[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< These quotes quickly get out of hand. Kudos to you, Tirib, for having the patience to go through and divide up the posts neatly in your responses. >>>[/quote]I appreciate your appreciation. Unfortunately our friend “the bodyguard” has seen fit to ascribe nefarious motives to this practice. Maybe you can explain to him sometime that I do this out of both regard for the person’s contribution that I am responding to AND, just as importantly, the ease of access to others who will read my posts.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I agree that our differences are certainly theological. I wouldn’t claim otherwise. As you have rightly said, everything is theological. >>>[/quote]Yes they are and yes it is. We appear to agree there.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I have yet to lay out my understanding, actually. I am simply mentioning some of the pertinent evidence. The scriptures don’t always explain things; because they were first addressed to others (i.e., the ancient Israelites), they assume a significant amount of knowledge on the part of the original audience. Consequently, since Israel “grew up” in the cultural milieu of the ancient Near East, and since no explicit explanations of the 'image of God" (tselem elohim) terminology is given, it is likely that a readily available concept is being employed.
Of course, this does not imply that the concept remains unchanged. By situating the concept in a new context, the author definitely alters the concept. In this case, a term that was originally applied only to (1) kings or (2) idols is now applied to humanity corporately. That’s a significant expansion of the concept, and it further clarifies some of God’s enmity toward idols - he has already placed his image in the world.
So yeah, I think the ancient Near Eastern context is, in this case, very pertinent. Moreover, the image of God seems to function on the level of an archetype, i.e., it is humanity in general that possesses this image, much like the church as a whole is the temple of God. In other words, when they use that concept, the biblical authors seem to think primarily in corporate terms. This understanding preserves human dignity by describing the characteristic telos of human existence without forcing us to narrowly define human life in terms of traits that some human beings do not possess. >>>[/quote]We are going to butt heads on a list of things in this section above. The specific discussion of the “image of God” in man is incidental. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< The issue of the nature of personal interiority in the ancient Near East is incredibly complex, and it may in fact be anachronistic to assume that you’re understanding of what makes humanity unique was shared by the Israelites and their neighbors. The Israelites seemed to have no problem accepting that, to some degree, animals could be wise and capable of speech (Gen. 3:1, Num. 22:28). Moreover, the author of Ecclesiastes considers human beings fundamentally akin to animals, sharing the same ruah and the same fate (Eccl. 3:18-21). My point is that this is a very complex issue; we cannot assume that the ancient Israelites assumed that the image of God consisted of cognitive capacity. >>>[/quote]I didn’t say “cognitive capacity”. In fact I specified in other words and terms that man and animals share some characteristics, including what amounted to “cognitive capacity”. Last I October I said to’ of all people Bodyguard: [quote]Real quick. Got bible study tonight. Genesis 2:7 “God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a LIVING SOUL” King James Version. Genesis 1:20 “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
This is just a quick example since you asked. The same root word rendered as “living soul” in 2:7 is rendered as “creature that hath life” in 1:20. The New American Standard Bible (nasb), my favorite translation, Gives us living creature in 1:20 and “living being” in 2:7. “nefesh hayya” in the Hebrew. What distinguishes one from the other is God’s personally enlivening man in His very image. Like I say one quick example.
I wasn’t trying to refute or support your argument. I was reporting the biblical view because I knew you’d be in unbearable suspense until I did… Couldn’t let ya down like that.[/quote] My Hebrew is even worse than my koine Greek which ain’t too spectacular either. However, you took great license with the verses you quoted above. God decreeing specific instances of talking animals, especially in the case of the serpent has no bearing whatsoever on the created order. Every earthly creature since the fall dies physically, as Solomon, who you seem hesitant to own as the author, very rightly declares. And that in a book written by a despairing King at the end of his life which contains a fair number of falsehoods. Everything in the bible is truly stated, but not EVERYTHING in the bible is a statement of truth. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< That’s actually the opposite of what I intended to communicate. Ahh, the ambiguity of language… Let’s try this…
Those conceding a level of cogency to your arguments = the ones thinking critically
Those refusing to concede = the ones refusing to think critically. >>>[/quote]Ok. You won’t be surprised to learn that I agree with this as stated.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I was simply making this comment as an excuse to shift the discussion a bit. After this much work, after this many of your coherent posts and this many of your opponents’ irrelevant responses, you’ve probably squeezed out as much critical thought (at least on the foundational issues) of the current posters as they are willing to give. Most of the posters respond exactly the same way - “no, my knowledge is based on facts, not belief. You’re the one who relies on belief; I simply stick to the facts.” They obviously aren’t willing to take the time to think through your arguments. >>>[/quote]Ok. You also won’t be surprised to learn that I agree with this as stated as well. Thank you? Forgive me man, but the silent alarm is blinking in my face and I’m strapping my Fundy helmet on while I type this. =] We’ll see if I need it. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Anyway, I think Kamui’s remark about “someone’s” use of the socratic method was rather apropos. As my old philosophy professor used to say, “the socratic method is great, so long as you get to compose your opponent’s responses.” >>>[/quote]My opponents responses we’re all essentially composed in the 3rd chapter of Genesis. They’ve simply been packaged differently over the centuries. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Unfortunately, since not everyone has thought through their positions as well you, most of your opponents don’t know how they are supposed to respond, so they mainly resort to non-sequiturs. [/quote]No reflection on their intelligence, but this is very many times the case. I’m glad you changed your mind. I mean that.
[/quote]
I’m not sure what I changed my mind on, to be honest, but thanks :). Also, I was just teasing you about the socratic method; I was making a historical (and very bad) joke. We know the Socratic method through the works of Plato, but Plato’s Dialogues are compositions, not transcripts. Thus my teacher’s point that it’s much easier to employ the Socratic method effectively when YOU get to determine your opponent’s responses. Maybe you got the joke…
I think you can turn the silent alarm off. Just because I am… what was it now… a “liberal academic”, that doesn’t mean I cannot recognize a valid point (especially when I’ve landed there previously myself :)).
I am not trying to take liberties with Scripture. While I will admit that the Balaam’s ass story is ambiguous (the Hebrew merely says “Yahweh opened its mouth, and she said,” which may indicate either a loosening of the tongue (i.e., she is allowed to exercise a latent capacity) or the enabling of the donkey for speech), the serpent’s story mentions nothing about a special commission from Yahweh to speak. While much systematic theological work has been done on this issue (i.e., the equation of the serpent with Satan), the fact remains that the text itself (1) takes the ability of the serpent to speak for granted, and (2) calls the serpent the craftiest of the beasts of the field. Moreover, this image of the serpent coheres with other ancient Near Eastern portrayals of the serpent. I understand that you can read Satan into those passages (even though the only support for identifying the serpent with Satan is in Revelation 12:9 and Romans 16:20, both of which may be using the serpent as a metaphor for Satan (as both Satan and the serpent deceive) rather than explicitly identifying it with Satan). Nevertheless, there is no evidence that an ancient Near Eastern reader (especially an Israelite) would have read this story as a reference to Satan, and the text mentions nothing about Yahweh enabling or commissioning the animal to speak. Its essential character is described as crafty, and its ability to speak is taken for granted.
Whether or not Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes is a matter of debate. My position on the authorship of the book is not a test of orthodoxy, as it does not explicitly state who wrote it. Moreover, Tremper Longman has pointed out that, in terms of genre, the text is especially similar to other ancient Near Eastern pseudonymous autobiographies, in which a prominent figure would reflect on his life and achievements and dole out proverbs at the end. These biographies were all pseudonymous, meaning they weren’t written by the “author” who claims to speak in the text, and they served a didactic function (pseudonymity was not an acceptable practice in the Greco-Roman world, however, so don’t think I am going there).
Anyway, I agree with you 100% (and am glad that you’re doctrine of inerrancy on this issue is sufficiently nuanced so as to allow the possibility) that much of what is said in Ecclesiastes is false. That being said, it DOES give us a window into how ancient Near Eastern people, specifically some of the ancient Israelites, thought. Here we have the clear belief that there was no difference in the ruah (not nephesh, which usually refers to the whole entity), the enlivening breath, of human and animal.
More importantly, your point (I think) is that Qoheleth’s point is not to make a claim about human ontology, but rather to argue that IN SO FAR as death is concerned, human beings and animals are akin. That is a great point. However, there is catch. Your argument presupposes that (1) the Fall narrative of Genesis 3 had wide ranging influence on Hebrew anthropology, and (2) that they would have understood the Fall narrative in your very-Pauline terms. However, the anthropology displayed in Ecclesiastes does not clearly reflect any knowledge of the Genesis 3 account. It does not clearly employ Genesis 3 as a fundamental lens through which to understand the human condition. You could assume that the author assumes Genesis 3 as his background, but that is not clearly demonstrable from the text itself.
More importantly, even if the author of Ecclesiastes knew of the Genesis 3 Fall narrative, that doesn’t mean that he understood it the same way you do. I believe you have argued before (I think it was you, but I could be wrong; either way, my point still applies) that humanity lost immortality in the garden. However, the text does not say that Adam and Eve never ate from the tree of life at all, nor does it say that one bite would have been sufficient to grant them eternal life. Rather, as Dr. John Walton notes in commenting on Gen. 3:22, “careful study of the term that the NIV translates “forever” has demonstrated that it is not an abstract term, suggesting infinity or eternity per se, but characterizes something as being open-ended, with no anticipated ending built in. It is better translated “perpetual life,” suggesting that the fruit constantly counteracts aging. Extension of life is the issue in the four references to this tree in Proverbs. In 3:16-18, the tree is parallel to “long life” as one of the benefits wisdom has to offer” (Walton, Genesis, 170). In other words, “the Israelites viewed the tree of life as a tree of youth rather than as a tree of immortality.” That’s why God cuts them off from the tree - not because they haven’t eaten from it, but because by continuing to eat from it, they will prevent aging. This also coheres well with God’s explanation for why Adam must die in 3:19 - dust you are, and to dust you will return. In other words, immortality was not an inherent characteristic of human existence; it was given provisionally through access to the tree.
Consequently, if that is true, then in reality, by cutting off our access to the tree, God sentences us to be what we naturally are, i.e., mortal. As Qoheleth says, there is no difference between human and beast. The same ruah (life-breath) enlivens both, AND both experience the same death. Thus, his point is both ontological and experiential. That’s my take on it, anyway.
