Recently I've been discussing hard vs. soft worldbuilding with a small group of speculative writers and finding a deep intersection with the way I read the bible. Scripture lays out geneologies and concrete details like Jesus braiding a whip, but also leaves enormous room for unanswered questions (or perhaps some answers are veiled or buried). I look forward to your future posts as I consider the ways my writing can echo the Author and Finisher's.
Such a fascinating read, and I love the connection to the tearing of the curtain with the death of Jesus. It’s definitely adds concrete to the symbol.... 😁
Having explored the Bible in more depth in the last year, I’ve also come to see how important it is to ‘take off our modern lenses’, but it’s left me wondering about accessibility to those who read God’s word without ever exploring the different ways of Eastern and Western thought. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the nuance in trying to adopt an ancient understanding while also recognising that those who do not may still experience fullness in the scripture.
Isabelle. What a great question. Every time I teach or write about this stuff, some version of that question pops up. Let me think on the answer and put a post together in the near future. Thanks!
Yes, Andy, I'm looking forward to what you have to say about this. I do believe that not everything in Scripture is immediately accessible to the average Joe, especially given our temporal, linguistic, and cultural distance from the original audiences. (Remember, while everything in the Bible was written for us, it wasn't written to us.) This is why "my Bible and me under a tree" and the popular insistence on the most superficial reading being the "plain meaning" just don't hold up—and will result in a very stunted understanding of the Bible. This is why God gave some to be teachers, and why I am immensely looking forward to Pattern Bible. Every Ethiopian eunuch needs a Philip to explain things to him.
On the other hand, as a Protestant, I want to steer well clear of any idea that the peasantry requires an infallible ecclesiological interpreter in order to fathom otherwise inscrutable Holy Writ. I uphold the perspicuity of Scripture in relation to all we need to know for salvation, and a good deal more. The plowboy can indeed accurately learn a great deal of God simply by having access to a Bible in his own language. How do we properly balance these two sides of the coin?
This is not a view I hold with any conviction, but I have encountered the argument from Young Earth Creationists that the Earth was in fact, once robed in an out water shield, a firmament above. (Much like Venus is robed in a mantle of cloud.) This ocean above gave rise to a far more uniform climate (hence tropical flora and fauna at the top and bottom of the globe.) Advocates of this model argue that the watery firmament is what collapsed at the time of the flood, and led to decreased life spans as Earth was now bombarded by scorching UV radiation.
Do you belive the firmament might apply to a watery wrap?
Hi Kirk. I've heard that view too and I think it is reading modern assumptions and priorities into the Bible to try to make the ancient text square with things we moderns value (like a coherent scientific-ish account of the physical arrangements of the world). Genesis isn't concerned with that at all. It is concerned with mapping meanings, not landscapes. It is in dialogue with ancient narratives, not our own. Basically, I think it misunderstands what kind of literature Genesis is. We don't have to resort to speculations about UV radiation because that wasn't on their cognitive radar at all.
That being said, I do think they were picturing water in the sky (for all the reasons I talked about in the post on the raquia) but the firmament doesn't refer to the water, it refers to the solid plan holding the water up. And I do not think modern people need to believe there was ever water up there just because the Bible says there was water up there. Rather, the raquia/firmament is a good example of God accommodating his communication to his hearer. God was building a meaning-map of their own understandings, all the while stretching, changing, and pouring life into those understandings.
Andy, I am trying to figure out this thing called Substack! The idea you have posited above hits me two ways. One, I can accept right off the bat, and the other which, leaves me less certain. I fully get the idea of accommodated speech. It is an idea I see time and time again as I read the Bible. Example. God remembered Noah. (Had he forgotten him?) I get too, the turn of a phrase. I can hear that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills and not wonder if he owns the cattle on the 1001th. (And so I came to shed my belief that the earthly kingdom of God might be caged in 1000 literal years!)
But I am less at ease with the idea of God accommodating himself to human misinformation.
Funny, I can hear "four corners of the earth" as a poetic phrase, but would be bothered if I thought that the writer really thought there were four corners to the earth!
I think I will need to chew on your idea for a while. I am wary for reasons that go with the slope --- and what I see as erosive power of naturalism. (And so we end up with Christians who believe the miracles of Jesus are mere story devices, or the resurrection, something less that a physical fact.
You bring up some great examples. It is funny how we can be comfortable with one thing of a type but not another.
I was talking with a friend about all this once and he said something like, “But God would not lie to us!” The first response I want to give to that statement is, “I very much agree.” The point of God’s communication with us is to draw us further into reality and to conform us to his own likeness. So we can trust his revelation in that sense and, even if we do not fully understand it, Jesus said the Spirit would lead us into all truth.
There is another response I want to give to that statement that is more nuanced though. What does it even mean for an infinite being to tell the truth to a finite, fallen one? Even Jesus said after three years with his disciples, “ I have more to tell you but you can’t bear it yet.” How does God communicate what his children are not ready to understand? That is where Calvin’s analogy of a parent explaining things to a child works for me. I want my children to know the truth and be set free to flourish through that knowledge. But that doesn’t mean that I answer their questions according to the level of MY knowledge but I accommodate my answers to what will actually serve them. If God had told the ancient Hebrews about gravity and the atmosphere and outer space, would they have been helped? What was God trying to accomplish in his communication to the? Where did they need him to start? Where was he trying to take them? I think it is all worth careful consideration.
Recently I've been discussing hard vs. soft worldbuilding with a small group of speculative writers and finding a deep intersection with the way I read the bible. Scripture lays out geneologies and concrete details like Jesus braiding a whip, but also leaves enormous room for unanswered questions (or perhaps some answers are veiled or buried). I look forward to your future posts as I consider the ways my writing can echo the Author and Finisher's.
Such a fascinating read, and I love the connection to the tearing of the curtain with the death of Jesus. It’s definitely adds concrete to the symbol.... 😁
Having explored the Bible in more depth in the last year, I’ve also come to see how important it is to ‘take off our modern lenses’, but it’s left me wondering about accessibility to those who read God’s word without ever exploring the different ways of Eastern and Western thought. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the nuance in trying to adopt an ancient understanding while also recognising that those who do not may still experience fullness in the scripture.
Isabelle. What a great question. Every time I teach or write about this stuff, some version of that question pops up. Let me think on the answer and put a post together in the near future. Thanks!
Yes, Andy, I'm looking forward to what you have to say about this. I do believe that not everything in Scripture is immediately accessible to the average Joe, especially given our temporal, linguistic, and cultural distance from the original audiences. (Remember, while everything in the Bible was written for us, it wasn't written to us.) This is why "my Bible and me under a tree" and the popular insistence on the most superficial reading being the "plain meaning" just don't hold up—and will result in a very stunted understanding of the Bible. This is why God gave some to be teachers, and why I am immensely looking forward to Pattern Bible. Every Ethiopian eunuch needs a Philip to explain things to him.
On the other hand, as a Protestant, I want to steer well clear of any idea that the peasantry requires an infallible ecclesiological interpreter in order to fathom otherwise inscrutable Holy Writ. I uphold the perspicuity of Scripture in relation to all we need to know for salvation, and a good deal more. The plowboy can indeed accurately learn a great deal of God simply by having access to a Bible in his own language. How do we properly balance these two sides of the coin?
Thanks!
This is not a view I hold with any conviction, but I have encountered the argument from Young Earth Creationists that the Earth was in fact, once robed in an out water shield, a firmament above. (Much like Venus is robed in a mantle of cloud.) This ocean above gave rise to a far more uniform climate (hence tropical flora and fauna at the top and bottom of the globe.) Advocates of this model argue that the watery firmament is what collapsed at the time of the flood, and led to decreased life spans as Earth was now bombarded by scorching UV radiation.
Do you belive the firmament might apply to a watery wrap?
Hi Kirk. I've heard that view too and I think it is reading modern assumptions and priorities into the Bible to try to make the ancient text square with things we moderns value (like a coherent scientific-ish account of the physical arrangements of the world). Genesis isn't concerned with that at all. It is concerned with mapping meanings, not landscapes. It is in dialogue with ancient narratives, not our own. Basically, I think it misunderstands what kind of literature Genesis is. We don't have to resort to speculations about UV radiation because that wasn't on their cognitive radar at all.
That being said, I do think they were picturing water in the sky (for all the reasons I talked about in the post on the raquia) but the firmament doesn't refer to the water, it refers to the solid plan holding the water up. And I do not think modern people need to believe there was ever water up there just because the Bible says there was water up there. Rather, the raquia/firmament is a good example of God accommodating his communication to his hearer. God was building a meaning-map of their own understandings, all the while stretching, changing, and pouring life into those understandings.
What do you think?
Andy, I am trying to figure out this thing called Substack! The idea you have posited above hits me two ways. One, I can accept right off the bat, and the other which, leaves me less certain. I fully get the idea of accommodated speech. It is an idea I see time and time again as I read the Bible. Example. God remembered Noah. (Had he forgotten him?) I get too, the turn of a phrase. I can hear that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills and not wonder if he owns the cattle on the 1001th. (And so I came to shed my belief that the earthly kingdom of God might be caged in 1000 literal years!)
But I am less at ease with the idea of God accommodating himself to human misinformation.
Funny, I can hear "four corners of the earth" as a poetic phrase, but would be bothered if I thought that the writer really thought there were four corners to the earth!
I think I will need to chew on your idea for a while. I am wary for reasons that go with the slope --- and what I see as erosive power of naturalism. (And so we end up with Christians who believe the miracles of Jesus are mere story devices, or the resurrection, something less that a physical fact.
You bring up some great examples. It is funny how we can be comfortable with one thing of a type but not another.
I was talking with a friend about all this once and he said something like, “But God would not lie to us!” The first response I want to give to that statement is, “I very much agree.” The point of God’s communication with us is to draw us further into reality and to conform us to his own likeness. So we can trust his revelation in that sense and, even if we do not fully understand it, Jesus said the Spirit would lead us into all truth.
There is another response I want to give to that statement that is more nuanced though. What does it even mean for an infinite being to tell the truth to a finite, fallen one? Even Jesus said after three years with his disciples, “ I have more to tell you but you can’t bear it yet.” How does God communicate what his children are not ready to understand? That is where Calvin’s analogy of a parent explaining things to a child works for me. I want my children to know the truth and be set free to flourish through that knowledge. But that doesn’t mean that I answer their questions according to the level of MY knowledge but I accommodate my answers to what will actually serve them. If God had told the ancient Hebrews about gravity and the atmosphere and outer space, would they have been helped? What was God trying to accomplish in his communication to the? Where did they need him to start? Where was he trying to take them? I think it is all worth careful consideration.