>One can also argue that the form here is saga, and that the key is not the
>"event" (defined by Glenn in journalistic terms) but the "meaning". I think
>Glenn misses this aspect of Scripture. And numerous current scholars would
>agree. Rather than re-posting page after page of such scholarship, I really
>leave it to the interested parties if they want to follow up on the works
>I've cited.
>
Jim, it is not that I miss that aspect of Scripture. It is that I reject it
as the most useful approach. The most useful approach to me is that there is
absolute historical proof of the events in the Bible, like having the
execution order for Jesus, secular accounts of the Star of Bethlehem. The
expense accounts of the Wisemen and the documentation of Herod's order to
kill the children. This would make those events historically verified.
One of the problems I see with your approach is that it removes the Bible
from verifiability. It is a retreat which avoids the kinds of questions any
good scientist or historian can ask. It allows Christians to be comfortable
not having to answer those tough questions because reality no longer matters
to the truth of the document from which we draw our religion. The document
is true only because you believe it to be true, not because you can prove it
to be so. That standard of truth is like jello. The moslem believes his
document, the Koran is true. Both the moslem and I can not be correct in our
views of our Scriptures. One of us is wrong.
Concerning Saga, Jim, how far do we go? In the case of the star of Bethlehem,
some have suggested that it is nothing more than "saga" which accompanied the
birth of lots of prominent figures back then. A few Caesars were reported to
have had stars at their birth. So, if Genesis 1-11 is saga, is Matthew 2:2
saga? I have no idea what that Star could have been and maybe it was pure
miracle but I would like to have an explanation nonetheless.
I wrote:
>>If I am correct that it is better for an apologetical view to
harmonize as many points as possible with the observed facts of nature, then
in the case of Genesis 4:2 which said "Cain worked the soil", is it not
better to incorporate this than not to incorporate this?<<
Jim replied:
>>Not if that is not what Scripture intends. <<
Let me get this straight. I see several possibilities here. First, when Moses
said that Cain worked the soil, Moses knew that was not true? Thus Moses
intended to write a falsehood. Second, when Moses wrote what God told him to
write, and while Moses believed it was true, God knew that Cain had not
existed much less worked the soil, so God prevaricated. Third, the story is
mere saga like Beowulf or Gilgamesh. So why is the Hebrew story any better
than those sagas? What is the objective evidence that THIS saga is THE SAGA?
I see none. Lots of sagas have a god creating the world and man. The
methods are different but how do I know what method God would use unless I
can figure out what document is the real one. Sprouting the world from a
dead animal is no more believable than the Big Bang, if God is doing the
creating. Thus this third view reduces Genesis to nothing more or less than a
tale which transmits truth. But then so does Aesop's fable of the dog with a
bone transmit truth. But Aesop hardly seems worthy of the esteem we give
Moses. And if it is saga, then is the Star of Bethlehem saga?
Jim wrote:
>>An effective aplogetic, I think, should do what Ramm says--incorporate the
knowledge we continue to gain, reject that which is faulty, and deal with the
data as it is--which includes both Biblical data (and what it is meant for),
and observational data.<<
As I pointed out, the Biblical data consists of statements that Cain worked
the soil, and built cities. Why do you think your view of what was intended
is better than mine? You may be correct that the Bible in Genesis1-11 was
not meant to be taken literally, but then again, I may be correct in my view.
If we are to reject that which is faulty, I find the 50,000 year creation of
Adam incompatible with
1. the ritualistic burial of the Neanderthals.
2. The appearance of physically modern humans 70,000 years earlier.
3. The appearance of brain language structures 2 million years earlier,
4. The building of buildings prior to Adam's creation.
Jim wrote:
>>Actually, your premise is not that the Bible "may contain history," but
that
it is always history in a modern,journalistic sense. <<
1 Sam 17:36 says, "Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear."
You do not make it clear whether you believe any of the Bible contains
history in a journalistic sense. But if the Bible does not contain some of
this type of history, then it would seem that you would have trouble knowing
if David actually said the words in the above verse. Was the above an actual
historical event? Was this saga?
If this verse is journalistic history, why does the similarly phrased
passage has Cain, after killing his Abel, saying "My punishment is more than
I can bear." Both passages report verbage purported to have been stated by
someone of note. What ground rules separates these two events? Before you
answer realise that the 1 Sam. 17 passage takes place right after David
performed what my Old Testament History book from college called a story
"written to glorify the man" --namely the slaying of Goliath a nine foot
tall monster. My college text says,
"But taking into account these legendary stories that gathered around a great
national hero (compare the stories about George Washington), we are given on
the whole an authentic, if somewhat romanticized, account of David's rise
from the sheepfolds to the royal throne." Bernard W. Anderson,_Understanding
the Old Testament,_ Prentice-Hall, 1966, p. 139
George Washington threw a dollar across the Potomac and chopped down a
cherry tree. Both events are false. They are saga in the sense that they
convey the truth that one should not lie and that Washington was a great
man. But they are historically FALSE. Are either of the two Biblical events
like the stories of Washington? If one is and one isn't, how do I tell the
difference?
I messed up when I wrote:
>>How does your view match up with known archeological
fact? Do you believe that farming occurred 50,000 years ago, or not? Were
there cities 50,000 years ago? How about a tiny two house village 50,000
years ago? Was there iron production 50,000 years ago? Why is there evidence
of a tent prior to Adam's creation? Why do Neanderthals, prior to Adam's
creation bury their dead with apparent ritual? Why do 2-million-year-old Homo
habilis have Broca's brain? Does your view make the Bible appear more likely
to be true (or contain spirutual truth) or less likely?<<
Because Jim only answered the last question. Jim wrote:
>>And my answer has been consistent: If you approach early Genesis as having
definite time lines, journalistic-style history and scientific detail...then
you have problems. You have sought to solve them in a certain way. But I see
the problem as one of scriptural interpretation. What exactly is the
"Scripture principle?" (Pinnock). What is the scope and intent of Genesis,
when you consider the whole of revelation? (Bloesch). Answer these questions
and you won't have to ask:<<
Thus I will ask for a fifth time only one question.
**********
How does your view match up with known archeological fact?
**********
This is not a theological question at all but a scientific question. There
is no need to tell me how to interpret Genesis here. Tell me how the
scientific observation supports your view! I really don't know why you keep
avoiding this question. It seems so simple.
Jim wrote:
***start quote***
>>I recall trying to explain that your view of "historically" and
"non-historically" is incorrectly limited. Saga, which much of Genesis is, is
not limited in this way. "Saga has a historical significance but a
theological
focus" (Bloesch). If all you do is cavil about details, you miss it. Anyway,
there is a whole lot written on this.
<GRM< But I do believe that you think Genesis 1:1 and 2:7 are historical. If
they are not, would you clearly state that?>>
They are TRUE. That's the way to frame the biblical question.<<
***endquote
So, how can the statement "In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth," be both TRUE and NON-HISTORICAL at the same time? It seems to me
that if the statement is TRUE, it MUST also be HISTORICAL !!!
As to caviling about the details, details are very, very important. If
physicists had not "caviled about the details" they would never have
discovered Special and General Relativity. 10*10=101 is correct if you don't
quibble about the details. Which Biblical details should we cavil over? The
angels which talked to Joseph? If you don't pay attention to the details
then both in science AND theology, anything goes. All miracles in the Bible
become mere details to be "caviled" over. In other areas, UFO's can exist
(the violation of the laws of physics by these things is a mere detail), the
government CAN monitor you through your TV set (the fact that the TV antenna
does not emit enough energy to transmit more than 5 feet is a mere detail),
the earth can be flat (Pictures from space? Manufactured details!). There
is no limit to the fun we can have.
Unfortunately, Jim, it is the details which brings us back to reality.
Jim, in his well written and argued critique of a limited view of Scripture
wrote:
>>What happens when the limiting view of Scripture is clung to? Bernard Ramm
says charges of obscurantism (the denial of the validity of modern learning)
are inevitable, and, "I have learned that obscurantism is a losing strategy
in
the modern world." (Ramm, "After Fundamentalism," Harper & Row, 1983, p.
27).<<
Here we can both agree on one thing. The denial of the validity of modern
learning is not good. This is what the ICR interpretation has brought about.
It is the YEC interpretation of the Bible which leads to a denial of modern
learning, NOT the belief that the Bible may be historical. I have not denied
any modern scientific knowledge from any field and am quick to correct myself
when various experts point out a factual error I have made. My view does not
lead to a rejection of modern knowledge.
On the other hand I see in your position the denial of the validity of
Biblical data.
You wrote:
>>And we're on the same side, after all.<<
As fellow believers, of course we are on the same side.. Do you think we
will spend time in heaven arguing these issues? Or is that our punishment in
the other place? :-)
glenn