Creation and Garden Story: Instructional Value?


wenglund
 Share

Recommended Posts

The creation and Garden stories are recounted multiple times throughout the LDS canon of scripture as well as during the temple ceremony. There must be some important reason behind the repetition. What do you suppose that is? Is there something we may learn beyond the somewhat obvious?

I suspect there is, and I have gleaned some hints of what that may be from an unlikely, non-LDS source--a professor of psychology in Canada, who is fond of quoting Neitzche and Jung, of all people:

 

This presentation is part of an entire series on the psychological significance of the biblical stories

What I intend for this thread is to not only discuss and challenge Peterson's ideas, but to introduce ideas of our own. Perhaps we can start by proposing interpretations for the phrase, "In the beginning." :  The beginning of what?

Particularly helpful will be interpretations that enable us to liken the scriptures unto ourselves, and this  in relation to the mission of the Church in enabling us to become like Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

The creation and Garden stories are recounted multiple times throughout the LDS canon of scripture as well as during the temple ceremony. There must be some important reason behind the repetition. What do you suppose that is? Is there something we may learn beyond the somewhat obvious?

I suspect there is, and I have gleaned some hints of what that may be from an unlikely, non-LDS source--a professor of psychology in Canada, who is fond of quoting Neitzche and Jung, of all people:

 

This presentation is part of an entire series on the psychological significance of the biblical stories

What I intend for this thread is to not only discuss and challenge Peterson's ideas, but to introduce ideas of our own. Perhaps we can start by proposing interpretations for the phrase, "In the beginning." :  The beginning of what?

Particularly helpful will be interpretations that enable us to liken the scriptures unto ourselves, and this  in relation to the mission of the Church in enabling us to become like Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

“The Beggining”:

- In reference to the beggining if the Earth. The creation was revealed to Moses and that is where I came from. So I’m context (Moses 1-2), God is simply showing Moses how the Earth was made. So the phrase “the beggining” simply means “the first thing I did was...”

 

Importance of the Lesson of the Fall:

- Explains why we need the Atonement

- Explains our responsibility with agency

- Solves the “Problem of Evil”

- An essential portion of the Plan of Salvation. This and the Atonement are the only major events that have occurred dealing with the plan of salvation.

I personally feel the Fall alone contains a very large portion of the gospel, hence why we use it. It discusses the Atonement, Agency, POS, Obedience, Repentance and much more. It appears to me that the example of Adam and Eve are prototypes of what we all must go through. Be born, get married, sin, confess and repent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fether said:

Importance of the Lesson of the Fall:

- Explains why we need the Atonement

- Explains our responsibility with agency

- Solves the “Problem of Evil”

- An essential portion of the Plan of Salvation. This and the Atonement are the only major events that have occurred dealing with the plan of salvation.

I personally feel the Fall alone contains a very large portion of the gospel, hence why we use it. It discusses the Atonement, Agency, POS, Obedience, Repentance and much more. It appears to me that the example of Adam and Eve are prototypes of what we all must go through. Be born, get married, sin, confess and repent.

Profound! I look forward to you further explaining once we get to the Fall.

Quote

“The Beggining”:

- In reference to the beggining if the Earth. The creation was revealed to Moses and that is where I came from. So I’m context (Moses 1-2), God is simply showing Moses how the Earth was made. So the phrase “the beggining” simply means “the first thing I did was...”

In his presentation, Peterson reminds us of the tie between Gen. 1:1 and Jn. 1:1-2, which suggest that "the beginning" may be an existence that predates the creation, or even time, though it may mark the point in time (or otherwise) that gave rise to the creation.

Peterson suggest that "the beginning," psychologically, is in reference to the emergence, and thus primacy, of consciousness, the place from whence creation, of sorts, can occur.

I like this suggestion because it can apply not only to the genesis of consciousness for all of mankind, but, as a way of likening the scriptures to ourselves,  it may refer also to our own individual consciousness, both in terms of our cognizant presence in the material world, but also our human awareness of the spiritual world. "The beginning" can then refer to all of the following: the creation of the earth, the creation of conscious mankind, our own birth, our awakening from sleep into consciousness each day, our rebirth from spiritual sleep to consciousness through baptism, and finally our awakening from physical death unto eternal consciousness through the resurrection.

From these first three words ("in the beginning") of the creation and garden narrative we may find that there is much that may be learned about ourselves (our past, present and future) from the biblical narrative.

Wonderful stuff. This portends to make going to the temple all the more enlightening and endowing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Fether said:

“The Beggining”:

- In reference to the beggining if the Earth. The creation was revealed to Moses and that is where I came from. So I’m context (Moses 1-2), God is simply showing Moses how the Earth was made. So the phrase “the beggining” simply means “the first thing I did was...”

 

Importance of the Lesson of the Fall:

- Explains why we need the Atonement

- Explains our responsibility with agency

- Solves the “Problem of Evil”

- An essential portion of the Plan of Salvation. This and the Atonement are the only major events that have occurred dealing with the plan of salvation.

I personally feel the Fall alone contains a very large portion of the gospel, hence why we use it. It discusses the Atonement, Agency, POS, Obedience, Repentance and much more. It appears to me that the example of Adam and Eve are prototypes of what we all must go through. Be born, get married, sin, confess and repent.

 

- It also teaches why mortality and its problems are necessary and ultimately good for us.

- It also teaches about work.  I heard the story dozens of times before it became significant to me that there was work done by Adam and Eve in the garden BEFORE the fall.

- We're also taught the importance of marriage and staying by your partner's side when tough times hit.  This is very important, yet I didn't consider the Garden and Fall story a marriage sermon for quite a long time.  I do now, every time I hear it.

Being able to add additional bullet points with new truths isn't the only wonderful thing about studying the story repetitively.  My actual level of understanding of fundamental truths has deepened significantly.  Gaining a correct and deep understanding of doctrine is very powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rhoades said:

- It also teaches why mortality and its problems are necessary and ultimately good for us.

- It also teaches about work.  I heard the story dozens of times before it became significant to me that there was work done by Adam and Eve in the garden BEFORE the fall.

- We're also taught the importance of marriage and staying by your partner's side when tough times hit.  This is very important, yet I didn't consider the Garden and Fall story a marriage sermon for quite a long time.  I do now, every time I hear it.

Being able to add additional bullet points with new truths isn't the only wonderful thing about studying the story repetitively.  My actual level of understanding of fundamental truths has deepened significantly.  Gaining a correct and deep understanding of doctrine is very powerful.

I am excited to hear more. Things are shaping up for some amazing illumination as we work our way, bit by bit, through the story.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, wenglund said:

In his presentation, Peterson reminds us of the tie between Gen. 1:1 and Jn. 1:1-2, which suggest that "the beginning" may be an existence that predates the creation, or even time, though it may mark the point in time (or otherwise) that gave rise to the creation.

Peterson suggest that "the beginning," psychologically, is in reference to the emergence, and thus primacy, of consciousness, the place from whence creation, of sorts, can occur.

I like this suggestion because it can apply not only to the genesis of consciousness for all of mankind, but, as a way of likening the scriptures to ourselves,  it may refer also to our own individual consciousness, both in terms of our cognizant presence in the material world, but also our human awareness of the spiritual world. "The beginning" can then refer to all of the following: the creation of the earth, the creation of conscious mankind, our own birth, our awakening from sleep into consciousness each day, our rebirth from spiritual sleep to consciousness through baptism, and finally our awakening from physical death unto eternal consciousness through the resurrection.

From these first three words ("in the beginning") of the creation and garden narrative we may find that there is much that may be learned about ourselves (our past, present and future) from the biblical narrative.

Wonderful stuff. This portends to make going to the temple all the more enlightening and endowing.

Joseph in the King Follet discourse has much to say about the mind of man. I have tried to understand his thinking. He tells us, "I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man - the immortal part, because it has no beginning." Note here that he is speaking of the mind of man. He distinguishes separate parts of our mind. He terms one portion the "immortal part" because there is no beginning about it. Perhaps today it might be termed consciousness. It is the portion of our intelligence that is aware. If we go back and back in time I believe we will find that we always had some unique awareness. Perhaps at some point it was almost completely undeveloped, but it was there. This part had no beginning! As Joseph tells us, "the soul - the mind of man - the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessons man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better." And so do I. 

If we always existed as a conscious entity in some form what did God do for us? Joseph again says, "All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement." And that is what God has done and is attempting to do, namely, enlarge and enlighten our minds. He is taking our nascent awareness and  adding light and understanding to it if we will accept it. The scriptures testify of it again and again. Paul says, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" (Romans 12:2). Or Alma, "And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the see, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow ye must needs know that the seed is good. And now behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand." (Alma 32:33-34). 

The beginning then as Genesis defines it, is a round of this enlightenment. The Lord creates an earth where we may dwell and be tested that our consciousness may expand. The first words we here from God are these, "Let there be light", and of course there was light. Perhaps this ties well into the way John speaks of the beginning. He always links the beginning with one who comes to this earth who has reached the pinnacle of awareness and enlightenment, this of course is Jesus Christ. He is and was a light shinning in darkness. He came to give us light and life. This then is the beginning. Perhaps not primarily in terms of time, but in purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2017 at 7:50 AM, james12 said:

The beginning then as Genesis defines it, is a round of this enlightenment. The Lord creates an earth where we may dwell and be tested that our consciousness may expand. The first words we here from God are these, "Let there be light", and of course there was light. Perhaps this ties well into the way John speaks of the beginning. He always links the beginning with one who comes to this earth who has reached the pinnacle of awareness and enlightenment, this of course is Jesus Christ. He is and was a light shinning in darkness. He came to give us light and life. This then is the beginning. Perhaps not primarily in terms of time, but in purpose.

This is a perfect lead-in to the next several verses of Genesis: 1  

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darknesswas upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the firstday.

Questions:

  • What do the darkness and light represent, and how do they relate to "without form," "void," and "deep?" 
  • Is there any significance to how God brought light into existence (i.e. "God said")
  • How do these notions relate to us today?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I was handed a book this morning that appears at first glance to relate well to this discussion. It was written by BYU professor, Alozo L. Gaskel, and is titled: "The Truth About Eden: Understanding the Fall and the Temple Experience."  I may purchase the kindle version ($9.00) and post pertinent points as  I read through it and as the discussion progresses.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2017 at 2:55 PM, wenglund said:

The creation and Garden stories are recounted multiple times throughout the LDS canon of scripture as well as during the temple ceremony. There must be some important reason behind the repetition. What do you suppose that is? Is there something we may learn beyond the somewhat obvious?

I suspect there is, and I have gleaned some hints of what that may be from an unlikely, non-LDS source--a professor of psychology in Canada, who is fond of quoting Neitzche and Jung, of all people.

This presentation is part of an entire series on the psychological significance of the biblical stories

What I intend for this thread is to not only discuss and challenge Peterson's ideas, but to introduce ideas of our own. Perhaps we can start by proposing interpretations for the phrase, "In the beginning." :  The beginning of what?

Particularly helpful will be interpretations that enable us to liken the scriptures unto ourselves, and this  in relation to the mission of the Church in enabling us to become like Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Elder Bednar suggested two reasons behind repetition in communicating spiritual messages and truths is 1) follow the Lord’s pattern for us to receive and recognize revelation; 2) we change over time and get new light and insight from something that is repeated at various junctures of our development. https://www.lds.org/church/news/repetition-important-in-teaching-and-learning-elder-bednar-says?lang=eng

The lessons in the Creation and Garden stories are innumerable; we see that same thing in the canon as we read it over and over (something new always comes to light). I think this may prove to be a very long thread!

I think the lessons of Adam and Eve offer more sacred knowledge in the sense of what we become than in the fund of knowledge we acquire. The Lord uses the phrase “attain unto” which I think conveys this sense of progressive becoming rather than merely acquiring (“Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.” – D&C 130:18). The pattern in their story is one of progressively acting on the light they receive, which is more than simply possessing light, but actively sharing and attaining unto more.

I think "In the beginning" is an interesting way to introduce the story, since it eventually references, through "flashback," the time when things were created spiritually, before they were created naturally upon the earth. I think this establishes the sense that there is always more to the story, but will never take a "180" and keep taking us in the same direction. We can trust where it is taking us.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 12:55 PM, wenglund said:

.....

What I intend for this thread is to not only discuss and challenge Peterson's ideas, but to introduce ideas of our own. Perhaps we can start by proposing interpretations for the phrase, "In the beginning." :  The beginning of what?

....

 

 

More complication - I posted in another thread and I posted with an error - the variant reading is “When” not “Before” G-d first established his covenant with man.   I am of the opinion that when we think of the creation from what we learn in scripture we think of the origins of our universe and cosmos.   This is not what I believe is the beginning of revelation as we have recorded scripture.  I believe what is really going on is a tutorial of covenants established through the plan of salvation – before the foundations of the earth (this world) were laid.

When we enter the temple (holy house of G-d) to become endowed with divine covenant which is our heritage from before the earth was made; we begin with instruction of how our covenant began or came about.  The beginning of our covenant is what we call the “creation”.   If we understand the purpose and structure of a Chiasm we see that the “beginning” or first step (blessing) of the covenant is the creation of light.  I suggest this is not reference to electrical magnetic radiation.  Then, according to covenant G-d begins a process of “separating” the light from the darkness – all of which ends in what the scriptures call the final judgment which is the end of the Chiasm.  At the center of the Chiasm that describes the Plan of Salvation is Christ and the atonement.  I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to fill in the rest of the Plan of Salvation Chiasm.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2017 at 8:52 AM, Traveler said:

More complication - I posted in another thread and I posted with an error - the variant reading is “When” not “Before” G-d first established his covenant with man.   I am of the opinion that when we think of the creation from what we learn in scripture we think of the origins of our universe and cosmos.   This is not what I believe is the beginning of revelation as we have recorded scripture.  I believe what is really going on is a tutorial of covenants established through the plan of salvation – before the foundations of the earth (this world) were laid.

When we enter the temple (holy house of G-d) to become endowed with divine covenant which is our heritage from before the earth was made; we begin with instruction of how our covenant began or came about.  The beginning of our covenant is what we call the “creation”.   If we understand the purpose and structure of a Chiasm we see that the “beginning” or first step (blessing) of the covenant is the creation of light.  I suggest this is not reference to electrical magnetic radiation.  Then, according to covenant G-d begins a process of “separating” the light from the darkness – all of which ends in what the scriptures call the final judgment which is the end of the Chiasm.  At the center of the Chiasm that describes the Plan of Salvation is Christ and the atonement.  I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to fill in the rest of the Plan of Salvation Chiasm.

 

The Traveler

I love it. You even led nicely into my  follow-up questions. I would be interested to learn your answers in relation to your proposition that  the divine covenant with man iss the "creation" in question--that is, as long as the answers don't violate the temple covenant, itself.

Questions:

  • What do the darkness and light represent, and how do they relate to "without form," "void," and "deep?" 
  • Is there any significance to how God brought light into existence (i.e. "God said")
  • How do this notions relate to us today?

Am I correct in assuming that the way we liken the creation story to ourselves is through our personal covenants made with God, in the which we become a new "creation," and the light within us becomes separated from the darkness?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2017 at 12:52 PM, wenglund said:
  • What do the darkness and light represent, and how do they relate to "without form," "void," and "deep?" 

With the belief in mind that the "creation" in Genesis 1 is a representation of various things--including those I previously listed as well as those proposed by others (i.e. forming of the spiritual and physical earth, the "round of eternal enlightenment," "covenant," etc.), let me answer my own questions in relation to Peterson's belief that the creation is about consciousness.

In terms of consciousness, then darkness and light, and the separation thereof,  represent chaos vs order, the unknown vs the known, sleep vs awakening. and I would add (as per 2Ne. 2 and other scriptures) that they represent lies/error/falsity vs truth, wickedness vs righteousness, sorrow vs joy/happiness, shame vs glory/honor, digression vs. progression, etc. Furthermore, by way of God naming the light as "good," we have the separation of evil from good.

Prior to consciousness, the world was without form, and void. It is a deep ocean of chaotic potential. Whereas, through consciousness, darkness is separated from light--i.e. through enlightenment the unkown is separated from the known, and so forth.

On a personal level, this consciousness may occur  through the spirit entering the physical body at birth, or through secular education, or rebirth at baptism, or ultimately through the resurrection.

Fun stuff!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

I love it. You even led nicely into my  follow-up questions. I would be interested to learn your answers in relation to your proposition that  the divine covenant with man iss the "creation" in question--that is, as long as the answers don't violate the temple covenant, itself.

Questions:

  • What do the darkness and light represent, and how do they relate to "without for," "void," and "deep?" 
  • Is there any significance to how God brought light into existence (i.e. "God said")
  • How do this notions relate to us today?

Am I correct in assuming that the way we liken the creation story to ourselves is through our personal covenants made with God, in the which we become a new "creation," and the light within us becomes separated from the darkness?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The plan of salvation is the separation of light from darkness (light being the light of truth) – which is also the separating of those that choose darkness from those that choose light.  The plan of salvation is not completed until the execution of the last or final judgment at which all things of light are accounted for and likewise are all “things” that is dark is also accounted for (separated from the light).

There are a few differences between the presentation of the plan of salvation at the Temple from the presentation that is recorded in scripture.  I assume these differences are critical and carefully orchestrated by divine design – implying that what we learn in the Temple is a line and a precept addition to scripture prophesied by Isaiah.

As to matter being void - without form and associated with “deep waters” is interesting but I do not believe is understood well without the Book of Abraham and a connection to ancient Egyptian concepts of “creation” associated with water.  Water has interesting symbolism in birth, baptism and atonement or as Jesus made reference to himself and “living water”.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to what I answered above, it should be noted that while the terms "light and darkness" seem to be discrete binary categories, they are actually arrayed across a spectrum, from absolute darkness to absolute and intense light.

As such, the separation of light and darkness also consist of unbelief vs. faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In relation to the "creation" as a representation of procreation, Mother Earth (the egg) is relatively without form, and void, and resides within the "deep" of the uterus. God or man (the sperm), through the procreative process, gives the new creation form and meaningful substance. The spirit of God (sperm) moves upon the face of the waters. and God said, let there be light, or in other words, God breaths the breath of life and the new creation becomes a living soul. And God saw the light (i.e. the newly created life),  that it was good. And, God separated the light from the darkness, or in other words he separated life from death.

In another respect, the separation of light from darkness may consist also in distinguishing the spirit body from the physical body.

I mention this because it ties in intimately with the gospel plan. 

Please consider this the next time you attend the temple or read the various creation passages.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

The plan of salvation is the separation of light from darkness (light being the light of truth) – which is also the separating of those that choose darkness from those that choose light.  The plan of salvation is not completed until the execution of the last or final judgment at which all things of light are accounted for and likewise are all “things” that is dark is also accounted for (separated from the light).

There are a few differences between the presentation of the plan of salvation at the Temple from the presentation that is recorded in scripture.  I assume these differences are critical and carefully orchestrated by divine design – implying that what we learn in the Temple is a line and a precept addition to scripture prophesied by Isaiah.

As to matter being void - without form and associated with “deep waters” is interesting but I do not believe is understood well without the Book of Abraham and a connection to ancient Egyptian concepts of “creation” associated with water.  Water has interesting symbolism in birth, baptism and atonement or as Jesus made reference to himself and “living water”.

 

The Traveler

So much here to feast upon. Very tasty! Again, it is a great lead into what I just posted, and opens up a vast smorgasbord  of possibilities to assuage our hunger.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, wenglund said:
  • What do the darkness and light represent, and how do they relate to "without for," "void," and "deep?" 
  • Is there any significance to how God brought light into existence (i.e. "God said")
  • How do this notions relate to us today?

DARKNESS, ETC.

In the creation story, "darkness" represents nothingness.  It is also the place where God was not.  It could very well be a form of "outer darkness."  I tend to think that the place where we call outer darkness is just the place where God's infinite realm has not yet extended.  There's a reason it is "OUTER" darkness.  There's nothing there.  Consider the meaning of "If You Could Hie to Kolob." It is beyond the outside curtain.

"Without form" goes into my theory about how God creates things. But I've rehashed that a few times.  So I shall forbear this time.

"Void" should be obvious if nothing is there.

"Deep" is a metaphor.  When you look into a bottomless pit, it is deep.  There's nothing there.  There is no bottom. "The enemy gate is down."

LIGHT AND "SAID"

Who is "The Word"?  When God spoke, it came into existence by the power of His Word.  By extending God's realm into the "nothing" then "something" is there -- light.  God's realm and power are light.  The glory of God is intelligence.  When His realm extends into the nothing, the void, the emptiness, light is brought there.

TODAY

Why do you think any of this has changed in all of existence?

Unless... you may be asking about the interpetation and metaphorical meaning of the story.  No, I'm not going to go into that.  But of course, your question were not inquisitive.  They were pedagogical.  So... waste of time.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zil said:

How about a hint for those of us who have forgotten?

Matter synthesis. Ex nihilo. Take of these materials.  Spirit is matter.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2017 at 6:08 AM, Carborendum said:

Who is "The Word"?  When God spoke, it came into existence by the power of His Word. 

Agreed. The Father commanded, and the Son obeyed, and thereby the Earth was created.

However, I believe there is another layer of meaning which relates to Peterson's proposal that light is consciousness. Within the context of consciousness, language is a primary mechanism for bringing chaotic potential  into order and giving form to conceptual formlessness and voids. For us, the Earth, and parts thereof wouldn't exist without consciousness, and it wouldn't be comprehensible without language providing a conceptual framework, nor would such comprehension be shared without the public or spoken language--i.e. "said" and "word."

Language, then, is a means of creation. It is a means for bringing things to light, or in other words, it is a means for creating light (truth and knowledge) and separating the light from the darkness (ignorance and error).

To me, language is a divine attribute. It gives us the capacity to create, even as our Father and elder brother.

Understanding this not only enables us to liken the creation story to ourselves, but it also gives added meaning to when God confounded the language of the people of Babel in consequence to their disobedient and illegitimate attempt to circumvent the ways of God by using a man made means of getting to heaven. 

Additionally, language is necessary to name things, as well as "calling" them good. 

We see teaching of these notions played out most evidently and basically with preschoolers. A child may questioningly point at a color, and the parent may name it as "blue," and then point to another color and name it "red," and so on. Over time, and through enough pointing and naming, a child is eventually able to grasp and distinguish between the various colors as well as their respective shades. The child may then point upwards and say "blue," to which the parents may say "yes, that is the sky, and this is the earth." Thus, in the mind of the child, the heavens and earth are conceptually created. And such is the linguistic or ideational foundation upon which our various epistemology and world views are established. And, it is good.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, wenglund said:

For us, the Earth, and parts thereof wouldn't exist without consciousness, and it wouldn't be comprehensible without language providing a conceptual framework, nor would such comprehension be shared without the public or spoken language--i.e. "said" and "word."

I'm not sure it's accurate to say physical objects (for example) can't be comprehended without language.  And to some degree they can be shared without language (maybe, see below).  But certainly communication, non-basic sharing, and conceptual comprehension (ideas, non-visual / auditory / tactile experiences) would be lost without language.

In other words, I can look at, touch, and comprehend a rock without having a word for "rock".  I can show it to another and they can recognize that it's that hard, cold, grey thing like others they've seen and touched.  But our comprehension and communication won't go any further without language of some sort - even gestures are language - perhaps even the act of showing is a form of language - but I don't think the mere initial observation was a form of language - just observation.

Regardless of that nitpicky bit, your post is very interesting and worth some pondering.  Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2017 at 4:33 PM, zil said:

I'm not sure it's accurate to say physical objects (for example) can't be comprehended without language.  And to some degree they can be shared without language (maybe, see below).  But certainly communication, non-basic sharing, and conceptual comprehension (ideas, non-visual / auditory / tactile experiences) would be lost without language.

In other words, I can look at, touch, and comprehend a rock without having a word for "rock".  I can show it to another and they can recognize that it's that hard, cold, grey thing like others they've seen and touched.  But our comprehension and communication won't go any further without language of some sort - even gestures are language - perhaps even the act of showing is a form of language - but I don't think the mere initial observation was a form of language - just observation.

Regardless of that nitpicky bit, your post is very interesting and worth some pondering.  Thank you.

I very much appreciate the  helpful feedback. Perhaps my assertion went too far. You are correct that the rock's physical existent can be sensed absent language, though I suspect its conceptual existence, and particularly in terms of defining and naming it as a rock, is highly dependent upon language.

To help understand this, we  have the somewhat unique story of Helen Keller and her miracle-working teacher, Anne Sullivan: " 

Quote

Sullivan arrived at Keller's house in March 1887, and immediately began to teach Helen to communicate by spelling words into her hand, beginning with "d-o-l-l" for the doll that she had brought Keller as a present. Keller was frustrated, at first, because she did not understand that every object had a word uniquely identifying it. In fact, when Sullivan was trying to teach Keller the word for "mug", Keller became so frustrated she broke the mug.[19] Keller's breakthrough in communication came the next month, when she realized that the motions her teacher was making on the palm of her hand, while running cool water over her other hand, symbolized the idea of "water"; she then nearly exhausted Sullivan demanding the names of all the other familiar objects in her world. Helen Keller was viewed as isolated, but was very in touch with the outside world. She was able to enjoy music by feeling the beat and she was able to have a strong connection with animals through touch. She was delayed at picking up language, but that did not stop her from having a voice

 In his presentation, Peterson noted that Adam named every creature (Gen. 2:19-20), and suggested that the naming must have been of major significance to warrant specific mention in the Creation/Garden story.  Peterson intimated that the naming was,,in a sense, an act of creation, bringing all creatures into conceptual existence as identified entities. I believe this idea worthy of consideration given the importance of "names" elsewhere in the scriptures. After all, do we not become new creatures/creations  by taking upon us the name of Christ through baptism? ;)

Fun and potentially illuminating stuff.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the biblical "beginning" match the biblical "end"? 

When did God introduce the old covenant order? 

Could Genesis creation speak about the beginning of the covenant world of God's relationship to his people rather than the beginning of the physical universe? 

Why would the Bible open with an account of the creation of the physical universe and then change subjects completely to close with prophecy of a covenant end? 

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share