I would suggest that the last sentence can only be asserted if one already has
discounted the account as delivering a historical content. I am not quite
ready to do so.
>> TOLKIEN'S NOVELS ARE ALL FALSE? DO THEY TELL US NOTHING THAT IS
>TRUE? IF NOT, WHY DO WE READ THEM?
> OF COURSE THEY'RE NOT TRUE HISTORY, AND THE POINT THAT SOMETHING
> HAS APPARENT HISTORICAL DETAIL DOESN'T PROVE ITS ACCURACY. BUT IT DOES
>SHOW THAT THE WRITER IS - FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER - USING THE
>PARTICULAR FORM OF HISTORICAL WRITING, WHICH DIFFERS FROM THAT OF PURE
>MYTH, ETC.
>
I read very few novels. I find them mostly boring. But I have read Tolkein 3
times. Why do I read them? Not because they tell me anything true about this
world or even about human nature. I read those stories because they were a
self-consistent, carefully crafted and VERY INVENTIVE and ENTERTAINING pieces
of fiction. I do not draw any truths from Sauron about the Devil. Nor do I
draw any truths about angels (or Christ's sacrifice and resurrection) from
Gandalf. I glean no truths of the human condition from the portrayals of the
hobbits.
Why do I not draw truths from these characters about God, Satan and the human
condition? Because they are not TRUTHS, they are OPINIONS. The opinions of
J.R.R. Tolkein, which happen to be very interesting but opinions none-the-
less.
If the events of Ex. 1-20 and Gen. 6-9 are not historically true, then any
truths I draw from them are somebody's opinion. No matter how interesting,
entertaining or whatever, opinions are opinions.
>> OF COURSE THIS TRADITION DOESN'T PROVE THE EXODUS. MY POINT
>HERE WAS THAT, UNLIKE J. SMITH, THE FINAL FORM OF THE EXODUS STORY AT
>LEAST DOEASN'T APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN MADE UP EX NIHILO.
>>
I think the danger of your position is that like J.Smith's novel there is no
archaeological evidence of the Exodus and there is no evidence of great walled
cites and chariots in the New World. If Smith had archaeological evidence
backing up what he claimed, then we would have no objective reason to reject
his book. With no evidence supporting the events of Ex. 1-20, upon what basis
do you say that it does not appear to have been made up ex nihilo?
I am not trying to be difficult here, but it seems to me that rejection of
Genesis 6-9 based upon it's prehistory, lack of evidence etc. is inconsistent
with acceptance of Ex 1-20 which also lacks evidence and which is further
inconsistent with a claim that J. Smith made up his stuff.
By the way, one could claim that J. Smith did not make up everything. There
were Native Americans here in America. And one could claim that the 70
redactors didn't make up everything in Ex 1-20 either. There was an Egyptian
civilization and there were Israelites. Is there any OBJECTIVE basis for
saying one was made up and the other not? I am only interested in objective
data.
> PERHAPS A CLEARER CASE IN POINT: THERE REALLY WAS A PROPHET
>JONAH A CITY OF NINEVEH. NEVERTHELESS, THERE IS VERY GOOD REASON
>(INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL) TO THINK THE STORY IN THE BOOK OF JONAH NEVER
>HAPPENED. NEVERTHELESS AGAIN, THE STORY IS PROFOUNDLY TRUE.
>
Under this line of reasoning, I could say that like Tolkein and Jonah, the
Book of Mormon is profoundly true. Alma 34:32 says:
"For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold
the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors."
Quite true. Is it worth listening to that book for the plan of Salvation?
My real concern is with the comparison of the Biblical record with the record
of other religions. If it is no better in the history department, how can one
tell that this is the true record of the interaction with mankind of the True
God?
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm