RE: [asa] Understanding Genesis (was: the Way Science Works/)

"So basically, the Hebrew creation narrative was
> God’s theological rebuttal
> to the Egyptian creation mythology, not necessarily
> a scientific rebuttal to
> ANE cosmology."

I've heard this before from several others and have
found the idea intriguing...

In pondering the other chapters of Genesis however, it
seems to me that it cannot be wholly figurative or
"mythic" though, because the details of the
individuals, particular the genealogies given, appear
rooted in a real history (I say this in part, because
I am a genealogist and it strikes me as very odd that
such details would be made up as part of a "parable").

I wonder then...would it be accurate to extend this
theological critique idea to Genesis more broadly?
That is to say--might Genesis more broadly be thought
of as a blended narrative, one in which Israel's own
national roots (extending all the way back to a
literal Adam and Eve) were over-layed onto the popular
myths circulating at the time, not only to present a
theological critique, but also to present themselves
as a distinct people?

In other words, if I'm an ancient writer and I want to
write about the origins of my nation (Israel) and my
faith in a way that distinguishes us from the other
peoples of the time, wouldn't it make sense that I
would take the following elements:
- the literal history of my people, in so far as I'm
aware, including genealogies, events, travels, etc.
- our theological belief system, specifically a
monotheistic worldview, the idea that we are a chosen
people of God, our understanding of creation and the
rise of civilization, sin, etc.
- the popular myths of the peoples we wish to set
ourselves apart from.
and weave these 3 elements together such that for
example, our understanding of the creation is linked
with our knowledge of Israel's "creation" (aka: it's
historical roots and ancestry), in a way that
demonstrates theological truths (i.e. our unique
relationship with God from the very beginning, the
fall of man into sin, teachings on marriage, etc.)
while simultaneously hijacking the creation myths of
others in order to reject their worldview.

Would this type of characterization of Genesis be
consistent with what is known from archeology and
other fields? It would to me at least, seem to make
more sense with elements of the New Testament (i.e.
Paul's linking of a "real" Adam with Christ) while yet
allowing for more of a figurative understanding of
Genesis.

As always, I'm a student surrounded by those who are a
lot smarter and more well-read than I; I hope I don't
post this question in ignorance!--please let me know
what you think!

Christine

--- skrogh <panterragroup@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I am tired. I just got from the bicycle races. I hit
> send too soon before I
> got the reference in.
> This was a paragraph from Gordon J Glover's
> presentation on
> http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/
>
> ==============================================
> Rather than give the Hebrews a new Cosmology, which
> would have been totally
> worthless to them, given their situation, God
> inspires Moses to reassure his
> people using the familiar terminology of M.E.
> creation stories, in which the
> gods bring order to the primordial chaos, that
> YAWHEH is sovereign over the
> forces of nature and the HE will protect them as
> they enter the wilderness.
> So basically, the Hebrew creation narrative was
> God’s theological rebuttal
> to the Egyptian creation mythology, not necessarily
> a scientific rebuttal to
> ANE cosmology. So to read modern science into it
> completely misses the
> point. As soon as [they heard the words regarding]
> the Spirit of God
> hovering over the formless and empty waters of Gen
> 1:2, that generation of
> Hebrews who received Genesis, would have instantly
> understood that Moses was
> about to give them, a creation story that would
> rival anything that they
> received in Egypt. So naturally, any passing
> references to the cosmos would
> be consistent with ANE science and have nothing to
> do with modern 21st
> century science. To expect Genesis to provide modern
> Christians with a
> scientific description of creation that meets our
> post-enlightenment
> standards of material objectivity is extremely
> arrogant and self-centered.
> It completely overlooks the seriousness of the
> situation in which Genesis
> was given, and instead, replaces these weighty
> spiritual matters with our
> petty scientific arguments over things like the age
> of the earth or
> alternate celestial centricities. Once we start
> demanding that Moses answer
> these types of questions, we have completely missed
> the point of the
> creation narrative.
> ==============================================
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of skrogh
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 10:54 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] the Way Science Works/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Jack
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 9:08 PM
> To: George Cooper; bertsche@aol.com;
> asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/
>
>
> The problem with such a concordist approach, is
> that the author of
> Genesis, and his audience knew nothing about stellar
> accretion disks,
> Rayleigh-Tyndall Scattering, and so forth. I dont
> think that an approach to
> biblical interpretation that would leave the
> intended audience completely in
> the dark as to its meaning, is a reasonable one.
>
>
> This is so true. Rather than give the Hebrews a
> new Cosmology, which would
> have been totally worthless to them, given their
> situation, God inspires
> Moses to reassure his people using the familiar
> terminology of M.E. creation
> stories, in which the gods bring order to the
> primordial chaos, that YAWHEH
> is sovereign over the forces of nature and the HE
> will protect them as they
> enter the wilderness. So basically, the Hebrew
> creation narrative was God’s
> theological rebuttal to the Egyptian creation
> mythology, not necessarily a
> scientific rebuttal to ANE cosmology. So to read
> modern science into it
> completely misses the point. As soon as they heard
> the words, “the Spirit of
> God began hovering over the formless and empty
> waters of Gen 1:2, that
> generation of Hebrews who received Genesis, would
> have instantly understood
> that Moses was about to give them, a creation story
> that would rival
> anything that they received in Egypt. So naturally,
> any passing references
> to the cosmos would be consistent with ANE science
> and have nothing to do
> with modern 21st century science. To expect Genesis
> to provide modern
> Christians with a scientific description of creation
> that meets our
> post-enlightenment standards of material objectivity
> is extremely arrogant
> and self-centered. It completely overlooks the
> seriousness of the situation
> in which Genesis was given, and instead, replaces
> these weighty spiritual
> matters with our petty scientific arguments over
> things like the age of the
> earth or alternate celestial centricities. Once we
> start demanding that
> Moses answer these types of questions, we have
> completely missed the point
> of the creation narrative.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Cooper
> To: bertsche@aol.com ; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] the Way Science Works/
>
>
> Thanks Kirk. I should have known Wiki had it.
>
> This "framework" view seems to be more of a
> duplex than a single
> household. It seems too much of a recondite
> approach for such a very
> important introductory group of passages that would
> be best in simple terms.
> It does not flow for me, it log jams. My pipes,
> admittedly, are not all
> that large, so I will not rule this view out.
>
> I strongly encourage this group to consider
> the latest discoveries in
> astronomy and apply them in an exegesis of Gen. 1.
> Perhpas you have.
>
> Modern astronomy is bringing amazing news as
> to the early eras of our
> solar system. Spitzer's infrared observational
> abilities has "eyed"
> hundreds of stellar accretion disks. These disks
> were postulated as far
> back as Kant, but only in our times have they been
> observable. Also, planet
> formation models are becoming more and more
> accurate, though they still have
> a long way to go.
>
> Is it plausible to state that an uneducated
> observer of antiquity
> would, as an eye-witness, state the Earth ever
> appeared as an object
> "without form and void"?
>
> Could the Sun burst forth a flood of light?
> Dust and gas will enshroud
> many proto-stellar bodies, but not for very long as
> light will flood outward
> flushing it away. Indeed, it is radiation pressure
> that swells a star to
> equilibrium. Let there be light.
>
> Water anyone? Guess what color an observer
> would see for a highly
> illuminated accretion disk? It can be blue for the
> very same reason the sky
> above is blue -- Rayleigh-Tyndall Scattering. It
> would require neighbors.
> Guess what? Iron60 evidence, and other isotopes,
> demonstrate that our star
> formed in a typical, active nursery. These
> neighbors would also need to be
> very bright, assuming our observer is using normal
> vision. A single big
> neighbor is capable of visible light at over a
> million times the visible
>
=== message truncated ===

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 28 18:13:42 2007