>1) "If Genesis 6-9 is false ..." To state the issue in that way
>inevitably leads to the point being missed. Genesis 6-9 is true and
>authoritative. OK. Now, WHAT TYPE OF LITERATURE IS IT? The common
>mistake made by many people is to assume that if an account is not true
>as history "as it really happened" then it isn't true at all, or has
>some lesser degree of truth. The purpose of my earlier examples was to
>show that this is just wrong.
Let me ask a queston. Is the literature of Exodus 1-20 true as history?
There are a lot of parallels between Ex. 1-20 and Genesis 6-9.
Both traditionally have had difficulty being historically verified.
Genesis-No real records in other cultures of a recent flood that matches the
Biblical description
Exodus-No Egyptian records mentioning the plagues and destruction of pharoahs
army
Genesis-No place one can go to say "There those are the deposits of the
flood."
Exodus-No place one can go and say "There those are the wheels of pharoahs
chariots.
Genesis-The apparent miraculous nature of the event
Exodus-The apparent miraculous nature of the plagues.
-----
What I would like to ask of you is what kind of literature is the account
relating the origin of the miracles which founded the Jewish Religion?
Why is it not the same type of literature as the flood account?
If the Exodus account is historically false, does that mean that Judaism is no
better than Mormonism? (Judaism supposedly having been put together by 70 guys
who then would have made up stories about their ancestors in the 5th century
BC vs Mormonism put together by a guy who wrote interesting stories about the
New World in the early 1800s. Both are made up and both fictitious?)
>3) It's worth pointing out, though, that while external evidence
>(science &c.) has forced Christians to rethink some traditional views
>of the Bible, INTERNAL evidence also points to the fact that some parts
>of Scripture are perhaps not to be understoof as historical chronicle.
>The fact that Gen.1-2 gives TWO creation accounts which cannot BOTH be
>undertood as such chronicles (PACE all those well-meaning commentators
>who have labored to "harmonize" them AT THAT LEVEL (N.B.), usually by
>mutilating Gen.2) suggests this. To a lesser extent, the presence of
>different strands of tradition in the flood narrative does the same in
>Gen.6-9. The situation is perhaps even clearer with the gospels.
Two things. I agree whole heartedly that Christians must rethink what they
believe in light of modern science. ON this we agree.
Secondly, the above paragraph reminds me that I must add to the above list of
similarities this:
Genesis 6-9--shows signs of 2 traditions being forced together.
Exodus 1-20--shows signs of 2 traditions being forced together.
So are the miracles founding Judaism historically true? Or is this literary
hyperbole [sic?] or metaphor also?
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm