 Posted Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:45 PM
|
|
|
|
| In Science and Health, MBE states that the first chapter of Genesis is the true account of creation and the second chapter that details the story of Adam and Eve is the false. She says the "mist" that covers the earth in Chapter 2 represents clouded thought/error. I have been reading this account in the NIV Bible trying to figure out if her interpretation has any hint of insight or if it is totally bogus. Genesis seems to be a key chapter for CS. Also, any insights on why God, who is perfect, created man with the ability to sin? How can a perfect, all powerful, all knowing God allow sin or evil? Why would He create man with the ability to sin if He loves us?
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous October 25, 2007 @ 3:45:20 PM,
Welcome! Glad you are here and asking good questions.
I'm moving this thread to the Doctrinal and Bible Related Issues forum as it is weightier than intended for Forum Announcements and Updates.
I have been reading this account in the NIV Bible trying to figure out if her interpretation has any hint of insight or if it is totally bogus. Genesis seems to be a key chapter for CS.
This distinction is vital to understanding CS. I held onto it after leaving CS, believing the "first" account to be more spiritually pure and accurate than the "second". That mist thing seemed so logical as a way to explain evil and how our thought became clouded and corrupt. It's one of those been there, done that sorts of things that enables you to understand, discard bad thought baggage, and move on.
All you have to do is accept the errancy of the Bible; God's inability to accurately communicate through His word from the second chapter of the first book on; the need to have an enlightened guide to understand God's word. I am a man of faith, but that's too much of a leap for me to take on.
The word "mist" in CS circles typically takes on the connotation of "fog", something that obscures vision and thought. Whether you're studying Scripture or the point spread on an NFL game, however, context is vital to understanding.
"When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground." - Genesis 2:5-6 (ESV)
The ESV and KJV agree in translating the word from the ancient language as, "mist", along with most other English language translations. The NIV says, "streams", and the NLT says, "springs". The AMP parenthetically suggests the correctness of the CS version.
We get a couple of clues about the nature of the "mist" from the context. Before it showed up, there were no or few plants on the land or in the fields because God had not yet caused it to rain. After whatever it was appeared, the "whole face of the ground" was watered. Granted, I wasn't there and do not really know any better than any other historical observer what took place. Looks to me, however, from the context that agricultural irrigation is the subject at hand and the impending cultivation of the land by man ("there was no man to work the ground").
I've been told by people who know this stuff better than me that a square mile of fog contains about a tablespoon of water. In any case, rain, streams, and springs are far better at irrigation than fog or mist. Both are clouds that touch the ground, but vary in density with fog being the denser. A mist is a light fog. Modern scientists (the egg-headed kind, not the CS kind) make the distinction based on the level of visibility reduced.
Anyway, the context makes it clear, at least to me, that we're not dealing with some abstract obscuring of thought and explanation for the presence of evil in the world God created. Seems we're beginning to get into some of the concrete details regarding what God did with what He created. The story moves from the God's-eye view to the man's-eye view.
Watch just about any movie or TV show, read just about any book, and you will find the beginning sets up what is to come. Often, the director or author starts with a wide view of the action and begins to move into the details. Filmmakers call that a "master shot". We see the context, get introduced to the setting and the characters, and the action begins.
Discarding the theory that God is a poor storyteller and that His scribes were unfaithful, it now appears to me that Genesis is a classic model for storytelling and that the pieces fall into perfect alignment.
Also, any insights on why God, who is perfect, created man with the ability to sin? How can a perfect, all powerful, all knowing God allow sin or evil? Why would He create man with the ability to sin if He loves us?
Why can we sin? Where did evil come from? I don't know for sure. I have my own opinion with which I am very comfortable, but can't say that I've crossed every theological "T" or dotted every doctrinal "I" in developing that opinion. Faith is one of those things like art that you just know when you see it.
My sin enables me to know that I am not God and that I need Him more than anything else. Evil drives me to Him. Perhaps we are perfect in our imperfection.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:46 PM
|
|
|
|
| Anonymous, There have been plenty of mainstream academic Bible scholars who argue in favor of two creation accounts in Genesis, written by different authors. Their point of view on this tends to be disputed by those who accept the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. Some searching on the Internet will lead you to discussions of the views of the scholars who believe there are two accounts written by different authors, as well as the views of their critics. I guess the point I want to make here is that the concept that there are two creation accounts in Genesis written by different authors is not unique to Mary Baker Eddy. Although certainly some of the allegorical and symbolic meanings she sees in these accounts are unique to her.
tmcl
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 26, 2007 5:54 AM
|
|
|
|
TMCL: It would be helpful if you could provide some links of non CS Biblical scholars who hold the view that there are two creations/and or genesis was written by two or more authors. I don't believe you would make such a statement without backup, but MBE made the assertion that the NT alone had 300,000 errors. In an NIV translation I have, that comes out to an average of 1,048 errors per page mathematically! A quick count of the actual number of words on the first page of the Book of Matthew shows there are 242 words. That means that this and other pages probably contain 4+ errors per word in many instances, according to MBE! Yet, this assertion is unchallenged by many if not most in CS. I have asked CS'ists in the past to name just a few of the 300,000 (not hundreds or thousands) so I can have a better idea what she was referring to , but don't recall getting any specific responses.
Can you cite some actual examples of scholars, etc who hold the above view, so that this may go beyond the scope of a "CS/MBE urban legend" ?
Many thanks,
John
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 26, 2007 6:24 AM
|
|
|
|
TMCL: It would be helpful if you could provide some links of non CS Biblical scholars who hold the view that there are two creations/and or genesis was written by two or more authors.
TMCL has often stated that his time to respond to the forums is limited. He should not feel obliged to respond, however, anyone who has the information requested would be welcome to contribute. John's math makes an interesting point.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 26, 2007 7:30 AM
|
|
|
|
John,
I will say here again that the point I wanted to make in my last post is that the idea that there are two creation accounts in Genesis written by different authors is far from being unique to Mrs. Eddy. In the scholarly community, this idea is part of what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis. An easy way to find information about it is to search on "Documentary Hypothesis" using Google. You will get a list of many sites the describe the Documentary Hypothesis and its history, along with both defenses and criticisms of it.
The other question you raised is not of particular interest to me, but I did get a copy of the letter sent out by the MBE Library when people ask them about it. Here it is:
[Beginning of MBE LIbrary letter] Thank you for your question regarding the source of Mary Baker Eddy's statement regarding “the thirty thousand different readings in the Old Testament, and the three hundred thousand in the New ...” (Science and Health, p. 139). The source for that statement is A Dictionary of the Bible, a reference work edited by William Smith and first published in the United States in 1867.
Contemporary Biblical research seems to confirm Smith’s estimate. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 4, pp. 594-595) has this to say on the New Testament: “It has been estimated that these manuscripts ... differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher.”
The Interpreter’s Dictionary also comments on the nature of these variants: “Many thousands of these different readings are variants in orthography or grammar or style and have no effect upon the meaning of the text. But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text.” [End of MBE Library letter]
(Moderator's note: TMCL let me know through a private message that this is his post. He forgot to log in. TMCL, Thanks for the reply and the note.)
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 26, 2007 3:37 PM
|
|
|
|
| The Tektonics Apologetics Ministries web site has an interesting article entitled Creation Account, Times Two. The article argues that Genesis 1 and 2 are not intended to present two "creation accounts." Author J.P. Holding says the following near the beginning of the article (I've highlighted his main point. Note that G1 refers to the Genesis 1 creation account and G2 refers to the Genesis 2 account.): "The book of Genesis contains several sections that begin with the phrase which we sometimes render, "These are the generations of..." The word "generations" is the Hebrew toledot and has the connotation of a family history or succession. Toledot are given for Adam's line (5:1-6:8), Noah (6:9-9:29), Noah's sons (10:1-11:9), Shem (11:10-26), Terah and Abram (11:27-25:11), and so on -- there are nearly a dozen recurrences of the toledot introduction and method, and one of these, interestingly enough, is Genesis 2:4-4:6. What does this mean? It means that G2 is not actually a creation account as such, but a "family history" of the first men in creation [Mat.Gen126, 12ff]. It is therefore a point to begin our argument by noting that anyone who reads G2 as a rehash of the creation accounted in G1 is missing the boat from the start. It is quite unlikely, given the parallel toledot structure, that the author of Genesis is repeating himself (although we do have examples of dual creation accounts -- the former told generally, the latter told more specifically -- in Sumerian and Babylonian literature). Rather, the indication would be that G2 is of an entirely different genre and approach than G1, and that any supposed contradiction between them needs to be understood in that light. The article is a bit long but well worth reading.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, February 22, 2008 6:53 PM
|
|
|
|
| please cite where MBE asserts that there are so many errors. I dont believe you'd make such a statement without back up.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, February 22, 2008 7:05 PM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Posted February 22, 2008 @ 8:53:04 PM,
please cite where MBE asserts that there are so many errors. I dont believe you'd make such a statement without back up.
S&H 139:15-27:
"The decisions by vote of Church Councils as to what should and should not be considered Holy Writ; the manifest mistakes in the ancient versions; the thirty thousand different readings in the Old Testament, and the three hundred thousand in the New, --these facts show how a mortal and material sense stole into the divine record, with its own hue darkening to some extent the inspired pages. But mistakes could neither wholly obscure the divine Science of the Scriptures seen from Genesis to Revelation, mar the demonstration of Jesus, nor annul the healing by the prophets, who foresaw that 'the stone which the builders rejected' would become 'the head of the corner.'"
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
|