>> I especially like the part where it says that we get more information the
>> further away in time we are from Arthur. (sarcasm mode on) That is the sign
>> of a real valuable logic of legend. (sarcasm mode off) If applied to the
>> Genesis, not only do we get more of God's revelation with time as each
>> author adds more, we also would be getting more details. How can such a
>> logic of legends be depended upon to deliver any truth, other than the
>> views of the various people who embellished the original story??? You want
>> to derive theological truth from some situation like that? I don't.
......................................
> If all of Scripture is authoritative witness to revelation then what later
>biblical writers say about Genesis (e.g., Paul in Romans 5) certainly
gives further
>insight into the significance of it.
> This is also the case when a later writer adds "details" which are
>non-historical in order to make a theological point. E.g., the
exaggerated sizes of
>armies (e.g., 2 Chron.13:3, 14:9) & amounts of wealth (I Chron.22:14,) in
Chronicles
>are part of the Chronicler's way of turning the history of the Davidic
monarchy
>in Samuel-Kings into a vision of the Kingdom of God.
How do we know that was his intention? It doesn't say that in the Bible,
and there are no extra-biblical accounts which attest to that being the
motive of the prefabricator of the armies. And how do we know that the guy
that added the detail really had a pure theological motive? Couldn't it be
just plain braggadocia [sic?]?
See, in order to hold this view, you must decide that you can read the mind
of the redactor and know that his motives are pure and what they were.
Shoot, I can't even know your motives much less a man who lived 2500 years
ago in a culture that is as foreign to me and you as China is.
The _omission_ of all the seamy
>details about David & Solomon serves the same function. Of course
{sarcasm mode on}
>Glenn will be able to explain that the Ethiopian army of 10^6 men
(unmentioned in
>Kings) is really quite reasonable and that David could easily have had
4000 tons of
>gold. {Sarcasm mode off}
As I have said, I am not an inerrantist although you try to shoehorn me
into one. There was a David, he was rather rich and there was an Ethiopian
army which was large. Those kinds of details I can live with if the Bible
is in error. What I can't live with is a view that would posite that
Pharoah Neco was really David (both are kings just as the Mesopotamian
flood and Noah's flood are both floods). Nor could I live with a view that
says there was no David, he was just a legend.
> Again the disclaimer: The point is not that the Bible is wrong or
contradicts
>itself. It is that we should not force our assumptions of ways in which
truth can be
>conveyed on Scripture.
And my point you consistently forget is that I am not an inerrantist. Why
you forget it, I can't say because I can't determine your motives like you
are able to determine the motives of the redactor of the OT.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution