HB: But the theology is dependent upon the history! That's the point. Only if God actually created male and female as described in Genesis (emphasis Starkman's), is the theology of marriage which Jesus derives from that possible. Only if the theology of marriage is possible, is our union with Christ possible; and only if our union with Christ is possible, is salvation possible.

Starkman: I wasn't necessarily questioning the creation of Adam and Eve, but do you believe that there absolutely HAD to be a talking snake and some fruit on a tree in order for original sin to come about? You don't accept the idea that within ANE thinking the creation story just might contain some, if not many, elements of the typical stylistic approaches of communicating religious ideas that were so prevelant in the middle eastern sounding cultures of those, and earlier, days? Further, theology is not built on all the Bible having to be believed as literal history. In as much as the style of writing back then did not have to convey chronological and systematic biography, neither does it have to be that a snake really talked with Eve. The many similarities of ANE accounts, the anacronymns and other evidence suggest that God allowed for the forwarding movement of progressive revelation and redaction to bring about the inspired word of God...as I see it, anyway.

 

The gospel of John is a classic example of an author trying to make theological points by moving the events in and out of their true chronological order. Every possible explanation under the sun is given to deal with this when I think the simple answer works fine: John wasn't a slave to modern autobiographical accounting in the way we moderns are. He wrote to make a point, and the history of the events could, acceptably, be reworked in order to do so. I believe that kind of freedom shows itself frequently in this cultural milue, though it is forbidden in our own.

 

HB: Only if Jesus actually died and rose again in history, is a theology of the atonement possible. You are artificially dividing "theology" from "history", which is a modernist Western phenomenon, not a Biblical one. Any theology that is divorced from history is not Biblical theology.
Starkman: Unlike the author of Genesis, I think the gospels and Acts were adament about making sure we understood that Jesus had, in fact, risen from the dead, This was very much their point. It was not the point, however (in my opinion), of the author of Genesis to give chronological and scientific exactness and accuracy with regard to the creation account in Genesis (and then further contradict this order in Genesis two, which I think Genesis 2 would be a contradiction IF the authors were slaves to the kind of autobiographical writing of which we work within today.

HB: Show me where the Bible separates theology from history. Show me where it justifies doing what you are trying to do. Clearly, you're saying that scripture is only authoritative insofar as it deals with "theology", not when it teaches us something historical. So specify how we distinguish theology from history, and provide a doctrine of inspiration that explains why this distinction is justified.

Starkman: Well, first, I am not saying that scripture is only authoritative  insofar as it deals with "theology." I believe there are times when its history is critically authoritative: the historicity of the resurrection accounts of Jesus being a main gun. That history IS the point for the writing (John 20:31). Second, I've already shown you where history isn't critical and can, in fact, be seperated from the chronological and scienfitic to construct a theology: the snake in the garden. Absolutely not needed to be believed in order to maintain a clear, inspired and authoritative theology.