>Glenn Morton wrote:
[snip]
>>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.
Probably true. But I do know logical inconsistencies when I see them. An
example below.
One further thing, poets are well known for not paying attention to factual
details. So my rejection of bringing the poetic parts of the scripture into
this discussion is based entirely upon their track record on factual data.
Psalm 17:8 says "hide me in the shadow of your wings". Is God a chicken?
Psalm 18:10 says, "he soared on the wings of the wind". Since when does wind
have wings?
Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved"
Where are these foundations?
Ps 139:9 "If I rise on the wings of the dawn..." I have never seen these
wings.
My point here is that while I may not be an expert on literature types, I do
know where NOT to go to get my science. The Genesis stories may not be
historical but that is what one must examine because they are not written like
the psalms.
>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.
This example is not the most difficult one can cite. Take a recent article
(John C. Munday, Jr., "Eden's Geography Erodes Flood Geology," Westminster
Theological Journal, 58(1996), pp. 123-154). Munday, in getting to his major
point, the inconsistency of local, mesopotamian geology with the YEC position,
discusses the interpretation of Eden's story. What his analysis revealed to me
was the absolute lack of agreement among those who interpret the Bible by a
non-historical methodology on what the meaning of the story really is.
In this article he talks about the various meanings (read "truths") gleaned
from the Eden story. The various interpretations he cites are:
* a picture of paradisal beatitude.
* a recollection of the conflict between Neolithic farmers and Paleolithic
hunters.
* an allusion to the gardener-kings of Sumer/Akkad
* a political allegory describing the conflict between the economic elite and
the peasants
* A sexual allegory
* A polemic against the Caananite religion
* A a parable of the deportation of a king to Babylon
* A story to tell us that we are human not gods
* an old story of a Garden-Dwelling-God
To this I might add the possibility that the Eden story means:
* an explanation of the source of all troubles, rebellion against God
* an example of God dealing with Adam and Eve in actual, historical
space-time; like God dealt with 1st century society in actual, historical
space-time in the form of Jesus.
Consulting Bernard Anderson's _Understanding the Old Testament_ Prentice Hall,
1966, p. 173). Anderson writes of the origin stories:
"These stories are 'historical' only in the sense that, as used by the
Yahwist, they communicate the *meaning* of history."
Might I ask, "Which meaning?"
These "truths" that the various authors cited by Munday saw in the Eden story,
are mutually contradictory. Thus all these "truths" can not be TRUE at the
same time. This is a logical contradiction. To believe all these "truths" is
impossible. To quote Carroll:
"There's no use trying," she said: " One can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen, "When I was your
age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why sometimes I've believed as
many as six impossible things before breakfast."-Lewis Carroll, _Through
theLooking-Glass_ Chapter 5, cited in Bartlett's Familar Quatations, (Little
Brown and Co., 1990), in Microsoft Bookshelf, 1993, CDROM Reference Library,
(Seattle: Microsoft Corp. 1993).)
So the question is: Without objective evidence, how does one tell the true
"truths" from the false "truths"?
> 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.
I agree with you here, but let me ask. Is Genesis 1:1 an example of a blind
pig finding an acorn?
If as you say the early part of Genesis is not historical, I would presume
that that means that Genesis 1:1 "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and
the Earth" is also not historical. Who did create the world?
I would contend that if God can not be creator, I fail to see how he can be
Savior. And since all religions claim their God or one of their gods created
the world, how can I tell that Jehovah was the real fellow and not a fraud?
The only way I can figure out how to decide who created the world, is by who
told the true account of the creation. And I do believe it was Jehovah. I just
don't believe any of the Genesis interpretations I have seen published. I had
to come up with a new one or conclude that Jehovah didn't have a thing to do
with creation.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm