 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
horacegrinsby
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 9/16/2004 4:17 PM (GMT -6) |   | As determing the genre of literature is essential to understanding authorial intent, I've really been struggling with a literal understanding of Genesis 1-11.
What is really at stake by understanding that the genre of Genesis 1-11 is mythopoetic and did not happen in the sense that (as Marcus Borg would say) you could have videotaped it if you were there? How can or should we then understand the statements of Jesus, Paul, Peter, and others in the NT who are quoted as referring to the individuals in these books? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/17/2004 1:32 AM (GMT -6) | | horacegrinsby,
quote:
What is really at stake by understanding that the genre of Genesis 1-11 is mythopoetic
Many theologians do and have traditionally thought that one of the most sure principles of exegesis is to interpret a text the way the author and the original audience would have understood it in their historical context. You have agreed, seemingly, that this is a valid principle. So the question is, what evidence is there that the author, original audience, or subsequent audiences and authors understood it mythopoetically? Some read it mythopoetically NOT because there is good evidence that it is not historical, but rather because they find such a reading necessary to agree with modern scientists.
In other words, what is at stake is whether we exegete inductively (assuming the most perspicuous reading unless there is textual evidence to the contrary) or eisegete. For if we set a non-inductive precedent for Genesis 1-11, why should we be constrained by parsimony, analogy, etc. in other texts? Yours is a very important epistemological question.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
horacegrinsby
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 9/17/2004 3:56 AM (GMT -6) | | I agree with you that it is certainly an important epistemological question. The Bible is rich in different genres of literature: poetry, parables, narrative, apocalyptic literature, etc. and determining what genre the author was writing in obviously has important meaning to our exegesis and interpretation. If we imposed the genre guidelines of parabolic literature to interpreting narrative our exegesis & conclusions would obviously be flawed.
I'm not particularly interested in debating the historicity of Gen. 1-11, although that is certainly a worthy discussion. What I would like to pick your brain on is how it affects theology, doctrine, etc. if we understand the genre of this text as mythopoetic. In other words, is it even compatible with the evangelical doctrine that we have developed to take this genre as mythopoetic?
I'm particularly thinking of Paul's argument in Romans 5 where he explains that Christ is the 2nd Adam. This is where I see Kublai Khan's question really leading for if the parallel is between Christ and Adam, how can it be a true parallel if Adam never existed? Can Paul's argument still be valid if Adam is simply an archetypal figure?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
horacegrinsby
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 9/17/2004 4:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Kubla Khan, you obviously realize that we can't take everything literally...if we did that we would go out dressed up like sheep and tell people that goats go to hell. :)
In their desire to see Jesus verify who he was through a miraculous sign, Jesus uses the story of Jonah to show them the reality of their own need for repentance. For just as Nineveh repented of their sin he wanted to see his audience turn from their own self-righteousness to God. In appealing to Jonah he cleverly uses a story from their own tradition to point out that they are making the same mistake as the people of Nineveh.
While it is empirically demonstrable that Jesus Christ was a historical person who made certain claims, the historicity of Jonah is impossible to defend on archaeological, textual, or other evidence. We have to assume that it is true simply because Jesus referred to it, but is the meaning of his statement lost if Jonah is "just a story"?
What if Jesus came and walked around today? Let's say that he was in a South American country and he wanted to prove a point to them. He would probably appeal to their tradition and folklore and the baggage that it brings so that they can clearly understand his point.
It would be like me describing a struggle that I'm going through, and I say, "Just like Sisyphus, I keep struggling with it over and over". Because I have made the connection to this archetypal figure you can more fully understand my argument, independent of whether Sisyphus actually existed or not.
Jesus was jewish and was speaking to jewish people in a jewish milieu. What other stories could he use to make his point? | | Back to Top | | |
|
horacegrinsby
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 9/17/2004 5:14 AM (GMT -6) | | That's a fair point but I would suggest that there does exist a considerable amount of evidence for the resurrection.
If I referred to Sisyphus when making a point you wouldn't consider me to be mythical, would you? What if Abraham Lincoln referred to King Arthur? What if Constantine alluded to Zeus? Would you throw out the historicity of any of these figures simply because they referred to characters from stories in a meaningful way?
This gets back to my basic question - what does it affect if we understand some of these stories as mythopoetic?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that we need to understand the entire bible as historical because if we allow that some of these texts are mythopoetic in nature and did not "really" happen then there is no reason to say that other texts are not mythopoetic (e.g. the slippery slope). If that is a fair representation of your case I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Each text is different and needs to be treated individually based upon it's literary setting. We're talking about texts that were written by different authors in different millennia - some of these stories were orally transmitted until they were written down - some were destroyed and then rewritten.
So just as we can see through the lens of history that Jesus certainly did exist and that he said a few concrete things, this really has no bearing on Jonah or Adam, does it? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kublai Khan
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 9/17/2004 5:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by horacegrinsby
That's a fair point but I would suggest that there does exist a considerable amount of evidence for the resurrection.
If I referred to Sisyphus when making a point you wouldn't consider me to be mythical, would you?
If you're standing in front of me, I would probably not consider you as mythical.
But I thought we were talking about someone long departed this earth, not about how you rose from the dead.
quote:
What if Abraham Lincoln referred to King Arthur?
King Arthur is based on a historical figure, with MUCH embellishment. They're not sure which person the legend is based on but it has it's basis in history.
quote:
What if Constantine alluded to Zeus?
If Constantine is using Zeus as an illustration of some claim he's making, I could see the claim as truthful as that of Zeus.
quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that we need to understand the entire bible as historical because if we allow that some of these texts are mythopoetic in nature and did not "really" happen then there is no reason to say that other texts are not mythopoetic (e.g. the slippery slope). If that is a fair representation of your case I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Each text is different and needs to be treated individually based upon it's literary setting. We're talking about texts that were written by different authors in different millennia - some of these stories were orally transmitted until they were written down - some were destroyed and then rewritten.
I'm just saying you could run into problems when you take it on the road.
You asked a question, I provided an opinion.
Now if you want to make the case that myth is based on some historicity, I'll agree with that.
Jonah wasn't just the fish story, he was a prophet and is referenced in scripture elsewhere. Jonah may have had an experience that got embellished into the fish story we know, but to conjure Jonah up as pure myth is of no value, imho.
"Arrest the usual suspects." | | Back to Top | | |
|
horacegrinsby
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 9/17/2004 6:00 AM (GMT -6) | | | My point in bringing up historical figures was not to prove that they did or didn't exist, it was to show that you can make a true statement by referring to characters in stories - that's all. | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 9/17/2004 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by horacegrinsby
What is really at stake by understanding that the genre of Genesis 1-11 is mythopoetic and did not happen in the sense that (as Marcus Borg would say) you could have videotaped it if you were there? How can or should we then understand the statements of Jesus, Paul, Peter, and others in the NT who are quoted as referring to the individuals in these books?
I think you've already got a fair grasp onto the likely answer to that question, based on what I've seen of your responses thus far. A speaker or writer wishing to make a point can just as readily illustrate it with ahistorical material as he can with historical material. The truthfulness of the point does not stand or fall in lockstep with the historicity of the illustration.
All of us parents who have taught our children at times with ahistorical illustrations know this, I'd bet. I can appeal to the "Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'" to instruct my son or daughter, for example, and the ahistoricity of the story does not undermine my point. That is true regardless of whether my child, or even myself, realizes the story is apocryphal. Why? Because my teaching point is moral, and thus only needs plausible moral support, not historical support. If my teaching point were some historical statement of fact, then it would need historical support, but historicity in an illustration neither advances nor hinders a moral teaching point that the illustration seeks to support. All that is required for a moral teaching point is that the supporting illustration make good moral sense and be a good rhetorical fit. Whether the teaching point is actually historical or not, and even whether the author, audience, or both incidentally believe it to be historical or not, are unimportant.
Most if not all biblical references to earlier material for which we have other reasons to believe is partly or wholly ahistorical can be permissibly understood in this way.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 9/17/2004 12:09 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
...So the question is, what evidence is there that the author, original audience, or subsequent audiences and authors understood it mythopoetically? Some read it mythopoetically NOT because there is good evidence that it is not historical, but rather because they find such a reading necessary to agree with modern scientists...
Briefly, and first of all, it appears that the ancient world did not self-consciously understand anything as mythopoetic. I'm not aware of any good evidence suggesting any myth or legend from any ancient pre-modern culture was understood at the time as being fully or even partly ahistorical, ie, fictional. Rather the evidence is that the ancients did not see fit to segregate objective historiography from all the other non-literal and fictional literary genres. They didn't value history, especially deep or long-past history, as critical in the modern sense, and so did not care to ensure their deep historical narratives were free from embellishment, agenda, moralization, legend, etc. I know of no evidence to suggest the ancient Hebrews were any different in this regard, and I know of no reason to believe that God would not have condescended to them in that as in anything else.
Only now in the modern world (meaning arising out of Greek rationalism) do we care to distinguish between long-past historical fact and falsehood. We use the label "mythopoetic" or etc ("legendary", etc) to describe this form of ancient "ahistorical history", rather than just calling it "fraud" or "foolishness" or "error" or "ignorance", because we recognize that, treated on its own terms, its real purpose was not to communicate factual history so much as give structure and meaning to the community's values. Thus that purpose can be affirmed even as the historicity of such writings is at the same time made suspect by certain clues both from their form and from external evidence.
So I have no problem in agreeing that the ancient Hebrews and Jews down to Jesus' day saw actual history in Genesis 1-11, and asserting that we now know better on that point. Because in the final analysis that is not what really matters about that scripture; rather what matters is the theological teaching points useful for training in faith and righteousness.
Anyway, and secondly, the "certain clues" I just alluded to as suggesting ahistoricity, in the case of Genesis 1-11 are manifest even without drawing in the vast evidence from mainstream science about prehistory and origins. The tensions (when interpreted as factual history) between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 are classic; likewise between some passages in the flood story. Such tensions are problematic when the passages are interpreted as historical, but don't matter otherwise. In addition there are the numerous anthropomorphisms and etiologies and fabulous (as in "fable"-ous) elements of those chapters, such as a man named Man, a woman named Life, the serpent and mystical trees and giants and etc. This is consistent with legend, especially the un-remarked-upon way in which they are presented (contrast with the New Testament accounts of the resurrection).
Those are examples from internal form. From external evidence, and (as I said) without even bringing in mainstream science as far as origins and prehistory go, we have the actual cosmology of the universe which also stands in tension with numerous statements in those same chapters (again, when interpreted as factual accounts) - ie the nature of the deep, the firmament, the earth, and etc. The cosmology reflected in Genesis 1-11 is that of the time: no planetary globe called "earth" and supporting both seas and dry land is in view. Rather the earth (ie, dry land) is seen as flat and founded on the seas which undergird and support it. Surmounting the earth and seas is the solid dome of a sky, and surrounding all this sky-dome/flat-earth "bubble" is the great Deep. This is the cosmology consistent with the allusions in Genesis 1-11, and the fact it is contrary to fact likewise suggests the ahistoricity of the text.
Now, no one among these points alone is enough to itself demonstrate the ahistoricity of Genesis 1-11, but the cumulative case - the convergence of evidence - is compelling. And even more so when the modern evidence from science concerning prehistory and origins is admitted. Of course, much more could be said and great ratholes could be explored, but that might go against the purpose of this thread.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/17/2004 2:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
quote:
Briefly, and first of all, it appears that the ancient world did not self-consciously understand anything as mythopoetic.
Then the principle that the author's intent is the meaning of a passage is at stake, which was precisely my point. Without that principle, no inductive exegesis using the axioms of parsimony, analogy, etc. is possible. I'm not interested in a book that has no meaning ascertainable by the universally recognized rules of deductive and inductive thought. We simply must agree to disagree on this.
BTW, I'm also not interested in a book that only communicates concepts about God which contradict what "real" science says of His doings. For example, the bible says that God's holy mount will experience no harm - animal against animal or animal against human - for the land will be filled with the knowledge of Him. How does this communicate a concept about God if it is in direct contradiction to the actual history of God's pre-Fall creation? This kind of contradiction is why the concept-only approach to scripture is incoherent.
quote:
I'm not aware of any good evidence suggesting any myth or legend from any ancient pre-modern culture was understood at the time as being fully or even partly ahistorical, ie, fictional.
Again, the principle of author's intent is at stake, then.
quote:
Rather the evidence is that the ancients did not see fit to segregate objective historiography from all the other non-literal and fictional literary genres. They didn't value history, especially deep or long-past history, as critical in the modern sense, and so did not care to ensure their deep historical narratives were free from embellishment, agenda, moralization, legend, etc.
Here you show your anti-inductive approach. You just said (above) there is NO evidence that ancients viewed their legends as ahistorical and then turn right around and ASSUME they consciously "did not see fit to segregate objective historiograpy from" non-literal genres. This makes no sense. You must have EVIDENCE that they consciously thought this. But you admit you have none. This is exactly the anti-inductive spirit that I can't agree with. You cannot assume what you're trying to prove.
quote:
Only now in the modern world (meaning arising out of Greek rationalism) do we care to distinguish between long-past historical fact and falsehood. We use the label "mythopoetic" or etc ("legendary", etc) to describe this form of ancient "ahistorical history", rather than just calling it "fraud" or "foolishness" or "error" or "ignorance", because we recognize that, treated on its own terms, its real purpose was not to communicate factual history so much as give structure and meaning to the community's values.
Again, your ASSUMING that the ancients consciously made refused to discriminate between the ahistorical portions of their legends. But you have already admitted there is no evidence they viewed their legends as ahistorical. You can't assume what it is you're trying to prove. For all you know, the "meaning" of the stories only had authoritative appeal when the legend was viewed as historical - much like many modern Christians only find authority in doctrines based upon Genesis 1-11 because they believe it's true.
quote:
So I have no problem in agreeing that the ancient Hebrews and Jews down to Jesus' day saw actual history in Genesis 1-11, and asserting that we now know better on that point. Because in the final analysis that is not what really matters about that scripture; rather what matters is the theological teaching points useful for training in faith and righteousness.
How do you know that? Paul says if there will be no ressurection, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. This sounds like a direct contradiction to your claim that righteousness is unrelated to historical events. Was Paul irrational when he said that if we have hope in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most miserable? Is righteousness it's own sufficient reward whether or not there will actually be a ressurection? Does righteousness avail much in this life if Christ did not actually rise from the dead? Your argument proves too much.
quote:
The tensions (when interpreted as factual history) between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 are classic; likewise between some passages in the flood story.
Such as? The tensions that I've read about in Genesis 1 and 2 are only such when one makes assumptions that do not seem to be justified from internal evidence.
quote:
In addition there are the numerous anthropomorphisms and etiologies and fabulous (as in "fable"-ous) elements of those chapters, such as a man named Man, a woman named Life, the serpent and mystical trees and giants and etc. This is consistent with legend, especially the un-remarked-upon way in which they are presented (contrast with the New Testament accounts of the resurrection).
This argument could be used against all the "fable"-ous events God says will happen in the future, too. Thus, it seems to prove to much. Is it really inconceivable to you that God could put a tree of life in a new jerusalem on a new earth?
quote:
From external evidence, and (as I said) without even bringing in mainstream science as far as origins and prehistory go, we have the actual cosmology of the universe which also stands in tension with numerous statements in those same chapters (again, when interpreted as factual accounts) - ie the nature of the deep, the firmament, the earth, and etc. The cosmology reflected in Genesis 1-11 is that of the time: no planetary globe called "earth" and supporting both seas and dry land is in view. Rather the earth (ie, dry land) is seen as flat and founded on the seas which undergird and support it. Surmounting the earth and seas is the solid dome of a sky, and surrounding all this sky-dome/flat-earth "bubble" is the great Deep. This is the cosmology consistent with the allusions in Genesis 1-11, and the fact it is contrary to fact likewise suggests the ahistoricity of the text.
I'd be interested in such arguments. I read the one you posted about the sky-dome, and it was pretty disappointing. The author made irrational arguments and assumed what he wanted to prove when dealing with passages that were equivocal. But I am open to better arguments if you can provide links.
quote:
Now, no one among these points alone is enough to itself demonstrate the ahistoricity of Genesis 1-11, but the cumulative case - the convergence of evidence - is compelling. And even more so when the modern evidence from science concerning prehistory and origins is admitted. Of course, much more could be said and great ratholes could be explored, but that might go against the purpose of this thread.
Until you refute my counter-arguments, I can't see that you've provided compelling evidence at all. And the only compelling evidence that science provides that seems to contradict Genesis is the evidence for a universe vastly older than 6,000 years old. Virtually all else is untested, untestable, and theory-laden - or more accurately, hypothesis-laden. But we know that biblical genealogies had gaps in them, and since the ancient world believed the cosmos and the human race was very old, it is quite possible that the Hebrews assumed the same and that the Genesis genealogies were abbreviated.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
horacegrinsby
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 9/17/2004 3:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff - while I agree with Scott's presuppositions almost wholeheartedly, just bear with me and help us out in this exercise. Let's suspend for this thread any argumentation about historicity. Let us assume that Genesis 1-11 did not really happen. Let us assume that it is a myth, whether Paul thought it was or not. If you don't want to think through the implications of this - fine, just ignore this thread. But I think that you can help us think through the theological implications of assuming this view.
So, we have decided that Gen. 1-11 did not really happen but is a cultural heritage of the Jews that informed their understanding of origins and of the cosmos.
Now what does it mean when you get to Paul's statements in Romans 5 about Christ as the 2nd Adam? How does this impact current evangelical doctrine & theology?
Any thoughts along this line are welcome. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/17/2004 3:46 PM (GMT -6) | | horacegrinsby,
I've already made that case. It destroys any parsimonious and analagous approach to scripture. This in turn, when thought through by an intellectually honest mind, will destroy inductive exegesis. Only creative eisegesis is left.
I demonstrated by Scott's own words that he assumes what he tries to prove. This is what he MUST do. But this is not logical. The human mind has meaningful definitions of intuition, deduction, induction, and trust. All else is heresy of one kind or another. For heresy simply means CHOICE. Scott CHOOSES what he wants to believe. He cannot prove it by his own admission. For he admits there is no evidence for it. Nor does it follow deductively from any self-evident facts. Nor is it a product of faith/trust in God's word. For he uses his CHOICE to judge scripture.
Heresy always has and always will prevent Christians from coming to true unity. I am not suggesting that my view is THE truth. But apart from intuition, deduction, induction, and faith, how can THE truth be ascertained?
If you would like to see more of our past debate on exactly what you're asking, see the thread "Serious Question" by QUESTIONER.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
horacegrinsby
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 9/17/2004 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff - then you best sit this one out, my friend. I'm not sure where your indefensible syllogism is to which all of our questions must humbly bow, but I can see this is going nowhere. | | Back to Top | | |
|
horacegrinsby
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 9/17/2004 4:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff - the point of this entire post is that I'm asking for input on what follows from such an assumption. I'm sure there will be other venues to debate the validity of this presupposition.
As you obviously disagree, perhaps you can start a different post that discusses these arguments (and I would gladly participate).
However, I would rather this thread discuss in what way doctrine is or isn't impacted when we make these assumptions. | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 9/17/2004 4:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
This is going to have to be quick:
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Then the principle that the author's intent is the meaning of a passage is at stake, which was precisely my point...Again, the principle of author's intent is at stake, then...
So if the author intends a story to be primarily valuable in its moral or philosophical teaching, and incidentally intends it to be historical, then if the story is actually ahistorical (perhaps even unbeknownst to the author) the only thing we can do is chuck the whole thing? Since its false in one regard, its false (or at least untrustworthy) in every other regard? However logical and appealing it might be, this hyper-positivism is not the way we in fact always deal with legendary/apocryphal material in our own culture (we value the stories of Washington and the cherry tree, and of Chief Seattle, and so forth, even though they were once thought factual but are now considered apocryphal). That says something - that the positivist purist approach doesn't jibe with how we humans actually operate. Let alone should we deal with far less-critical ancient cultures in that way - its anachronistic. So might scripture accommodate to how humans actually communicate in literature, especially in the premodern day, or must it adhere to some positivist logical standard, as if to do otherwise would be unholy for God to dirty himself with?
quote:
Here you show your anti-inductive approach. You just said (above) there is NO evidence that ancients viewed their legends as ahistorical and then turn right around and ASSUME they consciously "did not see fit to segregate objective historiograpy from" non-literal genres. This makes no sense...Again, your ASSUMING that the ancients consciously made refused to discriminate between the ahistorical portions of their legends. But you have already admitted there is no evidence they viewed their legends as ahistorical. You can't assume what it is you're trying to prove.
I never said they consciously made such choices, and I don't believe they did. Rather they simply had not discovered the critical epistemological tools necessary for accurate historiography and furthermore seemed to not have placed much value on such historiography anyway. That is inducted from the archaeological evidence, in which no trace of any "deep historical chronicle" resembling modern historiography is found outside of the Greek influence dating back to at best the 3rd or 4th centuries B.C and afterward only spreading to the degree of acceptance of Hellenization. Instead, in cultures outside of, or not bought into, that influence, what is found as far as goes "deep history" is universally legend. And to explain this, we must either conclude that everyone was stupid, or crazy, or - my preference - unaware (lacking awareness of critical methodology) and unconcerned about it. In any case, it wasn't self-conscious, as I've been saying.
quote:
Paul says if there will be no ressurection, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. This sounds like a direct contradiction to your claim that righteousness is unrelated to historical events. Was Paul irrational when he said that if we have hope in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most miserable? Is righteousness it's own sufficient reward whether or not there will actually be a ressurection? Does righteousness avail much in this life if Christ did not actually rise from the dead? Your argument proves too much.
Paul and to some extent the other gospel and epistle writers operated to certain degrees under greater Greek influence than the ancient Hebrews. They were aware of the ahistorical nature of legends, and that is why they went to great pains - again and again - to state and re-state that the resurrection was actual, physical, and historical. They remark upon it and insist upon it again and again in their writing. If we saw the ancient Hebrews doing the same in Genesis - insisting in the historicity of the events repeatedly - it would not be permissible to classify Genesis as legend, because legends do not defend themselves - that's one of the distinctives of the genre.
The argument I am making thus does not cut too far.
quote:
quote:
The tensions (when interpreted as factual history) between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 are classic; likewise between some passages in the flood story.
Such as? The tensions that I've read about in Genesis 1 and 2 are only such when one makes assumptions that do not seem to be justified from internal evidence.
Such as the creation order of man and animals in Genesis 1 and 2.
quote:
quote:
In addition there are the numerous anthropomorphisms and etiologies and fabulous (as in "fable"-ous) elements of those chapters...
This argument could be used against all the "fable"-ous events God says will happen in the future, too. Thus, it seems to prove to much. Is it really inconceivable to you that God could put a tree of life in a new jerusalem on a new earth?
Knowing about prophetic hyperbole and metaphor, "yes" (actually I'm tentative about that, as I am about all this on which I write, but it sounds so much more dramatic to answer your question directly :-). Read Brent Sandy's book, Plowshares and Pruning Hooks, for a treatment of literalism in prophecy.
quote:
quote:
From external evidence, and (as I said) without even bringing in mainstream science as far as origins and prehistory go, we have the actual cosmology of the universe which also stands in tension with numerous statements in those same chapters (again, when interpreted as factual accounts) - ie the nature of the deep, the firmament, the earth, and etc...
I'd be interested in such arguments. I read the one you posted about the sky-dome, and it was pretty disappointing. The author made irrational arguments and assumed what he wanted to prove when dealing with passages that were equivocal. But I am open to better arguments if you can provide links.
No. If you were disappointed in the papers I provided before, I don't think anything better exists to convince you. I would suggest that you reconsider your thinking; the Seely papers alone are exhaustively documented and the reasoning is pretty airtight. The J. P. Holding critique of Seely, on the other hand, I found fairly unconvincing. To each his own, I suppose :-)
quote:
quote:
Now, no one among these points alone is enough to itself demonstrate the ahistoricity of Genesis 1-11, but the cumulative case - the convergence of evidence - is compelling. And even more so when the modern evidence from science concerning prehistory and origins is admitted. Of course, much more could be said and great ratholes could be explored, but that might go against the purpose of this thread.
Until you refute my counter-arguments, I can't see that you've provided compelling evidence at all...
We will have to agree to disagree then. Sorry that I don't have time to get into any more detail tonight, but this thread probably isn't the appropriate place anyway. I only listed the reasons many Christians accept the legendary nature of Genesis 1-11, as an answer to your earlier question, for others' information, and did not intend to hijack this thread to defend those reasons.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 9/17/2004 4:56 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by horacegrinsby
However, I would rather this thread discuss in what way doctrine is or isn't impacted when we make these assumptions.
I submit that essential doctrine is not impacted because - to summarize what I've suggested above - the historicity of an illustration is generally irrelevant to a moral, philosophical or theological teaching point. Of course, everyone has a different idea of what constitutes "essential" doctrine.
For example, when Paul compares Christ to Adam, it is a rhetorical device to emphasize the role Christ plays in contrast to the role Adam was understood to have played. The accepted non-literal and imprecise aspects of the analogy further allow for the imprecise and rhetorical nature of the text (Christ does not literally make anyone "live"; and unless you are a universalist - another debate entirely - he does not even make everyone live in even a spiritual sense; nor was Christ a mere man in the sense that Adam was).
In short, the audience's understanding of Adam is placed in service to the teaching point, which is the centrality and necessity of Christ; and doing so does not imply an endorsement, or teaching, of the historicity of Adam (though that was almost certainly assumed by Paul and his audience).
I have to sign off now. I may not be able to check in again until sometime next week.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
horacegrinsby
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 9/17/2004 7:24 PM (GMT -6) | | | I know of no evangelical opinion that would help us out, if that's what you are asking, but I assume that's probably because I haven't read enough. I've read most of Borg but really wouldn't rely on him (or his cronies) in this area because he holds a wholly different view on scripture. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:03 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|