Re: Origins: reply to George Murphy

Murphy (gmurphy@imperium.net)
Sat, 07 Sep 1996 08:07:19 -0400

Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> 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.
> Being uninterested in novels because they seem boring and (if I
remember correctly from an earlier post) not wanting to bring the poetic
parts of the Bible into the discussion seem to me not to prepare one
very well to discern the different types of material found in the Bible.
Everything will be considered as more-or-less historical accounts.
But stories can convey truth. When Jesus told the story of the Good
Samaritan in answer to the question "Who is my neighbor?", it brought
his questioner to the true answer, and not simply an opinion.
Gen.6-9 and Gen.1-20 are different TYPES of accounts. The first
begins with the "broken myth" of divine beings having intercourse with
human women a la Zeus, a threat from God of cosmic destruction, the
command which comes to the hero in an indeterminate place, a hero, by
the way who never says a word (until the wine incident afterward), and a
worldwide catastrophe. The second is placed in a well-known country
and makes use of some of its known characteristics, is presented as a
continuation of what was earlier presented with great detail as the
story of Jacob's family, has people who talk like real people, etc.
None of this PROVES the Exodus account to be historically accurate. But
it clearly is a different type of account from Gen.6-9.

> > 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?

It was not made up ex nihilo by the final redactor of Exodus
(which is what I said). Whoever that was made use of the long Exodus
tradition which Israel had. Whether or not that tradition had
historical roots is another question. It would be good if
archaeologists could find clearer answers to that question. If the
group of slaves who escaped was small (the numbers in Exodus certainly
seem inflated - the Sinai desert couldn't support such a crowd), it
isn't surprising that such evidence is hard to come by. It isn't like a
worldwide flood or the North American continent settled by Jews

> 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.

It's hard to write a book in which EVERYTHING is false! If we
ever found any evidence that Israelites had gotten to America we would
have something approaching objective evidence that there was some truth
in the Book of Mormon. At least we know that the Hebrews got to Canaan
from somewhere!

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?
> Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile. More
profoundly, a "true" statement can in an important sense be false if it
functions to support false beliefs and actions. "Jesus is Lord"
functions as a falsehood if used as a justification for killing
non-Christians. Smith copied large parts of the Gospel of John into the
Book of Mormon, but in that context they help to convey false ideas.

> 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?

It is better in the history department in several ways, but not
everything in it is "history as it really happened."

SHALOM,
George