle of a great ocean, and it portrays the firmament as a solid dome over the whole earth which literally separates the waters above the heavens (which are mentioned in the Liturgy, if I'm not mistaken) from the waters below. In other words, the earth as the ancients knew it was located within a big "air pocket" created by God in a chaotic universe otherwise filled with water. When rain, snow, sleet, or that sort of thing occurred, it was because God had allowed the "windows of the firmament" to open and let some of the "waters above the heavens" fall through. So, the flood story makes perfect sense once you realize that it's written on the basis of the earth's being (1) flat and (2) surrounded 360 degrees by water, as if enclosed in a bubble.


And either way, what are the waters above heaven? Were the sun and moon really created on day four, or just set in the sky (which seems to be the main point of the description)?The ancients knew nothing of the sun, moon, and stars which would have led them to believe that they couldn't have been created on day four, so I'd say yes, that's what they really believed, based on Genesis. As for why light comes on day one, that's simply because in the morning, the light starts to appear before the sun rises. (That's why the "morning star" is Venus and not the sun, as the light of the sun would normally block out the light of Venus -- morning happens before sunrise.) Furthermore, the author of Genesis 1 wouldn't have wanted the sun, moon, and stars to come first, because that would mean that the sun, moon, and stars would have been received by the audience as "demigods" through whom God created the rest of things (which is what the Babylonians already believed). It was more in the interests of monotheism to make light come first (to show that God is fully capable of creating light without any assistance) and for the objects that were then appointed to make light to be created on day four.


When we come to the Scriptures, we tend to bring an incredible amount of intellectual, moral, ideological, and philosophical "baggage" along with a warehouse of other people's interpretations, which, upon contact with Scripture, generate a multitude of assumptions, many of which are likely to be unfounded and untrue. Without tracking down and honestly evaluating our assumptions, we cannot know if we are really judging the Scriptures, or merely judging our own misreading of them.I think you're exactly right. I think that, in general, an unlearned reader of Genesis would expect that the prophets and apostles knew about certain cosmological realities that we just take for granted today. They must have known, right? How could they be our infallible prophets and apostles otherwise? Yet a clear, unbiased reading of Genesis and other book of the Bible reveals exactly the kind of scientific "naivete" that we would expect of an ancient people -- the earth is flat; the sky is a solid dome separating waters above from waters below; rain happens when the windows in the dome are opened; the sun, moon, and stars are set into the dome; etc, etc. To realize this is literally stunning: When it came to cosmology, the ancients were like children! They described what they saw in the same terms in which they observed and understood them. Their cosmology was no more advanced than their idea of medicine: dry vs. moist "humours", a body consisting of the four elements, and all that. Things like this are painful to read today because they make us recognize that we human beings used to know so little about how the world actually works. We don't want the scriptures to reflect those earlier days of ignorance about the world, but they do reflect it -- it's all right there to be seen -- and, naturally, it forces us to question, "What else did they get wrong?" In the end, were they just as wrong about human nature as they were about the universe? Can we really trust them to tell us how to live our lives if we can't trust us to tell us what the natural world is really like? It's as Jesus himself said: "If I tell you of earthly things, and you do not believe me, how will you believe me when I tell you about heavenly things?"

[Michael Stickles]

Yet a clear, unbiased reading of Genesis and other book of the Bible reveals exactly the kind of scientific "naivete" that we would expect of an ancient people -- the earth is flat; the sky is a solid dome separating waters above from waters below; rain happens when the windows in the dome are opened; the sun, moon, and stars are set into the dome; etc, etc.

This is what I was referring to when I talked about "assumptions". Many ancients (especially the early seafarers) were quite aware of the curvature of the earth; the distance to the stars was known by some ancient astronomers to be vast (Ptolemy noted that, in reference to the distance to the "fixed" stars, the Earth had to be treated as a mathematical point without magnitude); and so on. The expectation of naivete is itself a bias which affects our reading.


They described what they saw in the same terms in which they observed and understood them.

This is a critical point. To quote from Fr Seraphim Rose's book again (he is discussing the Fathers' commentaries on Genesis):


We do not need to accept every word the Fathers wrote on Genesis; sometimes they made use of the science of their time for illustrative material, and this science was mistaken in some points. But we should carefully distinguish their science from their theological statements, and we should respect their whole approach and general conclusions and theological insights.

They made use of the science of their time for illustrative material. What else would we expect? And what else should we expect from Genesis except that things would be described in terms that were intelligible to both the speakers and the hearers?

This can lead to quite a different understanding than the one you mentioned:


So, the flood story makes perfect sense once you realize that it's written on the basis of the earth's being (1) flat and (2) surrounded 360 degrees by water, as if enclosed in a bubble. ... the author of Genesis 1 wouldn't have wanted the sun, moon, and stars to come first, because that would mean that the sun, moon, and stars would have been received by the audience as "demigods" through whom God created the rest of things (which is what the Babylonians already believed). It was more in the interests of monotheism to make light come first ...

I would say, not necessarily. Assumptions, again - you are assuming that the stories were derived from the cosmology, and not something unrelated to the cosmology but described using terms borrowed from it, since those are terms the people would be able to picture. You assume also that the stories were created, rather than recounted. I see no necessity for either assumption.

As I said before - what if what Moses saw these things as visions? How would he describe them? He would have to use terms - word pictures - familiar to him and his hearers. And what was his purpose? To give a detailed scientific account? No. To reveal the God who did such things. Back to the term "sacred history" - the history is not concerned so much with the events as with the God behind them. His power, His character, His majesty - these are what take center stage (or should).

And this brings me to my last point for this post:


We don't want the scriptures to reflect those earlier days of ignorance about the world, but they do reflect it -- it's all right there to be seen -- and, naturally, it forces us to question, "What else did they get wrong?" In the end, were they just as wrong about human nature as they were about the universe? Can we really trust them to tell us how to live our lives if we can't trust us to tell us what the natural world is really like?

This question would make no sense in the time of the Scriptures. That understanding of the natural world should be a litmus test for spiritual understanding would have been thought absurd. Only to the modern mind does it appear to make sense, because we have exalted the natural over the spiritual; preferred science over theology.

The Genesis 1-11 accounts are not "straightforward historical accounts". I agree with Fr. George Cronk on that. To try to force them to act that way is to demand of those Scriptures something they were never intended to be (Creationist protestations to the contrary notwithstanding). My own personal view is that they are "eyewitness accounts" of God-given visions, recounted with an eye primarily towards describing God, not the events themselves. I don't believe anything in them was "made up" to support a point, but that there was no interest in scientific precision, or, for that matter, in the scientific content of what was seen.

This is getting long, and it's getting late here, so I will close with another quote from Fr Seraphim:



A final important point to consider before approaching the text of Genesis itself: what kind of text is it?

We all know of the anti-religious arguments about the Scripture, and in particular about Genesis: that it is a creation of backward people who knew little of science or the world, that it is full of primitive mythology about "creator-gods" and supernatural beings, that it has all been taken from Babylonian mythology, etc. But no one can seriously compare Genesis with any of the creation myths of other peoples without being struck by the sobriety and simplicity of the Genesis account. Creation myths are indeed full of fabulous events and fairy-tale beings which are not even intended to be taken as the text is written. There is no competition between these texts and Genesis; they are not in the least comparable.

Nonetheless, there is a widespread popular view - without foundation either in Scripture or in Church tradition - that Moses wrote Genesis after consulting other early accounts of the creation, or that he simply recorded the oral traditions that came down to him; that he compiled and simplified the tales that had come down to his time. This, of course, would make Genesis a work of human wisdom and speculation, and it would be pointless to study such a work as a statement of truth about the beginning of the world.

...

Thus, we should approach the early chapters of Genesis as we would a book of prophecy, knowing that it is actual events being described, but knowing also that - because of their remoteness to us and because of their very nature as the very first events in the history of the world - we will be able to understand them only imperfectly, even as we have a very imperfect understanding of the events at the very end of the world as set forth in the Apocalypse and other New Testament Scriptures. St. John Chrysostom himself warns us not to think we understand too much about the creation:

"With great gratitude let us accept what is related (by Moses), not stepping out of our own limitations, and not testing what is above us as the enemies of the truth did when, wishing to comprehend everything with their minds, they did not realize that human nature cannot comprehend the creation of God."


In Christ,
Michael

[Andreas Moran]

I can't contribute to the main thrust of this thread but some of the points arising are interesting. That eyewitnesses to the same event can have differing recollections even minutes after that event is well known to lawyers. When I was a law student, a lecturer in the law of evidence got some drama students to create some incident in the lecture theatre. Then, when it was explained as having been contrived, the lecturer invited a number of students to come out and relate what they had seen. These witnesses could not even agree on how many people had been involved in the incident or who did what.

There are things about the early chapters of the Bible that are puzzling, not least, to me, that there seem to be two accounts of the creation of man. These early books were written by Moses, and presumably his source was God alone for the account of creation, the Fall and what happened soon after. Presumably, the original writings of Moses went through the hands of many copyists before the time of the writing of the Septuagint; could that explain some of the difficulties? Also, stories can convey truths without being true. Was Job a real person or is that book a literary device, a parable? The greatest stories are the parables of Christ, and we have services about the Prodigal Son and icons about him and no one doubts the truths conveyed by the parable just because he was a character in that parable made up by Christ.

[Ken McRae]

There are things about the early chapters of the Bible that are puzzling, not least, to me, that there seem to be two accounts of the creation of man. These early books were written by Moses, and presumably his source was God alone for the account of creation, the Fall and what happened soon after.

Well, as far as I have noticed, Orthodox "modernists" deny that Moses was the real author of Gensis. They believe it to be the work of a hidden or unknown redactor, who drew upon many existing sources of information, and pulled them together into the Genesis account(s). I do not buy into that theory, myself. In fact, it strikes me as highly inconsistent with the Orthodox view of holy tradition.

The Jewish Church received it as the work of that Moses which appeared with Christ upon the Transfiguration Mount. And as such was it preserved and handed down, in an unbroken tradition or lineage, down to the very time of Christ himself, who received as the fruit and offspring of that very same Moses. So, then, by the authority of holy tradition I receive and acknowledge that text as the work of Moses; and to hell with the modernist's redaction theory; for such a theory, in the end, will surely lead one astray from the truth.

Now, in terms of the sources that Moses drew upon, it is intimated in the Book of Genesis that he received much from the approved oral tradition of his Jewish fathers. As you know, nothing was written about Abraham before Moses. And in his account of Abraham, Moses writes that "Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen (Gn. 22:14)." Carefully note his expression: "As it is said to this day." What does it signify?

It signifies the existence of a living oral tradition going all the way back to the time of Enoch; and perhaps even as far back as Seth, at which time, it is said, that men first began to call upon the Lord. St. Jude records for us the prophecy of Enoch; which prophecy is conspicuously absent from the Old Testament. Its absence from the written Scriptures must point to a living oral tradition of the prophets and fathers stretching all the way back to the time of Enoch, and probably to the time of Seth.

Were there any prophets before Enoch? I suspect that God has always had his prophet from the very time that men began to call upon Him, and from the very time that He began to draw near unto them and walk with them, as in the beginning before the Fall.

Now, Moses tells us that the Abrahamic Covenant had sacraments, a priesthood, and a high priest, who was greater than Moses and Aaron, and to whom Abraham paid tithes, (and Aaron too, insofar as he was the seed of Abraham;) and all this we are to understand that Moses received directly from the living oral tradition of the Jewish Church. Now, if there were prophets before that time, as we have seen, then I suspect the Abrahamic Covenant also had its school of prophets as well. The word of God was revealed to Abraham and his seed; and was most zealously preserved through the living tradition of the Church, during that dispensation, in unwritten form(s).

Now, if there were any sacred scriptures before the time of Moses, (apart from the Book of Job, perhaps, depending on which "theory" you buy into,) I doubt he would have concealed them from the Jewish Church. What was divinely inspired in writing, before the time of Christ, we have received in the Old Testament, on the authority of Holy Tradition. So, then, from at least the time of Enoch to before Moses, the Word of God was revealed through prophets and preserved in unwritten form through the living tradition of the Church.

In addition to the divinely inspired living tradition of his fathers, "Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22)." In other words, if there was anything like a great library in Egypt, which housed all the known writings from ancient times, and from all parts of the known world, then I suspect he may have read and retained a few things from there; which the Holy Spirit may have inspired him to include within his five books of holy Scripture.

Lastly, but most importantly, "Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was (Ex. 20:21)." He was a divinely inspired visionary and prophet who saw many things in the midst of that "thick darkness," in which the Almighty was engulfed. There can be no doubt that he was shown many things that were not to be discovered anywhere else by purely human knowledge. He was divinely guided and protected in his selections from other sources existing at that time.


Presumably, the original writings of Moses went through the hands of many copyists before the time of the writing of the Septuagint; could that explain some of the difficulties?

For whatever it's worth, I highly doubt that, as that would lead to a corrupted manuscript tradition; and what good is a corrupted Bible?


Also, stories can convey truths without being true. Was Job a real person or is that book a literary device, a parable? The greatest stories are the parables of Christ, and we have services about the Prodigal Son and icons about him and no one doubts the truths conveyed by the parable just because he was a character in that parable made up by Christ.

I'm not sure I get you entirely here. For me, the wisest approach is to follow the holy fathers and ask how they understood those "two" accounts; and stay within the limits or boundaries which they have established. That is what it means to "remove not the ancient landmark, which they fathers have set." (Proverbs 22:28) Have you done any research into the Patristic mind of the fathers concerning this problem?

[M.C. Steenberg]

NOTE: This post originally followed a long post on the authorship of Genesis, in response to the above; that has now been moved to a new thread: Issues in the critical study of the Old Testament (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5373).

Can I just add one afterthought. I find it terribly, terribly unhelpful to read such comments as these (and Ken, this is not a comment on you personally, nor meant to cause offense; but I think this is an important matter):

Well, as far as I have noticed, Orthodox "modernists" deny that Moses was the real author of Gensis. They believe it to be the work of a hidden or unknown redactor, who drew upon many existing sources of information, and pulled them together into the Genesis account(s).
So, then, by the authority of holy tradition I receive and acknowledge that text as the work of Moses; and to hell with the modernist's redaction theory; for such a theory, in the end, will surely lead one astray from the truth.The idea that 'modernists' particularly think in this way is nonsense, and such language serves only to polarise discussion and make it more difficult. There are many very traditional Orthodox people who have serious questions about such matters - particularly since 'Mosaic authorship', as it is very often presented, is so tainted by conceptions of sola scriptura that no traditional Orthodox person would or could buy into it as such. To the other end, Orthodox 'modernists' (whatever that strange term might mean) include people who understand Mosaic authorship in the traditional sense.

Such categorisations of people, and particularly harsh language about beliefs which I don't think one has actually defined as such, tend simply to raise hackles and prevent people from asking questions and engaging in discussions over matters to which they might have genuine questions.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Paul C.]

Does the choice of words in this passage imply that it is possible for God to lie concerning things other than these "two immutable things"? Can God, for example, lie about something "for our own good"?
If God actually did lie, and I do not believe at all that He ever did, then according to Revelation 21:27 , God would not be in Heaven, or am I misunderstanding the Scriptures?

Just my two bits,
Paul

[Paul Cowan]

It's a given God can not lie. I just read the Book of Judith for the first time. I was astounded to see how this Jewish heroine behaved to save the chosen people from death and was hailed for it. God cannot lie, but he will use a lying people to manifest His providence?

Forgive me. I am NOT trying to sound harsh or sacrilegious. The Book's Theme states

God protects His people from their enemies.

But in doing this He uses a beautiful woman to lie and to seductively get her way to the chief captain Holofernes. After lying to him for several days, she agrees to participate in their spirited banquet, she gets him drunk and kills him. God however is the one praised for delivering this city through this woman.

Is there a double standard here?

Paul

[Michael Stickles]

The one I find interesting is what Micaiah said to Ahab and Jehoshaphat before they went off to war (1 Kings 22:19-23):



Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD : I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'

"One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'

" 'By what means?' the LORD asked.

" 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.

" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'

"So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."


I don't have an explanation for this one either.

In Christ,
Michael

[Paul C.]

The demons need God's permission to act (Job 1:11-12). God even uses them to accomplish His will. But God Himself cannot lie.

For what it's worth,
Paul

[Kusanagi]

So it appears that lying can be acceptable for us under certain circumstances. But is it therefore also acceptable for God to do the same should he determine that a lie would be better for us to believe than the truth?

No God does not lie even a bit as that would contradict Himself being "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life".

No where does He teach a lie in order to bring man into understanding His teachings and what He has to offer.

If He does lie, Christ then has no right to call the devil the father of all lies does he?