Re: Another thing people can throw rocks at

From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 14:13:59 EDT

Next message: george murphy: "Re: justification"

Previous message: Adrian Teo: "RE: Adam as head + two creation accounts"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

boundary="part1_190.66f4683.2a02dbe7_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows JP sub 10509
Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
Precedence: bulk

--part1_190.66f4683.2a02dbe7_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Burgeson wrote:

> I suggest that George did not so much disparage concordism as point out
> that, in the case of a reconciliation of Gen 1-11 that it was a failed
> project. At least to date. Glenn has come closest (IMHO) to putting forth an
> intellectually respectable support of it, and in so doing has provided us
> with a wealth of data. Data that says to me that the particular view I hold,
> that Gen 1-11 are "family stories," or "myth," and any apparent coincidences
> with what "modern science" at any particular time may say is just that --
> coincidence.
>
> Glenn, I see you have left YEC but you have not yet left the YEC mindset.
>

I understand your point in the rest that followed and
in many respects, seeing Genesis 1-11 as campfire tales
(or Aesop's fables) is a handy way of looking at it.

Nonetheless, fables sometimes do have their origins at
some level in history. To search for some common
connection is quite reasonable and it is nice to see
that some of these may have a deeper foundation. The
extreme of insisting they _must_ be true for the Bible
to be true may be going too far however.

Others here are far more deeply read on OT work, but
I quote what I have on the matter.

"The clearest connection to Mesopotamia is the account of
the Tower of Babel (11:1-9), for it is set in Babylon (v. 2).
True to this locale, the building material is mud brick.
This setting explains the scornful comment made about the
building material (v.3). The tower is most likely a
reference to a ziggurat, a temple constructed as a stepped
mountain and made out of clay (v. 4). The name of the city,
Babel, reflects the Babylonian name Bab-ili "the Gate of God"
(v. 9).

These resemblances prove nothing beyond a genetic relationship
between the biblical and Mesopotamian accounts. The Genesis
stories in their present form do not go back to the Babylonian
traditions. The evidence, even that of the close ties between
the Flood stories, merely suggest a diffuse influence of a common
cultural heritage. The inspired authors of the primeval account
drew on the manner of speaking about origins that was part of a
common literary tradition.

Implications for Gen. 1-11. Identifying the genre of Gen. 1-11 is
difficult because of its uniqueness. None of these accounts
belongs to the genre "myth". Nor is any of them "history"
in the modern sense of eyewitness, objective reporting. Rather,
they convey theological truths about event, portrayed in a largely
symbolic, pictorial literary style. This is not to say that Gen. 1-11
conveys historical falsehood. That conclusion would follow only if
the material claimed to contain objective descriptions. From the above
discussion [in the book: wd] it is certain that such was not the
intent. On the other hand, the view that the truths taught in
these chapters have no objective bases is mistaken. Fundamental
truths are declared: creation of all by God, special divine
intervention in the origin of the first man and woman, the unity
of the human race, the pristine goodness of the created world,
including humanity, the entrance of sin through the disobedience
of the first pair, the rampant spread of sin after this initial
act of disobedience. These truths are all based on facts. Their
certainty implies the reality of the facts." (LaSor, Hubbard and
Bush. Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans 1996.)

This does largely agree with what you are saying about the
_purpose_ and intent, but it also points to some factual basis
from which these stories emerge.

Sarna points out that "The Bible is strangely silent on the
phenomenon of language itself. It has no myths to explain
its origins. It his no observations to make on the universality
of human speech. It assumes, very simply, that mankind once
possessed an original common language. The Hebrew author was
attracted only by the incredible diversity of tongues that
characterizes the human race." (Nahum Sarna. Understanding
Genesis. New York: Schocken 1966).

I would say it is rather grey, but there is some sense that
intuition was also at work here. As Sarna goes on to say,
it may have been in the culture at large, but then again,
it could have been more original.

So the Tower of Babel may have been written to explain to
children why there are so many different languages. Then
again, maybe there is some historical foundation in it.
At any rate, I would not pin my faith (or delusion as
it may be) on whether the Tower of Babel existed or
not. At the same time, I find it interesting (perhaps
amusing) when there is some basis of on which to
substantiate these works of antiquity.

Is that throwing stones or not?

By Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne

--part1_190.66f4683.2a02dbe7_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>John Burgeson wrote:
 
 
 <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid;
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I suggest
that George did not so much disparage concordism as point out
 that, in the case of a reconciliation of Gen 1-11 that it was a failed
 project. At least to date. Glenn has come closest (IMHO) to
putting forth an
 intellectually respectable support of it, and in so doing has provided us
 with a wealth of data. Data that says to me that the particular
view I hold,
 that Gen 1-11 are "family stories," or "myth," and any apparent
coincidences
 with what "modern science" at any particular time may say is just that --
 coincidence.
 
 Glenn, I see you have left YEC but you have not yet left the YEC mindset.
 </BLOCKQUOTE>
 
 I understand your point in the rest that followed and
 in many respects, seeing Genesis 1-11 as campfire tales
 (or Aesop's fables) is a handy way of looking at it.
 
 Nonetheless, fables sometimes do have their origins at
 some level in history.  To search for some common
 connection is quite reasonable and it is nice to see
 that some of these may have a deeper foundation.  The
 extreme of insisting they _must_ be true for the Bible
 to be true may be going too far however.
 
 Others here are far more deeply read on OT work, but
 I quote what I have on the matter.
 
 "The clearest connection to Mesopotamia is the account of
 the Tower of Babel (11:1-9), for it is set in Babylon (v. 2).  
 True to this locale, the building material is mud brick.  
 This setting explains the scornful comment made about the
 building material (v.3).  The tower is most likely a
 reference to a ziggurat, a temple constructed as a stepped
 mountain and made out of clay (v. 4).  The name of the city,
 Babel, reflects the Babylonian name Bab-ili "the Gate of God"
 (v. 9).
 
 These resemblances prove nothing beyond a genetic relationship
 between the biblical and Mesopotamian accounts.  The Genesis
 stories in their present form do not go back to the Babylonian
 traditions.  The evidence, even that of the close ties between
 the Flood stories, merely suggest a diffuse influence of a common
 cultural heritage.  The inspired authors of the primeval account
 drew on the manner of speaking about origins that was part of a
 common literary tradition.
 
 Implications for Gen. 1-11. Identifying the genre of Gen. 1-11 is
 difficult because of its uniqueness.  None of these accounts
 belongs to the genre "myth". Nor is any of them "history"
 in the modern sense of eyewitness, objective reporting.  Rather,
 they convey theological truths about event, portrayed in a largely
 symbolic, pictorial literary style.  This is not to say that Gen. 1-11
 conveys historical falsehood.  That conclusion would follow only if
 the material claimed to contain objective descriptions.
 From the above
 discussion [in the book: wd] it is certain that such was not the
 intent.  On the other hand, the view that the truths taught in
 these chapters have no objective bases is mistaken.  Fundamental
 truths are declared: creation of all by God, special divine
 intervention in the origin of the first man and woman, the unity
 of the human race, the pristine goodness of the created world,
 including humanity, the entrance of sin through the disobedience
 of the first pair, the rampant spread of sin after this initial
 act of disobedience. These truths are all based on facts.  Their
 certainty implies the reality of the facts." (LaSor, Hubbard and
 Bush. Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans 1996.)
 
 This does largely agree with what you are saying about the
 _purpose_ and intent, but it also points to some factual basis
 from which these stories emerge.    
 
 Sarna points out that "The Bible is strangely silent on the
 phenomenon of language itself.  It has no myths to explain
 its origins.  It his no observations to make on the universality
 of human speech.  It assumes, very simply, that mankind once
 possessed an original common language.  The Hebrew author was
 attracted only by the incredible diversity of tongues that
 characterizes the human race." (Nahum Sarna.  Understanding
 Genesis.  New York: Schocken 1966).
 
 I would say it is rather grey, but there is some sense that
 intuition was also at work here.  As Sarna goes on to say,
 it may have been in the culture at large, but then again,
 it could have been more original.  
 
 So the Tower of Babel may have been written to explain to
 children why there are so many different languages. Then
 again, maybe there is some historical foundation in it.
 At any rate, I would not pin my faith (or delusion as
 it may be) on whether the Tower of Babel existed or
 not.  At the same time, I find it interesting (perhaps
 amusing) when there is some basis of on which to
 substantiate these works of antiquity.
 
 Is that throwing stones or not?
 
 By Grace alone we proceed,
 Wayne
 
 </HTML>

--part1_190.66f4683.2a02dbe7_boundary--

Next message: george murphy: "Re: justification"
Previous message: Adrian Teo: "RE: Adam as head + two creation accounts"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 14:45:12 EDT