OK, I must obviously restrict my statement above. You are correct. I
don't ascribe history to poetry. But I don't ascribe poetry to historically
sounding passages either. The genealogies in early Chronicles are not
poetical and so I don't see any reason to say the ones in Genesis are
poetry either.
>You've given too easy an answer, my friend. You have said, in effect,
>that unless Gen 1-11 is literal history, you are not interested in its
>message. You have, in effect, told God under what conditions you will
>listen to him!
Here is the question I don't recall anyone actually dealing with from your
side of the issue. Consider the situation where a person from China,
raised with the belief that there is no God (as many of my mainland friends
were) and now they become interested in religion. They start reading the
Bible, They look at Genesis and say, "Gee, it doesn't look like this is
what happened. Geology, paleontology etc don't seem to support the idea
that there was a creator". To this, we reply with the typical view that we
should not look at early Genesis for history but we should look at it for
its theological content. God is revealing non-historical truths to us and
we need to pay attention.
While all this is going on, one afternoon, our Chinese friend is visited by
Mormons who give them a new book with a slightly different revelation. Our
Chinese friend reads the Book of Mormon and says "Gee, it doesn't look like
this is what happened. There were no chariots in pre-Columbian North
America, no Jews, no horses and the battles which are described have left
no evidence." The Mormon then responds to him, 'We should not look at the
Book of Mormon for history but we should look at it for its theological
content. God is revealing non-historical truths to us and we need to pay
attention."
How is this man to decide the truth? The Evangelical says, "The Spirit will
guide you into all truth". The Mormon says, "The Spirit will guide you
into all truth"
And this to me is the very serious problem we fall into if we reject
historicity. Upon what basis do we reject the revelation to Joseph Smith?
That he lived in the early 1800s? That he believes in polygamy? (The Bible
allowed it). We certainly can't reject his book because it is
non-historical and at the same time admit that the Bible is to be accepted
because it tells us all these non-historical truths!!!
Should we consider the revelation of Joseph Smith because he teaches us
theological truths? (and there are truths about humanity and man's relation
with god to be found in the Book of Mormon.
>
>>>I see no reason to believe revealed truth which is objectively
>false. I would say that the proof of revealed truth is that it is
>actually
>TRUE. If something or some event revealed by a divine power didn't
>actually happen in history, then we have been lied to. ... why should we
>hold God to a lower standard?>>
>
>What can I say. Your standard for scripture sets you up as the judge of
>scripture. Scarey, I'd say.
No more scary than anybody who says they believe they know what the Bible
means, and I believe you also believe you know what the Bible means(it is a
book of non-historical theological truths). Why shouldn't I be scared of
that, Brother?
>
>>>But as I often point out, there are so many mutually exclusive
>'theological' viewpoints (allegorical viewpoints) which can be seen in
>the
>text one must wonder if we are not merely seeing our internal
>psychological
>states in the theology we extract from the allegories?>>
>
>Life is uncertain. So is the study of scripture. That's the process. Yes
>indeed, one must sometimes wonder.
>
>I am comfortable with that. You, it seems, are not. Why? Is not the
>really important item the knowledge of God through Jesus Christ? And none
>of us are going to know Him the same -- we all see God/Jesus through the
>eyes of our own training and experiences. I don't see this as bad -- I
>don't really see ant reasonable alternatives.
I am uncomfortable with it because of what I would call the Mormon problem.
If all we see are our internal psychological states, then Mormonism is as
good as Christianity and then why not Buddhism?
>
>>>I really admire a person who lives consistently with their views. And
>you
>are being intellectually honest enough to admit my point that if PC is
>irrelevant to Scriptural revelation, there is no point to being a PC. I
>am
>not being facetious here!>>
>
>Understand your last sentence but not what goes before it. I am not a
>"PC" as much as I am simply one who asserts that a PC position seems to
>explain things better (at this point in my history) than known
>alternatives. We are probably hung up here in language differences. When
>I worked for IBM, I worked for IBM, I was NOT an IBMer! (At the time I
>did not really recognize that difference).
I was attempting (badly) to praise your consistency.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm