Monday, July 22, 2013

Genesis 1, 2, 3 are Prophecies not Myths

Drifting in and out
See the road you’re on
You came rolling down the cheek
You say just what you need
And in between
It’s never as it seems
Help me to make it
Help me to make it

If you build yourself a myth
You'd know just what to give
What comes after this
Momentary bliss
The consequence
Of what you do to me

--Myth by Beach House


Some people today use the key word: myth, to explain Genesis 1, 2, 3.  Genesis 1, 2, 3 is a creation myth.  This is a terrible, terrible misnomer.  It has confused the hell out of everyone. Most people are unaware of the study of the myths over the past two hundred years.  

I could care less if the secular people call Genesis 1, 2, 3 a myth. Who cares what they think?  What disturbs me is that Jews and Christians call their own Sacred Text a myth!!!  I thought the whole point about Genesis One and all the other books about the Bible is that they are not myths!!!  They may or may not be heavy on figurative concepts, and we may have to apply critical thinking and rational analysis to them, but they are not myths.  They are set apart from the myths.    

What is a myth?  A myth, like all words, is first and foremost a concept.  It is a word concept.  A myth is a type of text that relates objects in dynamic relations with other objects via objects.  Most of the objects are made up, and so the events.  A myth is a type of story that is heavy on the made up referents.  The myth mostly refers to objects that do not exist and much less to objects that do or did exist.  When a few objects that do/did exist relate with mostly objects that do not exist:  You have built yourself a myth. Myths are distinguished from pure fiction since there may be a few real objects and events referred to in the context.  But from what I have seen, these are far and few between.  Myths are also distinguished from fiction since, in spite of the fact that most of the referents did not exist, they are used in sacred rituals, traditions, etc.

The word myth is defined from parsing texts such as Enuma Elish. The contextual grammar reveals that this story is made up.  It matters not if the story is ancient or modern, passed down or not passed down, heavy on the figurative concepts or not.  You read it and your final parsing reveals that it is a myth.  Enuma Elish was a myth which never got passed down to the modern generations. Then it was discovered.  They studied it and clearly understood that it was a myth. Nimrod, and his successive pagan priests built themselves a myth.  Maybe their was something of a real event and real objects in that story, but for the most part it is made up.        

Traditionally, those who believe in Genesis 1-11 never thought of it as a myth.  The early Christians who used Genesis 1 for their Easter Vigil liturgy did not view Genesis 1 as a myth.  But in the past three centuries some scholars have been in the heat of love with myths. And then they started discovering myths in ancient ruins. It was only when myths like Enuma Elish were discovered in the 1800s that Genesis 1-11 started to be compared to these newly discovered texts. Modern scholars defined Genesis 1-11 as a myth.  The association was supported by the theory of evolution and the West's abandonment of Christianity.  Some in the 20th century tried to reconcile myths with science, but this never materialized because science is always changing their explanations and myths just made-up hogwash.  

Now even prominent Christians call Genesis 1-11 a myth.  It is as if Nimrod who Blessed Anne called "an instrument of Satan" is having his revenge on God.  You cannot even open up a modern interpretation of Genesis One without seeing Nimrod's legacy compared to the sacred author's legacy!  All those years Nimrod spent making up the histories of his gods has really payed off!!!

For seventy years, Nimrod busied himself with the histories of these idols, with ceremonial details relative to their worship and the sacrifices to be offered them, also with the forming of the pagan priesthood. (Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Mysteries of the Old Testament)

Whoever naively calls Genesis 1-11 a myth is in way over his head. He has entered into a battle that began right after the Flood.

There are all sorts of theories about myths.  Scholars do not agree on a definition.  The concept myth is all confused.  And so some adopt the theory that myths are heavy on the allegorical elements and they use this to justify Genesis 1, 2, 3.  There is an enormous problem with this theoretical concept.  Figurative concepts are used in all literature.  If one ambiguously defines a myth as a text heavy on figurative concepts then one could apply that definition to half the Bible.  Heck even half of the literature on the internet is a myth under that definition, for people commonly use figurative concepts. Everyone employs figurative concepts in writing, even the scientists. You would literally have to come up with a computer model calculating the number of figurative concepts per plain word concepts in order to determine if a text is a myth or not.  And besides the type of literature heavy on figurative type concepts is poetry.  Myth and poem are two distinct concepts.  A story could be classified as a myth and a poem:  a poetic myth like Homer's stuff. Genesis 1, 2, 3 is clearly not a poem nor is it a myth, that is if you believe in it.

Prophecy and the Trees of Paradise   

Genesis 1, 2, 3 is not a myth.  It is rather a prophecy.  That is it's proper definition.  I recognized this from the moment I started seriously studying these texts.  This concept is the Christian concept of Genesis One begun with the Church Fathers and Doctors.  I agree with Saint Theophilus:

But men of God carrying in them a holy spirit and becoming prophets, being inspired and made wise by God, became God-taught, and holy, and righteous. Wherefore they were also deemed worthy of receiving this reward, that they should become instruments of God, and contain the wisdom that is from Him, through which wisdom they uttered both what regarded the creation of the world and all other things. For they predicted also pestilences, and famines, and wars. And there was not one or two, but many, at various times and seasons among the Hebrews; (Apologia ad Autolycus)

I hold that Genesis 1, 2, 3 are prophecies.  If this is old school then so be it.  This concept along with Inspiration establishes my context. These are my key terms I use to understand and explain Genesis 1, 2, 3.  I establish my key terms: prophecy and inspiration, and I use these to explain Genesis 1, 2, 3.  With prophecy and inspiration in mind all one has to do is decode the meaning using faith and critical thinking/rational analysis and because of the unique problems posed: creative thinking.  

I have always hoped that a clear defined meaning could be drawn out from all the words keeping the context coherent.  We are dealing with a linguistic text here, not a Math Equation or Logic. God and the sacred author had to have had clear definitions for each word that they employed.  If they used a figure of speech all one has to do is resolve it in its context.  Contextual languages define their terms by relating objects. Whether or not you believe in these objects and events is up to you.

Take for example the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  These word concepts refer to real objects.  In order to understand these objects, that is comprehend their meaning in context, one has to have a faith stimulation and help from God, stimulating wisdom, understanding and knowledge.  It makes sense that someone who does not believe would call these myths.  I on the other hand comprehend them as real objects that exist in the detached enclosure or disconnected organic sphere, called Paradise or the Garden of Eden.  Paradise is real object:  a strip of land with a sphere of atoms/molecules all detached from our network of atoms.  The trees are sacramental. Partaking of their fruits is to partake of a sacrament. To eat of the fruit is a figurative concept for taking in the stimulation of the fruit.  To eat is to take in that mystery which the fruit is meant to convey.  

Like in the expressions 'food for thought', or 'devouring a book'; the word eating is a common figurative concept deployed in all sorts of contexts, because we are always eating.  It is a fit figurative concept. It spices up life and helps to explain matters unapparent. And it is written that there are many trees.  So it is reasonable to think that some fruits in Paradise are plainly eaten to support the body.  Enoch and Elias are not starving to death up there in Paradise. There is a mingling of figurative and plain language in some of the words of these passages.  

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a type of sacramental tree that mystically instructs those who partake of its fruit.  This is clear from the Hebrew:

When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise . . . (NET translation)

The fruit of this Tree is a sacrament.  The fruit imparts knowledge to the partaker.  You do not necessarily have to eat it; just pick it and open it up.  When you open up the fruit you are instructed via words and motion pictures, like reading a book or watching a documentary or even experiencing a prophecy for that matter. You are stimulated by God via the fruit, e.g. your mind is woken up, your heart is exhilarated, you have new word concepts, you know more, you are invigorated, you are sparked, you are wiser, you are inspired, your heart is stronger: via the fruit. Just like receiving one of the Seven Sacraments, you change.  

The fruit is a potent sacramental, not on par with the Rosary, but still potent to the partaker.  God instructed Adam not to partake of the fruit of this type of tree as a test. Perhaps if Adam passed the test God would have instructed him through these sacramental fruits.  But he quickly failed.  As soon as he decided to figuratively eat of the fruit it was all over.  

Is this a myth?  To a secular person: yes.  To a believer, especially a Roman Catholic who eats the Resurrected Body and Blood of Christ Jesus, in the Sacrament on a regular basis: no.  How could it be?  A fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is nothing compared to the Resurrected Body and Blood of the Lord: the fruit of Mary's womb.  In fact partaking of the Body and Blood of Jesus when one is not initiated in Baptism or when one has not been reconciled to God after a serious culpable sin, like using contraception when one knows better, is analogous to Adam eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  He knew he was not suppose to eat it and he went and did it anyway.

The only way to validate a proposed description of the past is to be there and see it for yourself. Where were you when this and that happened?  God induced the sacred author to see it for himself and God inspired the sacred author to write what happened without error. And so what we have are prophecies from which we can draw definitive teachings.  The words of the prophecies define what happened.  That is what words do.  All one has to do is draw out the definitions of the words in their proper context. Language is not tautological.  The whole point about reading the Bible is that it gives you definitions that you can use on your journey of life.  If this were not the case then why read it?  If the Bible were ambiguous it would be useless.  It would be Math and Logic and Theories.    

The problems posed in understanding the Bible are solved by believing in the words, using critical thinking, reading with honesty and maturity, not caring what any secular person thinks, creativity and establishing the context.  If one establishes that Genesis 1, 2, 3 are myths he will never figure out what happened because the words are not mythical.  They are inspired-prophetic.  One could even say that they are sacramental.  They are not mythical. How do you think God 'feels' when you think his Word is a myth.  Enuma Elish is a Babylonian myth spawned from Nimrod.  Nimrod's myth is treated with more honor than Genesis 1, 2, 3.  Oh the backwardness of it all!!!!

Prediction and Postdiction        

Prophecies have the type of descriptions called prediction and postdiction.  Prediction is the description of a future event without error. Postdiction is the description of a past event without error. Genesis 1, 2, 3 has postdictions (my term).  As far as I know one can only describe a past event without error if he receives a stimulation from God called prophecy. Scientists cannot use tautological (unfalsifiable or unverifiable) systems such as Math and Logic to plug in variables and describe past and future events without error.  Their dating method and theories about the past are unfalsifiable and unverifiable.  Why? Because the only way to validate these proposals would be to jump into a time machine go back 200,000 years and see Mitochondrial Eve and every successive generation up to the present in order to empirically validate the dating method and theory.  They might get close, but the margin for error is too great.  They are not infallible or non-infallible.  Their methods are not critical in context to origins and destinies.     

How does one validate the proposal that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?  Go back in time, but this is impossible and so these theories lose critical weight in context to origins and destinies.  It is reasonable not to give them too much weight in context to origins and destinies.  Too much is at stake.  In fact they are arrogant in their proposals.  Some theories and dates could be mathematically valid or logically valid, but never empirically valid.  They are not facts of the Universal Movie, they are statements of facts.  So they presume to guide the human family with tautologies:  unverifiable--unfalsifiable proposals.  They are mad.  Their descriptions of the past and future can never be truths, in the meaning that religion has always used the term. In the Catholic Christian Religion truth is a proposal validated by the Resurrection of Jesus.  Science is not in the business of truth PERIOD.  

Theories might even not have any contradictions in terms of definitions (something I have never found) and still they are not validated by the senses because no one has been in the past. Events of the past are matters unapparent.  No one but God himself has the authority to teach proposals of the past as truths.  God pointed this out to Job.  

The scientists might get close to describing an event of the past or future without error, but they have no guarantee that the description is not erroneous. They are not prophesying.  Since when did a math equation or computer model become a Divine oracle? And there is no such thing as scientific dogma and doctrine.  In context to origins and destinies all science can do is relate discovered objects in a speculation buttressed by whatever the tautological Math and Logic has to offer, but these are not descriptions without error or even the august validated proposals (truths) on par with a prophecy of Sacred Scripture.  They are tautolgies: unfalsifiable-unverifiable. 

And even if the theory is rational, it is still not a validated proposal in context to the past, since no one was there to see it happen.  You can come up with a reasonable theory of past events and it is not a truth.  The past is unapparent.  It is less certain than coming to the reasonable conclusion that there is One God.  Only God knows the past as well as the future.  God stimulated prophets to predict and postdict. Scientists are not stimulated to predict and postdict.  They might get close, or they might not.  But this is not critical when the stakes of the origin and destiny of the human family are laid out.    

And you cannot treat the Sacred Texts as tautologies.  You cannot treat an inspired and prophetic linguistic term as a math variable, plugging in results (based on science which is ever changing) and still expect the Text to retain its original context.  Scientific theories or dating methods cannot verify or falsify or even validate the Word of God.  God and the sacred author had a specific meaning for every single word of their texts which transcend all tautology and scientific validation.  

Finding the right meaning provides the validated proposal for the context.  Since no one was their in the past, and God and the sacred author are not present to explain themselves God guides through the spiritual authority and stimulation such as faith, wisdom, understanding, knowledge. Hard science plays a very small role in interpreting any Sacred Scripture describing past and future events.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.