From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Tue Nov 04 2003 - 14:12:40 EST
George Murphy wrote:
> Walter Hicks wrote:
> >
> > Hey George,
> >
> > I was responding to your post and really asking you to elaborate, not to get in a snit about it.
>
> I was not in a snit but in a hurry.
I think we should have a face for a hurry. like "((:))", so as not to confuse a hurry with a snit ;)
> I'll try to go into a little more detail
> here. But allow me to say, in a non-snitty fashion, that some of these matters have
> been discussed many times on this list. In particular, I have several times set out
> internal evidence for not reading Genesis 1-2 as historical narrative. It does get a
> little tiring to keep repeating things.
Actually I feel the same way myself. Rather than go down the "you say, I say" trail, let me try a different tack.
I'll just say what I believe and we can take it from there.
First of all, I believe that the Bible is inspired by God and is the ultimate reference for faith and morals for a
Christian. I do not believe that it reports itself to be any more than that (such as infallible science, history,
numerology, poetry, etc.). My concordance (King James) lists the word "infallible" as being used only once in the
Bible. It is in Acts 1:3 and does not refer to the Bible. The concept of "Infallibility" just allows some people
to take dogmatic stands about ridiculous ideas IMO. This list has a representative group of antagonists (who
vociferously act in a non-christian manner when challenged) to prove the point.
I read Genesis 1 as a description of God's physical creation. I was initially impressed at how closely it
parallels what we know to be true. Not that it was a science textbook ---- but that for a 4000 year old document
it is truly amazing and indubitably inspired (IMO again). The second chapter is an entire other issue.. It
seriously revises the order of things from Gen. 1 and seems intent on showing man's relationship to God. My first
impression was that it was not actually historical. But then all the begats and ages seem to cry out to the
contrary. (I am just reading -- not MIND reading!) Insofar as the flood and other stories, they seem to be based
in historical fact, although they seem to be exaggerated in some respects (size of Babylon, Nineveh, and other
things). I am not being a concordist. I can accept that they might be truth in other than a historical option --
but that is just one possibility.
Now shall I read a specific book to help me out? I don't think so. Reason?: Look at the theories that abound.
We have Flood Theology, 2 or more varieties of Numerology, Several Varieties of Concordism, Literalism, MN,
REP?,etc. on this list. How does one choose the correct one? How would you evaluate the above options?
I think that the OT simply points to Jesus Christ, not the other way around, and all the rest of this is
interesting but not necessary for salvation -- at all! I enjoy the discussions, but do not intend to chose one
of the above theories on this list and try to become a whiz at it.
At the same time, I like your basic philosophy a of working the Bible from a view of Jesus christ. That is the
only correct starting point IMHO.
So pick the above apart. I have acquired a thick skin and can take it. You cannot be any more discourteous than
Richard of the Bible Wheel.
Walt
>
>
> > George Murphy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 1st, I have not said anything about the authors' intentions.
> >
> > I know you did not. I did and I think that is the important issue.
>
> I want to be careful with statements about the author's intentions because I
> can't get inside their heads. All we have access to is what they wrote - & begging
> your pardon, _that_ is what's important because that's what constitutes scripture. What
> we can say with some certainty is that the intention of the author(s) of 1:1-2:4a was
> considerably significantly different from that of the author(s) of 2:4b-25 because they
> give quite different pictures of creation.
>
> Furthermore, the intentions of these authors did not determine the biblical
> content within which we have to read those accounts. And none of those intentions can
> be equated with that of the Holy Spirit.
>
> > > 2d, one reason why "not everybody agrees" is that they were taught in
> > > Sunday School to read Genesis as accurate history & have had that idea reinforced
> > > by clergy who either think it is accurate history or who just don't want to upset people
> > > over something they think isn't important.
> >
> > Well, I became a Christian at age 20 and I never went to such a Sunday school. However, when I got around
> > to the OT, Genesis just reads that way to a causal observer.
> Point taken - I overgeneralized. But do you want a "casual" reading of the
> Bible or a careful & intensive one? As soon as you start reading Genesis with care, you
> start seeing flags that tell you that treating it as straight historical narrative is
> far too casual. I discuss Genesis 1 & 2 below.
>
>
> But take another example. In the flood story of course all the animals come on
> board 2 by 2. We all know that, whether we learned it in Sunday School or not, & many
> casual readers of the Bible read through the story & just think that's the way it was -
> it's right there in 6:19-20. But if you read it carefully you notice in 7:2-3 you see a
> rather different provision. It just ain't the same. & if you are at all careful the
> thought will occur to you, "Maybe there are 2 different sources, or 2 different stories,
> here." At least you'll consider the possibility.
> OTOH, those who immediately leap to "harmonizing" (basically, the first
> statement just didn't mention 5 of the pairs of clean animals) are no longer being just
> "casual". They are now ignoring what the text really says and forcing it to fit their
> preconceived idea that the flood story is a unified historical narrative.
>
> > > 3d, you are still refusing to face the basic question of interpretation when you
> > > set up "actual history" as the default setting.
> >
> > What default setting am I supposed to use?
> As a Christian your _theological_ default setting should be that scripture a
> true & authoritative witness to God's revelation. But as much as possible you should
> avoid having a default setting for the type of literature that a given text is - which
> is just to sat that you should approach it without preconceptions about whether it's
> historical narrative or not.
> For some people, "actual history" is not just the default setting - i.e., the
> way they read the text if there's no conclusive evidence one way or another. It is
> something that they actively insist upon and defend by setting up elaborate "coulda
> been" scenarios. If that is your hard core (in Lakatosian terms) then there is no
> evidence at all, internal or external, that will convince you to change it.
>
> > > 4th, as I have said repeatedly, there is both internal & external evidence for
> > > understanding early Genesis not to be historical. I freely admit the influence of the
> > > external evidence but it doesn't stand alone.
> >
> > The internal is what I was hoping for.
>
> As I pointed out in an exchange with Allen a few weeks ago (& is in fact pretty
> common knowledge), the chronology of Genesis 2 differs from that of Genesis 1.
> There are other differences (the designations for God, the nature of God's activity, the
> picture of the world, e.g.) but let's stick with the chronology of the creation of
> living things. In 1 it's land plants - sea creatures & birds - land animals - humans
> (male & female). In 2 it's male human - land plants - land animals - female human.
> They can't both be historically accurate accounts. That being the case, one ought to be
> careful about assuming that either one is.
>
> > > 5th, you apparently think that what I've said is just in the interest of
> > > defending a particular interpretation of Genesis. It isn't. To be blunt, what I wish
> > > is that people would learn to read the whole Bible in an adult way. If that sounds
> > > elitist, so be it.
> >
> > Elitist is too polite but following Burgy's 25 rules, I'll not use any other ;).
>
> > > 5th, since you've felt free to tell people to read a book about GA &C, I'll be
> > > more specific & tell you to read _The Bible: Now I Get It: A Form-Criticism Handbook_
> > > by Gerhard Lohfink (Doubleday, 1979).
>
> > I said that because that is what I get here and there on this list. I read the books that I want to read. If
> > a poster cannot make their point without ia reference text, then so be it. If you don't want to respond
> > yourself, then don't bring the subject up.
>
> Of course you can read what you want to read - but why don't you want to read
> something that will help you to understand the critical study of scripture? But unless
> you're willing to read some modern texts on Old Testament introduction & history, good
> commentaries, & theology, you're simply not going to understand what's going on in this
> area. Neither I nor anyone else can provide an education in biblical studies in a few
> paragraphs of a email list.
>
> > > 6th, my parallel post on concordism is also relevant to this discussion.
> >
> > Will read
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 04 2003 - 14:16:29 EST